Civil Procedure Flashcards
Civil Procedure 2 main topics
(1) Jurisdiction, and (2) venue
Jurisdiction: court’s power over case and parties
Venue: appropriate geographic location for suit
2 main types of jurisdiction
(1) subject matter jurisdiction, (2) personal jurisdiction
subject matter jurisdiction definition
power to hear type of case
3 types of subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)
(a) federal question, (b) diversity, or (c) supplemental
SMJ: federal question jurisdiction
claim arises under federal law
(ancillary: “well-pleaded complaint” rule”: federal question must arise on face of complaint)
SMJ: Diversity jurisdiction
(1) no plaintiff citizen of same state as any defendant, and (2) amount in controversy greater than 75,000
Person’s Citizenship = (1) principle home, (2) intent to remain
Company’s Citizenship = any state where (1) incorporated, or (2) principal place of business (where activities controlled)
Amount:
- amount asserted is assumed correct unless (a) bad faith amount asserted, or (b) legal certainty P cannot recover asserted amount
- can aggregate amount against single D, but not multiple D’s, unless multiple D’S same controversy
Foreign citizen: Yes diversity if 1 foreign citizen v us citizen, BUT NOT foreign citizen v foreign citizen
SMJ: Supplemental jurisdiction
Court can hear supplemental claims attached to claims court has (1) Federal Question or Diversity jurisdiction over, and (2) same case/controversy (meaning SAME OPERATIVE FACTS) (MY NOTE: very specific, not broad)
Notes:
- If D impleads a non-diverse defendant, court can exercise supplemental over that claim
- court may decline if (a) supplemental state-law issue is novel, (b) supplemental claims “substantially predominate” over non-supplemental claims
personal jurisdiction (PJ) definition
power of the parties
(1) state law allows it, (2) doesn’t violate due process
- PJ over (a) state citizens, (b) consent, (c) physically served in the state, (d) long-arm statute for out of state people
personal jurisdiction (PJ) types
(a) traditional (lives in state, served while in state, waives jurisdiction, consents), OR (b) state long-arm statute applies
long-arm statutes constitutionality
D must have (1) “minimum contacts” with state such that PJ under long-arm statute (2) doesn’t “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”
“minimum contacts” means: D intentional interaction with state (a) within state, (b) directed at state, or (c) connections that make D effectively at home in state
“MINIMUM CONTACTS” SUB-DIVIDED INTO 2 TYPES:
(a) specific jurisdiction: case arises from or relates to defendant’s voluntary contact with state, OR
(b) general jurisdiction: defendant’s contact with state so “systematic and continuous” that D is effectively “at home” there
long-arm statute analysis tree
Analysis tree:
(1) long-arm statute applies to facts of the case
(2) constitutional analysis (a) deliberate “minimum contacts” with state, (2) doesn’t offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
removal
DEFENDANT can remove state case to federal court if (1) fed court has (a) federal question, or (b) diversity jurisdiction,
(2) signed notice of removal in fed court,
(3) written notice to adverse parties and state court
(4) within 30 days of receiving complaint, or 30 days after receipt of summons if complaint already filed
- EXCEPTIONS:
- D sued in home state cannot remove based on diversity jurisdiction, BUT can if based on federal question jurisdiction
- if removed improperly, P can ask fed court to remand to state court
- In cases with multiple D, removal requires consent of other D’s, even if 30 days has passed since first D was served they can still consent to removal at the request of another D
Venue requirements
(a) (i) district where D resides if (ii) all D’s reside in same state,
(b) district where substantial part of events occurred, or
(c) if no other venue appropriate where D is subject to personal jurisdiction
Change of venue: Transfer
Called a “Transfer”
Court may transfer if:
(a) (i) convenience of parties/witnesses, and (ii) interests of justice,
(b) enforce valid forum-selection clause
- only to another federal court, not state court
- new court must apply same law as original court
Choice of federal/state law in federal courts
Federal-question jurisdiction: court just applies the federal law
But Diversity jurisdiction cases don’t arise under federal law, so apply “Erie Doctrine”: Courts must apply (1) state substantive law, and (2) federal procedural law
- Substantive = defines parties rights and obligations (ie the black letter law itself)
If no federal law or unclear if law is “substantive” or “procedural”, whatever rules serves goal of “Erie Doctrine”: (1) discourage forum shopping, and (2) avoid unfairness, (3) whether state law determines outcome of case, (4) whether state law expresses strong state interest, (5) whether federal policy expresses strong federal policy that should overcome state policy
Joinder
The combination of parties or claims in a case
- can join all claims against same D, even if claims are not related
- plaintiff’s/defendant’s can be joined if (a) same underlying events, or (b) same question of law/fact
Required joinder: (1) joinder won’t defeat jurisdiction, (2) court can’t provide complete relief without them, (3) their interest might be compromised without their participation
- if can’t be joined, court can dismiss, or allow to proceed with protections for absent parties
Counterclaim
Claim from defendant against plaintiff
- DOESN’T need to arise from same underlying events as Plaintiff’s claim
- BUT if it does arise from same events, its MANDATORY COUNTERCLAIM, or cause of action is waived