Civil Procedure Flashcards
Is Venue Proper
When may venue be transferred?
% out of Exams Tested: 5%
To have venue transferred, the defendant must show either that venue is improper in the plaintiff’s chosen venue, or 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 the parties have consented. When venue is improper, transfer is to a proper venue that has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties.
Where is venue proper?
In federal court, a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which (i) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (ii) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (iii) any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action, but only if there is no judicial district that satisfies (i) or (ii).
Change of Venue When Proper
Even though venue is proper in a particular district, an action may be transferred to another district where the action “might have been brought” or “to which all parties have consented” so long as the transferee court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
Scope of Discoverable Information
% out of Exams Tested: 12.5%
A party may seek to obtain any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense, including any documentary evidence. It is not required that the information itself be admissible at trial, and the proposed discovery must be proportional with the needs of the case.
Compelled Physical Examination
[Party’s] Order to Compel a Physical and Mental Exam
% out of Exams Tested: 7.5%
The federal rules provide for an independent physical examination of a party when that party’s physical or mental condition is in controversy.
In federal court, a physical examination is available only if ordered by the court, on a showing of good cause.
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
Intro Statement
% out of Exams Tested: 27.5%
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to hear a type of case. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction 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 subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Each claim asserted in federal court must have an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. If the claim does not satisfy the requirements for federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, it might be possible to hear the claim in federal court under the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
Federal Question
% out of Exams Tested: 27.5%
Federal question jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint sets forth a cause of action arising under federal law.
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
Diversity Jurisdiction
% out of Exams Tested: 27.5%
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity when the suit is filed and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, excluding interest that is not part of the controversy and costs. The diversity statute also provides for subject matter jurisdiction over “alienage” cases, i.e., suits between a United States citizen and a citizen or subject of a foreign country. Complete diversity requires that every plaintiff be of diverse state citizenship from each defendant.
Citizenship: The 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 U.S. state or foreign country in which it was incorporated and the one U.S. state or foreign country in which it has its principal place of business. A corporation’s principal place of business is the place from which the corporation’s high level officers direct the corporation’s activities.
Amt in Controversy: The amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff’s good faith claim stated in the complaint. Multiple plaintiffs may aggregate their claims against a single defendant only when they are seeking to enforce a common or undivided interest.
Personal Jurisdiction:
Traditional Bases
% out of Exams Tested: 20%
In personam jurisdiction (“IPJ”) refers to the ability of a court to exercise power over a particular defendant. Traditionally, IPJ is based on where an individual party is domiciled, presence in the state when served, or consent.
Personal Jurisdiction:
Long Arm Statute
% out of Exams Tested: 15%
A long arm statute gives the court personal jurisdiction over a defendant. The court must look to see if the state has a long arm statute that would allow in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. A federal court will analyze IPJ as if it were a state court in the forum state.
Personal Jurisdiction:
Constitutional Limitations
% out of Exams Tested: 15%
Even if a long arm statute applies, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must still be constitutional. To be constitutional there must be sufficient contacts with the forum state so as to not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The court must assess: contact, relatedness, and fairness.
The court must find that the defendant purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. The defendant must have foreseen that she would be haled into court in the forum state. For specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s cause of action must arise from the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
[General Jurisdiction: General jurisdiction exists when the defendant is “at home” in the jurisdiction. Under general jurisdiction, the cause of action need not be related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. To be “at home,” the corporation must have its principal place of business or be incorporated in the state.]
[Fairness: In determining fairness, the court will look at the convenience to the defendant, the state’s interest, and other factors. Fairness is not a consideration for general personal jurisdiction.]
Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)
% out of Exams Tested: 10%
In most states, res judicata (claim preclusion) bars a litigant in a prior action from bringing the same case of action again.
For res judicata to apply, it must be shown that: (i) the earlier judgment is a valid, final judgment on the merits (and in the same position); (ii) the cases are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant; (iii) the same cause of action or claim is involved in the later lawsuit; and (iv) the cause of action was actually litigated or could have been litigated in the prior action.
Collateral Estoppel:
Issue Preclusion
% out of Exams Tested: 7.5%
Collateral estoppel stops a person who was a party in a prior case from relitigating an issue that was resolved in that case. Collateral estoppel requires that: (i) the first case ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits; (ii) the issue be actually litigated (i.e., the party must be heard on the issue) and determined in the prior case; and (iii) the issue was essential to the prior litigation. The issues must also be identical in each action.
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, the court will look to see whether it is unfair or inequitable to allow a nonparty to assert collateral estoppel. Some states only allow nonmutual collateral estoppel to be used defensively in subsequent litigation. California does not have such a restriction, in that nonmutual collateral estoppel may be used offensively or defensively.
