Civil Procedure

Question 1

Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

In personam personal jurisdiction (IPJ) refers to the court’s ability to exercise power over a particular defendant. Traditionally, IPJ is based upon where the party is domiciled, presence in the state when served, and consent.

Question 2

Long Arm Statute

Answer 2

A long arm statute gives the court personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. California’s long arm statute gives courts the power over any person whom the state can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction.

Question 3

Constitutional Limitations (PJ)

Answer 3

Even if a state statute arguably grants the state court IPJ over the defendant, such exercise must still be constitutional. To be constitutional, there must be sufficient contacts with the forum state so as to not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 4

Minimum Contacts

Answer 4

Minimum contacts requires a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability.

Question 5

Purposeful Availment

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Foreseeability (minimum contacts)

Answer 6

The defendant must also have known or reasonably anticipated that her activities in the forum rendered it foreseeable that she may be haled into court there.

Question 7

Relatedness of the Claim to the Contact

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Specific Jurisdiction (Claim Related to Defendant’s Contacts)

Answer 8

The claim must arise from the defendant’s activity in the forum.

Question 9

General Jurisdiction (“Essentially at Home”)

Answer 9

Where there is no specific jurisdiction, 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 10

Fairness

Answer 10

The court, in determining whether exercising IPJ over the defendant is fair, will look at the convenience to the defendant, the state’s interest, and other factors.

Question 11

Convenience (fairness)

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 Interest (fairness)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Other Factors (fairness)

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Minimum Contacts (concise version)

Answer 14

Minimum contacts requires a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability. The courts must find the defendant purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Additionally, the defendant must have foreseen that she would be haled into court in the forum state.

Question 15

Relatedness of Claim to Contact (concise version)

Answer 15

Specific jurisdiction exists where the claim is related to the defendant’s contact with the forum. General jurisdiction exists where the defendant engages in systematic and continuous activity in the forum.

Question 16

Fairness (concise version)

Answer 16

The court, in determining whether exercising IPJ over the defendant is fair, will look at the convenience to the defendant, the state’s interest, and other factors.

Question 17

Discovery Standard (federal)

Answer 17

In federal district court, discovery may be had of any non privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. It is not necessary that the information be admissible itself. If the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on a claim or defense in the case, it is discoverable.

Question 18

Relation Back (SOL - adding a new defendant)

Answer 18

When the SOL has run, a defendant may be added, and the filing of the amended claim will “relate back” to the date that the original complaint was filed, when (1) the amendment adding the new defendant arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaint, and (2) within 120 days after the filing the complaint and any additional time as the court may order on a showing of good cause, the newly added defendant received notice of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits and knew (or should have known) that, but for a mistake concerning the proper party identity, the action would have been brought against it.

Question 19

Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Preclusion

Answer 19

When deciding whether to grant summary judgment on the basis of preclusion, the court must determine whether the party against whom preclusion is being used had a full and fair opportunity to be heard and whether the claims or issues are the same.

Question 20

Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

Answer 20

In order for claim preclusion to apply, it must be shown that (1) the earlier judgment is valid, final judgment on the merits; (2) the cases are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant (and in the same position); (3) the same cause of action 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 21

Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

Answer 21

In order for issue preclusion to apply, it must be shown that (1) the first case ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits; (2) the issue on which collateral estoppel applies must have actually been litigated and determined in the previous case; and (3) the issue must have been essential to the judgment. Additionally, the issues must be identical. Further, some states require mutuality.

Question 22

Right to a Jury Trial

Answer 22

Although a federal court sitting in diversity will apply federal procedural law and state substantive law (under the Erie Doctrine), the right to a jury trial is preserved for civil cases over $20 under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, it is well established that in a standard civil case, the Constitutional provision is applied over any contrary state provision.

Question 23

Remanding From Federal to State Court

Answer 23

When deciding whether to remand a case to state court, the federal court must determine whether removal was proper. If removal was not proper, the federal court must remand the case back to state court. (The lack of SMJ may be raised at any time, even on appeal.)

Question 24

Standard and Procedure of Judgment as a Matter of Law

Answer 24

A judge may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict would be directed (including all legitimate inferences in their favor and without considering the credibility of the witnesses), is such that a reasonable juror could come to only one conclusion. If a party moves for a judgment as a matter of law, she may renew that motion within 28 days of the judgment being rendered. In other words, a motion for judgment as a matter of law is a prerequisite for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.