Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
63 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
personal jurisdiction: list
|
- in personam
- in rem - quasi in rem |
|
|
modern test of jurisdiction
|
MINIMUM CONTACTS.
Look for jurisdictional statutes. CA: long arm statute |
|
|
minimum contacts test
|
- CAUSE of action
- ACTIVITY quality & nature - purposeful AVAILMENT - FORESEEABILITY - did D INITIATE contact? - BURDEN on parties - CHOICE of law - INTEREST of the state - MULTIPLICITY of suits - ALTERNATIVE forum? - EVIDENCE - WITNESSES |
|
|
choice of law: options
|
- state law in federal court
- federal common law in federal court - federal law in state court |
|
|
federal subject matter jx: test
|
- federal question?
- diversity |
|
|
supplemental jx: types
|
- pendent jx
- ancillary jx |
|
|
pendent jx
|
As long as there's a substantial fed claim, you can join a state claim. Has to stem from the same thing
|
|
|
ancillary jx
|
If the primary claim is federal, the court can hear related (ancillary) matters.
|
|
|
civ pro big picture
|
- personal jx?
- subject matter jx? - notice? - venue? - pleadings issues? - claims & parties properly joined? - discovery issues - pretrial - trial - motions (trial & post-trial) - final judgment (res judicata, etc.) |
|
|
removal
|
from state court to federal court.
- federal question - diversity AND jx in state court was proper! |
|
|
notice
|
test: REASONABLE DILIGENCE
Fed: - personal service - place of abode with person of reasonable age & discretion - delivery to agent |
|
|
venue: diversity
|
- any state where a D resides
- substantial part of acts took place - any D is subject to personal jx (when case commenced) |
|
|
venue: fed question
|
- where any D resides
- substantial part of acts took place - any district where any D may be found |
|
|
pleading
|
CA & FED: notice pleading
Complaint: P must - be REAL PARTY in interest - have CAPACITY - have STANDING - set forth at least one CAUSE OF ACTION/special damages/prayer for relief |
|
|
Challenging the complaint
|
- lack of JX
- improper venue: motion to TRANSFER - insufficiency of PROCESS - judgment on the PLEADINGS - failure to join INDISPENSABLE party - failure to state a CLAIM - motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT - motion to STRIKE - motion for more DEFINITE statement |
|
|
summary judgment
|
no triable issue of material fact exists as a matter of law
|
|
|
motion to strike
|
irrelevant
impertinent scandalous allegations |
|
|
answer
|
Denials:
- general - specific - qualified affirmative defenses counterclaims |
|
|
joinder: types
|
- permissive
- necessary - indispensable |
|
|
indispensable joinder
|
Necessary to render an effective judgment, but party is unavailable!
|
|
|
class action: requirements
|
- definable class of which P is a member
- judicial economy - potential P's too numerous for joinder - common legal theory - named P must be typical of class - named parties must adequately represent class - Rule 23(b) |
|
|
Fed Rule 23(b)
|
for class action
23(b)(1): individual suits would result in conflicting adjudications or would hurt interest of non-parties 23(b)(2): injunctive/declaratory relief necessarily applies to entire class 23(b)(3): class suit is fairest & most efficient. Common questions must predominate over individual questions. |
|
|
intervention: standards
|
- broad rule
- strict rule (CA!) - fed rule |
|
|
intervention: strict rule
|
intervenor must have direct interest in success of party before the court
California rule |
|
|
intervention: fed rule
|
must have:
- statutory right - question of fact - law common to claim - subject matter jx - venue |
|
|
interpleader: standards
|
- general rule
- federal rule |
|
|
interpleader: general rule
|
- stakeholder facing adverse, competing & overlapping claims
- stakeholder must be disinterested in outcome of the suit - stakeholder not independently liable to either claimant on other claims |
|
|
interpleader: federal rules
|
stakeholder facing claims:
- adverse - competing - overlapping - multiple - vexation litigation Court must have personal jx over D's Fed. Interpleader Act Rule 22 |
|
|
fed. interpleader act
|
- debt deposited with court
- minimal diversity required - $500 in controversy - nationwide service of process - venue proper - easy to obtain state ct. injunctions |
|
|
Fed. Rule 22
|
For Fed. interpleader
- debt not deposited with ct. - federal question or total diversity - $75,000 in controversy - regular service of process & venue - hard to get injunctions in state ct. |
|
|
impleader
|
D can implead non-party from whom D is entitled indemnification.
Need ancillary jx! |
|
|
discovery: types
|
- depsotion
- admission - document - interrogatory - examination (mental/physical) - subpoena |
|
|
discovery: scope/limitations
|
- must be relevant
- privileged matters not discoverable - atty work product usually not discoverable (exceptions!) - oppressive discovery may be curtailed by protective orders Rule 26 |
|
|
discovery: Rule 26
|
Discovery requires:
- disclosure of witness information - tangible evidence - damage computations - insurance agreements - expert W testimony - W list |
|
|
sanctions for non-compliance with discovery
|
- contempt
- pleadings stricken - default - adverse finding of fact - costs |
|
|
adjudications without trial
|
- motion to dismiss
- voluntary dismissal - involuntary dismissal - default judgment |
|
|
possible jury verdicts
|
- general verdict
- special verdict - general verdict with interrogatories |
|
|
determining right to a jury trial
|
fed: 7th Am
state: 7th Am doesn't apply. State rule? RELATION BACK: would there have been a right to jury trial in 1791? If unclear, consider: - nature of action - remedy - legal or equitable - practical abilities & limitations of jury (highly technical/complex litigation?) P must make timely demand! |
|
|
determining right to a jury trial: nature of action
|
Draw analogy to something that existed in 1791 and see what they would have done with that.
|
|
|
determining right to a jury trial: remedy
|
not determinative! (thanks a lot!)
|
|
|
determining right to a jury trial: legal vs. equitable
|
JUDGE DETERMINES LEGAL ISSUES. Jury can only determine equitable issues!
depends on the nature of the underlying issue, not how the atty spins it. |
|
|
jury trial: if there are legal & equitable issues
|
Judge tries legal issues first!
EXCEPTION: P would be irreparably harmed if equitable claims are delayed. |
|
|
trial & post-trial motions: list
|
- nonsuit
- motion for judgment as a matter of law - renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law - motion for new trial - motion for relief from judgment |
|
|
motion for nonsuit
|
WHEN: after P presents her case
P has failed to show a right to relief. |
|
|
motion for judgment as a matter of law
|
WHEN: after opposing party has presented their case, but before submission to the jury.
Viewed in light most favorable to the opposing party! If denied, you can renew after the jury verdict. That's a judgment NOV. |
|
|
judgment NOV
|
WHEN: 10 days after judgment, only if motion for judgment as a matter of law was made before verdict.
Renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. NO evidence on which the jury could find for the non-moving party. |
|
|
motion for new trial
|
Court feels injustice has occurred and can grant modification of the verdict in whole or in part.
- remittitur - additur (not Fed!) |
|
|
remittitur
|
P agrees to lesser damages or court will grant new trial
|
|
|
additur
|
D agrees to greater damages or court will grant new trial.
FED: not allowed! |
|
|
motion for relief from judgment
|
Grounds exist for reopening case in court's discretion
- jury misconduct - accident or surprise - newly discovered evidence - fraud - mistake - inadvertence - excusable neglect - errors of law - insufficient evidence |
|
|
when you can appeal
|
after final judgment!
|
|
|
res judicata vs. collateral estoppel
|
res judicata: we already decided that cause of action
collateral estoppel: we already decided that issue |
|
|
res judicata
|
Same:
- primary rights - evidence - transaction or occurence There was a judgment on the merits. CA: not final until appeal concluded |
|
|
collateral estoppel
|
- necessary to first action
- identical issues - actually litigated D can always use as a shield P generally can't use as a sword (exceptions - list) |
|
|
collateral estoppel: when P can use as a sword
|
Not usually!
- P could not have joined earlier action - not foreseeable that other suits might arise - judgment asserted by P consistent with prior judgments - full & fair adjudication |
|
|
judgments from other jurisdictions
|
full faith & credit!
Only applies to: - final judgments - default & consent judgments - judgments not subject to collateral attack Foreign countries: voluntary (unless treaty) |
|
|
Civ Pro issue spotting
|
- does the court have personal jx over the defendant & subject matter?
- pleadings issues - claims/parties properly joined? - discovery issues - pretrial conference - trial - trial & post-trial motions - final judgment |
|
|
Issue spotting: claims & parties properly joined?
|
- joinder of claims
- joinder of parties - class action - intervention - interpleader - impleader |
|
|
issue spotting: trial
|
- right to a jury trial
- jury selection - verdicts |
|
|
issue spotting: final judgment
|
- res judicata
- collateral estoppel - full faith & credit |
|
|
in personam jx
|
gives the court power over Defendant; enforceable in other states
|
|
|
in rem jx
|
gives the court power over PROPERTY located in the state
|
|
|
quasi in rem jx
|
gives the court power to determine the rights of particular persons respecting specific property within the court's control
|
