Civ Pro Rule Statements

Question 1

Transfer of Venue

Answer 1

To have venue transferred, D must show that either 1. venue is improper in P’s chosen venue, or 2. if venue is proper, that venue should be transferred in the interests of justice, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses

When venue is proper, transfer may be made to another district in which the action might have been brought or to which all parties have consented, so long as the transferee court has PJ over the D and SMJ over the action

When venue is improper, transfer is to a proper venue that has SMJ and PJ over the parties

Question 2

Venue

Answer 2

In federal court, a civil action may be brought in any judicial district in which

1. All Ds reside
2. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated

If there is no venue that satisfies 1 or 2, venue may be where any D is subject to PJ with respect to the action

Question 3

Venue for a Corporation

Answer 3

For venue purposes, a corporation resides in any judicial district in which it is subject to PJ with respect to the action in question

Question 4

Obtaining Material via Discovery

Answer 4

A party may seek to obtain any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense, including documentary evidence.

It is not required that the evidence be admissible at trial

The proposed discovery must be proportional with the needs of the case

Note: same analysis used as rules for Motion to compel answer in depo.

Question 5

Medical Exams

Answer 5

The federal rules permit an independent physical exam of a party when that party’s physical or mental condition is in controversy. A physical exam is only available if ordered by the court on a showing of good cause

Question 6

Subject Matter Jdx

Answer 6

SMJ refers to the courts ability to hear a type of case. The lack of SMJ is not waived by failing to raise it at trial, it may be raised for the first time even on appeal.

In federal court, there are two main bases for original federal smj: federal Q jdx and diversity jdx. Each claim asserted in federal court must have an independent basis for federal smj. If the claim does not satisfy the requirements for federal q jdx or diversity jdx, it might be possible to hear the claim in federal court under the court’s supplemental jdx

Question 7

Federal Q Jdx

Answer 7

Federal Q smjdx requires that the P’s well-pleaded complaint set forth a cause of action arising under federal law

Question 8

Diversity jdx

Answer 8

Diversity jdx requires complete diversity when a suit is filed an an AIC exceeding 75k. Diversity statute also provides for smj over alienage cases, i.e, suits between a US citizen and a citizen or subject of a foreign country.

Complete diversity requires that every P be of diverse state citizenship from every D

A citizenship of an individual is determined by his domicile, I.e., his permanent home where he intends to return. A corporation is a citizen of every US state or foreign country in which it was incorporated and the one US state or foreign country in which it has its PPB. A corporation’s PPB is the place from which the corporation’s high level officers direct the corporations’ activities

Question 9

AIC

Answer 9

AIC is determined by P good faith claim stated in the complaint.
A single P may aggregate multiple claims against a single D

Multiple Ps may aggregate against a single D only when they are seeking to enforce a common or undivided interest

Question 10

Supplemental Jdx

Answer 10

In a diversity case, claims that do not reach the AIC may invoke supp jdx if they arise from a CNOF as a claim that invoked diversity jdx. The use of supp jdx cannot be used to override the complete diversity requirement

Question 11

Personal Jdx

Answer 11

Personal Jurisdiction is about the court’s power over the parties and whether the court can hear a case against a particular defendant

Two-step analysis, where PJ must first fall within state statute and must satisfy the Constitution (due process)

1. State Statute - PJ exists where: 1) D is present in the state and served with process there, 2) D is “at home” or domiciled in that state (general pjdx), 3) D consents to PJ in that state or waives PJ by not raising it as an affirmative defense, or 4) meets requirements of long arm statute (note: CA long arm statute allows courts to exercise PJ to the full extent of the Constitution)
2. Constitution - minimum contacts with forum so jdx does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Look at 1) contact - purposeful availment and foreseeability 2) relatedness - claim arises from or relates to D’s contact with forum (yes - specific PJ, no - general PJ), and 3) fairness (specific PJ only) - burden on D and witnesses, state’s interest, P’s interest.

Question 12

Fairness for PJDX

Answer 12

In determining fairness, the court will look at the convenience of the D, the state’s interest, and other factors. A forum is constitutionally acceptable unless it is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the D is put at a severe disadvantage. The forum state may have a legitimate interest in providing redress for its residents. Other factors include the P’s interest, the judicial system’s interest, and the shared interests of the states.

Question 13

Res Judicata/Claim Preclusion

Answer 13

In most states, RJ bars a litigant in a prior action from bringing the same cause of action

Must show that

1. Earlier judgement is valid, final judgement on the merits
2. Cases brought by same claimant against same D
3. Same cause of action or claim involved in later lawsuit
4. Cause of action was actually litigated or could have been litigated in the prior action

Question 14

Res Judicata in CA - Primary Rights Doctrine

Answer 14

Some states, including CA, follow the primary rights doctrine. Under that doctrine, a cause of action is defined as an invasion of a single primary right. A cause of action may not be split into separate lawsuits if the cause of action arises from invasion of a single primary right

Question 15

Collateral Estoppel/ Issue Preclusion

Answer 15

CE stops a person who was a party in a prior case from relitigating an issue that was resolved in that case

CE requires that:

1. first case end in a valid final judgement on the merits
2. issue actually be litigated (I.e., party must be heard on the issue) and determined in the prior case
3. the issue was essential to prior litigation
4. issues must also be identical in each action

Question 16

Nonmutual collateral estoppel

Answer 16

When a party in a second case is seeking to take advantage of a decided issue from a prior case in which she was not a party, some courts will also look to see whether it is unfair to allow a nonparty to assert CE. Some states only allow nonmutual CE to be used defensively. CA does not have such a restriction, in that nonmutual CE may be used offensively or defensively

“Some jdx require mutuality. Most courts now allow a nonparty who is a D in a later case to use CE against a P who was a party to a prior action. Although courts have been reluctant for a nonparty P to use CE offensively against a D in a prior lawsuit, a number of courts now permit it. Regardless, the court will consider the fairness in allowing the nonparty to assert CE against a party to prior litigation”

Question 17

Removal

Answer 17

A case may be removed from state court to federal court when it originally could have been filed in federal court (I.e., the federal court would have had SMJ over the action).

Removal must be sought within 30 days of the date the D knows that the case is removable. For cases based on diversity, removal may not be had more than 1 year after the case was filed unless there was bad faith by the P to prevent removal. All Ds must join in removal, unless claim is a federal claim that is separate and independent of state law claims

If removal was not proper, the federal court must remand the case back to state court. Defects in the removal process generally must be raised within 30 days of removal

Question 18

Erie

Answer 18

A federal court sitting in diversity will apply federal procedural law and state substantive law.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, a Federal Rule is valid if it deals with “practice or procedure” and does not “abridge, enlarge, or modify” a substantive right.

Question 19

JMOL

Answer 19

A judge may grant a motion for JMOL when evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict would be directed, including all legitimate inferences in their favor and without considering the credibility of witnesses, is such that a reasonable juror could come to only one conclusion

If a party moves for JMOL, they may renew that motion within 28 days of the judgement being rendered. A motion for JMOL is a prerequisite for a RJMOL

Question 20

Forum Non Conveniens

Answer 20

The doctrine of FNC allows a federal court, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to transfer a civil action to any other district where it might have been brought, or, if transfer is not possible, to dismiss the civil action

The federal court must evaluate both public factors (e.g., availability of alternate forum, the P’s choice of forum, and forum state’s interest in providing a forum) and private factors (e.g., convenience of witnesses and parties, location of evidence, and where cause of action arose) in making its decision

Question 21

MTD based on SOL

Answer 21

When SOL has run, a D may be added, and the filing of the amended claim will “relate back” to the date that the original complaint was filed when

1. amendment adding new D arises out of same conduct, T/O as original complaint and
2. within 90 days after filing complaint the newly added D received notice of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits and knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the proper party identity, the action would have been brought against it

Question 22

Interlocutory Appeals Act

Answer 22

Review could be sought under IAA while allows appeals when

1. Trial judge certifies that the interlocutory order involves a controlling q of law as to which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion an an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, and
2. the court of appeals agrees to allow the appeal

Question 23

Compulsory Joinder

Answer 23

Compulsory joinder looks to see if the absentee should be and can be joined. If the absentee cannot be joined, the next step is to determine whether the action should proceed without the absentee

An absentee should be joined when:

1. complete relief cannot be accorded among the other parties to the lawsuit without the absentee’s presence, or
2. the absentee has such an interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit that his absence will, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or leave the other parties at substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations