Civil Procedure

Question 1

Venue determines in which fed. district the case may be brought. Venue is proper where:

Answer 1

1. a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located;
2. a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or in which a substantial part of property that is subject to the action is situated, or
3. D subject to PJ (fallback) - if no fed. district can satisfy 1) or 2) above, venue is proper in any fed. district in which any D is subject to PJ with respect to the action

Question 2

Residency for venue purposes:
People?
Entity with the capacity to sue or be sued in its common name, whether or not incorporated?

Answer 2

People-determined by domicile
Entity-resides in any state in which it is subject to PJ –> in a state with more than one fed. district, it is occasionally also necessary to determine in which fed. district(s) a corporation resides; a corporation resides in a fed. district if its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to PJ if that district were a state.

Question 3

Venue Transfer이란?

Answer 3

A case may be transferred from one fed. district to another in which the case could have been field or one to which all parties consent

Question 4

Venue in original district is proper - court may order transfer to another fed. district court based on _______, and _______

Answer 4

interest of justice, convenience of parties and witnesses

Court has discretion based on:
Public factors - what law applies, which community should be burdened with jury service, etc.
Private factors - convenience (e.g., location of evidence, witnesses)

Based on its discretion, court may refuse transfer

Question 5

Venue in original district is improper - court may transfer to a proper venue in the interest of justice or ________

Answer 5

Dismiss the case.

Question 6

How does Choice of Law rule apply when there is venue transfer?

Answer 6

Transferee court applies choice of law rules of the original court, regardless of which party sought transfer.

But there is an exception = transferee court will apply its own laws if original venue was improper or if transfer was to enforce a forum selection clause

Forum selection clauses - case must be transferred to the indicated fed. district unless the public factors present a compelling reason not to transfer.

Question 7

Forum Non Conveniens (issue under Venue)

Answer 7

Where there is a more appropriate forum for the litigation, but the case cannot be transferred there, a court may dismiss the action pursuant of forum non conveniens

Adequacy of the Alternative - because a dismissal is consequential, courts will not grant FNC w/o finding that there is an adequate alternative forum
–> When adequacy is in doubt, a court may stay the proceeding rather than dismiss, so that it can resume litigation if necessary.

Court evaluates FNC based on same public and private factors as for venue transfer. There must be strong showing of public and private interests to dismiss or stay.

Question 8

What is the scope of discoverable Information?

Answer 8

1) nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense; and
2) proportional to the needs of the case.

Question 9

What are Claim Preclusion requirements?

Answer 9

For claim preclusion to apply,
(1) there must be a valid, final judgment on the merits;
(2) the case must be brought by the same claimant versus the same defendant; and
(3) the same cause of action is involved in the later lawsuit.

Question 10

For the purposes of Claim Preclusion elements,
What amounts to a Valid, Final Judgment on the Merits?

Answer 10

General verdict will do.

Judgment is final even if it is being appealed

Dismissal with prejudice operates as a judgment on the merits

Question 11

Are technical judgments considered “final judgment on the merits”?

Answer 11

No. Technical dismissals (SMJ, PJ, Venue) are not “on the merits” because they are not evaluating the substance of the plaintiff’s claim

Question 12

For the purposes of Claim Preclusion elements, What amounts to the Same Claims/Same Cause of Action?

Answer 12

Claims are the same when they arise from the the same transaction or series of transactions or occurrences. I.e., even if not previously raised, claim can be precluded if it is sufficiently related to prior claims.

Question 13

What are the elements of Issue Preclusion?

Answer 13

For the issue preclusion to be available:
(1) there must be a final judgment on the merits;
(2) the issue must have been actually litigated and determined; and
(3) the issue must be essential to the first judgment (judgment would have been different in the first case absent litigation of this issue)

Question 14

For the purposes of Issue Preclusion, what does it mean by the 2nd prong, “the issue must have been actually litigated and determined”?

Answer 14

We look at the allegation in the first action. Then, there needs to be a final judgment on this allegation(whether the jury returned a general verdict). From there, we look at the allegation in the second action. If the second action is a mere repacking of the first action’s allegation (e.g., negligence action –> contract action), then the issue was actually litigated and determined.

Question 15

For the purposes of Issue Preclusion, what does it mean by the 3rd prong, “the issue must be essential to the first judgment”?

Answer 15

This means that a general verdict of a previous action, which necessarily required a determination by the jury that the defendant was [whichever the outcome is], was essential to the judgment in the first action.

Question 16

In a diversity case, when do the parties have the right to have jury trial?

Answer 16

When there is a suit at common law, where the amount in controversy exceeds $20, and even if the state court would deny a jury.

Question 17

In a diversity case with claims involving equitable remedies, do the parties have the right to jury trial?

Answer 17

No.

Question 18

Application of State Law - Erie Doctrine

What is the issue statement for the essay?

Answer 18

“The issue is whether the federal court may apply CA law to decide the [_____] claim involving real property.”

“Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including the state’s choice of law rules. The fed. ct. is free to apply federal procedural rules.

Question 19

What is the requirement of Fraud Pleading?

Answer 19

Pleading with particularity.

General rule of pleading requires short and plain statements of claims. However, certain circumstances including Fraud requires pleading with particularity.

• Merely alleging A committed fraud in the supposed value and seeking damages does not suffice.
• Particularity requires more = stating how fraud was committed (how plaintiff was misrepresented, and that D knew it was fake, etc.)

Question 20

Regarding Fraud Pleading, how can a pleading satisfy the “particularity” requirement?

Answer 20

Rather than alleging that A committed fraud in the supposed value, stating how P was misrepresented, and that D knew it was fake, etc. are required.

Question 21

If a fraud pleading is insufficient as being not particular enough, what does the court allow?

Answer 21

D may ask the district court to dismiss the case for failing to state a claim.

But Court will give P opportunity to cure by repleading with particularity before considering dismissal.

Question 22

Joinder of Claims - will always accompany a SMJ issue

Can a P join unrelated claims in the same suit?

Answer 22

Yes. The Federal Rules authorize a party asserting a claim to join any other claim they have in the same suit.

No relationship b/w the claims is required, so long as there is subject matter jurisdiction over each of those claims. (“SMJ will be discussed below”)

Question 23

P sues D for installments due under an agmt.
D defended on the ground that P was in breach of the agreement.
Judgment made for P.

P sues D for OTHER installments due under the same agmt.
D defends that the agmt was void b/c of fraud by P.
P moves to strike D’s defense under Issue Preclusion.

Motion granted?

Answer 23

No. The issue was never litigated.

Generally = issues actually litigated are binding in subsequent actions.

Here, the fraud issue was never litigated.

OTHER installments = Meaning there was a separate transaction or occurrence.

Question 24

Regarding either claim or issue preclusion, is a defense a claim?

Answer 24

No. A defense is not a claim, it merely is an issue (issue of fraud, issue of breach of K, etc.)

Question 25

Regarding Claim Preclusion, how do you determine whether there was the same cause of action (i.e., same claim)

Answer 25

You look at whether there was the same transaction or occurrence (T/O). Majority view accepts this.

California on the other hand, follows the “primary rights doctrine.”
A primary right is the right to be free from a particular harm (즉, one car accident가 있었고, Suit 1이 personal injury에 관한 것이었다면 Suit 2는 Property Damage에 의거해서 sue해도 된다).
단, 같은 harm을 다룬다면 해당되지 않음 (broken vase Q)

Question 26

Regarding Issue Preclusion, what’s the “mutuality” (traditional view) view?

Answer 26

Only parties to prior litigation can assert issue preclusion

Question 27

Regarding Issue Preclusion, what’s the “non-mutuality” (traditional view) view?

Answer 27

Issue preclusion may be asserted by those who were NOT parties in the prior litigation

Question 28

Issue Preclusion: Defensive use of prior judgment?

Answer 28

D (not a party in the prior litigation) seeking to prevent P from re-litigating an issue P lost in a prior suit against a DIFFERENT party (different D)
(“Non-mutual”)

Question 29

Issue Preclusion: Offensive use of prior judgment?

Answer 29

P seeks to prevent D from re-litigating an issue that D previously lost in a prior suit against a different party (also “Non-mutual”, and courts are reluctant to allow offensive use)

Question 30

What are the balancing factors for Offensive use of prior judgment under Issue Preclusion?

Answer 30

1) Whether party against whom prior judgment is asserted had full and fair opportunity to litigate
2) Whether party could foresee multiple suits being filed
3) Whether the party asserting IP controlled or could have joined the prior litigation
4) There are no inconsistent judgments on the record

Question 31

What is the requirement of making a cross-claim?
(i.e., P sues D1 and D2; D1 may assert a cross-claim against D2)

Answer 31

• it must arise from the same T/O as the underlying action. Note that cross-claim is NEVER compulsory, unlike counterclaims stemming from the same T/O.

Question 32

What happens when P sues D for the damage of a nose and wins,
and then files another suit for the damage of a toe?

Answer 32

Merger happens.

Merger occurs when P wins; her cause of cation is said to “merge” into the judgment such that she cannot relitigate the cause of action later.

Question 33

Does a counterclaim have a jurisdictional requirement?

Answer 33

Yes. D must ensure that the ct. has jx to hear any counterclaim

Question 34

What does it mean by “Compulsory Counterclaim”?

Answer 34

It refers to the claim by D against P that arises from the same T/O as one of P’s claims.

It MUST BE filed in D’s answer or it will be waived(meaning, D cannot assert it in a separate action at a later time)

Question 35

What does it mean by “Permissive Counterclaim”?

Answer 35

It refers to the claim by D against P that DOES NOT arise from the same T/O as any of P’s claims

It MAY BE filed, but is NOT REQUIRED in answer (meaning, can be asserted in a separate action)

Question 36

Collateral Order Doctrine?

Answer 36

It’s a narrow exception. A claim or issue may be immediately appealable if it is too important to wait until the final judgment. Requirements are:

1) the lower court must have conclusively determined the disputed question;
2) the issue must be separate from and collateral to the merits of the main issue of the case; AND
3) the issue must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment.