Civ Pro

Question 1

Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

Courts must have personal jurisdiction over the parties of a lawsuit to hear the suit. Plaintiffs are presumed to consented to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction, as they voluntarily brought the case to court. Personal jurisdiction can be established over defendants on (1) traditional, (2) statutory, and (3) constitutional bases.

Question 2

Traditional Bases for Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 2

(1) Domicile: individual = (presence in state + intent to reside indefinitely) ; corporation = nerve test OR place of incorporation.
(2) Present while served in state (not by fraud / force)
(3) Consent to jurisdiction (merely trying to contest personal jurisdiction is not consent)

Question 3

Statutory Basis for Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 3

Long arm statutes allow states to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. California’s long-arm statute provides for long-arm jurisdiction which is coextensive with the Constitutional basis for jurisdiction.

Question 4

Constitutional Basis

Answer 4

Pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, exercise of jurisdiction requires:

(1) minimum contacts between D and forum state; and
(2) that “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” are not offended.

Question 5

Minimum Contacts for Constitutionally-Based Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 5

(1) Purposeful availment of the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws (2) such that defendant reasonably foresees being taken to court in forum.

Question 6

“Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice”

Answer 6

Jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” where/when there is:

(1) Systematic and continuous contact between the defendant and the forum;
(2) Relation between suit and defendant’s conduct with forum state;
(3) No unconstitutional inconvenience to the parties (i.e., requiring defendant to defend in forum would not impose unreasonable burden on the defendant)

Other Factors to Consider if Result Is Not Clear Cut

(a) State’s Interest in Providing Redress for Residents
(b) Plaintiff’s Interest in Obtaining Convenient Relief
(c) Court’s Interest in Judicial Economy

Question 7

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 7

Courts must have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim to hear it in court.

A federal court has SMJ when:

(1) federal questions arise under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, or federal statutes;
(2) there is diversity of citizenship
(3) there is supplemental jurisdiction
(4) there is removal jurisdiction.

State courts have subject matter jurisdiction over any case over which no other court has exclusive jurisdiction (i.e., copyright and patent disputes).

Question 8

Diversity Jurisdiction - Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 8

There is diversity jurisdiction when:

(1) All plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants (domicile test for people; state of incorporation + nerve test for corporations);
(2) A good faith pleading of an amount in controversy over $75k.

Single Ps can aggregate all claims they have against a particular D to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Multiple Ps can only aggregate claims related to single title, a right of common, or undivided interest.

Question 9

Supplemental Jurisdiction - Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 9

Supplemental jurisdiction requires:

(1) That there is an underlying claim with independent federal Q or diversity jurisdiction;
(2) the claim asserting supplemental jurisdiction has no federal Q or diversity jurisdiction; and
(3) there is a “common nucleus of operative fact” between the underlying claim and the claim for which supplemental jurisdiction is asserted.

The supplemental jurisdiction is ancillary when the underlying claim is raised by a plaintiff who is different from the plaintiff raising the claim supported by supplemental jurisdiction.

The supplemental jurisdiction is pendant when the same plaintiff raises the underlying claim and the claim supported by supplemental jurisdiction.

Question 10

Removal Jurisdiction - Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 10

Removal jurisdiction exists when, at the time of the removal, the case could be filed in federal court.

The case must be removed to the federal district court that encompasses the state court where the action was initiated.

Once removed, the case can be transferred to, or consolidated in, another federal court.

Plaintiffs can’t remove.

Plaintiffs can successfully object to removal if federal jurisdiction is based on diversity and at least one of the defendants is a citizen of the state where the lawsuit was filed.

No “reverse removal”; can’t move back to state court unless removal was improper.

Question 11

Venue

Answer 11

(A) Analysis

(1) Where all Ds reside; or
(2) where substantial part of claim arose;
(3) If none of the above…

DIVERSITY CASES
Where all Ds subject to personal jx.

NON-DIVERSITY CASES
Where ANY D can be found.

(B) DEFINITION OF RESIDENCE
Human => domicile
Corp. => any place personal jx is appropriate.

Question 12

Venue - Non-Diversity Cases

Answer 12

Where all Ds reside

Question 13

Venue - Transfer

Answer 13

District courts can grant transfer of venue for any civil action when:

(1) convenient for parties and witnesses, and
(2) in the interest of justice
(3) to any other district where case could have originally been brought.

Question 14

Venue - Forum Non Conveniens

Answer 14

Defendant can move to dismiss on grounds of FNC. The doctrine requires the court to balance convenience against the plaintiff’s right to choose a forum. Courts will consider the following factors when assessing FNC:

(1) Location of witnesses;
(2) Location of relevant evidence and records;
(3) Potential undue hardship for D
(4) Availability of adequate alternative forums for P
(5) Proper allocation of judicial resources;
(6) Choice of law
(7) Public policy
(8) Relative resources of parties

Question 15

Erie Doctrine

Answer 15

Federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction are required to apply substantive law of the state in which the court is located and federal procedural law, unless there is federal law directly on point

If no federal law is on point, courts can decide whether to apply state or federal law using the (1) “outcome determinative” test; (2) balancing of interests test; or the (3) forum shopping deterrence test.

Question 16

Erie Doctrine - Outcome Determinative Test

Answer 16

Law/issue is substantive if outcome changes depending on whether state or federal law is applied.

Question 17

Erie Doctrine - Balancing of Interests Test

Answer 17

Court will balance the interests of the state versus the interests of the federal government in having its rule applied.

Question 18

Erie Doctrine - Forum Shopping Deterrence Test

Answer 18

Must follow state law if failing to do so would cause litigants to flock to federal court

Question 19

Erie Doctrine - Conflict of Laws

Answer 19

Federal courts in CA must apply CA’s conflict of law rules:

If torts case:
(1) If state A and state B’s substantive laws are not identical, and
(2) each state has an identifiable interest in application of law
==> court will analyze comparative impairment to each interest, and choose the law of the state with the stronger interest.

If contracts case + choice-of-law clause:
If (1) clause encompasses all claims; and
(2) state chosen by clause has substantial relationship to parties or transaction
==> court will enforce clause.

If contracts and no choice-of-law clause:
If (1) chosen state’s law conflicts with fundamental CA policy, and
(2) CA has materially greater interest than other state in determining issue
==> court will choose CA law.

Question 20

Pleadings - Rule 12(b) Defenses

Answer 20

(1) Lack of personal jx
(2) Improper venue
(3) Insufficient process
(4) Insufficient service of process (waived if not raised by motion/answer)
(5) Lack of SMJ (can be raised at any time, even on appeal)
(6) Failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted
(7) Failure to join indispensable party
(8) Summary judgment
(9) Collateral estoppel
(10) Res judicata

Question 21

Pleadings - Counterclaims

Answer 21

Counterclaims may be compulsory or permissive. If they are compulsory, D must raise them in his answer or will be barred from raising the underlying claim in the future. If they are permissive, D may elect to raise them in his answer or in future litigation. D’s claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as P’s claim are compulsory; all other claims are permissive.

Question 22

Pleadings - Relation-back Amendments

Answer 22

Ordinarily, claims cannot be raised after the statute of limitations tolls. However, under the R-back doctrine, a claim can still be brought against a new party if:

(1) it asserts a claim or defense concerning the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original pleading;
(2) is made within 120 days after filing of the original complaint;
(3) the party newly brought in receives notice of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits, and
(4) party knew “but for” a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity, it would’ve been named originally.

Question 23

Pleadings - Rule 11 Sanctions and “Safe Harbor”

Answer 23

(1) Paper must not have been filed for improper purposes;
(2) Legal contentions must be warranted by law;
(3) Factual contentions must have evidentiary support (or likely after investigation), and
(4) Denials of factual contentions have evidentiary support.

BUT

“Safe harbor” is provided by Rule 11(c)(2)
Requires service of Rule 11 motion on adversary + 21 days “safe harbor” where adversary can withdraw or correct paper. The “safe harbor” provision effectively makes Rule 11 motions for sanctions toothless.

Question 24

Compulsory Joinder

Answer 24

Joinder is compulsory if:

(1) joinder will not remove subject matter jurisdiction;
(2) complete relief cannot be provided in person’s absence;
(3) disposition in person’s absence may impair party’s ability to protect its interest;
(4) absence of the person exposes existing parties to substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.

If compulsory joinder is not made, a MTD for Failure to Join Indispensable Party can be filed.

Question 25

Indispensable Parties

Answer 25

If party is indispensable and its presence deprives court of SMJ, claim will get thrown out one way or another.

Court considers the following factors to decide if person is indispensable:

(1) judgment in party’s absence prejudices the person or existing parties;
(2) prejudice can be reduced by shaping the judgment;
(3) judgment in person’s absence will be adequate; and
(4) plaintiff will be deprived of adequate remedy if action is dismissed.

Question 26

Permissive Joinder

Answer 26

Parties may be joined as defendants if:

(1) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally,
(2) or w/r/t or arising out of same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurences, and
(3) a question of law or fact common to all Ds arise in the action.

Question 27

Class Actions

Answer 27

Initial Requirements

(1) Class so numerous joinder impracticable;
(2) Questions of law and fact are common to the class
(3) Claims of representative are typical of members
(4) Representative will fairly/adequately protect interests of the class

Types

(1) Potential adverse effect to suits by other members of class or defendants
(2) Injunction sought
(3) Damages (Common Qs must predominate + class action superior method to handle dispute)

Question 28

General Rule of Discovery

Answer 28

Valid for any matter:

(1) Relevant to the claim or defense of any party;
(2) Not privileged; and
(3) Reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

Question 29

Methods of Discovery

Answer 29

Interrogatories

Cannot serve > 25 written interrogatories on any other party.

Cannot be used on non-party witnesses.

Deposition

Can take of any party or non-party witness

Can request witness to produce documents at time of testimony (deposition).

Request to Produce Documents

May serve on any other party request to:
(Produce AND permit requesting party) to
(inspect or copy) any
(designated documents OR electronically stored information) in
(the responding party’s control possession OR custody)

Informal Investigation

A party can conduct investigations outside of formal discovery.

Question 30

Medical Exams - Methods of Discovery

Answer 30

Mental and Physical Exams

If mental or physical condition of party is in controversy, court may order person to submit to a physical or mental exam by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.

Requirements

(1) Made upon motion,
(2) for good cause,
(3) person to be examined and all parties given prior notice
(4) specifying time, place, conditions, scope of exam, and identity of examiner.

Question 31

Limits to Discovery

Answer 31

Work Product
Federal Rule: Discoverable only upon showing: (1) substantial need to (2) avoid undue hardship.

California Rule: Discoverable only

(1) upon showing that denial will (unfairly prejudice a party in preparing claim or defense OR will result in an injustice); and
(2) need for discovery outweighs right to privacy (legitimate privacy interest + reasonable expectation of privacy + serious invasion).

Attorney-Client Privilege
Federal Rule: Confidential communications between experts and counsel within privilege, except for expert’s compensation or data attorney provided to expert.

California Evidence Code: All privileges here apply to discovery context (attorney-client, marital privileges, etc.)

Question 32

Summary Judgment

Answer 32

Applicable to all civil actions, and should be granted if pleadings, discovery and disclosure materials on file, and affidavits show no genuine issue as to any material fact and movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Question 33

Res Judicata

Answer 33

Claim is precluded if:

(1) Same parties;
(2) Valid final judgment on the merits
(3) Same claim.

“Final”
Federal: Claim is final when rendered.
California: Claim is not final until conclusion of any possible appeals.

“Same Claim”
Federal: Modern rule is same claim if arising out of same transaction or occurrence.
California: Claim is defined by right asserted; therefore, for a single accident, P could sue once for personal injury, and sue later for property damage.

Question 34

Collateral Estoppel

Answer 34

Precludes litigation of issues of fact or law that:

(1) Are the same as issues in a prior action;

(2) Have been actually litigated in prior action;
    I.e., not decided on procedural issue.

(3) Have been determined by a valid and binding final judgment on the merits;
(4) Have been determined as essential (necessary component of decision) to a prior judgment; and
(5) Party (or privy) against whom issue precluded must have been a party to prior action.