Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
147 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Personal Jurisdiction Inquiry |
2-step
Is the state statute satisfied (ie long arm) Is the Constitutional Due Process requirement satisfied? |
|
Constitutional Analysis: PJ
|
International Shoe: Does the D have such minimum contacts with forum state such that exercise of PJ would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?
|
|
Con'l analysis factors
|
Minimum Contact:
- purposeful availment (D reach out to forum?) - foreseeability (foreseeable that D might defend a suit in forum) Fairness: - relatedness (does P's claim arise from D's contact w/ the forum) - convenience (forum ok unless D at severe disadvantage) - state's interest |
|
My Parents Frequently Forgot to Read Childrens' Stories
|
Minimum Contacts
Purposeful availment Foreseeability Fair play and substantial justice Relatedness Convenience State's interest |
|
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
|
Which court will hear the case? State? Federal?
|
|
Federal courts hear:
|
Diversity cases
Federal Question cases |
|
Complete diversity rule
|
No diversity if ANY P is a citizen in the same state as ANY D
|
|
Determine domicile by:
|
Presence in state and intent to make that state home
|
|
Corporation's domicile?
|
State where incorporated AND the one state where the corporation has its principal place of business (thus they can have two citizenships)
|
|
Partnership domicile?
|
Use citizenship of all of its members (thus can have multiple citizenships)
|
|
Federal courts will not decide...
|
child custody, divorce, alimony or probate proceedings
|
|
The test for diversity is made at the time...
|
that a case if FILED
|
|
A corporations PPB is...
|
where the managers direct corporate activity occurs (usually headquarters)
|
|
Decedents, minors, incompetence citizenship
|
Use their residence, not the residence of their representatives
|
|
Amount in controversy
|
Must exceed 75,000 for diversity cases
Watch out for statutory ceilings |
|
Aggregation of claims
|
All the claims (related or not) of one plaintiff v. one defendant will be aggregated
|
|
What about equitable relief for diversity cases?
|
OK, if either:
- the P's viewpoint, the decrease in value w/o the injunction exceeds 75k OR - from the D's viewpoint cost of compliance exceeds 75k |
|
Federal Question cases
|
Complaint must show a right or interest founded subsantially on a federal law
|
|
Well pleaded complaint rule
|
P'ls claim itself must arise under federal law, not enough that some federal issue is raised by the complaint
|
|
Supplemental jurisdiction
|
Does not get the case itself into federal court; can only be used if the case is already in federal ct and brings additional claim that does not meet diversity or FQ
|
|
Supplemental JX test
|
The claim must share a common nucleus of operative fact w/ the claim invoking federal SMJ
|
|
Limitation of supplemental JX
|
In a diversity case, the P cannot use supplemental JX to overcome a lack of diversity
BUT can overcome amnt in controversy AND in FQ case no diversity ok (b/c diversity doesn't matter anyway) |
|
A non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in federal court if it meets the supplemental JX test UNLESS
|
It is asserted by the P
In a diversity of citizenship case AND would violate complete diversity |
|
Supplemental JX discretion to not hear case
|
May decline if
- federal question dismissed early - state law claim complex - state law issues predominate |
|
Removal
|
A D sued in state ct might remove to federal court
|
|
Timing of removal
|
W/in 30 days of service of first doc that makes case removable
|
|
Location of removal
|
Only to federal district embracing state ct
|
|
General test for removal
|
D can remove if case would invoke diversity or FQ
|
|
Special removal rule for diversity cases
|
No removal if one of the D's is a citizen of the forum
|
|
Who can remove a case?
|
The D, NEVER the P
|
|
Erie Doctrine
|
In a diversity case, federal court must apply state substantive law
|
|
Erie Doctrine - is there a federal law on point (ie FRCP) that directly conflicts with state law?
|
If so, apply federal
|
|
Erie Doctrine - no federal law on point?
|
Look for the "easy" substantive federal law on point:
Elements of a claim or defense SOL Tolling rules re SOL Conflict or Choice of Law rules |
|
Erie Doctrine - if no federal substantive law on point (three tests):
|
Outcome determinative
Balance of interests Avoid forum shopping |
|
Venue
|
Decides exactly which federal court
|
|
Venue - Local Action
|
Must be filed where the land lies
Deals with ownership, possession or injury (including trespass) to LAND |
|
Transitory case (diversity or FQ) may lay venue
|
In any district where:
- all D's reside (note exception) - a substantial part of the claim arose |
|
Special rule re venue where all D's reside
|
Where all D's reside in different districts of the same state, P can lay venue in the D in which ANY of them resides
|
|
Where do D's reside for venue
|
In district where domiciled
|
|
Where do D corporations reside for venue?
|
In all districts where subject to PJ when case filed (ie co might have two citizenships but reside in every district)
|
|
Transfer
|
Fed dist ct may transfer from its court to another federal district
|
|
Where can it transfer?
|
To another federal district where the case could have been filed
|
|
Facts re transfer
|
Discretionary decision based on:
convenience for the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice based on: - public factors - private factors |
|
Who can serve process
|
Any NONparty who is at least 18
|
|
Basic service of process
|
Deliver to D a summons and a copy of the complaint
|
|
How is process served
|
Personal service
Substituted service (ok if 1: D's usual abode; 2: served on someone of suitable age/discretion who resides there) Service on D's agent State law (ie publication) Waiver by mail |
|
Waiver by mail
|
D will be penalized if D did not have good cause for failing to return waiver
|
|
Rule 11
|
Requires atty or pro se party to sign all pleadings, written motions and papers (not discovery)
|
|
Signature on docs means that
|
The paper is not for an improper purpose
Legal contentions warranted by law Factual contentions and denials of factual contentions have evidentiary support |
|
If other party violates rule 11
|
you must give other party 21 days to fix problem (file but not serve motion)
|
|
Complaint must include
|
Statement of grounds of SMJ
Short and plaint statement of claim, showing entitled to relief Demand for relief sought |
|
In complaint must state facts...
|
...supporting a plausible claim
|
|
What 3 matters must be pleaded with even more detail
|
Circumstances of fraud
Mistake Special damages |
|
Complaint - special damages
|
Must be included in complaint
|
|
Defendant's response to complaint
|
Rule 12 requires D to respond either by a motion or by an answer
|
|
Timing - answer/motion to complaint
|
W/in 21 days of being served
|
|
Rule 12 defenses
|
Issues of form
Rule 12(b) defenses |
|
Issues of form
|
motion for more definite statement
motion to strike |
|
Rule 12(b) defenses
|
- lack of SMJ
- lack of PJ - improver venue - insufficiency of process - insufficiency of service of process - failure to state a claim - failure to join indispensable party |
|
Waivable defenses
|
Lack of PJ
Improper venue Insufficient process Insufficient service of process |
|
Can't say you lack information to admit or deny when...
|
the information is public knowledge or in D's control
|
|
Failure to deny...
|
can constitute an admission
|
|
When are affirmative defenses plead?
|
In the answer or else you risk waiving
|
|
Counterclaim
|
Claim against an opposing party
|
|
Types of counterclaims
|
Compulsory
Permissive |
|
Compulsory counterclaim
|
Arises from the same transaction or occurrence as P's claim. MUST be filed in the pending case or its waive
|
|
Permissive counterclaim
|
Does not arise from same T/O as P's claim and can be filed in a separate case or in answer
|
|
Crossclaim
|
A claim against a co-party
Permissive |
|
P's right to amend
|
w/in 21 days after the D serves his first Rule 12 response
|
|
D's right to amend
|
ONCE w/in 21 days of serving answer
|
|
If right to amend gone...
|
party may seek leave from the court "if justice so requires"
|
|
Factors of "if justice so requires"
|
- delay
- prejudice - futility of amendment |
|
Variance
|
Where the evidence at trial does not match what was pleaded
|
|
Amendment of pleading after SOL
|
It relates back to date of original filing of pleading
|
|
Discovery - required disclosures
|
Initial disclosures
Experts Pretrial |
|
Discovery - tools
Which can be used to get information from a non-party? |
Depositions (w/ subpoena)
Requests to produce (w/ subpoena) |
|
Depositions
|
Can depose party or non-party
BUT need subpoena for non-party |
|
Interrogatories
|
Questions in writing to another party
|
|
Physical or mental examination
|
ONLY available through court order
|
|
Requests for admision
|
Only to another party to admit the truth of any discoverable matter
|
|
What can you discover?
|
Any relevant to a claim or defense
|
|
What does "relevant" mean?
|
reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence
|
|
Are privileged matters discoverable?
|
No
|
|
Work Product or trial preparation materials
|
Generally protected from discovery
|
|
W/P can be discoverable if:
|
asker can show
- substantial need AND - not otherwise available |
|
Exception to discovery based on "need"
|
If it is
- mental impressions - opinions - conclusions - legal theories |
|
W/P must be generated by...
|
CAN be generated by any representative of a party
|
|
3 ways discovery problems presented to court
|
- protective order
- partial violation - total violation |
|
Partial violation steps
|
1. order compelling party to answer questions + atty fees
2. RAMBO sanctions (ie contempt, costs, atty fees) |
|
Electronically stored information not produced
|
OK if lost in good faith, routine operation
|
|
Total violation steps
|
Only 1: RAMBO plus costs. No need to get an order compelling answers.
|
|
RAMBO sanctions
|
Establishment order
Strike pleadings of disobedient party Disallow evidence Dismiss P's case (if bad faith shown) Enter default judgment against D (if bad faith shown) |
|
Proper Ds and Ps
|
Folks who may be joined
|
|
Co-plaintiffs may be joined if:
|
- the claims arise out of the same T/O
- raise at least one common question |
|
Co-defendants may be joined if:
|
same test as for plaintiffs
|
|
Necessary and indispensable parties
|
Forced to join the case when:
|
|
When is a party necessary?
|
- without A the court cannot accord complete relief
- A's interest may be harmed if he isn't joined - A claims an interest which subjects a party to a risk of multiple parties |
|
Are joint-tortfeasors necessary?
|
NO - never necessary
|
|
Is joinder feasible?
|
Court looks for:
- personal jx and - whether joining him will not make it impossible to maintain diversity |
|
If A cannot be joined...
|
The ct must either:
- proceed w/o A or - dismiss the case |
|
How to decide whether to dismiss or proceed?
|
- is alternative - is there alternative forum?
- what is the actual likelihood of prejudice? - can the ct shape relief that prejudice? |
|
Impleader
|
Occurs when a D wants to bring a thrid party D (TPD) for purposes of indemnity or contribution
|
|
Timing of right to implead
|
Within 14 days of serving answer
|
|
Process for impleader
|
File a TP complaint and servie process on TPD (thus need PJ too)
|
|
Intervention
|
Intervention of right
Permissive intervention |
|
Class Action requirements
|
Numerosity
Commonality Typicality Representative adequate |
|
Types of CA cases
|
- prejudice: where prej would occur to either Ps or Ds
- injunction or declaratory j - damages: common questions PREDOMINATE over individual questions AND class action is the superior method to handle the dispute |
|
Certification of class
|
Must occur at an early practicable time, and must define the class and class claims, issues, or defenses
|
|
Type 3 CA notice
|
Individual notice telling class
- they can opt out - they'll be bound if they don't - they can enter a separate appearance through counsel |
|
What else must ct do if it certifies?
|
Appoint class counsel
|
|
Who pays for the CA notice?
|
The CA representative
|
|
Who is bound by a CA
|
All those who do not opt out; you can't opt out of type 1 or 2 (prejudice or injunctive)
|
|
How does CA settle or dismiss?
|
ONLY w/ ct approval, after notice to members requesting feedback. If type 3, option to opt out.
|
|
SMJ requirements for diversity CA
|
For citizenship, you consider ONLY the rep's citizenship.
Amount? Rep's claim must exceed 75k. |
|
CAFA
|
Will hear if any P is diverse with D; the aggregated claims exceed 5 mil; and there must be at least 100 class members
|
|
Pretrial adjudication
|
Failure to state a claim
Summary Judgment |
|
Failure to state a claim
|
12(b) claim - tests only the sufficiency of the P's allegation
If all facts were true -- would the P win a judgment |
|
Failure to state a claim - evidence?
|
Evidence is not examined--only the face of the complaint
|
|
Failure to state a claim, if made after D has answered
|
Known as a motion for judgment on the pleadings
|
|
Summary Judgment requirements
|
there is no genuine dispute as to material issue of fact AND
that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
|
Summary Judgment - evidence
|
Ct will look at evidence when deciding motion
|
|
Pleadings - evidence or not?
|
NO - document must be sworn under oath
|
|
Rule 26(f) Conference
|
Unless ct order says otherwise, at least 21 days before scheduling conference parties must discuss claims, defenses, and settlement
|
|
Final pretrial conference
|
Roadmap of issues to be tried
Supersede the pleadings |
|
Jury trial - equity claim
|
Jury decides the facts of the damages claim but not the equity claim
|
|
7th Amendment
|
applies only in federal court
preserves the right to jury in civil actions at law but not in equity |
|
Demand for jury trial
|
Must be made in writing, w/in 14 days after service of last pleading raising jury triable issue
|
|
Voir Dire
|
No limit on strikes for cause
Each side gets 3 preemptory stikes, which MUST be used in a race and gender neutral way (bc its state action) |
|
Judgment as a matter of law
|
Takes case away from jury, brought after other side has been heard at trial
|
|
Standard for JMOL
|
View the facts in the light most favorable to non-moving party
|
|
Renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law
|
RMJOL - losing party after jury decision will move for RMJOL.
|
|
Standard for RJMOL
|
Judge finds that jury has reached a decision that reasonable could not have reached
|
|
RJMOL requirements
|
Must move for JMOL at trial, otherwise waive
|
|
Motion for new trial
|
Must move w/in 28 days after judgment
|
|
Grounds for motion for new trial
|
- prejudicial
- new evidence that could not hav been obtained w/ due diligence - prejudicial misconduct of party or attorney - judgment is against the weight of evidence |
|
Final judgment rule
|
You can only appeal from final judgments, which mean an ultimate decision by the trial ct of the merits of the entire case
- must be filed w/in 30 days after entry of final judgment |
|
Claim preclusion
|
Res Judicata
|
|
RJ requirements
|
Cases must be brought by the same claimant against the same defendant
Case 1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits |
|
Judgment is not on the merits if
|
it was based
JX Venue Indispensable parties |
|
Same claim - split of authority
|
Majority - yes where both cases involve same T/O
Minority - no, because the ct looks at primary rights (ie personal injury and property damage) |
|
Issue preclusion
|
collateral estoppel
|
|
CE - how different from RJ?
|
Narrower -- looks at issue
|
|
CE requirements
|
- case 1 ended in a valid, final judgment
- same issue was litigated and determined (must have been litigation) - issue was essential to case 1 - can only be asserted against someone who was a party to case 1 - Who can assert CE? (see next flashcard) |
|
Who can assert issue preclusion (CE)
|
Only by one who was a party to case 1 (mutuality)
|
|
Nonmutual defense issue preclusion
|
Means the one using it was not a party in Case 1 and is D in Case 2
|
|
Nonmutual offensive issue preclusion
|
Means that the one using it was not a party in Case 1 and is the plaintiff in Case 2
|
|
Trend for nonmutual offensive issue preclusion
|
Clear trend in law allow mutual offensive if it is not unfair, which means:
- full and fair opportunity - foresee multiple suits - P could not easily have joined - no inconsistent judgments on record |