Civil Procedure

Question 1

Federal SMJ - Intro

Answer 1

• A federal court can only hear cases when it has subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ).
• A federal court has SMJ if there is either:
  (a) federal question, or
  (b) diversity of citizenship.

Question 2

Federal SMJ

Federal Question

Answer 2

• FQ Jurisdiction exists when a claim arises under (a) federal law, (b) the U.S. Constitution, or (c) U.S. treaties.
• The FQ must be present on the face of a well-pled complaint, not in defense.

Question 3

Federal SMJ

Diversity of Citizenship

Answer 3

• Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction exists when:
  1. there is complete diversity of citizenship (no P can be from the same state as any D), and
  2. the amount in controversy exceeds $75K.
• A P may aggregate all his claims against one D.

Question 4

Federal SMJ

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 4

• If a federal court has SMJ over some of the claims in the action, then it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional state court claims when they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact (the same transaction or occurance).
• In a case where jurisdiction is based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction cannot be asserted if it would destroy complete diversity.

Question 5

Removal to Federal Court

Answer 5

• A D (only D) may remove a case to a federal court if the federal court has SMJ.
• A D who is sued in his home state cannot remove a case to a federal court.

Question 6

Remand from Federal Court to State Court

Answer 6

A federal court must remand a case to state court if there is no federal SMJ.

Question 7

Venue in Federal Court

Answer 7

For civil actions brought in federal court, venue is proper in any district where:
(a) any D resides, if all Ds reside in the same state,
(b) a substantial portion of the claim occurred,
(c) a substantial part of property is located, or
(d) if none of the above apply, then any judicial district in which any D is subject to the court’s PJ.

Question 8

Residence of a Party for Venue Purpose

Answer 8

• For venue purposes, an individual resides in the district where he domiciles (determined by his residence and intent to make the place his permanent home).
• A corporation resides in any districts where it is subject to PJ.

Question 9

PJ - Intro

Answer 9

• A court must have personal jurisdiction (PJ) over a D for its judgment to be binding.
• PJ falls into two categories:
  1. the traditional bases of jurisdiction, and
  2. a State’s long-arm statute.

Question 10

PJ

Traditional Bases

Answer 10

The traditional bases for PJ exist when the D:
(a) domiciles in the state,
(b) was served while present in the state,
(c) consents, or
(d) waives.

Question 11

PJ

Long-Arm Statute

Answer 11

• To assert PJ over a non-resident, the state must:
  1. have a long-arm statute, and
  2. comply with constitutional due process requirements.
• CA’s long-arm statute allows PJ to the same extent as the Constitution.

Question 12

PJ > Long-Arm Statute

Constitutional Due Process Requirements

Answer 12

Constitutional due process requires that:
1. the D has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state
2. so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 13

PJ > Long-Arm Statute > Constitutional Due Process Requirements

Minimum Contacts

Answer 13

Sufficient minimum contacts exist when either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction is present.

General Jurisdiction:
exists when the D is essentially “at home” in the forum state, i.e.,
- domiciles in the state if an individual, or
- incorporated or headquartered in the state if a corporation.

Specific Jurisdiction:
exists when:
1. the suit arises from or relates to the D’s contacts with the forum state, and
2. there is a connection between the forum state and the underlying controversy (an activity that takes place in the forum state).

Question 14

PJ > Long-Arm Statute > Constitutional Due Process Requirements

Fair Play and Sabstantial Justice

Answer 14

• Even if the minimu contacts test is met, it must be fair and reasonable for the D to be sued in the forum state.
• The court will consider a number of factors, including: the P’s interest in convenient relief, the location of witnesses and evidence, the forum state’s interest in regulating activities, and the burden on the D to travel to the forum state.

Question 15

Erie Doctrine

Answer 15

• The Erie doctrine applies to a federal diversity case.
• Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court will apply federal procedural law and state substantive law.

Question 16

Relation Back Doctrine

Answer 16

When a pleading is amended, the amendment relates back to the original pleading date so long as it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original pleading.

Question 17

Compulsory Joinder of Parties

Answer 17

• A party must be joined in an action if:
  1. that party is a necessary party, and
  2. joinder is feasible.
• A party is necessary if:
  (a) the court cannot grant complete relief without the party,
  (b) the party’s interest will be harmed if not joined, or
  (c) the party’s absence creates a substantial risk of multiple liability.
• Joinder is feasible if:
  1. joinder will not destroy SMJ, and
  2. the court has PJ over the party.
• If the necessary party cannot be joined, the court may either continue or dismiss the case.

Question 18

Discovery

Scope of Discoverable Information

Answer 18

• In Federal Court, a party may discover all non-privileged information that is:
  1. relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and
  2. proportional to the needs of the case.
• In CA Courts, a party may discover all non-privileged information that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action (this is broader than the federal standard).

Question 19

Discovery

Compelled Physical and Mental Examinations

Answer 19

• In CA Courts, in a personal injury case, any D may demand one physical examination of the P as a matter of right.
• For non-personal injury case, a party must make a motion to compel to perform an examination. The motion must show that the party’s health is in controversy.
• In Federal Court, the court may order a party to submit to a mental or physical examination only if:
  1. a motion is made on notie to all other parties and the person to be examined, and
  2. such mental/physical condition is in controversy.

Question 20

Discovery

Asserting Privilege During Discovery

Answer 20

When a party withholds information, the party must:
1. expressly make a privilege claim, and
2. describe the information sufficiently (privilege log).

Question 21

Discovery

Motion to Compel Disclosure or Discovery

Answer 21

• On notice, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure/discovery.
• The movant must certify that he made a good faith effort to resolve the disclosure dispute before filing the motion.

Question 22

Motions

Motion to Dismiss in Federal Court

Answer 22

• A motion to dismiss may be made prior to filing an Answer.
• The court will grant the motion if, assuming all allegations are true, the P still cannot win based on the face of complaint.

Question 23

Motions

Summary Judgment

Answer 23

• Before trial, a party may move for summary judgment.
• A moving party must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
• When reviewing the motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Question 24

Right to Jury Trial in Federal Court

Answer 24

• The 7th Amend guarantees a right to a jury trial for legal claims but not for equitable claims.
• To have a jury trial, a jury demand must be made.

Question 25

Appeals - Final Judgment Rule

Answer 25

• In Federal Court, a party may only appeal from a final judgment or decision (final judgment rule).
• In CA Courts, a motion for judgment againt one of the parties is considered a final judgment.

Question 26

Appeals - Interlocutory Appeals

Answer 26

• An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before all claims are resolved in the action.
• An appellate court may consider interlocutory appeals on matters where the parties would be severely prejudiced, if they waited to act (such as TROs, PIs).

Question 27

Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)

Answer 27

• Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars a party from re-litigating the same claim in a later lawsuit.
• Claim preclusion applies when:
  1. the parties are identical,
  2. there is a valid final judgment on the merits in the prior action, and
  3. the same claim is asserted in both actions.

Question 28

Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)

Answer 28

Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars a party from re-litigating the same issue that was actually
(1) litigated,
(2) determined, and
(3) essential to a valid final judgment in a prior lawsuit.