Cases

Question 1

Gordon v. Steele

Answer 1

How to determine the state citizenship of a student

Question 2

Mas v. Perry

Answer 2

Complete Diversity Rule, and applying diversity to a case involving a citizen of another country

Question 3

Hertz Corp. Friend

Answer 3

State Citizenship of Corps and other entities. One principle place of business.

Question 4

Diefenthal v. Cab

Answer 4

Amount in Controversy - made in good faith

Question 5

Louisville & Nashville Railroad co. v. Mottley

Answer 5

Well-pleaded complaint rule: the case arises under federal law, if the federal issue appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint – complaint relies on federal law.

Question 6

Gunn v. Minton

Answer 6

When the state law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue

Question 7

Pennoyer v. Neff

Answer 7

Every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory.
A court has to assert authority before proceeding

Question 8

International Shoe

Answer 8

Contacts within a forum.
Established 2 types of in personam jurisdiction
1. If the claim arises out of the defendants deliberate contact with the state. (specific in personam jurisdiction)
2. Can exist even if the claim does not rise out of the defendants in-state contacts as long as the defendant has ongoing contacts with the state.

Question 9

Specific Jurisdiction

Answer 9

Must arise out of the defendants deliberate contacts with the forum (minimum contacts), and the exercise of jurisdiction must otherwise be consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Extends to only those claims arising out of the defendants in-state contacts

Question 10

General Jurisdiction

Answer 10

Defendant’s contacts are sufficiently extensive that the defendant would be considered “At home” in the state (for corporations) or domiciled there (for individuals)
Extends to any claim that the plaintiff has against the defendant

Question 11

Daimler AG v. Bauman

Answer 11

Defines the term at home for corporations. A corporation is considered to be at home wherever it has its principle place of business or place of incorporation.

Also discusses long-arm statutes.

Question 12

Brown v. Lockheed Martin

Answer 12

A defendant may forfeit its objections to personal jurisdiction by failing to raise them timely in the answer or in an initial motion.

Question 13

McGEE v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO

Answer 13

Liberal approach to specific jurisdiction.
Here the concluded that a defendant’s deliberate in-state contact was just one factor to consider and also included:
1. Plaintiff’s interest in suing in California
2. The insureds mailing of premiums from California\
3. The availability of witnesses in California (in this case the case of suicide would likely have more witnesses for proof within California)
4. California’s interest in providing a remedy
5. The extent to which the defendant would be inconvenienced.

Question 14

WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN v. WOODSON

Answer 14

the exercise of specific jurisdiction is constitutional only when:

1. The defendant has had contacts with the forum state
2. The contacts were purposeful or deliberate
3. The plaintiff’s claims arose out of those contacts
4. Personal jurisdiction is reasonable based on a consideration of the factors mentioned above

Question 15

BRYSTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB

Answer 15

There must be an affiliation with the forum state and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.

Question 16

ASAHI METAL INDUSTRY CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Answer 16

The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state.

Question 17

JACKSON v. CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPERS PARTNERSHIP

Answer 17

The harm felt (internet article) has to be targeted and foreseeable to the forum.

Question 18

Gaeth v. Deacon

Answer 18

Improper venue may be raised by the defendant by motion or by answer, and if it is established that the action was brought in the wrong county, it shall be dismissed and the defendant allowed double costs.
• Can be filed in state/county of where whichever party lives or in the county where the course of action took place.
• Has to be reasonably calculated to reach the defendant not based on whether the technical requirements of a rule governing service of process are met.

Question 19

UFFNER v. LA REUNION FRANCAISE

Answer 19

28 USC 1391(a)(1)
When the events underlying a claim happened in different places, several venues may be proper. You must therefore look at the entire sequence of events underlying the claim.
- this case interprets the meaning of substantial part of events leading to proper venue

Question 20

MacMUNN v. ELI LILLY CO.

Answer 20

Offers a straightforward analysis of a 1404 transfer motion.
Discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions to transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of fairness and convenience. The moving party bears the burden of establishing the transfer is proper.
1. Must establish the plaintiff originally could have brought the action in the proposed transferee district
2. Must demonstrate that considerations of convenience and the interest of justice weigh in favor of transfer to that district.

Question 21

PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. v. REYNO

Answer 21

A court should not dismiss a case on grounds of forum non conveniens unless there is an alternate forum in which the plaintiff can pursue a remedy.

Question 22

DIOGUARDI v. DURNING

Answer 22

Under the new rules of civil procedure, there is no pleading requirement of stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but only that there be a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Question 23

DOE v. SMITH:

Answer 23

Pleading in a federal court need not allege facts corresponding to each element of a statute. It is enough to state a claim for relief.
Complaints initiate the litigation but need not cover everything necessary for the plaintiff to win.

Question 24

LEATHERMAN V. TARRANT COUNTY NARCOTICS INTELLIGENCE AND COORDINATION UNIT

Answer 24

A court cannot require a higher standard specificity for a certain type of claim that is not enumerated in Rule 9(b).

Question 25

ASHCROFT v. IQBAL

Answer 25

Adopts a narrower reading of Twombly. Inference alone does not entitle to relief.

Question 26

Twombly

Answer 26

A two-pronged approach – considered the sufficiency of a complaint alleging.

1. A court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions
2. Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.

Question 27

Plausibility pleading standards for Twombly/Iqbal:

Answer 27

Must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. It asks for a more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consisted with a defendant’s liability it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.

Question 28

HAYS v. SONY CORP. OF AMERICA:

Answer 28

The amount of investigation required by Rule 11 depends on both the time available to investigate and on the probability that more investigation will turn up important evidence. – negligence standard. It is meant to avoid unnecessary costs.

Question 29

HUNTER v. EARTHGRAINS CO. BAKERY

Answer 29

Primary purpose of sanctions under Rule 11 is to deter future litigation abuse.

Question 30

VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC. v. LACEY

Answer 30

This case traces most of the steps to a default judgment.

Rule 55(b)(2) specifically provides that if it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper. – where the amount of damages sought is a certain sum or where an adequate record has been made via affidavits and documentary evidence to show statutory damages, no evidentiary hearing is required.

Question 31

MATOS v. NEXTRAN, INC.

Answer 31

Rule 12 motion to dismiss.
Leave to amend is routine on motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim when the complaint is merely missing a factual allegation corresponding to an element of the claim.

To be stricken the challenged allegations have to have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter of the controversy.

Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statements is normally used when the pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. It the claims are “a rock instead of a gem” the court doesn’t waste time making you polish it, if it can be figured out its fine. Has to do with wasting time and moving the case forward.

Question 32

HUNTER v. SERV-TECH, INC

Answer 32

12(h)(1) objections to personal jurisdiction, venue, and service of process be raised in a party’s first responsive pleading.
Must consolidate all Rule 12 defenses into one motion. If it is omitted it is waived.

Question 33

REIS ROBOTICS USA, INC. v. CONCEPT INDUSTRIES, INC.

Answer 33

ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT
Can assert 4 kinds of matter by fact in a rule 12 motion:
1. Leftover rule 12 (b) defenses, - any defense the party has not waived by omitting it from a pre-answer motion
2. Must admit or deny the factual allegations of the complaint Rule 8b1b – denial is a defense on the merits of the claim
3. Affirmative defenses that provide excuses to liability on the basis of facts outside of the complaint Rule 8 (c)
4. Counterclaims or cross claims
5. Issue a form 30 that does all of the above

Question 34

INGRAHAM v. UNITED STATES

Answer 34

Analysis for Affirmative Defenses:
Logical relationship between the defense and the cause of action by the plaintiff requires these determinations:
1. Whether the matter at issue fairly may be said to constitute a necessary or extrinsic element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.
2. Which party, if either has better access to relevant evidence
3. Policy considerations: should the matter be indulged or disfavored.
Central to requiring the pleading of affirmative defenses is the prevention of unfair surprise

Question 35

BEECK v. AQUASLIDE ‘N’ DIVE CORP.

Answer 35

Rule 15(a)
The burden is on the party opposing the amendment to show prejudice.
Amending Claims or Defenses After the Limitations Period:
The purpose of statute of limitations is to protect parties against the loss of evidence and to give them respite after a fixed period from the emotional distress and financial uncertainty of possible litigation.

Question 36

BONERB v. RICHARD J. CARON FOUNDATION

Answer 36

Relation back doctrine
The untimely claim has to relate back to the date of the original pleading. The claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.
- Court looks at the operational facts set forth in the original complaint to determine whether the defendant was put on notice of the claim that the plaintiff later seeks to add.

Question 37

KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S.p.A.

Answer 37

Rule 15 (a) and Rule 15(c)
Relation back - plaintiff named the wrong party (cruise ship)
Misnomer mistakes: mistake concerning the proper party’s identity. 

Deliberate mistakes: if it was deliberately chosen not to name it then it has not made a mistake within the meaning of the Rule

Question 38

HOHLBEIN v. HERITAGE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

Answer 38

Applies Rule 20(a)(1) standard for joining plaintiffs

Question 39

KING v. BLANTON

Answer 39

Compulsory counterclaim
she should have brought the counterclaim at the time of answering, when she didn’t do that she waived her right to the claim.

Question 40

ERKINS v. CASE POWER AND EQUIPMENT CO

Answer 40

Illustrated the requirements for impleading a third-party into a case.
Standard for bringing in a third-party under Rule14(a)

Question 41

TORRINGTON CO. v. YOST

Answer 41

applies Rule 19
Rule 19 Two Step Analysis: (a) identify the persons who should be joined if feasible. If joinder is not feasible (b) is applicable to decide whether the case should be dismissed.
Under (a), a person should be joined when feasible if nonjoinder would under (a)(1) deny complete relief to the parties’ present, of under (a)(2) impair the absent person’s interest or prejudice the persons already parties by subjecting them to a risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.

Question 42

GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER

Answer 42

Focuses on intervention as of right.
Rule 24(a)
Factors to consider:
- Timeliness of the motion
- Potential for complication of issue at trial
- Probability of trial delay
- Whether the plaintiff may be prejudices by the addition of parties.

Question 43

UNITED MINE WORKERS v. GIBBS:

Answer 43

Doctrine of pendent jurisdiction
When a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, because the plaintiff asserts a claim arising under federal law, it obtains jurisdiction not just over the federal claim but over the entire case.
If a state law claim fits the single-transaction test, it may be litigated with the federal claim under pendent jurisdiction.
Federal court should decide whether it has the power to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims at the outset of the case but they need not exercise pendent jurisdiction even if they have the power to do so.

Question 44

EXXON MOBILE CORP. v. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES

Answer 44

1367
Where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one names plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, 1367 does authorize supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy even if those claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount specified in the statute for diversity jurisdiction.

Question 45

FLORES v. SOUTHERN PERU COPPER CORP

Answer 45

Rule 26a

Initial disclosures

Question 46

ZUBULAKE v. UBS WARBURG INC

Answer 46

Rule 26B2B specifically deals with e-discovery
Deciding disputes regarding the scope and cost of discovery of electronic data requires a three-step analysis:
1) It is necessary to thoroughly understand the responding party’s computer system – cost shifting should be considered when electronic data is relatively inaccessible
2) Because the cost-shifting analysis is so fact intensive, it is necessary to determine what data may be found on the inaccessible media. Small sample requirement is a sensible approach
3) In conducting the cost-shifting analysis, the follow factors should be considered, weighted in the following order:
a. The extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant info
b. The availability of such info from other sources
c. The total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy
d. The total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party
e. The relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so
f. The importance of the issues at stake in the litigation
g. The relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information

Question 47

J.F. EDWARS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. ANDERSON SAFEWAY GUARD RAIL CORP.

Answer 47

Rule 16 Rule 16 does not compel a stipulation of facts so that sanctions for failure to file one are not available.

Question 48

DAVEY v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.

Answer 48

Pretrial Orders
Consideration based on Manifest Injustice Test:
- Prejudice or surprise to the party opposing trial of the issue
- The ability of that party to cure any prejudice
- Disruption by inclusion of the new issue
- Bad faith by the party seeking to modify the order

Question 49

IN RE BATH AND KITCHEN FISTURES ANTITRUST LITIGATION:

Answer 49

Dismiss without prejudice
Three key aspects to Rule 41a1Ai control analysis:
- A filing under the rule is a notice not a motion. Its effect is automatic: the defendant does not file a response, and no order of the district court is needed to end the action
- The notice results in a dismissal without prejudice as long as the plaintiff has never dismissed an action based on or including the same claim in a prior case
- The defendant has only two options for cutting off the plaintiff’s right to end the case by notice: serving on the plaintiff an answer or a motion for summary judgment.

Question 50

SLAVEN v. CITY OF SALEM:

Answer 50

Rule 56 Summary Judgement Checklist:

• What is the rule of substantive law applicable to the motion?
• Which facts matter – are material – to applying that rule of law?
• What is the proper record for summary judgment?
• Has the moving party met its burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute of material fact in that record and that it is entitled to judgment under the applicable rule of law?
• If the movant has met its burden, has the non-moving party met its burden of showing specific facts in that record that create a genuine dispute of material fact under the applicable rule of law?
• What is the proper disposition of the motion?