Civ Pro Rule Blocks

Question 1

What are the two main types of personal jurisdiction and how are they different?

Answer 1

General jurisdiction- the state where a person can be sued for any claim, regardless of where the actions underlying the claim occurred. A court may assert general personal jurisdiction over a defendant in the state where the defendant is domiciled.

Specific Jurisdiction- means personal jurisdiction based on a defendant’s contacts with the state.

Difference- specific relies on what you did in the state (look for nonresident defendant) whereas general is place that defendant lives

Question 2

general jurisdiction rule block

Answer 2

“Federal district courts may exercise personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the courts of general jurisdiction of the state in which the district court sits.

Question 3

Specific Jurisdiction rule block including due process rule block

Answer 3

State courts of general jurisdiction may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent authorized by both the state’s long-arm statute and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits states to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who have established minimum contacts with the state such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

When assessing minimum courts assess if the defendant had “purposeful availment” of the benefits and protections of the state, which can be established by voluntary physical presence.

Question 4

Waiving Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 4

An objection to personal jurisdiction must be waived at the first opportunity, and a failure to do so results in waiver.

Question 5

Diversity Jurisdiction Rule Block

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Domicile of corporation for SMJ

Answer 6

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. A corporation’s principal place of business is generally its corporate headquarters (i.e., its nerve center).

Question 7

Federal Question Rule Block

Answer 7

Federal courts also have jurisdiction over cases involving a federal questions. 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 lawdefense.

Question 8

Supplemental Jurisdiction General Rule

Answer 8

allows a federal court with subject matter jurisdiction over a case to hear additional claims over which the court would not independently have jurisdiction if all of the claims constitute the same case or controversy.

When assessing if it is the same case or controversy, the courts will look to see if arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact

Question 9

Supplemental Jurisdiction - Federal Question

Answer 9

Supplemental jurisdiction under federal question applies for additional claims against same party can be heard through SJ if common nucleus of operative fact test is met

Question 10

Supplemental Jurisdiction (diversity) - Cross-claim

Answer 10

When supplemental jurisdiction is rooted in diversity jurisdiction, a cross-claim may be asserted by a defendant against another defendant or by a plaintiff against another plaintiff if the cross-claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the initial claim, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties to the cross-claim as long as the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

AIC or Citizenship doesn’t matter

Question 11

Supplemental Jurisdiction (diversity) - Counter Claim

Answer 11

When supplemental jurisdiction is rooted in diversity jurisdiction, a compulsory counterclaims need not satisfy jurisdictional amount, but permissive counterclaims must satisfy the citizenship and amount in controversy requirements for diversity jurisdiction requirements. A compulsory counterclaim is a claim that if not asserted is waived.

Question 12

Supplemental Jurisdiction (diversity) Joinder

Answer 12

When supplemental jurisdiction is rooted in diversity jurisdiction, the addition of a plaintiff asserting additional claim cannot violate complete diversity rule

Question 13

What the fuck does supplemental jurisdiction mean?

Answer 13

ya gotta say if it is federal question or diversity.

Federal question- everything is cool, just say we got a “common nucleus of operating facts”

Diversity- we got some weird rules. Remember cross claim

Crossclaim- everything is good as long as original claim meets DJ. No weird rules. Put them in Coach

Counter-claim- if it is compulsory, we are good. Permissive, you gotta meet the requirements. Pretty much if the problem is solved in this case then it is compulsory.

Permissive Joinder- cannot violate complete diversity rule. Permissive Joinder is another plaintiff coming in.

• Crossclaim- Is like when your girl gets mad at the boyz for having girls over and you are like nah that was all borto. This aint got nothing to do with me. The courts are like nice try mfer we been there before, no requirements, y’all gotta fight this out.
• Compulsory Counterclaim- Is like you getting mad at your girl for being a bitch and she brings up that she read your texts- It’s all related together. You were texting other girls. The court is like alright let’s just do this now and get it over with.
• Permissive Counterclaim- Is like when you get mad at your girl for texting you too much and she brings up that time you cheated a year ago- Basically the court says no - this is pretty much a different argument. Y’all aint doing this shit in here unless you got a reason to do it in here.
• Permissive Joinder- is like when you are about to beat this dudes ass and the your boy wants to jump in. The court is like fuck I want to see this, but I have to make it look somewhat legit because we are a court. So don’t worry about the money, but say you are from a different state.

Question 14

Removal Rule block

Answer 14

Defendants (but not plaintiffs) may remove an action from state court to the federal court if the plaintiff could have initially brought the case in federal court. Generally, if the plaintiff could not have brought the case in federal court, then the defendant cannot remove it either.

Question 15

Personal Jurisdiction over Corporations

Answer 15

Resident is incorporated in the forum state—any action may be brought against a resident corporation (basically general jurisdiction). A corporate Defendant is always a resident in the state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business.

Foreign corporation is not incorporated in the forum state. Minimum contacts and substantial fairness rules apply (basically specific jurisdiction. The test is whether a corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are so “continuous and systematic” as to render the corporation essentially “at home” in the forum state

Question 16

Venue

Answer 16

Venue is proper in a judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides. (2) a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which the claim is based occurred, (3) a “substantial part of the property” in dispute is located. If improper the court may transfer or dismiss.

Question 17

Transfer of venue

Answer 17

A transfer is permitted to any district where case might have been brought or to which all parties consent.

Question 18

Transfer via a forum selection clause.

Answer 18

When transfer is based on 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.

Question 19

Summary Judgement General Rule

Answer 19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) allows a summary judgment motion to be granted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Question 20

Summary Judgement- Burden of proof

Answer 20

The moving party must produce evidence to show there is no genuine issue of material fact. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, which must then produce evidence to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. The motion is looked at in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Evidence includes any verifiable documents, deposition affidivit etc.

Question 21

Temporary restraining order without notice

Answer 21

A TRO can be issued without notice to the adverse party. To secure a TRO without notice, the plaintiff needs to show a risk of “immediate and irreparable injury.” TROs are considered to be “stop-gap” measures and last until the court decides whether to grant a preliminary injunction.

Question 22

Preliminary Restraining Order

Answer 22

A preliminary injunction is equitable relief with the objective of preserving the status quo. The court must give notice to the adverse party. There are four factors to consider (mnemonic = “HELP”):

(1) harm: the significance of the threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted,
(2) evaluation of injuries: the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction would inflict on the defendant,
(3) likelihood of prevailing: the probability that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, and
(4) public interest.

Question 23

Choice of Law - Erie

Answer 23

A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including that state’s choice-of-law rules. If there is no Federal Statute or law on point, the court must determine whether to follow state law, meaning the matter is deemed “substantive”, or to follow federal law meaning the matter is deemed “procedural”.

The general rule is to follow state law for substantive issues that govern conduct (i.e. burdens of proof, statutes of limitations, permissible defenses, etc.) and to follow federal procedural law (i.e., timing requirements)

Question 24

Complaint and Notice Pleading

Answer 24

The complaint must include a short and plain statement of the courts: (1) subject matter jurisdiction; (2) showing the claimant is entitled to relief; and (3) a claim for the remedy sought by the pleader

Notice Pleading- The federal rules typically only require notice pleading, in which case all that is required is short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Under the two step inquiry, the courts distinguish between legal conclusions, which are not considered, and then determine if the remaining factual allegations are a plausible cause of recovery.

Question 25

Answer and Amendment Answer

Answer 25

Generally, the Defendant’s answer must state any avoidance or affirmative defense that the defendant has, or that is deemed waived. However, the Rules also provide those pleadings can and should be amended by leave of the court when justice requires it. Courts will generally permit the Amd. unless it would result in undue prejudice to the opposing party.

Question 26

MTD Failure to state a claim -insufficient process of service (most commonly tested)

Answer 26

A defendant may file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) to raise several different defenses, including failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and insufficient service of process. These defenses must be raised in the first pre-answer motion (or if none, in the answer), or else they are generally waived.

Note- a motion to dismiss that includes evidence outside the complaint (affidavits, etc.) will be treated as a motion for summary judgement.

Question 27

Omnibus Motion rule (waiver of defenses_

Answer 27

Under the “omnibus motion” rule, when a party makes a pre-answer motion raising one of these defenses but omitting the others, the party may not make another pre-answer motion raising one of the omitted defenses that was available to the party when the earlier motion was filed. The party is deemed to have waived the excluded defenses.

Although not specifically provided for in the Rules, courts have allowed generally a party to amend a motion to dismiss to raise an omitted ground if the party acts promptly and before the court rules on the original motion.

Question 28

Motion for a judgment on the pleadings (directed verdict)

Answer 28

Motion for a judgment on the pleadings is applied when the pleadings agree entirely on facts and only the law is in dispute. If there’s any element of factual dispute, you have a case for summary judgment.

Remember that failure to answer = admitting. These could come up together.

Question 29

Intervention as right

Answer 29

A nonparty has the right to intervene when (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.

Question 30

Interpleader - types and brief rule

Answer 30

• Interpleader is generally used to resolve the problem of competing claims to the same property. It is designed to avoid inconsistent obligations are multiple claims.
• Rule Interpleader there must be an independent basis of federal jurisdiction such as diversity or a federal question jurisdiction.
• Statutory Interpleader: The statute allows federal courts to hear cases with (i) minimal diversity among the competing claimants; (ii) where the property in dispute is worth at least $500. Minimal diversity means that at least two competing claimants are citizens of different states. The stakeholder’s citizenship does not matter.

Question 31

Class action via rule 23(a)

Answer 31

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: (1) numerosity- joinder is impracticable; (2) commonality- common question of facts or law; (3) typicality- same claims and defenses; and (4) adequacy representatives must fairly and accurately represent the class.

Question 32

Discovery- Scope rule

Answer 32

Discovery is generally permitted with regard to any non-privileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense in the action. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. The test is whether the information sought is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.

Question 33

Prepared in anticipation of Litigation

Answer 33

In general, a party may not discover things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation by another party or its representative. However, it is discoverable if the party shows a substantial need, (2) undue hardship, and (3) cannot obtain by other means.

Question 34

Duty to preserve evidence

Answer 34

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. A party may be subject to sanctions for failing to take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation.

Question 35

Sanctions for failure to preserve evidence

Answer 35

Sanctions are authorized for spoliation of evidence only if it cannot be restore by additional discovery. In determining sanctions, the court should consider the prejudice and intent of the party that failed to preserve the evidence.

Question 36

Retrieval of Lost Evidence

Answer 36

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.

Question 37

Willful destruction of evidence

Answer 37

If a 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.

Question 38

Voluntary Dismissal

Answer 38

A voluntary dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice. Plaintiff has a right to voluntary dismissal once at any time prior to the defendant serving an answer or motion for summary judgment. The defendant’s motion to dismiss before filing an answer does not cut off the right to a voluntary dismissal. After a defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, or if the plaintiff has already voluntarily dismissed once, plaintiff must seek leave of court for dismissal without prejudice.

Question 39

Involuntary Dismissal

Answer 39

Involuntary dismissals are usually without prejudice. Involuntary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party is without prejudice. In all other cases, involuntary dismissal is with prejudice.

Question 40

Dismissal with prejudice.

Answer 40

Dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits, which means that, under federal law, given full res judicata (preclusive) affect, which bars any attempt at re-litigation of same claims. May be imposed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with FRCP or any court order. Standard for appellate review is abuse of discretion.

Question 41

Judgement as a Matter of Law

Answer 41

(Essentially a motion for summary judgment after the trial has begun. )

Standard: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the other party, the evidence cannot support a verdict for that party, and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Question 42

A Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Answer 42

• A Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is made at the close of all of the evidence and denied by the court may be renewed after the jury returns a verdict.
• • The Standard is the same: the evidence cannot support the jury’s verdict and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law, but a prior motion is required: it is a condition precedent to a post-verdict motion that the motion for JMOL has been made at the close of all evidence

Question 43

Motion for New Trial

Answer 43

A new trial can be granted for legal errors, newly discovered evidence, prejudicial misconduct by a lawyer, party, or a juror, or judge concludes that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, either in substance of the verdict or amount of damages awarded.

Question 44

Remittitur v. additur

Answer 44

If the court determines that a verdict was seriously excessive, then it may offer a remittitur to reduce the verdict and Grant a new trial on the condition that the remittitur is not accepted. Note: can decrease, but cannot increase award

Question 45

Relief from judgment or order

Answer 45

Court can relieve party of final judgment within a reasonable time, and no later than one year following judgment entry for (i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (ii) newly discovered evidence (not previously discovered through reasonable diligence), or (iii) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by opposing party

Question 46

Claim Preclusion v. Issue Preclusion

Answer 46

Claim preclusion when the party tries to bring the same claim or a claim they should have brought up in the last trial.

• Person A sues Person B for breach of contract and loses. Person A sues again arguing unjust enrichment- Claim Preclusion.

Issue Preclusion- Stops parties from relitigating an issue that has already been resolved.

• Person A leases tv and laptop from person B. Person A defaults on tv and person B sues. Person A raises incapacity to contract defense and loses. 3 months later Person A defaults on laptop and tries to raise defense again- issue preclusion.
• Key here is that the cases weren’t identical but the issue was.

Question 47

Claim Preclusion

Answer 47

The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits precludes the parties, or sufficiently identical parties, from litigating an identical claim in a subsequent action. Claim preclusion requires strict mutuality of parties or successors in interest. The courts use a “transactional” approach that focus on the entire transaction/occurrence to determine if the issue should have been raised in the original trial.

Question 48

Issue Preclusion (claim preclusion)

Answer 48

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. Other elements necessary for issue preclusion to apply are that (i) the issue is the same as the prior action; (ii) it was actually litigated; (iii) there was a valid and binding final judgment; and (iv) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the prior judgment.

Question 49

Issue Preclusion (collateral Estoppel)- Criminal Prosecution to Civil claim

Answer 49

In favor of prosecution- preclusion

In favor of defendant- No preclusion

Question 50

Interlocutory appeals (issues that are immediately subject to appeal)

Answer 50

Interlocutory appeals statute is an exception to the final-judgement rule and allows appeals for certain equitable issues such as:

1. Injunction
2. Class action certification
3. Appointment of receiver
4. Admiralty cases
5. Collateral Order Doctrine
6. Bankruptcy cases
7. Mandamus
8. Patent-infringement

Question 51

Full faith and credit clause

Answer 51

Under the U.S. Constitution, state courts are required to give full faith and credit to valid judgments of other states. State courts are likewise required to treat federal judgments as those judgments would be treated by the federal courts. The issues decided in one court cannot be re-litigated in another, and the state in which enforcement is sough must honor the judgment of the federal court.

Question 52

Collateral Attack

Answer 52

A party against whom enforcement of a judgment is sought may collaterally challenge the original state judgment based on lack subject matter jurisdiction only if the jurisdictional issues were not litigated or waived in the original action.

I.e. lost in federal court Y. they try to enforce the judgement in state court X. Person sues saying its unenforceable because lack of smj. If there was a final judgement on SMJ then can’t do it, the only time there wouldn’t be is if there is a declamatory judgement.