Civ Pro Flashcards
Diversity in a class action brought pursuant to Rule 23 will generally be determined by the citizenship of the named members of the class bringing the lawsuit.
However, for class actions in which the amount at issue totals more than $5,000,000, diversity will be met if any member of the plaintiff class is diverse with any defendant (min div).
Need 100 Ps
A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business (generally HQ/ nerve center).
An individual is a citizen of the state in which the individual is domiciled, which is where the individual is present and intends to reside for an indefinite period
CAFA Reqs
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) made it easier to satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction for certain large class actions. Subject matter jurisdiction will be met if:
i) The class action involves at least 100 members;
ii) The primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief;
iii) The** action does not involve** certain securities-related cases, or litigation concerning the internal affairs or governance of a corporation;
iv) The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and
v) Minimum diversity exists. Minimum diversity is satisfied when any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant.
Class Action Reqs
Rule 23(a) establishes four requirements for representative members of a class to sue or be sued on behalf of all members of the class:
==> CAN’T be brought in indiv lawsuits
(i) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity);
(ii) there must be questions of law or fact that are common to the class (commonality);
(iii) the claims or defenses of the representatives must be typical of the class (typicality); and
(iv) the representatives must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (adequacy).
FRCP 11 re atty standards
Rule 11 establishes the standards that attorneys and individual parties must meet when filing pleadings, motions, or other papers, and provides sanctions for violations of the rule.
Under Rule 11(a), every pleading, written motion, and other paper filed with the court must be signed by at least one attorney of record, or by a party personally if unrepresented.
Under Rule 11(b), by presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, the signing attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances
(i) the paper is not being presented for any improper purpose; **
(ii) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(iii) the factual contentions have evidentiary support **or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(iv) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Motion for Sanctions
A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct alleged to violate Rule 11.
The motion must first be served on the opposing party under Rule 5.
The opposing party must then be given 21 days to withdraw or correct the challenged pleading.
If this 21-day “safe harbor” period passes, and the opposing party fails to correct the pleading, the party seeking sanctions may file the motion with the court.
Safe Harbor rule only applies where opp party brings motion (not where ct does itself)
Sanctions
Under certain circumstances, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court **may, in its discretion, impose sanctions on attorneys, law firms, and parties for violations of Rule 11. **
These ** sanctions are limited to what will deter the misconduct in the future.**
Sanctions may include nonmonetary directives or an order to pay a penalty into court.
If sanctions are imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant for reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation may be appropriate.
Re FRCP 11 Sanctions, who should be the receiver?
Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
The court also is not permitted to impose a monetary sanction against a represented party for violating the requirement that the legal contentions of the paper be warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument, although there is some authority for imposing such sanctions on a represented party who knew, or should have known that the claim he asked his lawyer to pursue was legally and factually baseless.
Issue Preclusion
Issue preclusion (ie, collateral estoppel) precludes the relitigation of certain issues in a prior civil action OR criminal prosecution.
Requirements
* Same issue—facts relevant to particular issue and applicable law must be identical
* Actually litigated—the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action
* Final, valid judgment—first determination of issue was within authority of court that
decided it and the determination was made in final decision on the merits
* Essential to judgment—issue that constitutes a necessary component of the decision reached will be considered essential
Criminal prosecution
In favor of prosecution ==> preclusion
—issues determined in a criminal prosecution in favor of the prosecution are generally preclusive in a civil action against D based on the
same conduct
In favor of D ==> no preclusion
issues determined in a criminal prosecution in favor of D are not preclusive in a civil action against D based on the same conduct because P in the civil action was not a party to the criminal prosecution
There are two types of issue preclusion:
**Mutual **– when issue preclusion is asserted by parties to the first action against other parties to the first action
**Nonmutual **– when issue preclusion is asserted by nonparties to the first action against parties to the first action
COL = The second court will look to the law of the forum that entered the first judgment to determine if mutual or nonmutual issue preclusion applies in the subsequent action.
Claim Preclusion (res judicata)
-
Valid final judgment on the merits
-court must have PJ and SMJ,
-D must have had proper notice and opportunity to be heard,
-court must have nothing further to do but order entry of judgment, and -decision must be made on merits of claim/defense (rather than technical grounds) -
Sufficiently identical claims
-original and later-filed claim must be sufficiently identical to be barred under claim preclusion (federal “transactional” approach) -
Sufficiently identical parties
-P and D must be the same, and in the same roles, in both the original action and subsequently filed action
Post Trial Relief
Atty fees = Statute or rule allows recovery
≤ 14 days after entry of final judgment
JMOL = evid legally insuf to find for nonmovant
</= 28d after entry of final J
New Trial =
Prejudicial trial error
Prejudicial misconduct by judge, attorney, party, juror
Verdict not supported by clear weight of evidence
Verdict based on false/nonexistent evidence
Excessive or inadequate damages
Newly discovered evidence
</= 28d after entry of final J
Alter/amend J
Manifest error of law or fact is basis for judgment
Intervening change in controlling law
Newly discovered evidence
</= 28d after entry of final J
Correction of mistake
Clerical mistake
Mistake arising from oversight or omission
Freely OR with appellate court’s leave if docketed
Extraordinary relief
Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect
Newly discovered evidence
Fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct by opposing party
≤ 1 year after entry of final judgment
Void judgment
Judgment satisfied, released, discharged
Other reason justifying relief
W/in reasonable time
Intervention as a right
Under the Federal Rules, a nonparty has the right to intervene in an action when, upon timely motion,
(1) the nonparty has an **interest in the subject matter **of the action;
(2) the disposition of the action may impair the nonparty’s interests; and
(3) the nonparty’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.
==> The burden is on the party seeking to intervene.
TRO
A temporary restraining order (TRO) preserves the status quo of the parties until there is an opportunity to hold a full hearing on whether to grant a preliminary injunction.
- A TRO has immediate effect and lasts no longer than 14 days unless good cause exists.
- A TRO can be issued without notice to the adverse party if the moving party can show
==> that immediate and irreparable injury will result prior to hearing the adverse party’s arguments and
==> the efforts made at giving notice and the reason why notice should not be required. - Additionally, the party seeking a TRO usually must give security (typically by posting a bond) to cover the costs and damages sustained by a party that is ultimately found to have been wrongfully restrained.
Preliminary Injunction
A preliminary injunction can be issued if the **opponent is given notice and the court holds a hearing on the issue. **
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that:
(1) the party is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) the party is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief;
(3) the balance of equities is in the party’s favor; and
(4) the** injunction is in the public’s best interest.** Additionally, the party seeking the preliminary injunction usually must provide security like it would for a TRO.
Permissive Joinder
- does party have “a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”
- The district court also “must consider **whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice **the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”
