Civil Procedure Flashcards
SMJ
Power over the case
Personal Jurisdiction
Power over the person
Test:
Does D have sufficient contacts with the forum so that exercise of PJ is fair and reasonable?
Mechanical Test:
1. PJ must fall within a statute
2. PJ must satisfy the Constitution
Personal Jurisdiction: Statute requirement
Long Arm Statutes
Allow states to acquire PJ over those who perform or do certain things in the state
Only have to satisfy constitution
Laundry List Long Arm Statutes
Give specific situations where the state has PJ
Personal Jurisdiction: Constitutional Analysis
Factors:
Contact
Relatedness
Fairness
Personal Jurisdiction: Constitutional Analysis: Contact
Purposeful availment
Voluntary act targeting forum
Don’t need physical presence, causing an effect in the forum
Maybe even maintaining a website
Foreseeability
Foreseeable D could get sued in that forum
Personal Jurisdiction: Constitutional Analysis: Relatedness
Does cause of action arise from or relate to D’s contacts with the forum?
Broader than actual causal connection
D’s contact caused harm to P
If unclear:
Substantial contact in forum, then it must relate to the contact
Personal Jurisdiction: Constitutional Analysis: Fairness
ONLY for specific PJ, NOT general
Three factors:
Burden on defendant and witnesses
—Severe disadvantage
—Wealth not determinative
State’s interest
Plaintiff’s interest
—Injured? Can’t leave?
Specific PJ
If contacts related to case, skip relatedness and go to reasonableness
General PJ
Need “general” jdx (PJ over any cause of action, related or unrelated)
To get:
D must be at home in the forum
—Human is “at home” in state of domicile
Served with process while in the state (tag jdx)
PJ for Corporations
State of incorporation, and
State of principal place of business
Overall PJ Summary
- Statute, or general pj?
- Constitutional
Contact
—Purposeful availment and foreseeability
Relatedness
—Arises from or relates to cause of action
—Specific jdx if test met
Fairness
—Step only applies to specific jdx
—Look to burden and convenience, state’s interest, plaintiff’s interest
Process (2 documents)
Summons
Copy of complaint
Who can serve process and when
Any person who is at least 18
Non-party to the case
No court appointment necessary
When:
In US: 90 days within filing of complaint
Options for Service on an individual
Personal service (in-hand delivery)
Substituted service at D’s usual abode on someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there
—-Must be home usually
—-Summer home butler, maybe if residing there during summer
Service on agent
State law methods
Service on a corporation
On officer or agent
State law methods
Service on minor or incompetent person
Use state law method where service is made
Serving in foreign country
A method allowed by international agreement
If not, other options:
As directed by the American court
Method allowed by foreign country’s law
Method directed by a foreign official in response to a letter of request
Personal service in foreign country, unless prohibited by foreign country
Mail sent by the clerk of the american court, signed receipt needed, unless prohibited by foreign country
Waiver of SoP
A defendant can waive service of process.
To request this waiver, the plaintiff mails the defendant a notice and request to waive service.
The plaintiff must include a copy of the complaint and two copies of a waiver form, with a prepaid means of returning the form
If the defendant executes and mails the waiver form to the plaintiff within 30 days (60 days if the defendant is outside the U.S.), she waives service of process. Waiver can be used for individuals and entities.
Effects
D does not waive defenses by waiving service
Effective as of the date the waiver is filed in court by P
Why waive
D pays for service as penalty for not waiving (unless good cause)
Proving SoP
Unless service is waived, the process server files a report with the court detailing how service was made.
If the server was a civilian, the report is by affidavit (sworn statement, under oath).
The failure to file this report does not affect the validity of service.
Where is SoP valid
Process may be served within the state in which the federal court sits.
It may be served outside that state if state law allows.
That is why whether we have PJ is the same for federal court as it is for state court.
Immunity from SoP
D is immune from process while appearing in another case
Other Docs
Other documents, such as an answer, other pleadings, motions, and discovery, are “served,” but we don’t need a summons or to do it so formally.
We serve these documents by delivering or mailing the document to the party’s attorney or to a pro se party, that is, someone who is proceeding without a lawyer. Can you serve these documents by email? Yes, if the parties agree.
Suppose we mail discovery requests to the other party. Service is deemed complete when they are mailed. As we will learn later, the receiving party generally has 30 days in which to respond to the requests, but here three days are added to the period because they are mailed.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Overview
Fed courts have limited SMJ, states have general SMJ
Federal SMJ
Two main bases:
Federal question
Diversity of citizenship
SMJ cannot be waived
Diversity of Citizenship Requirements
Right kind of litigants (parties)
Amount in controversy exceeds $75k
Right kind of litigants (parties)
Citizens of different US states, or
P in US state and D in foreign country (alienage jdx)
No SMJ if any P is citizen of same state as any D (complete diversity)
Non-US citizen cannot be a citizen
Ie. can invoke alienage but cannot invoke diversity
JDX withdrawn if that permanent resident is domiciled in the same state as an adverse party
Citizenship of a natural person
Domicile, and only one state
Amount in controversy exceeds $75k
NEEDS TO BE even a penny over, EXCEEDS
Calculating AIC:
Interest wrinkle:
Prejudgment interest not included
Interest as part of claim included
Good faith allegation by P usually controls unless to a legal certainty $75k+ is not possible
AIC Rule 1 (Single P v Single D)
A single P may aggregate all claims against a single D
Don’t need to be related claims
Multiple P’s cannot do this
AIC Rule 2 (Joint Claims)
Look to total value of claim for joint claim
Not aggregation; not adding anything
AIC Rule 3 (Equitable Relief)
AIC is determined by looking at value of relief to plaintiff or defendant
(ie. injunction increased home value by 75k, or costs D 75k to remedy)
How to Change Domicile
Physical presence in new place AND
Subjective intent to make new place domicile for foreseeable future
Domicile notes:
DC is a state
Remember diversity is tested when the case is filed
Citizenship of Corporation
Any state or country where incorporated, and
One state or country where principal place of business (PPB) is
Where the corporation’s managers direct, coordinate, and control the business (nerve center, usually headquarters)
Unincorporated association
Takes on citizenship of all members
General and limited partners
Decedent Citizenship
Representative of decedent, minor, or incompetent takes on citizenship of person represented
Declining Diversity SMJ
Federal courts decline actions for:
divorce,
alimony,
child custody, and
Probate
Collusive Creation of Diversity
Sham transactions to create diversity will be ignored
But: Genuine voluntary changes of citizenship before action commenced creates diversity even if that was motive
Federal Question Jdx
Claim arises from federal law
Determined by well pleaded complaint
Not enough to just raise issue
Claim itself must arise under federal law
Ask: Is P enforcing a federal right?
Removal
Procedure allowing defendant to move case from state court to federal court
Court will remand (send back to state court) if removal improper
Removal: Standard
Case filed in state court may be removed to federal court if it could have been originally filed in federal court
Removal: Notice of Removal
Notice of Removal:
Grounds of removal stated
Court permission not required
Served on adverse parties
File in federal court, copy in state court
Removal: Timing
D must remove no later than 30 days after service of paper showing case is removable
Usually service of process (which includes copy of the complaint)
Removal: Who Joins in Removal
All D’s served with process must join
Earlier-served D may join later-served D’s removal even if 30-day period expired
Removal: Who can remove
Plaintiff’s can never remove
Only Ds
Removal: What Cases can be removed
Removal starting point is always SMJ
Limits on removal based on diversity:
In-state d exception: Any D is citizen of forum state
One-year time limit for removal
If improperly removed, will be remanded not rejected
Removal: 30-day and 1 year rules
30 days to remove from time it becomes removable
Includes when non-diverse D leaves case
No removal more than 1 year after case filed (usually)
Exception: One year restriction does not apply if D originally joined to prevent removal
Removal: Venue
Case must be removed to federal court embracing the state court
Doesn’t matter if not proper venue under venue statute
Removal: Remand
P must move to remand within 30 days if defect other than lack of SMJ
30 day limit does not apply if federal court has SMJ
Lack of SMJ is never waived
Objection can be raised at any time
SMJ – Supplemental Jurisdiction
Must have a case already in federal court
Step 1: Look for independent SMJ in additional claim
No need for supplemental if claim SMJ over additional claim
Step 2: Supplemental? Test:
Must arise from common nucleus of operative fact as claim in existing federal court case
Same transaction or occurrence always satisfies common nucleus test
Note: P’s cannot invoke supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases
Exception: multiple P’s, and claim by one of them does not meet the AIC requirement
Then can check for supp jdx with test
Full test for Supp JDX
Step 1: Look for SMJ in additional claim
Step 2: If none, check for common nucleus of operative fact (TOSTO) with existing federal court claim
Step 3: Check for limit on P’s in diversity
Fed q: no limits
P’s can’t use supplemental except for below-limit claim
Step 4: Court can decline supp jdx
Usually if claim on which federal smj is based is dismissed early
Erie Doctrine
Step 1: Is there a federal law on point that directly conflicts with state law?
If so, you apply that federal law as long as it’s valid (supremacy clause)
If it’s FRCP, it’s presumptively valid if arguably procedural
Step 2: If no federal law on point, federal judge must apply state law if issue is substantive and not applicable to federal law
Clearly substantive:
Conflict or choice of law rules
Elements of a claim or defense
Statutes of limitation
Tolling of statutes of limitations
Standard of granting a new trial because the jury’s award was excessive or inadequate
Step 3: Determine whether issue is substantive if not one of the above 5
Outcome determinative (will this affect the outcome of the case?)
Balance interest factors (either system have strong interest in rule applied?)
Avoid forum shopping
Eerie says there’s no general federal common law
Except:
International relations, state disputes, etc.
No role for state law
Venue
Exactly where to bring the claim
Two possible venues:
Any district where all D’s reside (residential venue) OR
Where substantial part of claim arose or substantial part of property is located (transactional venue)
Does not apply if removed case, applies to initial filing
Venue: Residential nuance
Venue proper in any district where D resides if all Ds reside within state
Ds have to reside in same state for residential venue
Venue: Transactional Venue
Substantial part of claim must arise in the district
“Substantial part” =/= all
More than 1 district can satisfy requirement
Venue: Miscellaneous
Does not matter where Ps reside
If Ds reside outside US, any federal district (unless one inside)
Venue: Resides
Human resides in federal district where they are domiciled
Businesses reside in all districts where subject to PJ
Venue: Transfer
Case goes from one trial court in a judicial system to another within the same judicial system
Ie. cant transfer from fed to state, outside US, etc
Venue and PJ must be proper with transfer without waiving
Exception: Can transfer to any venue if all parties consent and court finds cause for transfer
Transfer from a Proper Venue
Convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice
Burden always on people seeking transfer
Will consider public and private factors
Law, convenience for witnesses and evidences, etc
Effect on choice of law
Transferee court usually must apply choice of law rules of transferor court
Forum Selection Clause
Provision in contract by which parties agree where disputes will be litigated
Motion to transfer used in this case if P sues elsewhere, but still must be proper
Key:
Federal law enforces these clauses if not unreasonable
Unless public interest factors say otherwise (unlikely)
Transferee court applies own choice of law rules
Transfer (or Dismissal) for Improper Venue
If venue improper, court will:
Transfer if in interest of justice or
Dismiss
Forum Non Conveniens
Center of gravity is elsewhere in another judicial system
Stay or dismissal (transfer not possible)
Court may impose conditions on D (ie. waive pj for other court)
Complaint Requires
Grounds of SMJ
—Short and plain statement showing P is entitled to relief
—Demand for relief
—Note: No need for showing PJ or venue
Plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to support a plausible claim
—Plausible is determined by judge’s experience and common sense
—D can challenge with 12(b)(6)
Matters requiring more detail or specificity in complaint
Fraud
Mistake
Special damages
Complaint: Response
D must respond by motion or answer within 21 days (or 60 days if D waived service)
Motions
Issues of form:
Rule 12(e)
-Motion for more definite statement
-Complaint is so vague that more is needed
Rule 12(f)
-Motion to strike
—Remove redundant or immaterial things in a pleading
—Both parties may move to strike
12(b) defenses
Waivable defenses (Waived if not addressed in first rule 12 response)
—Lack of personal jdx
—Improper venue
—Improper Process
—Improper service of process
Can be raised later
—Failure to state a claim
—Failure to join indispensable party
—Objection to SMJ
Denied motion to dismiss, serve answer within 14 days
Answer
Response to allegations in complaint
—Admit
—Deny
—Lack of sufficient information
Failure to deny allegation is an admission
—EXCEPT: amount of damages
Waived if not asserted in answer
—Statute of limitations, res judicata, etc
Court may treat lack of affirmative defenses as waiver
Affirmative defenses
—P need not respond
Amended Pleadings: Is there a right to amend?
By Plaintiff
—The plaintiff has a right to amend her complaint once no later than 21 days after the defendant serves her first Rule 12 response.
By Defendant
—The defendant has a right to amend his answer once no later than 21 days of serving it
Amendments After Time to Amend Expires
—With court permission if justice so requires
—Allowed unless delayed too long, will prejudice other party, or would be futile
Variance
Can only come up at trial
Variance comes up when the evidence at trial does not match what was pleaded.
If the other party fails to object at trial, the party introducing the evidence may move to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence.
Amended Pleading Relates Back
Amended pleading treated as if filed on date that original pleading filed
—So long as it concerns same TOSTO
Avoids statute of limitations problem
Pleading Amendment Changing Defendant Relates back IF:
Amendment concerns same TOSTO
Defendant had knowledge of case so won’t be prejudiced by amendment
Defendant knew or should have known P made a mistake and should have been named
Only applies when P sues wrong D but right D knew about it, statute runs
Supplemental Pleadings
Occurred after pleading is filed
Discretion of the court for allowing in
—Motion for leave to file a supplemental pleading, not an amendment
Signature Requirement: Rule 11 Certification
Certifying that to the best of your knowledge and belief, after reasonable inquiry, these things are true:
—Paper not presented for improper purpose
—Legal contentions warranted by law or good argument law should be changed
—Factual contentions and denials have evidentiary support
Recertify every time you advance the argument
Sanctions
Sanctions imposed for breaking this, law firm usually jointly liable
Court may raise Rule 11 violations sua sponte
Can make order to show cause before sanctions
Usually non-monetary sanctions (classes, etc)
Monetary sanctions paid to court, not D usually
Safe Harbor Provision:
Party seeking sanctions must serve motion on opponent
Party in violation has 21 days to fix
Joinder Requirements
How big the case gets, defines scope of the case
Must be authorized by rule
Must be SMJ
Joinder: By Plaintiff
P may join as many claims as P has against D
Must be SMJ
—Note: Can aggregate claims to meet AIC
Joinder by Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants
Can join multiple Ps or Ds if:
Arise from same TOSTO and
Raise a common question of law or fact
Joinder: Necessary and Indispensable Parties
- Is absentee (nonparty) necessary/required?
- Can absentee be joined?
- If not, can case proceed without absentee?
Joinder: Necessary Parties Tests
Three tests:
Can complete relief be accorded among existing parties?
Will absentee’s interest be harmed?
Will D’s be subject to multiple or inconsistent liability?
NOTE: Joint tortfeasors not necessary