Civ Pro Flashcards
When are materials covered by attorney-client privilege discoverable?
Such materials will be subject to discovery if the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.
What is discovery permitted for?
Discovery is generally permitted with regard to any non-privileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense in the action.
When does the duty to preserve evidence triggered?
When litigation is reasonably anticipated, even if it has not yet been commenced, potential litigants in possession of potentially relevant evidence have a duty to preserve such evidence. Once a duty to preserve evidence is triggered, the party in possession of the evidence must take reasonable measures to preserve it.
If a party has a policy in place that results in routine operations that may destroy evidence, such as electronically stored information, that party must affirmatively act to prevent the destruction or alteration of such evidence, even if the destruction would typically occur in the regular course of business.
What sort of sanctions may a court impose if evidence has been destroyed and what factors should be considered?
Sanctions are authorized for spoliation of evidence only if the information cannot be restored or replaced by additional discovery. In determining sanctions, the court should consider the prejudice to another party and the intent of the party that failed to preserve the evidence.
When retrieval of the information is possible, even if typically considered inaccessible due to cost of retrieval, a court may order it and assign the costs to the party who destroyed the evidence; no further sanctions may be imposed.
If a party failed to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved and it cannot be restored or replaced, the court may order alternate sanctions against the wrongful party, limited to the court’s discretion of those necessary to cure any prejudice to the other party.
If the court finds that the sanctioned party acted with the purpose of depriving the other party of the evidence’s use in litigation, then the available sanctions include (i) a presumption that the destroyed or lost information was unfavorable to the sanctioned party; (ii) a jury instruction that it may or it must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (iii) an entry of a default judgment against the party.
When can a case be removed from state to federal court?
Generally, the defendant in any civil action filed in state court has the right to remove it to the district court for the district in which the state court action was filed as long as the civil action is within the original jurisdiction of a U.S. district court.
What is diversity jurisdiction?
Federal courts may exercise original diversity jurisdiction over actions when (i) the parties to an action are citizens of different states and (ii) the amount in controversy in the action exceeds $75,000. Generally, a plaintiff’s good-faith assertion in the complaint that the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement is sufficient, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount alleged.
When can venue be transferred and where is it proper?
For the convenience of the parties and in the interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.
Venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides or in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is based occurred.
What happens if transfer is sought on the basis of a forum selection clause in a contract?
Moreover, when transfer is sought on the basis of a forum selection clause in a contract, the clause is accorded respect. If the clause specifies a federal forum, most circuit courts treat the clause as prima facie valid, to be set aside only upon a strong showing that transfer would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause was invalid for reasons such as fraud or overreaching. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that a forum selection clause should be given “controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases,” even if the clause is unenforceable under applicable state law.
When venue is transferred based on a valid forum selection clause, the transferee court must apply the law, including the choice-of-law rules, of the state in which it is located. The transferee court should not apply the law of the transferor court because the parties have contractually waived their right to the application of that law by agreeing to be subject to the laws of the transferee venue.
Which States’ law applies when venue is transferred?
Generally, if the venue of an action is transferred when the original venue is proper (as discussed above), the court to which the action is transferred must apply the law of the state of the transferor court, including that state’s rules regarding conflict of law.
What is the doctrine of claim preclusion and when does it apply?
The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from successive litigation of an identical claim in a subsequent action. For claim preclusion to apply, the claimant and the defendant must be the same (and in the same roles) in both the original action and the subsequently filed action. Because application of claim preclusion is limited to the parties (or their privies), a similar action by a different party would not be precluded.
What is the doctrine of issue preclusion and what are its elements?
The doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) precludes the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim. Unlike claim preclusion, issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties, but only that the party against whom the issue is to be precluded (or one in privity with that party) must have been a party to the original action (i.e., offensive collateral estoppel).
Other elements necessary for issue preclusion to apply are that
(i) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action;
(ii) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action;
(iii) the issue must have been determined by a valid and binding final judgment; and
(iv) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the prior judgment.
When could a court decide not to apply issue preclusion?
If a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action, a trial judge should not allow use of offensive collateral estoppel.
What’s the analysis for determining if a court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent authorized by a state’s long-arm statute?
Due Process:
Under the Due Process Clause, a nonresident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction when its contacts with the forum state demonstrate purposeful availment of the benefits of the forum state and/or render it foreseeable that the defendant may be taken to court in the forum state.
Fair Play and Substantial Justice
The Supreme Court has held that even when minimum contacts have been shown with a forum state, personal jurisdiction should not be extended if inconsistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
How is Federal Question Jurisdiction determined?
Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, federal question jurisdiction exists only when the federal law issue is presented in the plaintiff’s complaint. The determination of jurisdiction must be made by considering only the necessary elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action, and not potential defenses. It is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction that a plaintiff alleges some anticipated federal law
defense.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
When the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction for a claim is based on the existence of a federal question, additional claims against the same party can be heard by the court through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the common-nucleus-of-operative-fact test is met.
Claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact if they are part of the same case or controversy and should be tried together.
However, a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (i) over claims that raise new or complex state law issues or that substantially predominate over claims within original federal jurisdiction; (ii) when the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed; or (iii) if there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.
