Civil Procedure

Question 1

Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 1

IPJ refers to the ability of a court to exercise power over a particular defendant. Traditionally, IPJ is based on where an individual party is domiciled, presence in the state when served, or consent.

Question 2

IPJ - Long Arm Statute

Answer 2

Since no traditional basis exists, the plaintiff must look to see if the state has a long arm statute that would allow IPJ over the defendant. Since a federal court must analyze IPJ as if it were a state court in the forum state, it will use the state long arm statute to determine whether it has IPJ. A long arm statute gives the court personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Question 3

IPJ - Constitutional Limitations (I)

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. The United States Supreme Court has listed a series of factors with which to assess the constitutionality of IPJ. In general, the factors fall under 3 headings:

Question 4

IPJ - Constitutional Limitations (II)

Answer 4

1. Minimum contacts: requires a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability.
   a. Purposeful availment: the court must find that defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law.
   b. Foreseeability: the defendant must also have known or reasonably anticipated that its activities in the forum rendered it foreseeable that it may be haled into court there.
2. Relatedness: if the claim arises from the defendant’s contact with the forum, the court may have “specific jurisdiction.” The clause connection between the cause of action and the contact will likely make the exercise of IPJ fair and reasonable. Regardless of whether the plaintiff’s claim is related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the court may also have “general jurisdiction” if the defendant is “at home” in the jurisdiction. If there is no relationship between the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the court must have general personal jurisdiction over the defendant to hear the case.
   a. Specific jurisdiction: the claim must be related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
   b. General jurisdiction: if there is no specific personal jurisdiction, the court must have general personal jurisdiction to hear the case.
3. Fairness: 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. However, fairness is not a consideration if the court is exercising general personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
   a. Convenience: a forum is constitutionally acceptable unless it is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the defendant is put at a severe disadvantage.
   b. State’s interest: the forum state may have a legitimate interest in providing redress for its residents.
   c. Other factors: include the plaintiff’s interest, the judicial system’s interest, and the shared interests of the states.

Question 5

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 5

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to hear a type of case. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waived by failing to rise it at trial; it may be raised for the first time even on appeal. In federal court, there are two main bases for original federal subject matter jurisdiction: (i) federal question jurisdiction and (ii) diversity jurisdiction. Each claim asserted in federal court must have an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. If the claim does not satisfy the requirements for federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, it might be possible to hear the claim in federal court under the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Question 6

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Answer 6

Federal question jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint sets forth a cause of action arising under federal law.

Question 7

Diversity Jurisdiction

Answer 7

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity when the suit is filed and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, excluding interest that is not part of the controversy and costs. The diversity statute also provides for subject matter jurisdiction over “alienage” cases, i.e., suits between a United States citizen and a citizen or subject of a foreign country. Complete diversity requires that every plaintiff be of diverse state citizenship from each defendant.

The citizenship of an individual is determined by his domicile, i.e., his permanent home where he intends to return. A corporation is a citizen of every U.S. state or foreign country in which it was incorporated and the one U.S. state or foreign country in which it has is principal place of business. A corporation’s principal place of business is the place from which the corporation’s high level officers direct the corporation’s activities.

The amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff’s good faith claim stated in the complaint. Multiple plaintiffs may aggregate their claims against a single defendant only when they are seeking to enforce a common or undivided interest.

Question 8

Supplemental jurisdiction

Answer 8

In a diversity jurisdiction case, claims that do not meet the amount in controversy requirement may invoke supplemental jurisdiction if they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts as a claim that invoked diversity jurisdiction. The use of supplemental jurisdiction cannot be used to override the complete diversity requirement.

Question 9

Venue

Answer 9

In federal court, a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which:

(i) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state;
(ii) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is subject of the action is situated; or
(iii) any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action, but only if there is no judicial district that satisfies (i) or (ii).

Under CA civil procedure, venue depends on the type of action. If it is not a local action (land action where the venue is where the land is), then venue is where any defendant resides.

Question 10

Change of Venue

Answer 10

To have venue transferred, the defendant must show either that venue is improper in the plaintiff’s chosen venue or, if venue is proper, that venue should be transferred, in the interests of justice, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.

1. Proper venue: transfer may be made to another district in which the action might have been brought or to which all parties have consented so long as the transferee court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
   a. Even if venue is proper, transfer is permitted when the parties or witnesses would be greatly inconvenienced by the trial in the original forum.
2. Improper venue: transfer is to a proper venue that has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties.

Question 11

Remand

Answer 11

If removal was not proper, the federal court must remand the case back to the state court. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even on appeal.

Question 12

Romoval

Answer 12

A case may be removed from state court to federal court when it originally could have been filed in federal court. If removal was not proper, the federal court must remand. Defects in the removal process generally must be raised within 30 days of removal, but the lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even on appeal. For cases based solely on diversity jurisdiction, if one of the defendants is domiciled in the state in which the action is pending, removal is not permitted.

Removal must be sought within 30 days of the date the defendant knows that the case is removable. For cases based on diversity, removal may not be had more than one year after the case was filed unless there was bad faith by the plaintiff to prevent removal (intentionally not pleading the true amount in controversy). All defendants must also join in removal, unless the claim is a federal claim that is separate and independent of state law claims.

Question 13

Erie Doctrine

Answer 13

A federal court sitting in diversity will apply federal procedural law and state substantive law.

Question 14

Discovery

Answer 14

A party may seek to obtain any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense, including any documentary evidence. It is not required that the information itself be admissible at trial, and the proposed discovery must be proportional with the needs of the case.

Question 15

Compel a physical and mental exam

Answer 15

The federal rules provide for an independent physical examination of a party when that party’s physical or mental condition is in controversy. In federal court, a physical examination is available only if ordered by the court, on a showing of good cause.

Question 16

Amendments

Answer 16

When the statute of limitations 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 (i) the amendment adding the new defendant arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaint, and (ii) within 90 days after 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 17

Joinder

Answer 17

An absentee should be joined when:

(i) complete relief cannot be accorded among the other parties to the lawsuit without the absentee’s presence, or
(ii) the absentee as such an interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit that his absence will, as a particular matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or leave the other parties at substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations.

Question 18

Compulsory Joinder

Answer 18

Compulsory joinder looks to see if the absentee should be and can be joined. If the absentee cannot be joined, the next step is to determine whether the action should proceed without the absentee.

Question 19

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Answer 19

A judge may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law when:

(i) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict would be directed,
(ii) including all legitimate inferences in their favor and without considering the credibility of the witness,
(iii) is such that a reasonable juror could come to only one conclusion.

Question 20

Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

Answer 20

In most states, res judicata bars a litigant in a prior action from bringing the same case or action again. For res judicata to apply, it must be shown that:

(i) the earlier judgment is a valid, final judgment on the merits;
(ii) the cases are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant;
(iii) the same cause of action or claim is involved in the later lawsuit; and
(iv) the cause of action was actually litigated or could have been litigated in the prior action.

CA Law: California follows the primary rights doctrine; under that doctrine, a cause of action is defined as an invasion of a single primary right. A cause of action may not be split into separate lawsuits if the cause of action arises from invasion of a single primary right.

Question 21

Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

Answer 21

Collateral estoppel stops a person who was a party in a prior case from relitigating an issue that was resolved in that case. Collateral estoppel requires that:

(i) the first case end in a valid, final judgment on the merits;
(ii) the issue be actually litigated (the party must be heard on the issue) and determined in the prior case; and
(iii) the issue was essential to the prior litigation. The issue must also be identical in each action.

When a party in a second case is seeking to take advantage of a decided issue from a prior case in which he was not a party, the court will also look to see whether it is unfair or inequitable to allow a nonparty to assert collateral estoppel. Some states only allow nonmutual collateral estoppel to be used defensively in subsequent litigation.

California does not have such a restriction, in that nonmutual collateral estoppel may be used offensively or defensively.

Question 22

Service of Process (Personal service)

Answer 22

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for a party to be served in a number of ways. One accepted method of service is personally serving the summons and complaint on the defendant. A person may be served personally by any non-party who is 18 years or older. The defendant should be given a summons and 2 copies of the complaint.

Under California civil procedure, a person may similarly be personally served by a non-party who is 18 years or older by the same rules.

Question 23

Service of Process (Mail)

Answer 23

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictate that it is proper to serve a defendant by mail. The summons and 2 copies of the complaint must be sent by first class mail, postage paid, with a waiver and a pre-addressed and prepaid envelope in which the defendant can return the signed waiver.

California rules allow service of process by same manner.