CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW Flashcards
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Generally
FDS
A federal court can hear claims based on (1) federal questions, (2) diversity of citizenship, or (3) supplemental jurisdiction.
Federal Questions: This refers to cases involving the interpretation and application of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.
Diversity of Citizenship: This requires that the parties involved are from different states or countries, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Supplemental Jurisdiction: This allows a federal
court to hear additional claims that are related to the original jurisdiction-granting claim, even if the court would not independently have jurisdiction over those claims.
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal Question
LJFQCTF
A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction that can hear claims based on federal questions arising under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. treaties, or federal laws.
Limited Jurisdiction:
Federal courts can only hear cases authorized by the Constitution or federal statutes.
Federal Questions:
Cases involving:
The U.S. Constitution
U.S. treaties
Federal laws
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Diversity
CDPDACPGFG75K
A federal court can hear a claim based on diversity jurisdiction where (1) there is complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and defendants and (2) the amount in controversy is pled in good faith to be greater than $75,000.
Complete Diversity of Citizenship: This means that all plaintiffs must be from different states or countries than all defendants.
Amount in Controversy: The claimed amount must exceed $75,000 and must be stated in good faith.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Supplemental Jurisdiction
SCAF CNOF
A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when such a claim arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the claims the court has original jurisdiction over.
May Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction: This means that the court has the discretion to hear additional claims.
State Law Claim: Refers to a claim based on state law rather than federal law.
Common Nucleus of Operative Fact: The state law claim must be related to the original claim by arising from the same transaction or occurrence.
Determining Citizenship: Person
PP SITR 4IPOT
A person is domiciled in the state where she is (1) physically present and (2) has a subjective intent to remain for an indefinite period of time.
Physically Present: The person must be physically located in the state.
Subjective Intent to Remain: The person must have the intention to stay in that state for an indefinite period of time.
Determining Citizenship: Corporation
DIPPB
A corporation has dual citizenship and is domiciled in (1) any state where it is incorporated and (2) the state where it has its principal place of business, i.e., its headquarters or nerve center.
Dual Citizenship: A corporation is considered to have citizenship in two places.
Incorporated: The state where the corporation is legally created.
Principal Place of Business: The main location where the corporation’s executive offices are located, also known as its headquarters or nerve center.
Personal Jurisdiction: Traditional Bases
SFS CJ DFS W
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant.
A court can exercise personal jurisdiction when the defendant (1) is served in the forum state, (2) consents to jurisdiction, (3) is domiciled in the forum state, or (4) via waiver (appearing in the action without objecting).
Authority to Exercise Jurisdiction: The power of a court to make legal decisions and judgments over a person or entity.
Served in the Forum State: The defendant is formally given legal notice of a proceeding in the state.
Consents to Jurisdiction: The defendant agrees to the court’s jurisdiction.
Domiciled in the Forum State: The defendant resides in the state with the intent to remain there.
Waiver: The defendant appears in the action without objecting to the court’s jurisdiction.
Long-Arm Jurisdiction
SMC N2OTNFP SJ
To exercise long-arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, the state must have a long-arm statute and the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Long-Arm Statute: A law that allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants under certain conditions.
Sufficient Minimum Contacts: The defendant must have enough connections to the state for it to be fair to require them to defend a lawsuit there.
Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice: Legal standards ensuring that exercising jurisdiction is reasonable and just.
General Jurisdiction
CFS SSN H
General jurisdiction exists when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so substantial and of such nature that the defendant is essentially at home in the state. For an individual, this means the defendant is domiciled in the state. For a corporation, this is usually where it is incorporated or headquartered.
So Substantial and Of Such Nature: The defendant’s contacts with the state must be significant and continuous.
Essentially At Home: The defendant must have such a strong connection to the state that they are considered “at home” there.
Domiciled: For individuals, being domiciled means they reside in the state with the intent to remain there.
Incorporated or Headquartered: For corporations, being “at home” typically means being incorporated or having their main office (headquarters) in the state.
Specific Jurisdiction
FS UC DC
For specific jurisdiction, there must be a connection between the forum state and the underlying controversy and the lawsuit arises from or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the state.
Forum State: The state where the court is located.
Underlying Controversy: The dispute or issue at the center of the lawsuit.
Arises From or Relates To: The lawsuit must originate from or be connected to the defendant’s activities within the state.
Contacts with the State: The defendant’s actions or presence within the state.
Venue
R SC SP PJ
Venue is proper in any district where: (1) any defendant resides (if all defendants are residents of the forum state); (2) a substantial part of the claim arose; (3) a substantial part of the property is located if the property is the subject of the action; or (4) if none of the above, where any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
Any Defendant Resides: Venue is proper where any defendant lives, provided all defendants live in the forum state.
Substantial Part of the Claim Arose: Venue is proper where a significant portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
Substantial Part of the Property is Located: Venue is proper where the property in question is situated if the property is central to the action.
Any Defendant Subject to Personal Jurisdiction: If none of the above conditions are met, venue is proper where any defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
Motions for Summary Judgment
CCE LMF NMP NGIMF JMOL
A motion for summary judgment will be granted when: (1) the court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party; (2) there is no genuine issue of material fact; and (3) the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Considered the Evidence in the Light Most Favorable to the Non-Moving Party: The court must evaluate the evidence with a bias towards the non-moving party, assuming that all favorable evidence for the non-moving party is true.
No Genuine Issue of Material Fact: The facts are clear and undisputed, and there is no need for a trial to resolve factual issues.
Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law: Based on the undisputed facts, the moving party deserves to win as a legal matter.
Aggregation Rules:
Aggregation Rules:
Single Plaintiff vs. Single Defendant: A single plaintiff can aggregate multiple claims against a single defendant to meet the threshold.
Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants: Multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate their claims against a single defendant unless they share a common undivided interest. Similarly, a single plaintiff cannot aggregate claims against multiple defendants unless the defendants are jointly liable.
Joint Claims: The total value of the joint claim must exceed $75,000.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)
Rule Statement: Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions, diversity jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction.
Elements:
Federal Question Jurisdiction: Claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Diversity Jurisdiction:
Complete Diversity: No plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant.
Amount in Controversy: Exceeds $75,000.
Supplemental Jurisdiction: Claims related to those within the court’s original jurisdiction, arising from a common nucleus of operative fact.
Mnemonic for Diversity Jurisdiction: “CAVe”
Complete diversity
Amount in controversy over $75,000
Variety of claims
Common Testing Scenarios:
Timing Issues: Diversity must exist at the time the case is filed, not when the cause of action arose.
Amount in Controversy: Courts will assess the claim amount in good faith; it must not be legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000.
Class Actions: If the claim exceeds $5,000,000, minimal diversity suffices.
Common Mistakes:
Misunderstanding the timing for assessing diversity.
Incorrectly calculating or misunderstanding the amount in controversy requirement.
Overlooking the rules for class actions and minimal diversity.
Supplemental Jurisdiction “Shotgun” Rule: Can ride with the primary claim if arising from a common nucleus of operative fact and does not destroy diversity if based on diversity jurisdiction.
Removal Jurisdiction:
Removal Jurisdiction:
Only defendants can remove a case to federal court.
All defendants must consent.
Must be filed within 30 days of the case becoming removable and within one year of filing the original complaint, barring bad faith by the plaintiff.
Mnemonic for Removal: “DUCT”
Defendants only
Unanimous consent
Complete diversity (no in-state defendants)
Thirty days to remove
Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)
Rule Statement: Courts must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, which can be established through traditional bases or long-arm statutes consistent with due process.
Elements:
Traditional Bases:
Domicile: Fixed, permanent home.
Tagging: Being served within the forum state.
Consent/Waiver: Agreement or failing to contest PJ.
Long-Arm Jurisdiction: Requires a long-arm statute and compliance with constitutional due process (sufficient minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice).
Mnemonic for Traditional Bases: “LTC”
Live (Domicile)
Tagging
Consent/Waiver
Mnemonic for Fair Play: “FEDS”
Forum interest
Efficiency
Defendant burdens
Social policy
Common Testing Scenarios:
Misunderstanding domicile for individuals and corporations.
Confusing purposeful availment with random or fortuitous contacts.
Applying the wrong test for internet-related contacts.
Common Mistakes:
Failing to properly analyze the “minimum contacts” and “fair play and substantial justice” prongs.
Misapplying traditional bases when a long-arm statute is specified in the fact pattern.
Venue
Venue
Rule Statement: Venue determines the proper location for a trial and is generally appropriate where any defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or under fallback rules.
Elements:
Where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state.
Where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
Fallback: Where any defendant is subject to PJ, if no other venue is proper.
Mnemonic for Venue: “APES”
Any defendant resides (if all in the same state)
Personal jurisdiction fallback
Events or omissions substantially occurred
Specific rules for suits against aliens and land disputes.
Forum Non Conveniens: Court may dismiss if another court is better suited, considering public and private factors.
Pleadings and Motions
Rule Statement: Pleadings set forth claims and defenses; various motions can challenge or support the case procedurally or substantively.
Elements:
Complaint Requirements:
Jurisdictional statement
Short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief
Demand for relief
Answer: Admit, deny, or state lack of knowledge. Must include affirmative defenses.
Amendments: One amendment as a matter of course within 21 days of serving. Later amendments require consent or court approval.
Rule 11 Sanctions
Rule 11 Sanctions: Applied for filings made for improper purposes, with frivolous claims, or without factual/legal basis.
Common Testing Scenarios:
Failing to state affirmative defenses in the answer.
Incorrectly applying Rule 11 sanctions without the “safe harbor” provision.
Common Mistakes:
Failing to amend pleadings timely.
Misunderstanding the grounds for Rule 11 sanctions and how they are applied.
Discovery
Discovery
Rule Statement: Discovery allows parties to obtain information relevant to the case, limited by relevance, proportionality, and privilege.
Elements:
Forms of Discovery:
Depositions
Interrogatories
Requests to Admit
Requests to Produce
Requests for Physical/Mental Examinations
Scope of Discovery: Relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Privileged information and work product are generally protected.
Mnemonic for Discovery Scope: “DEEP”
Duplicative (avoid)
Easier way (consider)
Enough opportunity (allow)
Privilege (respect)
Common Testing Scenarios:
Failing to respond timely to requests for admission results in admission by default.
Misunderstanding the rules around electronic discovery and the safe-harbor provision.
Common Mistakes:
Overlooking the duty to supplement disclosures.
Confusing the types of discovery and their appropriate use.
Appeals
Appeals
Rule Statement: Appeals are taken from final judgments or specific interlocutory orders, with strict standards for review.
Elements:
Final Judgment Rule: Only final decisions on the merits are appealable. Exceptions for interlocutory appeals include injunctions, partial final judgments, and certain other orders.
Standards of Review:
De Novo: Questions of law.
Clearly Erroneous: Findings of fact by the judge.
Substantial Evidence: Findings of fact by the jury.
Abuse of Discretion: Discretionary decisions by the trial court.
Mnemonic for Standards of Review: “DCSAD”
De Novo (Questions of law)
Clearly Erroneous (Judge’s findings of fact)
Substantial Evidence (Jury’s findings of fact)
Abuse of Discretion (Discretionary decisions)
Deferential Review (General deference to trial court’s judgment)
Common Testing Scenarios:
Identifying the appropriate standard of review for different types of appeals.
Distinguishing between final judgments and interlocutory orders.
Common Mistakes:
Misunderstanding which interlocutory orders are appealable.
Incorrectly applying the standards of review.
Pretrial and Trial
Pretrial and Trial
Rule Statement: Pretrial motions can dispose of claims or defenses before trial; various rules govern the conduct of trial and post-trial procedures.
Elements:
Pretrial Motions:
Motion to Dismiss: Insufficient process, service, lack of jurisdiction, or failure to state a claim.
Summary Judgment: No genuine dispute of material fact, and movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL): No legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-movant.
Post-Trial Motions:
Renewed JMOL: Must have filed original JMOL.
Motion for New Trial: Error affecting substantial rights or newly discovered evidence.
Motion for Relief from Judgment: Mistake, new evidence, fraud, void judgment.
Common Testing Scenarios:
Misunderstanding the grounds and timing for JMOL and renewed JMOL.
Misapplying the standards for granting a new trial or relief from judgment.
Common Mistakes:
Filing post-trial motions improperly.
Confusing the standards for different types of motions.
Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata):
Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata):
Rule Statement: Prevents parties from relitigating the same claim in a future lawsuit.
Elements:
Valid, Final Judgment on the Merits
Same Parties or Their Privies
Same Claim
Mnemonic for Claim Preclusion: “VSP”
Valid final judgment
Same parties or privies
Previously litigated claim
Common Testing Scenarios:
Determining whether a claim in a second lawsuit arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the first lawsuit.
Understanding the scope of parties bound by the previous judgment.
Common Mistakes:
Confusing claim preclusion with issue preclusion.
Failing to recognize valid exceptions to claim preclusion.
Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel):
Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel):
Rule Statement: Prevents parties from relitigating an issue that has already been decided in a previous case.
Elements:
Valid Final Judgment on the Merits
Identical Issue Actually Litigated and Necessarily Decided
Party Against Whom Preclusion is Asserted Was a Party or in Privity
Mnemonic for Issue Preclusion: “VIP”
Valid final judgment on the merits
Identical issue litigated and necessarily decided
Party precluded was a party or in privity
Common Testing Scenarios:
Determining whether an issue in a second lawsuit was actually litigated and decided in the first lawsuit.
Understanding the concept of privity in issue preclusion.
Common Mistakes:
Misapplying the requirement of “actually litigated and necessarily decided.”
Confusing the party requirements between claim and issue preclusion.
Preliminary Injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO)
Preliminary Injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO)
Step One: Assess Factors for Granting Preliminary Injunction & TRO
Likelihood of success on the merits.
Irreparable harm to movant (immediate for TRO).
Harm to movant outweighs harm to non-moving party.
Injunction is in public interest.
Step Two: Assess Whether Proper Procedure Was Followed
Mnemonic for Injunctions and TROs: “LIHP”
Likelihood of success
Irreparable harm
Harm balance
Public interest
Common Testing Scenarios:
Evaluating the factors for granting preliminary injunctions and TROs.
Assessing procedural requirements for injunctions.
Common Mistakes:
Overlooking the need for immediate harm in TROs.
Misunderstanding the balance of harm analysis.
