Civil Procedure Final

What is the rule for due process

 The rule for due process is that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It is governed by the 5th and 14th amendments, with the 5th amendment governing the federal government and the 14th amendment governing states. In the case of Goldberg v. Kelley (determining if not having an in person hearing to appeal a removal of unemployment benefits violates the 14th amendment), the court established a test to determine if a person is being deprived of their due process rights. The test balances 1) the private interest of avoiding the deprivation of life, liberty, and property and 2) the government’s interest in avoiding the hearing. The court later refined this test under Mathews v. Eldridge (where the court held that not providing the defendant to contest them being deprived of due process rights did not deprive a person of their 5th amendment due process rights.) by adding 3) consideration of the risk that due process will be violated under the current system and the amount it will be improved under a new system.

What are the relevant cases for due process

Goldberg and Mathews

What happened in Goldberg

In Goldberg, the court found unemployment benefits were a form of property. Having a system that removes these benefits from a person by only allowing them to submit a written contestation deprives them of the opportunity to speak and have a chance to resist the process of depriving their rights. Meanwhile, the government’s interest in depriving this process is not high. Therefore, the court in Goldberg found that the interest of private citizens’ need for due process outweighed the government’s interest in denying it.

What happened in Mathews

In Mathews, the court found that depriving people of a hearing when removing their disability benefits did not violate due process. The private interests of the public were claimed not to be high because other people in the disabled person’s life can provide for them and because a doctor’s opinion backs up the decision. The interest of the government are more exaggerated and the court claimed they were great. Finally, a new change would not substantially change much and the risk of them getting it wrong is not high.

What is subject matter jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear and decide a particular case based on the matter at hand in it. Subject matter jurisdiction helps to uphold due process established by the 5th and 14th amendments. There are two different ways that a federal court can have subject matter jurisdiction over a case: diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. 

What are the ways to establish subject matter jurisdiction

diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. 

Diversity jurisdiction

Diversity Jurisdiction: Diversity jurisdiction is permitted based on Article 3, Section II of the Constitution of the United States. Its scope is limited by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)-(c). It has two main requirements to grant subject matter jurisdiction in a federal court. First, a case must concern an amount over $75,000. Second, there must be complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants.

To have diversity jurisdiction, a case must revolve around an amount in controversy that is greater than 75,000. This claim is satisfied when a plaintiff’s good faith assessment of their damages unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff will recover less than the amount claimed. For example, in Diefenthal v. C.A.B., the plaintiffs claimed diversity jurisdiction because they claimed $100,000 in damages when they were told their flight had no more seats available in the first class, smoking section andn that they would have to sit in either the next class’s smoking section or the non-smoking section of first class. The court ruled that their assessment of damages was not in good faith and that there was no possibility that the claims they plead could exceed the required amount for subject matter jurisdiction.

To have diversity jurisdiction, a case must have complete diversity of citizenship between parties (across the v). Section 1332(c) outlines how different groups have their citizenship tested. Individuals are citizens of the place that they are domiciled. Gordon v. Steele establishes the test for where people are domiciled. A person is domiciled when they have residency and an intent to remain indefinitely. For example, the plaintiff in Gordon v. Steele was found to have citizenship in Pennsylvania despite attending school in Idaho because she did not intend to stay in Idaho. Additionally, corporations are citizens where they have their principal place of business and the state in which they are incorporated. Finally, partnerships and llcs are citizens where their partners are domiciled. In the present case…

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal Question Jurisdiction: Federal question jurisdiction is permitted by Article III Section II of the Constitution and limited by 28 U.S.C. 1331. A case has federal question jurisdiction when there is a question of federal law that arises out of a plaintiff’s complaint. For example, in Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley, plaintiffs were promised to have free train tickets for life in exchange for not suing the railroad company after an accident. They sued for breach of contract after the railroad stopped giving them free tickets because of a federal statute prohibiting it. Although the defendant would likely use a federal law as a part of their defense, the case was not eligible for federal question jurisdiction because the complaint only featured state law claims. Additionally, we can consider the Holmes Test, which says that a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.

What are the relevant cases to diversity jurisdiction

Diefenthal v. CAB-the plaintiffs claimed diversity jurisdiction because they claimed $100,000 in damages when they were told their flight had no more seats available in the first class, smoking section andn that they would have to sit in either the next class’s smoking section or the non-smoking section of first class. The court ruled that their assessment of damages was not in good faith and that there was no possibility that the claims they plead could exceed the required amount for subject matter jurisdiction.

Gordon v. Steele stablishes the test for where people are domiciled. A person is domiciled when they have residency and an intent to remain indefinitely. For example, the plaintiff in Gordon v. Steele was found to have citizenship in Pennsylvania despite attending school in Idaho because she did not intend to stay in Idaho.

What are the facts of Diefenthal v CAB

the plaintiffs claimed diversity jurisdiction because they claimed $100,000 in damages when they were told their flight had no more seats available in the first class, smoking section andn that they would have to sit in either the next class’s smoking section or the non-smoking section of first class. The court ruled that their assessment of damages was not in good faith and that there was no possibility that the claims they plead could exceed the required amount for subject matter jurisdiction.

What is the relevant case to federal questions jurisdiction

Federal Question Jurisdiction: Federal question jurisdiction is permitted by Article III Section II of the Constitution and limited by 28 U.S.C. 1331. A case has federal question jurisdiction when there is a question of federal law that arises out of a plaintiff’s complaint. For example, in Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley, plaintiffs were promised to have free train tickets for life in exchange for not suing the railroad company after an accident. They sued for breach of contract after the railroad stopped giving them free tickets because of a federal statute prohibiting it. Although the defendant would likely use a federal law as a part of their defense, the case was not eligible for federal question jurisdiction because the complaint only featured state law claims. Additionally, we can consider the Holmes Test, which says that a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.

What are the facts of Gordon v. Steele

Gordon v. Steele establishes the test for where people are domiciled. A person is domiciled when they have residency and an intent to remain indefinitely. For example, the plaintiff in Gordon v. Steele was found to have citizenship in Pennsylvania despite attending school in Idaho because she did not intend to stay in Idaho.

SMJ domicile

A person is domiciled when they have residency and an intent to remain indefinitely. For example, the plaintiff in Gordon v. Steele was found to have citizenship in Pennsylvania despite attending school in Idaho because she did not intend to stay in Idaho. Additionally, corporations are citizens where they have their principal place of business and the state in which they are incorporated. Finally, partnerships and llcs are citizens where their partners are domiciled.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Supplemental Jurisdiction: Supplemental jurisdiction allows a state law claim to appear in federal court. It is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. A state law claim is allowed if 1) there is an original jurisdiction hook in the case, 2) the claim in question arises out of the same case or controversy as the original jurisdiction hook (the same common nucleus of operative facts) and 3) survives the limitations set by subsections (b) and (c). The limitations set forth in these section apply to Rule 20 in adding additional parties and Rule 13(a)(1) and limited because they cannot destroy diversity jurisdiction with added parties. For example, in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, there was supplemental jurisdiction when a plaintiff sued a defendant for violations of a federal employment statute and state common law regarding employment contracts because these claims arose out of the same common nucleus of operative fact. When there is federal question jurisdiction as the original jurisdiction hook, then the exceptions do not apply (Aldinger). For a negative example, we can look to Owen Equipment v. Kroger, which held that supplemental jurisdiction over an additional defendant from Iowa was not allowed because it destroyed diversity jurisdiction (the original hook of jurisdiction).

Original jurisdiction hook: use federal question or diversity jurisdiction

Same common nucleus of facts—Cite to UNited Mine Workers

Doesn’t destroy diversity jurisdiction if it is used—Cite to owen equipment v. Kroger

What are the cases for supplemental jurisdiction

in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, there was supplemental jurisdiction when a plaintiff sued a defendant for violations of a federal employment statute and state common law regarding employment contracts because these claims arose out of the same common nucleus of operative fact

Aldinger—-allowed to add an additional defendant under federal question.

Owen Equipment v. Kroger, which held that supplemental jurisdiction over an additional defendant from Iowa was not allowed because it destroyed diversity jurisdiction (the original hook of jurisdiction).

Personal jurisdiction

 A court has personal jurisdiction when it has the authority to hail a defendant. Personal jurisdiction is designed to ensure that defendants do not have their due process rights violated. There are four ways that a court can have personal jurisdiction: in rem, quasi in rem, specific personal jurisdiction, and general jurisdiction. Because we are looking at the personal jurisdiction of people and not property, we only need to consider if the court has either specific or general personal jurisdiction.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction

A court has specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a typical scenario when 1) the defendant had contacts in the forum, 2) the plaintiff’s claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts in the forum, and 3) personal jurisdiction is otherwise fair and reasonable.

Normal Contacts

First, we must consider if the defendant had contact with the state (International Shoe). An example of this occurs in International Shoe, where the defendant had contact with the state of Washington by conducting business in it. To assess this factor, the court determines whether the defendant has purposefully availed themselves of the state. For example, in World Wide Volkswagen, the plaintiffs bought a car from WWVW in New York and were moving to Arizona but had a car accident in Oklahoma. The court found that the defendant (WWVW) had not purposefully availed itself to the state of Oklahoma. It did not sell the car in Oklahoma, nor had it sold any cars in Oklahoma. It had no offices there, didn’t ship or deliver products there, and did not serve the Arizona market in any way. Just because it could foresee the plaintiffs taking the car there did not mean it had purposefully availed itself of that state. Therefore, it did not have contacts with the because it had not purposefully availed itself, so the court did not have personal jurisdiction. Alternatively, in McGee, the defendant purposefully availed itself of the state of California by reaching out to a man who had moved to California to continue selling him insurance, despite having no other contacts there. Like/unlike World Wide Volkswagon, the defendant in this case did/did not purposefully avail themselves of contact with the state. Like/unlike the defendant in WWVW, who had no offices, no sales, no products inside the state outside of the ones that people like the plaintiff had brought into the state, the defendant in this case…..

What are the relevant cases related to normal contacts

World Wide Volkswagen- the plaintiffs bought a car from WWVW in New York and were moving to Arizona but had a car accident in Oklahoma. The court found that the defendant (WWVW) had not purposefully availed itself to the state of Oklahoma. It did not sell the car in Oklahoma, nor had it sold any cars in Oklahoma. It had no offices there, didn’t ship or deliver products there, and did not serve the Arizona market in any way. Just because it could foresee the plaintiffs taking the car there did not mean it had purposefully availed itself of that state. Therefore, it did not have contacts with the because it had not purposefully availed itself, so the court did not have personal jurisdiction.

McGee-Alternatively, in McGee, the defendant purposefully availed itself of the state of California by reaching out to a man who had moved to California to continue selling him insurance, despite having no other contacts there.

Stream of Commerce Contacts

First, we must consider if the defendant had contact with the state (International Shoe). However, sometimes a defendant can still satisfy this contact requirement even if they are not the ones expressly aiming themselves at the state. This can occur when the defendant is one back in the stream of commerce (McIntyre). In these cases, a defendant satisfies requirements of contacts when they sell to a third party that sells in a jurisdiction and have knowledge of these contacts and something additional, including substantial sales. For example, in McIntrye, a defendant (McIntrye GB) who manufactured metal shearing machines in Great Britain did not have a regular flow of sales into New Jersey and did not engage in any additional conduct that connected it to the forum (advertising, designing for the market, regular shipments, etc). A single sale was not enough. In the present case, there likely is/isn’t contacts established by the stream of commerce. Like/unlike the defendant in McIntyre…

What is the relevant case for stream of commerce contacts

McIntyre- a defendant (McIntrye GB) who manufactured metal shearing machines in Great Britain did not have a regular flow of sales into New Jersey and did not engage in any additional conduct that connected it to the forum (advertising, designing for the market, regular shipments, etc). A single sale was not enough

Internet contacts

First, we must consider if the defendant had contact with the state (International Shoe). However, this question is slightly complicated because the business has internet contacts. Some jurisdictions use the distinction of the three different websites established by Zippo: interactive, semi-interactive, and passive websites. Interactive websites allow a company to conduct business/receive and send orders, and they usually have contacts that give rise to personal jurisdiction. Semi-interactive websites have an exchange of information that falls into a more gray area, and some courts say they are enough while others say the company must have additional non-internet activity in the jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions are split. The 2nd and 7th circuits say that a single sale is enough (referencing back to International Shoe). The 5th and 8th circuits rely on an idea similar to Justice Kenedy’s articulation in McIntyre that says there must be an express aiming of sales. Finally, the 9th circuit established its test in Herbal Brands. In this case, the court held that a defendant has contacts when they 1) committed an intentional act, 2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and 3) caused harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state. In Herbal, the court held that the plaintiff committed an intentional act by putting their products on Amazon, knew that Amazon would likely sell it there, and their products caused the harms to Herbal Brand’s image in these states. In the present case, (run through zippo scale). Then do 2nd and 7th where single sale is enough. Then do 5th and 9th where they must expressly aim. Then do Herbal Brands/9th were with test.

Internet contacts jurisdictions

Some jurisdictions use the distinction of the three different websites established by Zippo: interactive, semi-interactive, and passive websites. Interactive websites allow a company to conduct business/receive and send orders, and they usually have contacts that give rise to personal jurisdiction. Semi-interactive websites have an exchange of information that falls into a more gray area, and some courts say they are enough while others say the company must have additional non-internet activity in the jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions are split. The 2nd and 7th circuits say that a single sale is enough (referencing back to International Shoe). The 5th and 8th circuits rely on an idea similar to Justice Kenedy’s articulation in McIntyre that says there must be an express aiming of sales. Finally, the 9th circuit established its test in Herbal Brands. In this case, the court held that a defendant has contacts when they 1) committed an intentional act, 2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and 3) caused harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state. In Herbal, the court held that the plaintiff committed an intentional act by putting their products on Amazon, knew that Amazon would likely sell it there, and their products caused the harms to Herbal Brand’s image in these states.

Internet contacts case

Herbal Brands:  the court held that a defendant has contacts when they 1) committed an intentional act, 2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and 3) caused harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state. In Herbal, the court held that the plaintiff committed an intentional act by putting their products on Amazon, knew that Amazon would likely sell it there, and their products caused the harms to Herbal Brand’s image in these states.

Claim arises out of or relates to (arises out of)

Second, the plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. International Shoe. A contact arises out of a state when it occurs in that state. For example, in the case of International Shoe, Washington’s claim in the case arose out of International Shoe conducting business in the state and not paying required taxes. Similarly, in Herbal, the plaintiff’s claim of injuries to its brand image relates to the defendant selling its products in Arizona. In the present case, …. Like/unlike

Claim arises out of or relates to (relates to)

Second, the plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. International Shoe. A contact arises out of a state when it occurs in that state. For example, in the case of International Shoe, Washington’s claim in the case arose out of International Shoe conducting business in the state and not paying required taxes. However, a claim does not have to arise out of the specific contacts a defendant has with a state because it can relate to them. For example, in Ford, the court held that even though plaintiffs had purchased their trucks from outside their respective states, the court found their issues related to Ford’s contacts in the state because Ford sold the same trucks in the states that each defendant sued in. However, there is an important wrinkle left open by Ford’s decision on claims that relate to contacts. It is unclear whether the court would allow a claim that relates to the a defendant’s contacts with the state when those claims are experienced in a different state.

If the ford wrinkle applies consider arguments on both sides

• Not important where the harm occurred but where the plaintiff has availed themselves

• Important cases tried by states where outcome is relevant to citizens (this can go both ways)

Cases for arises out of or relates to

International shoe-For example, in the case of International Shoe, Washington’s claim in the case arose out of International Shoe conducting business in the state and not paying required taxes.

Herbal-the plaintiff’s claim of injuries to its brand image relates to the defendant selling its products in Arizona. In the present case

Ford-the court held that even though plaintiffs had purchased their trucks from outside their respective states, the court found their issues related to Ford’s contacts in the state because Ford sold the same trucks in the states that each defendant sued in. However, there is an important wrinkle left open by Ford’s decision on claims that relate to contacts. It is unclear whether the court would allow a claim that relates to the a defendant’s contacts with the state when those claims are experienced in a different state.

Fairness factors

Finally, having personal jurisdiction in the forum state must be fair. To balance fairness, the court has created fairness factors to weigh against each other. Courts will consider 1) the burden on the defendant 2) the forum state’s interest 3) the plaintiff’s interest 4) the interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversy/the shared interest of states in furthering substantive social policies. For example, in ______. With regards to the burden on the defendant (reason in favor and reason against). Etc. 

Cases relevant to fairness factors

World Wide Volkswagen-

1. The burden on the defendant

• Dismissed it. Didn't think it matter. Big company. They would have to travel far. Same burdens aren't really burdens any more.

2. The forum state's interest

• Oklahoma did have interest. It’s where it occurred-want safe cars on your roads.

• Lower argument-they aren't even residents of the state

3. The plaintiff's interest in a convenient forum

• Yes, witnesses, evidence, where injury occurred

• New York state is not convienent for them

4. The interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution of controversies

• There would be an interest to prevent people from having to move around, it would be efficient to have them stay together--don’t want to undermine state law--presumably Oklahoma law applies, also possible that products liability in New York

5. The shared interests of several states in furthering substantive social policies

• I mean it happened in the state. We want to be able to drive across states and litigate issues.

General Personal Jurisdiction

A court has general personal jurisdiction when a defendant is at home in a state. For individuals, this means that they are at home in the place that they are domiciled. See Gordon v. Steele (holding that a defendant is domiciled in the location in which they have residence and have no intent to leave). Corporations are subject to general personal jurisdiction in the state that they are incorporated in, the state that has their principle place of business, and a state where their contacts are so extensive such that they are essentially rendered at home. With regards to the contacts so extensive such that they are essentially rendered at home, courts determine this by applying the relative magnitude test. This test compares a corporation’s business in one state to the next highest state. For example, in Daimler, the court ignored the issue of whether MBUSA’s sales counted as Daimlers and found that Daimler would have had 11% of national sales in California and 2.4% of international sales in California. Even with these sales, the court reasoned at their sales were not enough under the relative magnitude test to essentially render them at home. To be clearly rendered at home through extensive contacts, there must be at least 60% of sales in the state because that would mean that the next highest state could only be 40% at most. In the present case….

Relevant cases for personal jurisdiction

Gordon v. Steele-(holding that a defendant is domiciled in the location in which they have residence and have no intent to leave)

Daimler-the court ignored the issue of whether MBUSA’s sales counted as Daimlers and found that Daimler would have had 11% of national sales in California and 2.4% of international sales in California. Even with these sales, the court reasoned at their sales were not enough under the relative magnitude test to essentially render them at home.

Venue

Venue determines which specific court house a plaintiff can bring suit in. Venue is one of many ways that courts ensure that they do not violate parties’ due process rights from the 5th and 14th amendments. Venue is established by statute under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). This statute says that a court case can be brought in a judicial district where any defendant resides if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located. Residency for individuals is determined by the domicile test in section 1332. Residency for businesses is where they are subject to personal jurisdiction. Residency for people from outside of the United States is irrelevant and they can be sued in any judicial district. Venue is also valid in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events took place. For example, in Uffner, a court in Puerto Rico was a valid venue because a substantial part of the events (the sinking of the yacht) took place there. If neither residency nor event offers the venue (which means the events took place outside of the country and defendants are not all from the same state), then the venue is proper in any district where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Cases relevant to venue

Uffner-a court in Puerto Rico was a valid venue because a substantial part of the events (the sinking of the yacht) took place there.

Pleading: Complaint

When a plaintiff is pleading a complaint, they must include a short and plain statement of the court’s grounds for jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and the demand sought for relief. Fed Proc Rule 8(a). The court used to operate under the notice pleading standard under Conley, which said that a complaint only needed a short and plain statement of the claim to show the pleader is entitled to relief. However, this standard was overturned by Twombly and Iqbal. With this, the court established that courts must cross out statements that are conclusory on matters of law (disregard them) and then determine whether the remaining statements are plausible for the claim. To see if they were plausible, the court must find no easy alternative explanation. For example, in Twombly, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that cell-phone companies were colluding in ways that violated antitrust laws, but could not offer any proof of these claims and instead found that this practices could be plausibly explained away as valid, rational business practices that just happened to look like collusion. Similarly, in Iqbal, the court found that his accusations that Mueller and Ashcroft instituted racist policies in their investigations into the 9/11 attacks were not enough as a complaint to support the conclusion that these policies were intended to be racist. The majority believed that there was a plausible alternative that the people they were looking validly were of a particular race and religion and that they were not being targeted because of these features. This decision showed that Twombly’s test was not limited to just antitrust cases but applied to all civil complaints. However, the court further clarified these tests in Swanson. In this case, an African-American woman applied for a loan at a bank and sued for racial discrimination. Judge Wood’s majority ruled that the pleading in this case satisfied Rule 8 because a pleading must present facts that hold a narrative together to show that the narrative could have happened, not necessarily that it did. Some cases will require more details for this to occur than others. Her inclusion of other extraneous facts did not discount the overall narrative. She showed that they knew of her race and accused them of discriminating in a specific business transaction with her. Although she will need more facts to prove this, there is enough for the narrative to hold together and move to discovery. Judge Posner’s minority opinion suggests a harsher standard to satisfy Rule 8. He suggests that the narrative provided in a complaint must overcome the obvious alternative. In that case, he says that a comparison to other people who had applied to the loan, or pointing to direct competition where a white person was favored over a black person. He also points to evidence of alternative explanations given that she had been rejected other times when she applied for loans. He suggests that this stricter interpretation is necessary to protect defendants from unnecessary discovery.

We can apply Iqbal and Twobley’s refined rule 8 to the present case using Judge Wood’s and Judge Posner’s standards. Under Wood’s interpretation that the narrative must hold together after striking legal conclusions from the complaint…. Like/Unlike the complaint in Swanson.

Under Judge Posner’s interpretation that the narrative must present a plausible narrative that overcomes alternative explanations, the complaint here…..  Like/unlike the complaint in Swanson,

Relevant cases/rules to complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8:

Conley: The court used to operate under the notice pleading standard under Conley, which said that a complaint only needed a short and plain statement of the claim to show the pleader is entitled to relief.

Twombly: the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that cell-phone companies were colluding in ways that violated antitrust laws, but could not offer any proof of these claims and instead found that this practices could be plausibly explained away as valid, rational business practices that just happened to look like collusion

Iqbal: the court found that his accusations that Mueller and Ashcroft instituted racist policies in their investigations into the 9/11 attacks were not enough as a complaint to support the conclusion that these policies were intended to be racist.

Swanson: In this case, an African-American woman applied for a loan at a bank and sued for racial discrimination. Judge Wood’s majority ruled that the pleading in this case satisfied Rule 8 because a pleading must present facts that hold a narrative together to show that the narrative could have happened, not necessarily that it did. Some cases will require more details for this to occur than others. Her inclusion of other extraneous facts did not discount the overall narrative. She showed that they knew of her race and accused them of discriminating in a specific business transaction with her. Although she will need more facts to prove this, there is enough for the narrative to hold together and move to discovery. Judge Posner’s minority opinion suggests a harsher standard to satisfy Rule 8. He suggests that the narrative provided in a complaint must overcome the obvious alternative. In that case, he says that a comparison to other people who had applied to the loan, or pointing to direct competition where a white person was favored over a black person. He also points to evidence of alternative explanations given that she had been rejected other times when she applied for loans. He suggests that this stricter interpretation is necessary to protect defendants from unnecessary discovery.

Pleading: Answer

When a defendant is served a complaint, they are faced with three options. They could do nothing in response to the complaint. This would result in a judge entering a default judgment against them. They may choose to do this when they are judgment proof (insolvent) or there is no jurisdiction over them (and then go to court to prevent the court in their jurisdiction from enforcing it). This is a risky move because they could be held liable for something they had a defense for. Their second option is that they can serve their answer in response to the complaint. Rule 12(a_ requires that a defendant’s answer be served within 21 days of being served the complaint. This answer contains a line by line admittance, denial, or need for more information to the claims in the complaint. Rule 8(b). The answer also includes affirmative defenses that the defendant has to the claims against them and counterclaims they are bringing against the party. Rule 8(c). The answer may also contain 12(b) motions to dismiss if they were not previously filed. Rule 12(g)-(h). The third option is to file motions to dismiss using Rule 12(b)’s defense. All of these defenses may be able to be brought in the answer under a separate motion. The defendant can file a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, a 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and a 12(b)(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19 at any point of the trial. Rule 12(g)-(h). However, rule 12(b)(2) lack of personal jurisdiction, 12(b)(3) improper venue, 12(b)(4) insufficient process, and 12(b)(5) insufficient service of process motions to dismiss are use them or lose them, meaning that they must used in the initial motion to dismiss or answer (if there is no separate motion to dismiss previously filed) or they will forfeit the right to use them. Rule 12(g)-(h). (See Hunter v. Servtech-where the defendant tries to reserve the right in their answer to bring some of these 12(b)(2)-(5) motions later and the court holds that Rule 12 does not allow this).

Omitting defenses

Rule 8(c) lists specific affirmative defenses, but the list is not limited to these defenses. In the case that a party has omitted an affirmative defense, they can bring this defense later as long as they did don’t unfairly surprise the plaintiff with it. For example, in Ingraham, the United States (defendant) did not raise the statutory limit on a particular type of damages until the end of trial. The court ruled that they could not rule this defense because doing so would be unfair to the Ingraham, who likely would have changed their approach to their argument and would have argued evidence in favor of other measures of damages.

Relevant cases/rules for answer

Rule 12(a), (b), (g), (h), 8(c)

Hunter v. Servtech

Motions to strike

Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter either on its own accord or by a motion made by a party before responding to the pleading, or if there is no allowed response to the pleading, within 21 days of being served with the pleading. For example, in Reis Robotics, the defendant’s answer attempted to claim various affirmative defenses that were not actually affirmative defense, including claims that the plaintiff had breached their contract or that there was no contract at all, which notably are not affirmative defenses because they do not admit the defendant’s fault. Additionally, the defendant’s attempt to reserve 12(b)(2)-(5) is not allowed so the court struck it from their answer.

Relevant cases/rules for motions to strike

Rule 12(f),

Reis Robotics- the defendant’s answer attempted to claim various affirmative defenses that were not actually affirmative defense, including claims that the plaintiff had breached their contract or that there was no contract at all, which notably are not affirmative defenses because they do not admit the defendant’s fault. Additionally, the defendant’s attempt to reserve 12(b)(2)-(5) is not allowed so the court struck it from their answer.

Sanctions for Lawyers

Lawyers have a responsibility to their clients and other parties to act ethically and honestly. Rule 11(a) requires that lawyers sign all pleadings, written motions, and other papers filed with the court before they file them. This signature certifies that the document has no improper purposes (harass, cause unnecessary delay, needlessly increase costs of litigation). Rule 11(b)(1). It also certifies that it contains no frivolous legal contentions (see Hays where a lawyer included state copyright claims that were frivolous because they did not even exist anymore)/ Rule 11(b)(2). It further asserts that it contains no factual contentions that lack and are unlikely to have support (see Hays where there were factual claims made that Sony was profiting off of a work that supposedly violated copyright laws even though there was no evidence nor attempt to gather evidence by communicating with Sony about these facts). Rule 11(b)(3). Finally, it asserts that the document has no denial of facts that are not justified. Rule 11(b)(4). Opposing counsel must serve the motion for sanctions to the lawyer 21 days before they file it with the court, providing them with the opportunity to correct their mistake. Rule 11(c)(2). However, the court can also bring about sanctions on its own accord. 11(c)(4). Finally, examples of sanctions include monetary fines, assignment of attorney fees, judicial reprimand, striking of the filing, mandatory CLE classes, referral to the bar for sanction/disbarment, and dismissal of the case.

Relevant cases/rules for lawyer sanctions

Rule 11(a), (b)(1), (b)(2). (3), (4). 11(c)(2) and (4)

Hays-where there were factual claims made that Sony was profiting off of a work that supposedly violated copyright laws even though there was no evidence nor attempt to gather evidence by communicating with Sony about these facts

Preclusion

Preclusion doctrines help to promise principles of finality, efficiency, and legitimacy in the court by preventing the same claims/issues from being relitigated and potentially reaching different results. There are two forms of preclusion: claim preclusion and issue preclusion.

Claim preclusion, otherwise known as res judicata, is an affirmative defense that prohibits parties from being claims that have already been tried. It occurs when 1) the plaintiff could have raised the claims in the first action, 2) the claim in the second action is based on the same transaction or occurrence that was at issue in the first action (ergo, same parties), 3) the plaintiff obtained a valid and final judgment against the defendant, 4) the judgment was on the merits. There are two standards for determining if a claim is precluded: the same evidence test and the transactional test. The same evidence test says that a claim is barred if the evidence needed to sustain that claim would have sustained the previously litigated claim, which leads to res judicata less often than the transactional test, which says that a claim is barred if a single group of operative facts gives rise to both the claim and the previously litigated one. For example, in Riverpark, the court considered both versions of this test when analyzing whether a plaintiff could bring a state-court action for breach of contract and tortious interference when they had already brought claims of violation of a federal statute in federal court under the same facts. If the court had applied the same evidence test, they would have found that the state law claims were allowed because the federal claim had required evidence geared towards the government depriving the plaintiff of their property rights (in violation of the statute) and the state law claims would have focused on evidence for the tortious interference and the breach of contract between the plaintiff and defendant (i.e. were based on different theories of recovery). However, the court ultimately used the transactional test, which determined that the claim was precluded because breach of contract claims accused in state court arose out of the same facts/transactions.

Issue preclusion, otherwise known as collateral estoppel, prevents a court from relitigating a specific issue again when it has already been previously decided. For example, if a court decided in case 1 that A did not have intent in a battery case, then the court cannot find that A had intent in an assault case from the same occurrence.

Relevant cases for claim preclusion

Riverpark-the court considered both versions of this test when analyzing whether a plaintiff could bring a state-court action for breach of contract and tortious interference when they had already brought claims of violation of a federal statute in federal court under the same facts. If the court had applied the same evidence test, they would have found that the state law claims were allowed because the federal claim had required evidence geared towards the government depriving the plaintiff of their property rights (in violation of the statute) and the state law claims would have focused on evidence for the tortious interference and the breach of contract between the plaintiff and defendant (i.e. were based on different theories of recovery). However, the court ultimately used the transactional test, which determined that the claim was precluded because breach of contract claims accused in state court arose out of the same facts/transactions.

Joinder

Joinder is the ability to bring additional claims or parties together in a single lawsuit. Allowing for joinder of claims can help with efficiency by consolidating related issues into one suit and can help to make court cases more efficient through minimizing the total number of lawsuits. However, having too liberal of joinder rules would potentially be unfair to other parties because it may make a lawsuit incredibly complicated or liability on one issue may bias the jury as to their liability for other claims in the lawsuit. Therefore, Rule 21 allows parties to make or the court to raise a motion to sever parties from the lawsuit into a separate suit. Rule 42(b) is enforced by Rule 21 and allows courts to separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counter-claims, etc for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize. 

Joinder of claims

Joinder of claims is governed by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows one party to assert multiple claims (as many as they have) against another party even if those claims are unrelated. Joinder is very liberal in terms of what claims it allows a plaintiff to bring. However, jurisdictional requirements still apply to each claim. Therefore, additional requirements need to satisfy supplemental jurisdiction requirements under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. A claim can be joined if the court has original jurisdiction over the claim or if the court has original jurisdiction over another claim and the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim.

Joinder of parties

Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explains when additional plaintiffs and defendants can be added. Rule 20(a)(1) explains that a plaintiff can join additional plaintiffs who can sue with them if their claims they assert arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences and if their claims involve questions of law common to all plaintiffs. Rule 20(a)(2) explains that the same is true for defendants. For example, in Hohlbein, four plaintiffs attempted to sue a defendant for misrepresentations in their hiring process. Hohlbein argued that these transactions were not related because they were separate interviews, for separate positions, and the plaintiffs alleged different damages. However, the court denied the motion to sever the lawsuit, finding that the claims arose out of a common course of conduct by Heritage and involved shared questions of law and fact and was authorized under Rule 20(a). Alternatively, in Demboski, the court held that four plaintiffs could not sue a railroad together because all of their injuries were different and occurred because they were in different locations (on the train, beside the train, etc). Each joined party must still satisfy jurisdictional requirements under USC 28 §§ 1331, 1332, or 1367. Under § 1367, plaintiffs cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to add parties that destroy the original jurisdiction, meaning if original jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction, parties added cannot destroy diversity. 

Some parties must be joined. A required party must be joined if the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties in that party’s absence or that person claims an interest relating to the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest or leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest. Rule 19.

Joinder relevant rules

Rule 21 and Rule 42(b)

Joinder of claims relevant rules

Rule 18, 28 USC Section 1367

Joinder of parties relevant rules and cases

Rule 20

Hohlbein-four plaintiffs attempted to sue a defendant for misrepresentations in their hiring process. Hohlbein argued that these transactions were not related because they were separate interviews, for separate positions, and the plaintiffs alleged different damages. However, the court denied the motion to sever the lawsuit, finding that the claims arose out of a common course of conduct by Heritage and involved shared questions of law and fact and was authorized under Rule 20(a).

Dembiski-the court held that four plaintiffs could not sue a railroad together because all of their injuries were different and occurred because they were in different locations (on the train, beside the train, etc).

Counterclaims

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize defendants to bring counterclaims against plaintiffs. Rule 13(a) outlines compulsory counterclaims, which are claims that a defendant must bring if they want to try them to prevent res judicata. This rule requires defendants to assert in their pleadings a counterclaim if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require adding an additional party that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over. For example, in King v. Blanton, Blanton originally sued King for negligence that resulted in a car accident. After the two parties settled, King sued Blanton for negligence in the same car accident. The court held that this claim was barred; it was a compulsory claim under Rule 13(a) and needed to be brought in the first suit. Claims brought under this rule can get supplemental jurisdiction.

Some claims are not compulsory but are permissive counterclaims, meaning that they are allowed to be brought in the same court case but they do not have to be. Rule 13(b). These claims are not barred if they are not brought. However, these claims must have their own jurisdictional basis and cannot get supplemental jurisdiction.

Relevant cases and rules for counterclaims

Rule 13(a)-can get supplemental jurisdiction

(b)-cannot get supplemental jurisdiction, can be brought later

King v. Blanton-Blanton originally sued King for negligence that resulted in a car accident. After the two parties settled, King sued Blanton for negligence in the same car accident. The court held that this claim was barred; it was a compulsory claim under Rule 13(a) and needed to be brought in the first suit.

Impleader

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defending party to bring in a third-party defendant when the third party defendant is a party that is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the claim against them. This essentially makes the defendant a plaintiff towards the third-party, making the defendant a third-party plaintiff and the new party a third-party defendant. Allowing this promotes efficiency in the court system because a defendant would likely seek recovery from this third-party defendant in a future lawsuit if they lost. For example, in Erkins, a plaintiff sued a company for products liability when he was injured riding a construction vehicle. The defendant wanted to implead two other parties (the contractor and the subcontractor of the construction project) because of their negligence on the construction site. The court allowed this impleader because it promoted efficiency in the court system without unnecessarily complicating the case. There are two main purposes of Rule 14. One theory is indemnification, which is where the third party has agreed to pay on the defendant’s behalf. An easy example of this is an insurance company. The other is contribution, which is where the third party is also liable to you.

Impleader rules and cases

Rule 14

Erkins- a plaintiff sued a company for products liability when he was injured riding a construction vehicle. The defendant wanted to implead two other parties (the contractor and the subcontractor of the construction project) because of their negligence on the construction site. The court allowed this impleader because it promoted efficiency in the court system without unnecessarily complicating the case.

Discovery

Discovery is the process of uncovering information for trial where parties exchange with and request information from other parties. Examples of things gained from discovery include documents, electronic information, access to property, pictures, audiotapes, medical records, and the testimony of parties and non-party witnesses. Discovery of materials is allowed as long as it is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case in scope unless it is limited in scope by the court or deals with privileged material and regard of whether it is admissible in evidence as court. Rule 26(b)(1).

Privileged information and work product

Privileged information is usually a communication made in confidence during the course and in furtherance of a relationship that society has chosen to promote and protect (example lawyer-client). To invoke privilege, a party must expressly claim this privilege and describe the nature of the material in a manner that does not reveal information but does enable other parties to assess the claim. Rule 26(b)(5). Attorney-client privilege can be claimed over communications made between privileged persons in confidence for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client. Additionally, a lawyer’s work products for litigation are protected from discovery as privileged materials unless they are otherwise discoverable under 26(b)(1) and the party shows it has a substantial need for the materials and that it cannot obtain their equivalent without undue hardship. Rule 26(b)(3). This rule was established after Hickman, where a court did not allow one party to discover the other party’s lawyer interviews with witnesses to a tugboat accident because this information was a work product that would have given insight into the client’s argument. Courts have three different approaches to determine when work products are made in anticipation of litigation. One approach is the specific claim approach, which protects work products when lawyers create them with a specific claim supported by concrete facts in mind. The second approach is the ad hoc approach, which expands work product protection to settings without a specific claim in mind but still considers Hickman’s policy concerns that need the preparation be done in reasonably foreseeing upcoming litigation. The third approach is the primary purpose approach, which says a work product created in anticipation of litigation is protected when the primary purpose of creating the work was to assist in preparing for potential litigation.

Summary judgement relevant cases and rules

56(a), 56(b), 56(e)

Scott-exception to most favorable light to nonmoving party when clear video evidence contradicts his testimony

Slaven- the defendant filed for a motion to dismiss based on a lack of genuine issue of material facts with regards to their knowledge that the plaintiff’s brother, a prisoner, was suicidal and the plaintiff failed on her burden to point to facts that suggested that they knew or should have known he was.

Haley v. Amazon-the court determined that Haley’s declaration that Amazon had continued to deduct a percentage of his product’s profits despite him telling them to stop did establish a genuine issue of material fact because he could testify this information at trial. It does not matter that his evidence was self-serving because his evidence should be

Specific claim approach

 protects work products when lawyers create them with a specific claim supported by concrete facts in mind.

Ad hoc approach

expands work product protection to settings without a specific claim in mind but still considers Hickman’s policy concerns that need the preparation be done in reasonably foreseeing upcoming litigation.

Primary purpose approach

 third approach is the primary purpose approach, which says a work product created in anticipation of litigation is protected when the primary purpose of creating the work was to assist in preparing for potential litigation.

privileged information and work product relevant rules and cases

Rule 26(b)(1), (3), (5)

Hickman-where a court did not allow one party to discover the other party’s lawyer interviews with witnesses to a tugboat accident because this information was a work product that would have given insight into the client’s argument.

Discovery Process

Discovery can begin before the complaint and answer filed with informal discovery. Once a complaint and answer have been filed and served, parties have a meet and confer as required by Rule 26(f) to develop a discovery plan to propose to the court, discuss issues in discovery (including preserving materials), and even attempt to settle or resolve the case. Rule 26(f). This meeting should take place as soon as practice and at least 21 days before going to court. Rule 26(f). Within 14 days of this meeting, they must submit a written proposal of their plan within 14 days of the meeting. They must also do their 26(a)(1) required initial disclosures, which includes the names and address of people likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, documents that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, computation of damages, and applicable insurance policies.  Rule 26(a)(1). Parties can stipulate to delay disclosures. Rule 26(a)(1)(c). They can also object in the discovery plan that is reported to the court where the court can order delay as part of the scheduling order in Rule 16(b), where the judge has 90 days to issue the conference and order within 90 days of any defendant being served or within 60 days after any defendant has appeared, whichever is earlier. Rule 16(b). During this time, motions to dismiss can also be filed. Rule 12(c), filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Within discovery, parties can submit interrogatories to each other, which are written questions that the opposing party must answer, can only be served on parties, and are limited to 25 questions unless waived or ordered by a court otherwise. Rule 33. They can also request documents beyond initial disclosure. They can gather depositions under Rule 30. Finally, they can request mental or physical examinations of any other party. In regards to E-discovery, courts can conduct searches of emails using search terms. For example, in Waskul, the court held that requesting 80 emails that did not have any emails be flagged by search terms was proportionate when weighing cost, importance to the plaintiff's case, and a low cost and burden on the plaintiffs

Summary Judgment

Either party can file a motion for summary judgment or a motion for partial summary judgment and a judge can grant it if there is no genuine issue of any material fact related to the applicable substantive law and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(a). A party can file these motions up until 30 days after the close of discovery. Rule 56(b). Rule 56 motions are typically filed post discovery and use materials from discovery, as long as the evidence is admissible in court. The non-moving party has to respond by setting out specific facts that show a genuine issue for trial and the court must view the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party unless the nonmovant’s evidence is so implausible that no reasonable person could believe it. Rule 56(e). For example, in Slaven, the defendant filed for a motion to dismiss based on a lack of genuine issue of material facts with regards to their knowledge that the plaintiff’s brother, a prisoner, was suicidal and the plaintiff failed on her burden to point to facts that suggested that they knew or should have known he was. For example, in Haley v. Amazon, the court determined that Haley’s declaration that Amazon had continued to deduct a percentage of his product’s profits despite him telling them to stop did establish a genuine issue of material fact because he could testify this information at trial. It does not matter that his evidence was self-serving because his evidence should be. See Scott (holding exception to most favorable light to nonmoving party when clear video evidence contradicts his testimony.

There are three ways that a summary judgment can be successful. First, a summary judgement can be successful when it shows the burden of proof of all (or some for partial) of the elements. In this case, the moving party shows that the facts are undisputed and that they prove the elements under the undisputed facts. Second, a summary judgement can occur through a disproof of the elements. This occurs when the party moving does not have the burden of proof at trial and they disprove one of the elements that the other party would have to prove. Finally, the moving party can show an absence of proof in the evidence when there are not disputed material facts of genuine issue, but you need to attach evidence showing an absence of proof. For example, in Celotex Corp v. Catrett, the plaintiff sued for wrongful death alleging her husband died from asbestos exposure in dealing with Celotex’s products. However, celotex argued that she had no proof it was exposure to their products that killed him. The court held that there was no need for affirmative evidence of this lack of proof. With this, the rules were later adapted to reflect this possibility by Rule 56(c)(1)(B), which followed Justice White’s concurring opinion that the moving party needs to point to evidence to show the lack of proof.

Factors relevant to proportionality in discovery

When considering the proportionality, courts consider 1) the importance of the issues at stake, 2) the amount in controversy, 3) parties’ relative access to relevant information, 4) the parties’ resources, 5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 6) whether the burden/expense outweighs the likely benefit. See Oxbow.

Which rules cannot get supplemental jurisdiction

Rule 20 (for Ps joining Ds)

Rule 13(b)-is not allowed to have supplemental

Rule 14-Implead third party

Which rules cannot destroy diversity jurisdiction

Rule 18

Rule 13(g)