Rules from Essay--preclusion/removal Flashcards
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is granted when there is no issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment often comes up along with issues of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.
Claim preclusion
The first issue is whether summary judgment can be granted due to claim preclusion. Claim preclusion occurs when an identical claim was already fully litigated on the merits to a final judgment, by a court with jurisdiction, between the same parties. This prevents subsequent actions deciding the same claim that was already decided.
Claim preclusion elements (ILFJJSP)
Claim preclusion occurs when: 1) an IDENTICAL claim 2) FULLY LITIGATED on the merits 3) to a FINAL JUDGMENT 4)by a court with JURISDICTION 5)between the SAME PARTIES. 6) to PREVENT SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS DECIDING same claim that was already decided.
Issue Preclusion
Whether summary judgment can be granted based on issue preclusion. Issue preclusion prevents an issue that was already fully litigated on the merits from being re-litigated. The requirements for issue preclusion are 1) the same issue, 2) actually litigated and decided, 3) a final judgment on the merits, 4) the issue was essential to the judgment and 5) in the cases of non-mutual issue preclusion, fairness.
Issue Preclusion elements (ILDFEF)
Issue preclusion prevents an issue that was already fully litigated on the merits from being re-litigated. The requirements for issue preclusion are 1) the IDENTICAL issue, 2) actually LITIGATED and DECIDED, 3) a FINAL judgment on the merits, 4) the issue was ESSENTIAL to the judgment and 5) in the cases of non-mutual issue preclusion, FAIRNESS
LONG ARM STATUTE
If the traditional bases of PJ do not apply, we then must analyze the state’s longarm statute. A long-arm statute permits a state to have PJ over out-of-state defendants. There are two types of long-arm statutes–those that apply the minimum constitutional requirements of due process to establish personal jurisdiction and those that have specific limitations beyond those prescribed by the Due Process clause.
PERSONAL JDX–TRADITIONAL BASIS
Personal jurisdiction assesses whether the court has power over the defendant such that it may hear a case against him. There are three traditional bases that personal jurisdiction can be established over a defendant. If the defendant consents to the jurisdiction; is domiciled in the jurisdiction; or is served while present in the jurisdiction (although, not if served due to the fraud or deceit of the plaintiff, or, in federal court, if served while serving as a witness or party in a court case). For a person, domicile requires two elements be met: 1) presence in the forum state and 2) an intent to permanently remain in the forum state.
PERSONAL JDX –Constitutional Requirements
Constitutional Requirements The Supreme Court has held that, for a state to have PJ over a defendant, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the state, such that traditional notions of fair play and justice are not offended by the use of jurisdiction over him. The Court has established a three-factor test to determine whether minimum contacts exist: 1) contact; 2) relatedness; 3) fairness.
PERSONAL JDX –Constitutional Requirements 3 FACTOR TEST
The Court has established a three-factor test to determine whether minimum contacts exist: 1) contact; 2) relatedness; 3) fairness.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICITON SET UP FOR REMOVAL
Subject matter jurisdiction (“SMJ”) determines whether a court has the ability to hear a case. SMJ can be established in one of three ways, although only two are relevant here–federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction applies when the plaintiff, in its well-pleaded complaint, raises a federal right or claim of relief–the federal claim cannot arise in another pleading, but must be clear from the complaint. If federal question jurisdiction exists, removal to a federal court is always appropriate.
FEDERAL QUESTION
Federal question jurisdiction applies when the plaintiff, in its well-pleaded complaint, raises a federal right or claim of relief–the federal claim cannot arise in another pleading, but must be clear from the complaint
DIVERSITY JURISDITION
Diversity jurisdiction requires that two elements be met. There must be complete diversity between the parties–the case must involve citizens of different states or a citizen of the US and a foreign citizen, and all plaintiffs must be from a different state than all defendants. Diversity is determined at the time the case is instituted. PERSON is a citizen of the state he or she is domiciled (present and intend to permanently remain), CORPORATION is a citizen where it is domiciled (incorporation and principal place of business).
CITIZENSHIP–DIVERSITY PERSON/BUSINESS
PERSON is a citizen of the state he or she is domiciled (present and intend to permanently remain), CORPORATION is a citizen where it is domiciled (incorporation and principal place of business).
FED–DIVERSITY AMOUNT IN CONTROVERY
To have diversity jurisdiction, the second element required is that the suit be for greater than $75,000. Unless it is clear to a legal certainty that the plaintiff’s amount is below $75,000, the plaintiff’s claim for relief that is made in good faith and greater than the threshold will establish the amount for diversity purposes. Typically, the amount sued for applies only to one defendant; however, in the case of joint tortfeasors, the amount applies to all defendants.
TWO SITUTATIONS WHERE REMOVAL IS NOT PROPER
In a diversity case, however, removal may not be had in two situations. 1) if the defendant is a citizen of the state where the state court sits, it is not appropriate, and removal should be denied. 2) removal may only be had within one year after service, and any removal actions sought after one year should be denied.
