Civil Procedure Flashcards
Rule 4 Service of Process Contains?
Process consist of 2 docs: 1) Summons (formal court notice of suit) & 2) Copy of Complaint
Rule 4 Service on Foreign Corp
Service on a foreign corp may be made:
1) in accordance with international treaty; if there is no treaty, service on a foreign corp may be made:
2) in accordance with the foreign country’s laws
3) as the foreign country directs in response to a letter request for guidance
4) by having the clerk mail process to the def, with a signed receipt requested or
5) by any other means not prohibited by international agreement as the court may order.
-Federal Rule 4 permits the court to authorize alternative methods of service in appropriate cases
-Fed. Rule 4 also specifically requires that the method of service ordered by the court be reasonably calculated to provide the defendant with notice of the action (this is a Constitutional requirement)
Who Can Serve Process?
fed court → any person who is a nonparty AND at least 18, no court appt necessary
When Must Process be Served?
If def is to be served w/in US, service must take place within 90 days of filing of complaint
Only way to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to effect timely service is to demonstrate good cause for failing to do so. “Good cause” is typically something beyond the party’s control.
When Must Process be Served?
If def is to be served w/in US, service must take place within 90 days of filing of complaint
Service of Process on Individual?
4 options:
1) Personal Service (in-hand delivery)
2) Substituted Service at A) D’s usual abode on B) someone of suitable age & discretion C) who resides there
*usual abode doesn’t have to live there everyday
3) Service on Agent → as long as receiving service is within scope of that agency
4) State law methods → methods for serving process that are permitted by the law of the state 1) where the fed court sits OR 2) where service is made (Generally, service of process by mail is allowed. BUT, state provision MUST be constitutional, meaning it must be reasonably calculated to give def notice of the action.)
Service of Process on Business Org?
Deliver to an Officer (president, treasurer, secretary of corp) OR Managing/General agent
Appeals
Only final orders are reviewable on appeal. An order for a new trial is not considered a final judgment in the federal system.
An appeal may be taken by filing a notice of appeal w/ the district court within 30 days from the entry of judgment
Claim Preclusion
(Res Judicata)
-Bars a claimant from asserting the same cause of action in a later lawsuit.
-Requires:
1) Valid, Final judgment “on the merits”
2) Cases are brought by same claimant against same Def (same configurations of parties) and
3) Same cause of action or claim involved in the later lawsuit.
When claimant wins the 1st lawsuit, the cause of action is “merged” into the judgment
When the defendant wins 1st lawsuit, the claimant is “barred” by the earlier adverse judgment
Claim for legal and equitable relief is considered the same claim, so if 2nd suit seeks injunctive relief, claim preclusion can prevent.
-Dismissal of a case because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, because the service of process was improper, because the venue was improper or because a necessary party has not been joined, are not judgments on the merits.
Generally bind only persons who were parties to the original action, not strangers to the og action. But, there are exceptions to this general rule: if someone is closely linked enough to a party in the og action that there is a substantive legal relationship b/w them, that person may be bound by the 1st result for preclusive purposes, just as if that person had been a party in the og action. The substantive legal relationship puts them in privity w/ each other, which allows the non-party to be bound by the og action.
Issue Preclusion (Collateral estoppel)
A judgment binds a P/D (or their privies) in subsequent actions on different causes of action b/w them (or their privies) as to issues actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action.
For issue preclusion to apply:
1) Judgment must have been final
2) The Issue actually litigated in the 1st case and
3) Issue must have been essential to the judgment
Issue preclusion is only asserted AGAINST someone who was a party (or in privity with a party) to the previous case.
Issue preclusion is only asserted BY someone who was a party (or in privity with a party) in the previous case.
Erie Doctrine
Erie Doctrine mandates that when there is DIVERSITY jurisdiction, federal courts must apply state substantive law & federal procedural law
**Erie analysis on MBE → pay close attention to the facts. If the court is not sitting in diversity and is exercising federal q jrdx, then federal law will apply & no need to examine applicable state law.
What law applies in federal jurisdiction cases?
Federal law
Erie Analysis
1) Is issue substantive or procedural? If substantive → apply state law. If procedural → apply federal law. If something in the middle (neither substantive or procedural) → go to step 2.
2) Use one of 3 tests below
-Outcome Determinative test: Does the choice of law impact the outcome of the case? If so, apply state law.
-Forum Shopping test: Would failing to apply state law lead more people to want to litigate in federal court (aka encourage forum shopping?) If yes, then apply state law
-Balance of Interest Tests: Does the state have a greater interest in having its own law applied than the federal law? If so, apply state law.
Erie: Generally, for what types of rules will the balance of interests fall in favor of the state?
-Remittitur
-Additur
-Notice of Claim Requirements
-Issue Preclusion Rules
Erie: Substantive Issues
Generally these are substantive:
-choice of law rules
-statutes of limitations
-elements of a crime or case
-burdens of proof
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In other words, in order for a federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, it must have been granted subject matter jurisdiction by statute.
By statute, federal courts have been granted subject matter jurisdiction primarily in two areas - federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
For federal question jurisdiction to be proper, the case must arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
For diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to be proper, there must be complete diversity of citizenship, meaning each plaintiff must be of diverse state citizenship from every defendant when the suit is filed, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 based on the plaintiff’s good faith claim.
A person’s state citizenship is determined by his domicile ( the state in which he is physically present and in which he intends to remain permanently or for an indefinite period). A corporation is a citizen of every U.S. state and foreign country in which it is incorporated and the one U.S. state or foreign country in which it has its principal place of business.
An unincorporated association (Partnership, LLC) takes on citizenships of all of its members. [If it’s a Limited Partnership, only include citizenship of General & Limited Partners]
A representative of a decedent, minor or incompetent takes on citizenship of person represented.
Class action citizenship is that of the named representative.
Jurisdiction is denied, however if an alien who has been admitted to permanent residence in the U.S. is domiciled in the same state as an adverse party.
Federal Courts & Domestic Relations Decrees
Generally, federal courts will not take jurisdiction over actions involving the issuance of a divorce decree, alimony, or a child custody decree. This exception is very narrow, as the case must relate to the issuance of such a decree.
Permissive Joinder
Under the Federal Rules, Permissive Joinder allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants if:
1) some claim against each defendant relates to or arises out of the same series of occurrences or transactions, AND
2) there is a question of fact or law common to all the parties.
The policy is to permit the adjudication of all claims arising out of a single transaction.
Remember, joinder here is permissive, not mandatory
Questions of Fact on Appeal
JURY TRIAL: findings of fact by a jury are given great deference
When jury decides questions of fact, Court of Appeals will affirm unless reasonable people could not have made that finding.
BENCH TRIAL: Court of Appeals will affirm unless the findings are clearly erroneous
An appellate court will conclude that a finding was “clearly erroneous” if it has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Questions of Law on Appeal
No deference given to trial judge on questions of law. (This includes when a judge gives a jury instruction that summarizes a question of law)
On appeal, when it is alleged that trial judge erred on a pure matter of law, the appellate court will conduct a de novo review & may substitute its judgment for that of the trial judgment.
Discretionary Issues on Appeal
Many decisions by trial court judges are discretionary. On appeal, the standard of review is whether the judge “abused her discretion” in making her decision.
This means that the judge’s ruling will not be overturned on appeal unless it is Plainly Wrong OR Without an Appropriate Basis.
-deferential standard
Mixed Questions of Law & Fact
Reviewed de novo.
(bc involves law so reviewed de novo. No deference is given when it pertains to matters of law)
Nonmutual Defensive Issue Preclusion
Person asserting preclusion to avoid liability was not party to 1st case and is the Defendant in Case 2.
Federal law & most states say this is fine, as long as person against whom you are using, had a full chance to litigate in Case 1.
Nonmutual Offensive Issue Preclusion
Person using preclusion was not a party to Case 1 and is the Plaintiff in Case 2.
Most states say No. BUT, federal common law and some states will allow non-mutual offensive issue preclusion if it would be fair.
Fairness Factors - in determining whether nonmutual issue preclusion is fair, court will consider whether:
1) Party to be bound had a full & fair opportunity to litigate in Case 1
2) Incentive to Litigate: The party to be bound had a strong incentive to litigate Case 1
3) Discouraging Breakaway Suits: The party asserting issue preclusion could have easily joined Case 1
4) Multiple Plaintiff Anomaly: If there are numerous potential plaintiffs waiting in the wings, a court would be less likely to permit offensive estoppel
5) Whether there are procedural opportunities available to a party in the 2nd action that were not present in the 1st, which might make a difference in the outcome
6) Whether the issue is one of law or fact
7) Whether the def in the 2nd action is the govt (in which case offensive non-mutual use of collateral estoppel will hardly ever be allowed)
4) There have been no inconsistent findings on the issue
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - Procedurally Proper?
In determining whether to grant a renewed judgment as a matter of law, the court must determine 1) whether the party previously moved for a JMOL, and 2) what the grounds for the previous motion were.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment as a matter of law must be made at some point during the trial. A party also is limited to the grounds raised in the initial JMOL. (In other words, a party is unable to “renew” an objection that was not raised in the initial motion, as there would be no objection to renew).
The party also must make the renewed motion for JMOL within 28 days of the judgment.
Motion for New Trial
Generally, a motion for new trial may be granted because of some serious error that occurred during the trial.
Instances of serious errors include:
-an error in admission of evidence
-error in instructing the jury
-verdict is against the great weight of the evidence
-juror misconduct
-verdict is excessive or inadequate.
In theory, a new trial could be granted if the jury’s verdict represents a serious error of judgment, but the judge may not replace the jury verdict with the verdict he would have reached.
Have 28 days after entry of judgment to make.
Can you bring a RJMOL & a Motion for New Trial together?
Yes. Because each motion has a different basis, they may be brought together.
Venue
Venue refers to the court where a cause of action is adjudicated.
Venue is proper in any federal district court where:
1) Any defendant resides, as long as all defendants reside in the same state OR
2) Where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred
OR
3) If there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought (doesn’t fall into residential venue or transactional venue), then any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. PJ exists over a def who is present within the forum state when he is served with process.
Transfer of Venue
Transfer of venue allows for a transfer of a case from one trial court to another trial court in the same judicial system. So a federal district court may transfer the case to another federal district court, but it cannot transfer a case to a state court.
Transferor → original court
Transferee → court to which case is sent
Transferee must be a proper venue & have PJ over the D.
Transfer from Proper Venue
If the original district is a proper venue, that court can order transfer based on convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. Burden is on person seeking transfer (usually the D). Court will consider both public & private factors showing that another court is the center for gravity for the case. No time limit.
-Public → court will consider what law applies, what community should be burdened with jury service, the desire to keep a local controversy in a local court
-Private → court considers convenience. It will look to where witnesses are, where def’s and evidence are found.
-Effect on Choice of Law → transferee court usually must apply choice of law rules of transferor court
-Effect of Forum Selection Clause→ federal law enforces these clauses as long as not unreasonable. Only public interest factors are considered & will enforce unless public interest factors say otherwise