Civil Procedure 2

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

2 main ways:

• federal question

• diversity

federal question

plaintiff’s case must contain the federal issue

• cannot just be in answer

• cannot preempt Defendant’s argument that it will be in defense

diveristy jurisdiction

• all plaintiffs must be diverse all defendants

• citizenship determined at time of lawsuit

• amount in controversy must be more tha $7500

amount in controversy

• oompensatory and punitive damages may be counted

• a single plaintiff may aggregate all claims agianst a single defendant

  • no same transaction/occurence necessary

• cannot aggregate agianst multiple defendants

• if an injunction is sought, amount is the larger of the defendants costs of compliance or value to plaintiff

citizenship for individuals

citizens of state in which they were born and raised, and where they reside

can change citizenship if

1) move to new state AND

2) intend to remain there indefinitely

citizenship of corporations

citizen of two states - need to show both

1) state of incorporation AND

2) prinicple place of business (state where officers and directors control the compnay)

Removal

• defendant can remove a state case to federal court

• all defendants must agree

• within 30 days of when removal possible

• if removal based on diveristy

  • within 1 year of complaint filed

  • can’t remove to defendants’ home state

traditional basis for PJ

• service of process

• defendant domiciled in forum state

• consent/waiver

PJ waiver

if you did not bring motion to dismiss for PJ, service of process, venue, or notice FIRST, then you waived

PJ constitutional standard

defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum state such that jurisidiction over them would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

minimum contacts

• purposeful availment

• arises out of defendant’s contacts with the forum state

• faireness factors/reasonableness

purposeful availment

• purposefully, intentionally, and deliberately target his conduct towards the forum state

  • benefits and protections

• foreseeability

  • defendant should reaosnably anticipate haled into court in the forum state

lawsuit arises out of defendant’s contacts with forum state

defendant;s contacts must be related to the lawsuit

fairness factors

• burden on defendant (to go to forum state)

• state’s interest

• plaintiff’s interest

• system efficiency (evidence and witnesses)

general jurisidiction

• only for corporations!

• does defendant have such systematic and unrelated contacts such taht it essentially feesl at home in the forum state?

effects test

satisfies purposeful availment and arising out of contacts

• even if no contacts, can still be subject to forum state

• intentional actions cause harm in form state

• effects of conduct were in forum state

• not enough to foresee an effect, has to be expressly aimed

• effects must link defendant to forum state, not just the plaintiff who happens to be there

venue is appropriate

in any district where defendant resides

• as long as all defendants reside in same state

where substantial events occurred giving rise to lawsuit

venue appropriate for corporations special rule

in any district in which the corporation would be subject to personal jurisdiction if each district were its own mini state

transfer of venue

discretionary by the court

may transfer if another forum is convenient

12(b)(6) - failure to state a claim

• not waivable, can raise at any time

• legal sufficiency

  • assume facts in compliant are true

  • does law provide a remedy?

• factual sufficiency

  • plausible - enough facts to make reasonable

  • not threadbare, not conclusory

Summary Judgment

• view facts in light most favorable to non-moving party

• no genuine issue of material fact

• no reasonable jury could find for the other side

• do not wiegh evidence

Erie doctrine

• in federal court based on diversity AND

• federal law conflicts with state law

Erie test

1. is there a conlfict between state and federal law?

2. if the federal law is directly on point, apply federal law

3. if not ask, would applying federal or state law affect the outcome of the case?

   1. if no, stop and apply federal law

   2. if yes, apply state law

      1. unless there is a strong federal interest in the federal law, then apply federal law anyway

Rule 18 - Joinder

• once you have a claim against a party, you can being as many unrelated claims as you want against that party

• limitation: every claim must have its own independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction

  • if unrelated claim does not have SMJ, can ask for supplemental jurisdiction

supplemental jurisdiction

• is the claim that needs help related to plaintiff’s main claim against defendant?

  • is yes, the supplemental jurisdiction

  • if no, then no

• one exception: if main plaintiff is asking for supplemental jurisidiction and their anchor claim is based on diveristy, then no

compulsory counterclaim

• one that is related to main cause of action

• if you don’t bring the claim, then it is wiaved forever

• will always qualify for supplemental jurisidiction

permissive counterclaim

• unrelated counterclaim

• allowed as long as:

  • has its own independent basis for subject matter jurisidiction

  • will never qualify for supplemental jurisdiction

cross claims

co-defendants can sue each other so long as it is about same transaction or occurrence as plaintiff’s main claim

• will get supplemental jurisdiction

impleader

• defendant can add another defendant to help pay

• for contribution or indemnity only

• new defendant = 3rd party defendant

• original defendant = 3rd party plaintiff

• will always qualify for supplemental jurisdiction

downsloping

you can only downslope with a related claim

• becomes a claimant and then can bring unreleated claims

will get supplemental jurisdiction

upsloping

plaintiff can go after 3rd party defendant

but will not get supplemental jurisdiction

Mandatory joinder 12(b)(7) - motion to dismiss

steps:

• defendant claims this missing party is necessary

• would it be feasible to just join that missing, but necessary party?

• in equity and good conscience, can the lawsuit proceed without that missing party (19(b) factors)

  • if yes, force to sue cuasing dismissal of lawsuit

  • if no, adjudicate in party’s absence

necessary party

• has an interest that might be impaired if left out OR

• complete relief cannot be issued in the party’s absence OR

• if current parties would be subject to inconsistent/duplicative liability

feasible to join missing party?

• if yes, then just do it, force plaintiff to sue missing party too

• will never be ok - will screw up jurisdiction

  • defendant won’t ry unless they know it will ruin jurisdiction

19(b) factors

• extent of prejudice to missing party

• whether the orejudice can be lessened by shaping the relief in a certain way

• and if case is dismissed, whetehr the plaintiff can find relief in another forum

temple v. synthes

party will not be deemed necessary if it is a potential joint tortfeasor situation

no mandatory joinder

intervention by right

a party must be permitted to intervene upon timely application when:

• party claims an interest relating to subject matter of the action AND

• without intervention, there is a risk that they might not be able to protect that interest

will get supplemental jurisdiction

intervention by permission

party may intervene with a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact

• but if allowing party to intervene would mess up jurisdiction, court will not permit

will not get supplemental jurisdiction

claim preculsion

defendants only, affirmative defense

• same claim

• same parties (or in privity)

• final valid judgment on the merits

same claim

• primary rights - focus on plaintiff, gets a lawsuit for every type of harm suffered

• restatement/transaction test - same transaction or occurrence or series of occurrenecs

same parties

• party to lawsuit #1 OR

• in privity with party from lawsuit #1

  • substantive legal relationship

finla valid judment on the merits

everything counts

except:

• dissmissed due to lack of jurisdiction

• improper venue

• failure to join a required party

issue preclusion

any party, even if not in lawsuit #1

• same issue

• issue essential to judgement

• valid and final judgment on the merits

• asserted against party from lawsuit #1

• used offensively or defensively?

same issue

special versus general verdicts

essential to judgment

if finding on that issue had been different, would it have led to a different overall result in the lawsuit?

• if yes, then essential

• if no, then not essential

asserted against party from lawsuit 1

• person asserting does not have to be party from lawsuit 1

• but, MUST be asserted against party from lawsuit 1

defensive use

usually ok

offensive use - Parkland factors

• plaintiff could have easily joined lawsuit 1

• defendant had incentive to litigate lawsuit 1 vigorously

• earlier judgment is consistent with other judgments?

• procedural opportunities unavailable in first trial that are available in second trial

judgment as a matter of law

• no genuine issue of material fact

• viewing facts in light most favorable to non-moving party

• no way reasonable jury could find for other side

• no weighing

birng after other side closes their case in chief

renewed judgment as a matter of law

within 28 days after you lost, and you moved for JMOL during trial

exact same motion as JMOL

motion for new trial

must be brought 28 days after you lose

basis - verdict against the great weight of the evidence

unlimited attempts

Appeals

• 30 days to file

• can only appeal based on issues objected to during trial

• can only appeal of a final judgment

judge’s power

• can move for SJ, JMOL, and new trial sua sponte

• remititue - can reduce jury award amount sua sponte

clearly erroneous

findings of fact

abuse of discretion

legal, discretionary decisions made by judge during trial

de novo

• new or unsettled areas of law

• judgments made by lawywers in the case

juries

• need 6-12

  • may end with less than 6 if all parties stipulate

• verdict must be unanimous

for cause challenges

unlimited if you can explain a legitimate reason (bias, unfit to serve)

peremptory strikes

• each side gets 6

• no explanation

• but, if discriminatory, have to explain neutral reason

6

minimum jurors

10

dispositions

14

• days to request jury trial from last responsive pleading

• TRO length

21

• days to amend complaint/answer as a matter of right

• respond to complaint

• safe harbor provision - correct when hit with Rule 11 sanctions

25

interrogatories

28

• RJMOL

• new trial

30

• appeal

• removal

60

defendant has 60 days to respond to complaint if they waive formal service of process

90

• defendant has 90 days to respond to complaint if they waive formal service of process and they are a foreign defendant

• must disclose expert witnesses planning to use at trial

• plaintiff has 90 days after filing to serve defendant

waiveable motions

• lack of personal jurisdiction

• improper venue

• notice

• insufficient serve and process