Civ Pro Flashcards
Civ Pro - big topics
- Right court
- Learning about the case
- Multiparty cases
- Adjudication
- Appellate review
- Preclusion
Civ Pro - subtopics - right court
PJ, SMJ, Venue
Civ Pro - subtopics - learning about the case
service of process, pleadings, discovery
Civ Pro - subtopics - multiparty cases
party joinder, class action
Civ Pro - subtopics - adjudication
injunctions, pretrial, trial
Civ Pro - subtopics - appellate review
final judgment, interlocutory, standard of review
Civ Pro - subtopics - preclusion
claim preclusion, issue preclusion
personal jurisdiction
PJ is about the court’s power over the parties
“Can P sue D IN THIS STATE?”
PJ - 2 step analysis
- Satisfy a state statute AND
- Satisfy the Constitution (Due Process)
Same analysis for state and federal court.
3 types of jurisdiction for PJ
- in personam
- in rem
- quasi in rem
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
P sues to impose a personal obligation on D
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
statutory analysis
On an essay, state that you need a state statute.
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
constitutional analysis
Does D have “such minimum contacts with the forum so that jdx does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?”
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
constitutional analysis
What makes PJ clearly constitutional?
PJ is clearly constitutional if D is:
- domiciled in the forum OR
- consents OR
- is voluntarily present in the forum when served with process
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
constitutional analysis
What if PJ is not clearly constitutional based on domicile, consent, or voluntary presence?
IF PJ is not clearly constitutional based on domicile, consent, or voluntary presence, then assess 1) contact, 2) relatedness, and 3) fairness
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
constitutional analysis
contact
There must be a relevant contact between D and the forum state.
- Contact must result from PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT, which is D’s voluntary act.
a. D must target or reach out to the forum.
b. D can purposefully avail without setting foot in the forum. - It must be FORESEEABLE that D could get sued in the forum.
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
constitutional analysis
relatedness
- Does P’s claim arise from D’s contact with the forum?
If so, the court has specific PJ.
If not, then jdx is only ok if the court has general PJ so that D can be sued there for a claim that arose anywhere in the world.
To have general PJ, D must be at home in the forum.
A human is always at home in the forum where he is domiciled.
A corporation is always at home 1) where incorporated and 2) where it has its PPB.
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
constitutional analysis
relatedness - specific PJ v general PJ
General PJ - where D as at home in the forum and can be sued there for a claim that arose anywhere in the world.
Specific PJ - where D is not at home in the forum and can only be sued there for a claim arising from those activities.
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
constitutional analysis
fairness
ONLY ASSESS WITH SPECIFIC PJ
How to determine whether jdx is fair
1. Burden on D and witnesses - Does due process guarantee that the suit will be in the most convenient forum for D?
THE RELATIVE WEALTH OF THE PARTIES IS NOT DETERMINATIVE.
2. State’s interest - The forum state may want to provide a courtroom for its citizens who are allegedly being harmed by out-of-staters.
ALWAYS A STATE’S INTEREST IF P IS A CITIZEN OF THE FORUM
3. P’s interest - P may be injured and wants to sue at home.
PJ - in personam jurisdiction
constitutional summary
- Contact - purposeful availment & foreseeability
- Relatedness - general PJ v specific PJ
- Fairness (specific PJ only) - burden/convenience, state’s interest, P’s interest
PJ - in rem and quasi in rem jdx
Power is not over D but D’s property.
Property must be attached by the court at the outset of the case.
To be constitutional, D’s contacts with the forum must meet the constitutional test.
subject matter jurisdiction
SMJ is about the court’s power over the case.
“Does P sue D in state or federal court?”
PJ v SMJ
PJ: PJ is about the court’s power over the parties
“Can P sue D IN THIS STATE?”
SMJ: SMJ is about the court’s power over the case.
“When P sues D in this state, is it in state or federal court?”
SMJ - state v fed
State courts can hear any kinds of case - general SMJ.
Federal courts have limited SMJ - only diversity of citizenship (including alienage) or federal question.
SMJ - diversity of citizenship and alienage
Diversity of citizenship - the case is between citizens of different states.
Alienage - the case is between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country
SMJ - complete diversity rule
No diversity if any P is a citizen of the same state as any D.
SMJ - complete diversity rule for alienage
No diversity if P and D are both from foreign countries.
A green-card alien is considered an alien, except:
A special rule prohibits alienage if a green card alien is domiciled in the same U.S. state as a litigant on the other side of the case.
A U.S. citizen domiciled outside of the U.S. is not a citizen of any U.S. state and is not an alien.
SMJ - citizenship of a natural person
The citizenship of a natural person who is a U.S. citizen has the citizenship of the U.S. state of her domicile.
SMJ - citizenship of a natural person
domicile
Domicile is established with 1) physical presence AND 2) intent to make it your permanent home.
A human can be a citizen of only 1 state at a time.
SMJ - citizenship of a corporation
A corporation has the citizenship of 1) every state or country where incorporated AND 2) the ONE state or country of its PPB.
A corporation’s PPB is where managers DIRECT, COORDINATE, AND CONTROL corporate activities. (The nerve center - usually headquarters)
A corporation CAN be a citizen of more than 1 state at a time.
SMJ - citizenship of an unincorporated association (partnership, LLC)
The citizenship of an unincorporated association is the citizenship of ALL its members.
SMJ - citizenship of decedents, minor, or incompetents
The citizenship of decedents, minors or incompetents is NOT the citizenship of the representative but rather that of the decedent, minor or incompetent.
SMJ - amount in controversy
In addition to complete diversity or alienage, P’s claim of amount in controversy (AiC) must be > $75K.
This does not include legal costs or interests on the claim, but it can include interest AS the claim.
Whatever P claims in good faith is ok UNLESS it is CLEAR TO A LEGAL CERTAINTY that P cannot recover more than $75K.
What P wins as a judgment is irrelevant to SMJ, even if it is less than $75K.
SMJ - aggregation
Adding 2 or more claims to meet the AiC requirement.
Factually unrelated claims can be aggregated.
There is no limit to the number of claims that can be aggregated.
With joint claims, use the total value of the claim. The # of parties is irrelevant.
SMJ - equitable relief
If either of the two tests for equitable relief are met, most courts will find equitable relief to be ok.
- P’s viewpoint - Is the loss in value to P > $75K?
- D’s viewpoint - Would it cost D > $75K to comply w/the injunction?
SMJ - exclusions
Even if the requirements for a diversity or alienage case are met, fed cts decline to hear some cases.
Divorce, alimony, child custody, and probate on an estate are excluded cases (even if diversity requirements are met).
federal question
The claim in P’s complaint “arises under federal law.”
Neither citizenship nor AiC are relevant under FQ.
FQ - well-pleaded complaint rule
P’s claim must arise under federal law.
It is not enough that some federal issue is raised by the complaint.
P must be enforcing a federal right.
FQ - Is P enforcing a federal right?
If so, case can go to fed ct under FQ jdx.
If not, case cannot go to fed ct under FQ.
FQ - tort, K and property claims
Regular tort, K and property claims are usually state law claims, not federal law. If it is a federal claim, then the case would likely be a diversity case.
SMJ over additional claims (including supplemental jdx)
Once a case is in fed ct, additional claims might be asserted in that case.
Each of these additional claims must be tested for federal SMJ - either diversity or FQ.
If an additional claim satisfies diversity or FQ, it can be heard in the fed ct case.
SMJ over additional claims
What happens if the additional claim does not satisfy diversity or FQ?
Fed ct can still hear the claim IF it invokes supplemental jdx.
supplemental jdx
Supplemental jdx gets claims into the case even though the claims do not meet diversity of citizenship and do not meet FQ.
supplemental jdx - 2 steps
Two steps for supplemental jdx:
1. The claim we want to get into fed ct MUST SHARE a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the claim that invoked federal SMJ that got the case into fed ct.
ALWAYS MET when claim arises under same transaction or occurrence.
2. BUT in a diversity case, claims by plaintiffs cannot invoke supplemental jdx.
3. The only exception to this limitation is when there are multiple Ps and one of them does not meet the AiC requirement.
supplemental jdx - summary
A non-federal, non-diversity claim can be heard in fed ct if it meets the shares a common nucleus of operative fact UNLESS
1. asserted by a P
2. in a diversity case (not FQ) AND
3. there are not multiple Ps and 1 of them doesn’t meet AiC.
Even if we meet supplemental jdx, the court has discretion to decline jdx if
a. the state law claim is complex or
b. state law issues would predominate the case OR
c. the underlying claim is dismissed early in the case (MOST LIKELY)
removal
Removal transfers the case from state trial court to federal trial court.
D sued in state court may remove to fed ct.
If removal was improper, fed ct can remand the case back to state court.
removal
When must D remove?
D must remove w/in 30 days of SERVICE (not filing) of the first paper that shows the case is removable. USUALLY that means w/in 30 days of service of process.
removal
Who must join in the removal?
All D’s who have been served w/process must join in the removal.
The 30-day time clock can be restarted with service on a new D.
removal
Who can remove?
Only D can remove.
P can never remove since P had the chance to initially file in fed ct.
removal
What cases can be removed?
- D can remove a case that meets the requirements for diversity of citizenship or FQ.
- 2 big exceptions (apply ONLY if we are removing on the basis of diversity)
a. No removal if any D is a citizen of the forum (in-state D rule) AND
b. No removal more than a year after the case was filed in state court. (Exception: If the fed judge finds that P acted in bad faith by originally joining 2nd D to prevent removal.)
Note: A case might become removable IF the claim against the in-state D is dropped.
removal
Which federal district court will the removed case to?
D removes to the federal district “embracing” the state court where the case was filed.
removal
How to remove a case
- D files “notice of removal” in federal court, stating grounds of removal which means federal SMJ (diversity or FQ).
1a. If state law claim AiC $75K. - In all cases, D attaches all documents that were served on her in state action. She serves a copy of the notice of removal on adverse parties. Then she files a copy of the “notice of removal” in state court.
removal
remand
If P thinks the case should not have been removed, P moves to remand to state ct.
If other than lack of SMJ, P must move to remand no later than 30 days after notice of removal was filed in fed ct.
If lack of SMJ, P can move to remand anytime. (SMJ is never waived.)
If D removes a diversity case but there was an in-state D, P must move to remand w/in 30 days.
Erie doctrine
Diversity case in fed ct and federal judge does not know whether to apply state law or federal law.
Erie doctrine - step 1
- Is there some federal law (federal constitution, federal laws, FRCP) on point that directly conflicts with state law?
If so, apply the federal law.
(Based on Supremacy Clause)
Erie doctrine - step 2
- If there is no federal law on point, fed judge must apply state law IF the issue is determined to be substantive.
Erie doctrine
What 4 issues make an issue clearly substantive and require applying state law?
- elements of a claim or defense
- statute of limitations
- rules for tolling statutes of limitations
- conflict (or choice) of law rules
Erie doctrine - step 3
If there is no federal law on point and the issue is not one of the four, the fed judge must determine whether the issue is substantive. The law is VERY unclear.
