Civil Procedure Flashcards
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to hear a type of case. The lack of SMJ is not waived by failing to raise 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 SMJ: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.
Federal question jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint set forth a cause of action that arises under federal law. A case arises under federal law If the plaintiff alleges a right or interest that is substantially founded on federal law.
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity when the suit is filed and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75K. The rule of complete diversity requires that every plaintiff be of diverse state citizenship from each defendant. The citizenship of an individual is determined by his domicile. A corporation is a citizen of every U.S. state in which it was incorporated and the one U.S. state in which it has its principal place of business. The amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff’s good faith claim stated in the complaint. A single plaintiff may aggregate all of his claims against a single defendant. Multiple plaintiffs may aggregate their claims against a single defendant only when they are seeking to enforce a common interest.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
If a court does not have original jurisdiction over a claim, it may be able to hear the claim under its supplemental jurisdiction. In a diversity jurisdiction, claims by joined plaintiffs that do not meet the amount in controversy requirement may invoke supplemental jurisdiction if they arise from the same transaction or occurrence. However, such use of supplemental jurisdiction cannot be used to override the complete diversity requirement.
Personal Jurisdiction
In personam jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to exercise power over a particular defendant. Traditionally, PJ is based on where the individual party is domiciled, presence in the state when served, or consent.
If no traditional basis exists, a long arm statute can give the court personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Even if a state statute arguably grants the state court PJ 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 traditional notions of substantial justice and fair play.
Contacts
Minimum contacts requires a showing or purposeful availment and foreseeability. The court must find that defendant purposefully availed itself o 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 it would be haled into court in the forum state.
Relatedness
Specific jurisdiction exists where the claim is related to the defendant’s contract with the forum. General jurisdiction exists when the defendant is at home in the forum. A corporate defendant is at home in the states in which it has its principal place of business and in which it was incorporated.
Fairness
The court, in determining if PJ is fair, will look at the convenience to the defend, the state’s interest, and the plaintiff’s interest.
Removal
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 the case back to state court. Further, for cases based solely on diversity, if one of the defendants is domiciled in the state in which the action is pending, removal is not permitted. Plaintiffs may not remove. Removal must be sought within 30 days of the date the defendant knows that the case is removable. All defendants must join in the removal unless the claim is a separate federal claim.
Venue
To have venue transferred, the defendant must show either that venue is improper in the plaintiff’s chosen venue or that venue should be transferred in the interests of justice. When venue is proper, transfer may be made to another district in which the action might have been brought or to which all the parties have consented. When venue is improper, transfer is to a venue in which the case could have been brought.
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 is situated, or (iii) any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if (i) or (ii) cannot be met.
Transfer is permitted when the parties or witnesses would be greatly inconvenienced by the trial in the original forum.
Forum Non Conveniens
The discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a federal court, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to transfer a civil action to any other district where it might have been brought or, if transfer is not possible, to dismiss the action. The federal court must evaluate both public and private factors in making its decisions. Important public factors are the availability of an alternative forum, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and the forum state’s interest in providing a forum for its residents. Important private factors for the court to consider are the convenience of the parties and witnesses, location of evidence, and where the claim arose.
Relation Back
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 newly added defendant received such notice of the action and knew that, but-for a mistake concerning the proper party identity, the action would have been brought.
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
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 direct, is such that a reasonably juror could come to only one conclusion.
Discovery
A party may seek to obtain any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense, including any documentary evidence. The discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case.
Examination
The federal rules provide for an independent physical examination of a party when that party’s physical or mental condition is in controversy. A physical examination or mental examination is available only if ordered by the court, on a showing of good cause.
Res Judicata
Res judicata bars a litigant in a prior action from bringing the same cause of action against. 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.
California follows the primary rights doctrine. Under the 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
Collateral Estoppel
Collateral estoppel, which estops a party in a prior case from relitigating an issue that was resolved in the case, requires that (i) the first case end in a valid, final judgment on the merits, (ii) the issue be actually litigated and determined in the prior case and (iii) the issue was essential to the prior litigation.
Appeals
whether a final judgment has been rendered or whether an exception to the final order rule applies.
A final order is one that disposes of all the claims and parties. Alternatively, a party can seek a writ of mandamus on a showing of irreparable harm. Finally, review could be sought under the interlocutory appeals act, which allows appeal when (i) the trial judge certifies that the interlocutory order involves a controlling question of law on which there is difference and (ii) the court of appeals agrees to allow the appeal.
California Venue
In California, venue refers to the county in which an action may be tried. Improper venue may be waived if no timely objection is made. Venue in a local action is proper in the county in which the land it located. Venue in a transitory action is proper in the county in which any of the defendants resides. If no such defendant exists, then venue is proper in any county. Venue is also proper in the county in which the obligation is to be be performed or where it was entered, and for personal injury actions venue is proper in the county where the injury arose.
California Class Action
The minimum requirements for certification of a class are (i) an unascertainable class and (ii) a well-defined community of interests. To determine if there is a well-defined community of interests, the court will look to numerousity and whether the question is one of common interest.
