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;
132 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
What two questions are asked in every case |
1. If the event occurred, does the law provide a remedy? 2. Did the event occur? |
Law or fact |
|
|
Gómez v. Toledo |
Facts. Alleged respondent violated due process, was dismissed saying he had to plead bad faith Holding: since qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, burden of pleading rests with respondent |
|
|
|
8(a)(1) |
Complaint must allege grounds for jurisdiction |
|
|
|
8(a)(2) |
Complaint must include a short and plain statement showing plaintiff is entitled to relief |
|
|
|
8(a)(3) |
Complaint must include a demand for relief sought |
|
|
|
Conley v. Gibson |
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears without a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief |
|
|
|
Sweirkiewicz v. Sorema |
Reaffirmed conley standard, rule 8(a)(2) interpretation applies in all cases except where rule 9 governs |
|
|
|
Bell Atlantic corps v. Twombly |
A pleading required enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. This created a heightened pleading standard |
|
|
|
Erickson v. Parodus |
Allegations satisfied 8(a)(2) could not be dismissed on the grounds that the allegations were conclusory. Attempted to limit twombly to cases with high discovery costs |
|
|
|
Ashcroft v. Iqbal |
Standard in twombly applies to all civil cases. This is now the current pleading standard |
|
|
|
Tellabs inc v. Makor issues and rights Ltd |
If a statute sets a higher pleading standard than the FRCP then the statute requirements prevail |
|
|
|
12(b)(1) |
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
|
|
|
12(b)(2) |
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction |
|
|
|
12(b)(3) |
motion to dismiss for improper venue |
|
|
|
12(b)(4) |
motion to dismiss for insufficient process |
|
|
|
12(b)(5) |
motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process |
|
|
|
12(b)(6) |
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted |
|
|
|
12(b)(7) |
motion to dismiss for failure to join a party under rule 19 |
|
|
|
12(c) |
motion for judgment on the pleadings, considers the motion and answer. must be made after the pleadings but early enough to not delay trial |
|
|
|
12(e) |
motion for a more definite statement. must be made before filing a responsive pleading, must point out the defects and details desired |
|
|
|
12(f) |
motion to strike, may strike an insufficient defense, or any impertinent matter. court may act on its own or by party motion |
|
|
|
12(g) |
joining motions, motion may be joined with other motions |
|
|
|
waiving and preserving certain defenses |
must raise any defenses from 12(b)(2)-(5) togehter in the answer or pretrial motions OR THEY ARE WAIVED 12(b)(6) &(7) may be raised in pretrial motions, 12(c) motion, or at trial 12(b)(1) may be raised at any time |
|
|
|
Zielinski v. Philadephia Piers Inc |
the answer contains an ineffective denial, compliance with rule 8(b) requires a specific answer, specific denial of parts, and specific admission of other parts. it must be clear to the plaintiff the defenses he must be prepared to meet |
|
|
|
types of responses in the answer |
admission- establishes it as true, renders evidence as inadmissible denial- creates an issue of fact, plaintiff must prove failure to deny- same effect as admission |
|
|
|
service |
rule 4, most reliable method is personal delivery |
|
|
|
amending pleadings |
15(a)(1)- you may revise a pleading as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it -after 21 days, parties may amend their pleadings only with consent of the other parties |
|
|
|
Shiavone v Fortune |
"within the period provided by law commencing the action against him" the court interpreted this to mean that notice has to be given within the statute of limitations |
|
|
|
rule 15(c) amendment |
made clear that for relation back, the party must be notified within the period in rule 4(m): the statute of limitations plus 90 days |
|
|
|
worthington v. Wilson |
"but for a mistake": court held that correcting an initial lack of knowledge does not constitute a mistake, so the amendment did not relate back |
|
|
|
krupski v. costa crociere |
relation back depends upon what the party to be added knew or should have known, amendment related back because costa cruciere was notified when she served costa cruise |
|
|
|
albright v. upjon |
rule 11 "belief after reasonable inquiry" the prefiling infestation was insufficient |
|
|
|
1983 rule 11 amendments |
safe harbor provision: allows litigant to withdraw within 21 days of notice of rule 11 claim -sanctions are discretionary -allows parties to seek supporting evidence later |
|
|
|
moore v. Keegan management |
uses an objective/objective test- would a reasonable attorney have believed plaintiff's complaint to be well founded in fact based on what a reasonable attorney would have known at the time |
|
|
|
whitehead v. food max of Miss inc |
both obligations of rule 11 must be satisfied, a violation of either justifies sanctions -objective reasonableness of inquiry concerning existing law and improper purpose |
|
|
|
judgment on the pleadings |
challenges the legal sufficiency of a parties factual allegations. after the pleadings are completed |
|
|
|
default judgement |
actual judgment on the merits, usually for a sum certain |
|
|
|
summary judgment |
when there is no genuine issue of material fact, the only question is what the law requires. no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party |
|
|
|
Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co |
a party can show absence of a genuine issue of material fact by introducing evidence negating an essential element of the moving parties claim |
|
|
|
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett |
a party can simply point out that the non-moving party does not have enough evidence to carry the burden of proof at trial |
|
|
|
Tolan v. Cotton |
the evidence must be weighed in favor of the non-moving party. evidence presented contradicted each other, creating a genuine issue of material fact |
|
|
|
Scott v. Harris |
the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute will not defeat an otherwise supported motion, relied on the tape to show that he did not use excessive force |
|
|
|
Spierer v. Rossman |
citing to the pleadings to contend that the plaintiffs would not meet the burden of production at trial, this was sufficient to meet the moving parties burden |
|
|
|
Jones v. Clinton |
he conducts discovery to show that there were no job detriments, negating an essential element of her quid pro quo claim |
|
|
|
legal relief |
refers to monetary damages, compensatory (to make one whole) and punitive (a punishment for deliberate wrongdoing) |
|
|
|
equitable relief |
usually an injunction: to get someone to do something, or to get them to stop doing something |
|
|
|
Lawson Products Inc. v Avnett |
must meet the standard to get equitable relief: there is no adequate remedy at law, there would be irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits |
|
|
|
types of injunctions |
preliminary: issued after a hearing, effective through trial temporary restraining order: valid for 14 days, ex parte and without notice permanent: entered after the trial as a part of the formal relief of the case |
|
|
|
three things you meed for a valid judgment |
territorial jurisdiction, notice, subject matter jurisdiction |
|
|
|
types of territorial jurisdiction |
in personam: over the person in rem: over the property quasi in rem: using property to get to the person |
|
|
|
Pennoyer v Neff |
key here was presence in forum state, for out of state defendants, property must be attached at the outset of the suit to establish jurisdiction |
|
|
|
Harris v. Balk |
key was again presence, debt was attached after personal service in forum state |
|
|
|
International Shoe v. Washington |
Key was minimum contacts. No office, No contracts, incorporated in Delaware and Missouri, yes there was jurisdiction |
|
|
|
Shaffer v. Heitner |
non-residents of delaware, incorporated in delaware, business in arizona, dealing with attachment of property. No jurisdiction, opened minimum contacts to all types of cases |
|
|
|
worldwide volkswagon |
accident in oklahoma, company has no other ties to OK. No jurisdiction, non minimum contacts. Unilateral activity of a 3rd is insufficient, must have purposeful availment |
|
|
|
Burger King Corps |
franchise contract with BK in florida. Yes Jurisdiction. added reasonableness factors |
|
|
|
Reasonableness factors |
burden on defendant, forum states interest in adjudicating dispute, plaintiffs interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, interstates interest in efficient resolution, shared interest of several states in furthering social policies |
|
|
|
asahi metal |
there were no contacts so no jurisdiction, no decision regarding stream of commerce, relied on reasonableness factors |
|
|
|
J McIntyre |
machine made in england, injured in New Jersey, no contacts specifically with NJ. No J because no contact directed at New Jersey |
|
|
|
general jurisdiction |
jurisdiction over any claim |
|
|
|
specific jurisdiction |
case-specific jurisdiction only for claims arising out of contacts |
|
|
|
Good Year tires |
accident in france killed boys from NC, sued company and foreign subsidiaries. For general jurisdiction the contacts must be so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home |
|
|
|
daimler |
residents of argentina sued a german company in California, had more contacts than international shoe but it was incorporated in Del and Principle was NJ. They were not essentially at home in Cali |
|
|
|
bristol myers squibb |
non-residents and residents sued in Cali over drug injuries, company incorporated in Del headquartered in NY. For specific J the suit must arise out of the contacts with that forum |
|
|
|
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. |
NY long arm allows J over non-residents who commit torts within the state, there was no j since act was in missouri |
|
|
|
Burnham |
was in the state temporarily and was personally served in the state, tag jurisdiction is valid |
|
|
|
carnival cruise lines v. Shute |
bought cruise tickets with a forum selection clause, this was valid and enforceable even though it wasn't seen until after purchase |
|
|
|
panavision v. toeppen |
internet jurisdiction requires the same tests as regular jurisdiction. the effects doctrine: if conduct is aimed at or has an effect in the forum state |
|
|
|
mullane v. Central Hanover Bank |
notice in a newspaper was insufficient for the known defendants. Notice must be reasonably certain to actually inform those affected, or where conditions dont permit this, the notice chose must not be substantially less likely to provide notice |
|
|
|
Connecticut v. Doehr |
attached house as leverage in battery claim, statute did not require notice. This was unconstitutional, Matthews test: private interest, risk of erroneous deprivation, and interest in party seeking remedy |
|
|
|
Dusenberry v. US |
FBI forfeited cash, sent notice to prison , this was acceptable. There were better options so this seems consistent with Mullane |
|
|
|
federal question jurisdiction |
federal courts have the power to hear cases arising under federal law |
|
|
|
what is the well pleaded complaint rule |
in order for a court to have federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must appear on the face of the complaint |
|
|
|
Louisvile RR. v. Mottley |
no SMJ because federal question was raised in the answer |
|
|
|
diversity jurisdiction |
between citizens of different states when amount in controversy in over 75,000 |
|
|
|
rules of citizenship |
person is domicile, corporation state of incorporation and state as principle place of business |
|
|
|
amount in controversy |
must exceed 75K, 1p and 1d can aggregate claims, 2p and 1d no aggregation of claims, 1p and 2d claims against each d must be independent |
|
|
|
supplemental jurisdiction |
yes supplemental if 1st claim is federal question, no supplemental id 1st claim is diversity |
|
|
|
removal jurisdiction |
a case from state court to federal court can be removed if it could have been brought in federal court to begin with |
|
|
|
can a defendant in diversity remove if he was sued in his own state |
no he wont face bias in his own state |
|
|
|
where is venue proper in federal courts |
any district where any D resides, if they all reside in the same state, or district in which substantial part of incident occurred. if neither wherever there is pj |
|
|
|
where is venue in a removed case? |
the district in which state court action brought |
|
|
|
venue for people v. corporations |
a person resides in their domicile, corporation is where they are subject to pj |
|
|
|
when venue is improoer |
0move to dismiss (in first response to complaint) or transfer (at any time but less likely the longer you wait) |
|
|
|
when venue is proper but other more convenient |
can transfer to other district, ct looks at p's choice of forum, convenience of witnesses, convenience of the parties, interests of justice |
|
|
|
klaxon v. sentor |
generally, the District court must apply the choice of law rule of the state in which it sits |
|
|
|
does it matter who files for a transfer in determining choice of law rule |
No: van dusen and ferens both said that the transferor courts rule would apply |
|
|
|
if venue and territorial jurisdiction were proper in original court |
transferor (original) courts choice of law rule would apply |
|
|
|
if venue and territorial jurisdiction were improper in original court |
transferee (new) courts choice of law rule would apply |
|
|
|
dismissal for forum non conveniens requirements |
adequate alternative forum (adequate remedy, not biased, not dangerous, etc. )and trial in chosen forum must be so problematic that P's choice does not need to be respected |
|
|
|
factors to consider for forum non |
private (ease of access to sources of proof, compulsory process for witnesses being able to view the premises) and public (difficulty of piling litigation, local interest in case being decided at home, avoiding applying foreign law, burden of jury duty) |
|
|
|
piper aircraft v, reyno |
dismissal for forum non is appropriate even though the law of the new forum is less favorable |
|
|
|
rules of decision act |
the laws of the several states, except where the Const, treaties, or laws of the US require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the Courts of the US in cases where they apply |
|
|
|
swift v. tyson |
held that state court decisions did not apply to the rules of decision act, only applies when there is a state statute |
|
|
|
erie railroad v. thompkins |
held that state court decisions did count, so in diversity apply state substantive law, including court decisions |
|
|
|
guarantee trust co v. york |
outcome determinant test: use state law if case would come out differently ie. SOL expired in state court but not federal court |
|
|
|
byrd v blue ridge |
balancing test: federal interest v. state interest |
|
|
|
hanna v plumer |
if a federal rule is on point then it must be followed unless rule is outside scope of rules enabling act |
|
|
|
twin aims of erie test |
discouragement of forum shopping, and avoidance of inequitable administration of the law |
|
|
|
rule 26 |
global discovery rule: may obtain discovery regarding any non privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense |
|
|
|
rule 26(f) |
parties must meet and confer, discuss case, consider possibility of settlement, and set forth discovery plan. CANNOT BEGIN DISCOVERY UNTIL AFTER THIS CONFERENCE |
|
|
|
initial required closures |
names of person w/ info about the disclosing parties claims and defenses, copies of documents/evidence will use to assert claim, damages, insurance agreements |
|
|
|
expert testimony (not the categories) |
must disclose identity of experts it may present at trial, must include a report detailing opinions, facts, or data considered, exhibits, qualifications, list of other cases testified for, and compensation |
|
|
|
Zublake v. UBS |
cost shifting may occur when production of ESIs are unduly burdensome and expensive |
|
|
|
attorney client privilege |
begins when legal advice is sought, no privilege if crime, attorney's fees, or malpractice cases |
|
|
|
work product privilege |
cannot discover docs and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation |
|
|
|
categories of experts |
retained and testifying: yes discovery; retained but not testifying: no discovery without good cause; informally consulted: no discovery; witnesses that happen to be experts: yes discovery |
|
|
|
Stevenson v. RR |
awarded sanctions for destroying evidence that they should have known would be necessary for litigation |
|
|
|
elements of res judicata (claim preclusion) |
litigation has to involve the same parties, final judgment in the previous action, and formal lawsuit must include same claim |
|
|
|
elements of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) |
issues between two cases must be identical, the issue must have been essential to the judgment, full and fair opportunity to litigate, issue must have actually been litigated |
|
|
|
defensive collateral estoppel |
the P in both cases is the same, new defendant. D asserts against P (using it as a shield) this is universally accepted |
|
|
|
offensive collateral estoppel |
the D in both cases is the same, new plaintiff. P asserts it against D (using it as a sword). not universally allowed, needs to be fair to the defendant |
|
|
|
15(c) requirements for relation back of amended pleading |
(1) law that provides applicable SOL allows relation back; (2) amendment asserts claim or defense that arose out of conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in original pleading; OR the amendment changes that party against whom a claim is being asserted |
|
|
|
15(c) requirements to adding/changing party |
admendment asserts claim that arose out of conduct in original pleading, and within SOL and 4m requirement party to be brought in recieves notice that they will not be prejudices and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against them but for a mistake |
|
|
|
Oral depositions |
rule 30, can be taken from parties and non-parties (with subpoena), limit 10 per side 7 hours |
|
|
|
Interrogatories |
rule 33, only parties are subject to interrogatories, limited to 25 |
|
|
|
request for admission |
rule 36, only used against parties,must either admit, deny, or object somehow |
|
|
|
request for production |
rule 34, most important, either agree to produce or object, from non-parties requires subpoena duces tecum |
|
|
|
mental and physical examinations |
rule 35, court order only on motion for good cause, party entitled to a copy but also must turn over other reports |
|
|
|
sanctions and motions to compel |
rule 37 35, must include certification that movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with person or party failing to make disclosures. contempt for failure to obey order must impose costs |
|
|
|
Davis v. Dallas |
determined that the claim was the same using the transactional test: all or any part of the transaction or series of connected transactions out of which the original action arose "same nucleus of operative fact" applies to claims already brought and those that could have been brought |
|
|
|
Staats v. County of Sawyer |
no preclusion if the original forum was of limited jurisdiction and the federal claim could not have been brought |
|
|
|
B&B Hardware |
administrative determinations are entitled to preclusive effect as long as the facts presented to the agency and the court are similar and the other requirements of issue preclusion are met |
|
|
|
Taylor v. Sturgell |
dispenses with the doctrine of virtual representation, in order to be bound by a judgment you had to be there |
|
|
|
mutuality rule |
A could only use CE against B, if, had prior lawsuit gone the other way, B could use CE against A. no longer required |
|
|
|
exceptions from taylor (no preclusion applies to he who was not party to prior action) |
consent, pre-existing legal relationship, party adequately represented in prior action, had control over prior litigation, relitigation by proxy, statutory scheme |
|
|
|
Semtek |
federal common law governs what preclusive effect a federal decision will have on state courts |
|
|
|
rules of interjurisdictional preclusion |
among states: full faith and credit clause; federal to state decision: full faith and credit statute; among federal courts; federal common law; state to federal decision: fed. common law means judgment be given preclusive effect based on law of state in which the federal court sat |
|
|
|
7th amendment |
preserves the right to trial by jury in all suits at common law over 20 dollars |
|
|
|
Beacon Hill |
the right to jury attached to issues not to claims, when an issue is common to law and equity, those issues must be tried by a jury first |
|
|
|
ross |
test to determine if it was a legal claim: what would the claim have been premerger and what is the remedy sought (Chauffers applied this test) |
|
|
|
atlas |
congress has the power to create new causes of action and assign them to admin agencies that dont use juries as long as the assignment of the claims involves public rights |
|
