RULES OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE Flashcards
1331 (p.200)
- *Rule:** Federal question
- *Purpose:** Federal SMJ for all civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties
- *Relevant Cases:** Osborne, Mottley
1332 (p.200)
- *Rule:** Diversity Jurisdiction
- *Purpose:** Federal SMJ if diversity of citizenship is met and amount in controversy
- *Relevant Cases:** Mas, AFA Tours (amount in controversy
1367 (p. 207)
Rule: Supplemental Jurisdiction
Purpose: Can get a claim into federal court if the case is already there under federal question or diversity jurisdiction. The statute uses the words the claims form part of the same case or controversy Gibbs uses the words the claims must arise from a common nucleus of operative
fact.
Relevant Cases: Gibbs (no longer used), we now use 1367
1391 (b) (p.209)
- *Rule:** general Venue Rule
- *Purpose:** A civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, OR a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred OR…
- *Relevant Cases:**
1404 (a)
- *Rule:** Change of Venue when transferor is a proper venue
- *Purpose:** The proper court transfers to another venue that also has personal jurisdiction. It does so for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of
- *Relevant Cases:**
1406 (a)
Rule: Change of Venue when transferor is an
improper venue.
Purpose: The transferor is an improper venue. It then gives the court a choice: it can dismiss or transfer.
Relevant Cases:
1441 (p. 214)
- *Rule:** Removal
- *Purpose:** The defendant may remove any action brought to state court to the federal court ( if the case could have been brought under federal SMJ ). It is removed to the federal court embracing the place where the state case is pending. In-state defendants cannot remove to the federal court in diversity jurisdiction cases (1441(b)(2)). For federal question cases: removal is good because Congress wants federal courts hearing federal questions For diversity cases: removal is good because Congress wants to promote fairness
- *Relevant Cases:**
- Hertz v. Friend (this only matters under removal because it defined principal place of business (i.e the nerve center) which is used for determining whether an in-state defendant can remove to the federal court or not under diversity
- Home Depot (only the original defendant can remove)
1446 (p.216)
- *Rule:** Procedure for removal
- *Purpose:** The notice to remove must be filed within 30 days of receiving the plaintiff’s pleading. The case is automatically removed. The plaintiff can then motion to remand at the federal court level within 30 days of it getting to the federal court if the motion is based on the defendant’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements (i.e.\failure of all defendants to join, or not removed within 30 days). A motion to remand for lack of SMJ can be brought up at any time.
- *Relevant Cases:**
1652 (p.219)
- *Rule:** Rules of Decision Act
- *Purpose:** The laws of the state, except where the Constitution or federal statutes otherwise require, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in federal courts.
- *Relevant Cases:** Swift (overturned) - Hanna (is there a federal statute or rule in conflict with a state law? Apply federal law if it arguably procedural and doesn’t modify any substantive rights. If it is not procedural, apply state law) Erie (if there is no federal statute or rule that conflicts with state law, then you can apply federal law only if it won’t encourage forum shopping and won’t lead to the inequitable administration of justice. But you must apply state law on all matters of substantive issues (i.e. if they will lead to forum shopping and the inequitable admin. of justice.
2072 (p.234)
- *Rule:** Rules Enabling Act
- *Purpose:** Gave the SC the power to create rules governing the procedures of the federal court system.
- *Relevant Cases:** Same as RDA but use Hanna
Rule 4
- *Rule:** Service of Process
- *Purpose:** Includes who you could sue.
- *Relevant Cases:** Mullane
Rule 8 (p. 28)
- *Rule:** General Pleading Rule
- *Purpose:** 8(a) - complaints must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s SMJ. A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
- *Relevant Cases:**
- Twombly (facts must support a plausible claim and not just a possible claim
- Iqbal (the SC will not look at conclusory statements. A well-pleaded complaint requires non conclusory, plausible, factual pleadings).
Rule 11 (p.36)
- *Rule:** Frivolousness of pleadings
- *Purpose:** Rule 11 states that all pleadings must be signed and affirm that the claim is not being presented for any improper purpose such as to harass the other party nor does it represent a frivolous claim.
- *Relevant Cases:** - Twombly and Iqbal
Rule 12 (b) (p.39)
- *Rule:** Defenses
- *Purpose:** Lists the defenses that can be made to a claim.
- *Relevant Cases:** Twombly and Iqbal
Rule 13 (p. 43)
- *Rule:** Counterclaims and Crossclaims
- *Purpose:** 2 types: compulsory and permissive
1) Compulsory counterclaims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. - *Relevant Cases:**
- Heyward Robinson (the counterclaim was compulsory because it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence meaning it satisfied supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, even though the Stelma counterclaim could not have been heard on its own, it was brought in order supplemental jurisdiction
Rule 15 (p.46)
Rule: Amends Pleadings
Purpose: 15(c)(1)(C) talks about if we want to change the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim was filed against.
Relevant Cases:
- Krupski v. Costa C. (Court ruled that relation back was proper because all parts of 15(c)(1)(C) were satisfied.
- Worthington (This case was decided the way it was because Worthington did not make a mistake in naming the wrong party, hence rule
Rule 18 (p.52)
Rule: Joinder Rules
Purpose: A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.
Relevant Cases:
Rule 19 (a) (p.52)
Rule: Required Joinder
Purpose: In that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties.
Relevant Cases:
Rule 20 (p.54)
Rule: Permissive Joinder
Purpose: A person may join if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or…..arising
Relevant Cases:
Rule 22 (p.55)
Rule: Interpleader
Purpose:
Relevant Cases:
- Pan American
- State Farm
Rule 24 (p.61)
Rule: Intervention
Purpose: Intervention of Right: Courts must let someone intervene if it claims an interest to the property or transaction and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or
impede the
intervenors ability to
protect its interests
Permissive intervention:
the intervenor has a
claim or defense that
shares with the main
action a common
question of law or fact
Relevant Cases:
Rule 26 (b) (1) (p.65)
Rule: Discovery Scope and Limits
Purpose: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case… Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to b discoverable
Relevant Cases: Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
Rule 26(c)(1) (p.67)
Rule: Protective Orders
Purpose: A party from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order that does any of the following:
- forbids the discovery
- prescribes a discovery method or than the one selected by the party seeking discovery
- limiting the scope of disclosure to certain matters
Relevant Cases: Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart (court ruled the protective order was sufficient to allow the discovery to continue)
26(b)(3) (p.66)
Rule: Work Product
Purpose: A party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party.
Relevant Cases: Hickman v. Taylor
