Civil Procedure

Question 1

Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to exercise power over a defendant. Traditionally, PJ is found based on where a party is domiciled, its presence in the state when it is served, or whether it gives consent to jurisdiction. A corporation is domiciled where it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business.

Question 2

Long Arm Statute

Answer 2

A long arm statute is a state statute that allows PJ over a defendant even if no traditional basis exists. A long arm statute gives the court PJ over an out-of-state defendant.

Question 3

Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 3

Even if PJ is established, jurisdiction over the defendant must be constitutional.

The defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The Supreme Court has listed a series of factors to assess the constitutionality of PJ. In general the factors fall under:
(1) degree of contact;
(2) relatedness of the contact; and
(3) fairness.

Question 4

Minimum Contacts

Answer 4

Minimum contacts for PJ requires a showing of:
(1) Purposeful availment, and
(2) Foreseeability

Question 5

Purposeful Availment

Answer 5

The courts must find that the defendant purposefully availed herself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.

Question 6

Foreseeability

Answer 6

The defendant must know or reasonably anticipate that her activities in the forum render it foreseeable that it may be haled into court there.

Question 7

Relatedness of the Claim

Answer 7

The claim must arise from the defendant’s contacts with the forum. This requires a showing of either specific or general jurisdiction.

Question 8

General Jurisdiction

Answer 8

The court will look to see if the defendant had systematic and continuous activity in the forum state such that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum

Question 9

Specific Jurisdiction

Answer 9

For specific jurisdiction to be found, the claim at issue must be related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.

Question 10

Fairness

Answer 10

Determining the fairness of exercising personal jurisdiction involves assessing defendant’s convenience, the state’s interests, and other relevant factors.

Question 11

Convenience

Answer 11

A forum is constitutionally acceptable unless it is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the defendant is put at a severe disadvantage

Question 12

State’s Interests

Answer 12

The forum state may have a legitimate interest in providing redress for its citizens.

Question 13

Other Factors (Jurisdiction)

Answer 13

Other factors include the plaintiff’s interest, the judicial system’s interest, and the shared interests of the states.

Question 14

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 14

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s 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 on appeal for the first time.

In federal court, there are two main bases for SMJ:
(1) federal question jurisdiction (FQ) and
(2) diversity jurisdiction (DJ).

Each claim asserted in federal court must have an independent basis for federal SMJ. (3) But if the claim does not satisfy the requirements for FQ or DJ, it might be possible to hear the claim in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction.

Question 15

Federal Question

Answer 15

FQ requires that the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint sets forth a cause of action that arises under federal law. A case arises under federal law if the plaintiff alleges a right or interest that is substantially founded on federal law.

Question 16

Diversity Jurisdiction

Answer 16

DJ requires complete diversity when the suit is filed and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000 excluding interest.

Question 17

Amount in Controversy

Answer 17

The AIC is determined by the plaintiff’s good faith claim stated in the complaint. A single plaintiff may aggregate all of his claims against a single defendant, and multiple plaintiffs may aggregate their claims against a single defendant only when they are seeking to enforce a common interest.

Question 18

Removal

Answer 18

A case may be removed from state court to federal court if:
(1) all defendants join in the removal and
(2) the federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

This jurisdiction could be based on either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. If removal is based on diversity jurisdiction, there generally can be no removal if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state (in-state defendant rule). Additionally, there can be no removal based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the case is filed. A plaintiff can never remove a case.

Question 19

Venue

Answer 19

A civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which:
(1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state;
(2) 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
(3) any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action but only if there is no district that satisfies (1) or (2).

Question 20

Residence (for Venue Purposes)

Answer 20

For venue purposes, an individual resides in the judicial district where they are domiciled. A corporation resides in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question. In a state with more than one district, the corporation is deemed to reside in any district in that state within which the corporation’s contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state. For actions not covered by the specific venue rules, venue is proper in any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

Question 21

Transfer of Venue

Answer 21

For a defendant to successfully request a transfer of venue, they must demonstrate one of two things:

(1) The venue chosen by the plaintiff is improper. In such cases, the action can be transferred to a venue that is both proper and possesses subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the involved parties.
(2) Even if the venue is proper, a transfer can still be made in the interests of justice, prioritizing the convenience of parties and witnesses. In this situation, the case can be moved to any district where it could have originally been filed or where all parties consent to the transfer.

Question 22

Forum Non Conveniens

Answer 22

Forum non conveniens (FNC) gives the court discretion to dismiss or stay a civil action if another court or forum is significantly more appropriate for the case. The court will evaluate both public and private factors in making this decision. Important public factors are:

A) the availability of an alternative forum,
B) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and
C) the forum state’s interest in providing a forum for its residents.

Important private factors for the court to consider are:
1) the convenience of the parties and the witnesses,
2) location of the evidence, and
3) where the cause of action arose.

Question 23

Amendments

Answer 23

An amendment will relate back to the date of the first filing to avoid the statute of limitations if the new claim concerns the same conduct or transaction or occurrence. To join a new defendant, the amendment will relate back if:

(1) it concerns the same conduct or transaction or occurrence,
(2) the new party knew of this case within 90 days of filing, and
(3) the new party knew that but for mistake, they would have been named originally.

Question 24

Joinder of Parties

Answer 24

A new party must be joined when:

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

The court must also have personal jurisdiction over the new defendant and adding the defendant may not destroy subject matter jurisdiction or venue. A court may join a new party when it involves the same transaction or occurrence and there is a common question of fact or law.

Question 25

Class Action

Answer 25

Joining parties to a class action involves two steps of certification. First, there must be
(1) common questions of law or fact,
(2) adequate and fair representation to protect the interest of the class,
(3) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable, and
(4) the claims of the representative parties are typical of the class.

Second, the court must determine the appropriate type of class action, which is either based on
(1) prejudice,
(2) an injunction or declaratory judgment action, or
(3) common question predominates and class action is the superior method. Subject matter jurisdiction will be based on the representative’s domicile or the amount in controversy.

Question 26

Discovery

Answer 26

A party may seek to obtain any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense, including any documentary evidence. The information sought must be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on a claim or defense in the case; it is not required that the information itself be admissible at trial.

Question 27

Summary Judgment

Answer 27

Summary judgment is appropriate when:

1. There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
2. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The facts are viewed in light most favorable to the non-moving party

Question 28

JMOL, RMOL, New Trial

Answer 28

A judge may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) when, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict would be directed (considering all legitimate inferences in their favor and without assessing the credibility of the witnesses), it becomes clear that a reasonable juror could reach only one conclusion.

A JMOL must be made before the case is submitted to the jury and is a prerequisite for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL).

For a new trial, the standard is broader: A judge may grant a motion for a new trial if the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, if there were errors in the trial that resulted in an unfair trial, or if the verdict appears to be the result of bias, passion, or prejudice. The motion allows the trial judge to correct errors without the necessity of an appeal or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Question 29

Res Judicata / Claim Preclusion

Answer 29

Res judicata bars a litigant in a prior action from bringing the same cause of action again. For res judicate to apply, it must be shown that
(1) the earlier judgment is a valid final judgment on the merits,
(2) the cases are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant,
(3) the same cause of action or claim is involved in the later lawsuit, and
(4) the cause of action was actually litigated or could have been litigated in the prior action.

Question 30

Collateral Estoppel / Issue Preclusion

Answer 30

Collateral estoppel estops a party in a prior case from re-litigating an issue that was resolved in that case. It requires that

(1) the first case ended in a valid final judgment on the merits,
(2) the issue was actually litigated and determined in the prior case, and
(3) the issue was essential to the prior litigation. The issues must also be identical in each action.

Question 31

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 31

A Federal court with SMJ (Fed. Question or diversity) over a claim can hear additional claims brought under state law if:

• The additional claims are so related to the federal claims that the form part of the SAME CASE OR CONTROVERSY.
• Test = do the claims arise from a COMMON NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACT?
  1. If yes = can hear the additional claims.
  2. If no = cannot hear the additional claims.

Question 32

Declining Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 32

A court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in these circumstances:

(i) the supplemental claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law;
(ii) the supplemental claim substantially predominates over the claims within original federal jurisdiction;
(iii) all of the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed; or
(iv) in exceptional circumstances, if there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

Question 33

Intervening in a Case

Answer 33

A nonparty has the right to intervene in an action when, upon timely motion:

(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 34

Temporary Restraining Order

Answer 34

A temporary restraining order (TRO) preserves the status quo of the parties until there is an opportunity to hold a full hearing on whether to grant a preliminary injunction.

A TRO has immediate effect and lasts no longer than 14 DAYS unless good cause exists.

A TRO can be issued without notice to the adverse party if the moving party can show:
(1) that immediate and irreparable injury will result prior to hearing the adverse party’s arguments, and
(2) the efforts made at giving notice and the reason why notice should not be required.

The party seeking a TRO usually must give security (typically by posting a bond) to cover the costs and damages sustained by a party that is ultimately found to have been wrongfully restrained.

Question 35

Preliminary Injunction

Answer 35

A preliminary injunction can be issued if the opponent is given notice and the court holds a hearing on the issue.

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that:
(1) the party is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) the party is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief;
(3) the balance of equities is in the party’s favor; and
(4) the injunction is in the public’s best interest.

Additionally, the party seeking the preliminary injunction usually must provide security like it would for a TRO.

Question 36

Rule 19(a) - Joinder

Answer 36

Under Rule 19(a), a person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction or destroy venue must be joined as a party if:

(i) Complete relief cannot be provided to existing parties in the absence of that person;

(ii) Disposition in the absence of that person may impair the person’s ability to protect his interest; or

(iii) The absence of that person would leave existing parties subject to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.