MEE One Sheets Flashcards
Key principle #1: Personal jurisdiction is tested approximately once every five years on the MEE. There is a trend
toward testing specific personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction has to do with what is fair to the defendant.
Personal jurisdiction can be general (obtained by consent, presence, or domicile) or specific.
* If the MEE fact pattern discusses a case that takes place in a federal court, start your essay as follows:
“Federal district courts may exercise personal jurisdiction to the same extent as the courts of general
jurisdiction of the state in which the district court sits.”
* If the issue is specific personal jurisdiction, state: “State courts of general jurisdiction may exercise
personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent authorized by both the state’s long-arm
statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” Then state:
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits states to assert personal jurisdiction
over nonresident defendants who have established minimum contacts with the state such that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Look for “purposeful availment” of the benefits and protections of the state. Then, examine the quality of
the contacts with the state.
Key principle #2: First category of federal jurisdiction—federal-question jurisdiction: The federal question must appear on
the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. It cannot appear in the answer. Further, the plaintiff
cannot merely anticipate a federal defense in its complaint. (On the MEE, this has virtually always been
tested with personal jurisdiction. And, the issue has always been the well-pleaded complaint rule!)
First category of federal jurisdiction—federal-question jurisdiction: The federal question must appear on
the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. It cannot appear in the answer. Further, the plaintiff
cannot merely anticipate a federal defense in its complaint. (On the MEE, this has virtually always been
tested with personal jurisdiction. And, the issue has always been the well-pleaded complaint rule!)
2: Second category of federal jurisdiction—diversity jurisdiction:
Cases may be brought under diversity
jurisdiction only if two requirements are met: (1) there must be complete diversity of citizenship between
the plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy must be over $75,000.00. Note that
“complete diversity” is not required for class actions; rather, minimal diversity suffices
MEE note: Many essays focus on where a person is domiciled. Remember, a person is domiciled
“where it is her permanent home, a place where the person intends to remain indefinitely, and
the place to which the person intends to return when temporarily absent.” A corporation is
domiciled both where it is incorporated and where its principal place of business is located.
§ Note: look to see where the party is domiciled at the time the lawsuit is filed.
2: Third category of federal jurisdiction—supplemental jurisdiction:
This is an issue when there is a
jurisdictional basis for one claim but not the other (e.g., a plaintiff brings a federal question claim and
tacks on a related state claim). Remember that a plaintiff cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to add a
claim against a nondiverse party if the sole basis for SMJ is diversity
2: A note on removal under 1441:
Defendants (but not plaintiffs) may remove an action from state court to
the federal court that geographically embraces it if the plaintiff could have initially brought the case in
federal court. Generally, if the plaintiff could not have brought the case in federal court, then the
defendant cannot remove it either. (Feb 2012, July 2009, July 2007, Feb 1996) Note: A defendant may
not remove a case if he is sued in his home state and the only basis for removal is diversity. (This
exception is not generally tested on the MEE.)
Key principle #3: When venue is tested, the MEE tends to test general rules. It is important, however, to be well
aware of “transfer to a more appropriate forum” since this issue is tested regularly.
- Venue is proper in a district where (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) in
a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) a
substantial part of property that is subject to the action is situated. (There are also narrow fallback rules
which, so far, have not been emphasized on the MEE.) (July 2016, July 2013, Feb 2002, Feb 1996)
§ A corporate defendant is deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to
personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. To figure out where a corporate
defendant resides, divide the state into districts (if it has more than one district) and see if the
defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction in any of those districts
3: Transfer to a more appropriate forum:
Under Title 28, U.S.C. §1404 (2011), the federal court has
authority to transfer a case to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and in the interest of justice. The new forum must have subject-matter jurisdiction and personal
jurisdiction. The court will apply the law of the transferor forum. A motion to transfer to a more
appropriate forum should be denied if the case could not have been filed there to begin with. (Note: This
is different than “transfer to a proper venue” where a case is filed in the wrong venue, and, if transferred,
the law of the transferee court would apply. Transfer to a proper venue has not been tested on the
MEE.)
Key principle #4: Be aware of summary judgment under Rule 56, where a case (or part of a case) is decided in
favor of the plaintiff or the defendant without a trial.
- Start your essay as follows: “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) allows a summary judgment motion to
be granted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Note that “a motion for summary judgment may be supported by depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials.” - The moving party must produce evidence to show there is no genuine issue of material fact. The burden
then shifts to the nonmoving party, which must then produce evidence to show that there is a genuine
issue of material fact for trial. The motion is looked at in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Key principle #5: Temporary remedies, like preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TROs), are
occasionally tested on the MEE. On the MEE, the party in the fact pattern generally seeks a TRO until the court
decides whether to grant a preliminary injunction. So, generally, you should discuss both TROs and preliminary
injunctions in your MEE answer.
- TROs: A TRO can be issued without notice to the adverse party (but only in limited circumstances and
for a limited time). To secure a TRO without notice, the plaintiff needs to show a risk of “immediate and
irreparable injury.” The TRO lasts only long enough for the court to consider and resolve a request, but
not longer than 14 days (unless the court extends it for good cause or the adverse party consents to an
extension). TROs are considered to be stopgap measures and last until the court decides whether to
grant a preliminary injunction.
5: Preliminary injunctions:
A preliminary injunction is equitable relief with the objective of preserving the
status quo. If it is granted, the matter must be tried within six months unless the parties stipulate or good
cause is shown. The court must give notice to the adverse party. There are four factors to consider
(mnemonic=HELP): (1) harm: the significance of the threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the
injunction is not granted, (2) evaluation of injuries: the balance between this harm and the injury that
granting the injunction would inflict on the defendant, (3) likelihood of prevailing: the probability that
the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, and (4) the public interest.
Key principle #6: Work product has been tested a few times on the MEE. Know its definition and why it matters
if statements constitute work product.
- Work product is any material prepared in anticipation of litigation. (If it is not prepared in anticipation of
litigation, it is not work product!) Written statements given by witnesses might be discoverable even if
they are considered work product if the other party can show substantial need and undue hardship.
However, an attorney’s mental impressions are never discoverable
Key principle #7: Note that final judgments are generally appealable and nonfinal judgments are generally not
appealable. However, the MEE tends to test the exceptions!
*
Exceptions include when there are final orders in cases involving multiple claims and multiple parties and
some are still pending—the other parties may be able to appeal their orders; orders involving injunctions,
garnishments, and other temporary remedies; interlocutory orders by leave; and orders constituting a
final judgment on collateral matters.
Key principle #8: be aware of issue and claim preclusion.
- Issue preclusion: issues that were actually litigated and decided and essential to the judgment in a
previous case cannot be litigated again. (Feb 2021, Feb 2013, July 2001) - Claim preclusion: a claim that has been litigated to a final judgment on the merits cannot be relitigated
by the parties (or their privies).
