Civil Procedure

Limited Jurisdiction and Timing

Federal courts must have constitutional and statutory subject-matter jurisdiction over every claim. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created by consent, may be challenged at any time, and must be raised by the court on its own when lacking. Jurisdiction is generally determined from the circumstances existing when the action is filed.

Complete Diversity

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: no plaintiff may share state citizenship with any defendant. Alienage jurisdiction generally covers a dispute between a state citizen and a foreign citizen, but not a dispute solely between foreign citizens.

Citizenship of Individuals

An individual is a citizen of the state in which the individual is domiciled. Domicile requires physical presence in a state and intent to make that state the person's permanent or indefinite home. A person retains an existing domicile until a new one is acquired.

Citizenship of Corporations

A corporation is a citizen of every state or foreign country in which it is incorporated and the state or foreign country containing its principal place of business. The principal place of business is the corporation's nerve center, ordinarily the place where senior officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities.

Citizenship of Unincorporated Associations

A partnership, limited partnership, LLC, and other unincorporated association is a citizen of every state or foreign country of which any partner or member is a citizen. The citizenship of members may have to be traced through multiple layers of entities.

Amount in Controversy

The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The plaintiff's good-faith allegation controls unless it is legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000. Later events reducing the recovery ordinarily do not defeat jurisdiction.

Aggregation

A single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against a single defendant, whether related or unrelated. A plaintiff generally may not aggregate separate claims against multiple defendants unless the defendants are jointly liable. Multiple plaintiffs generally may not aggregate separate claims, but supplemental jurisdiction may permit additional plaintiffs whose claims arise from the same case or controversy when at least one plaintiff satisfies the amount requirement and complete diversity remains.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

Federal-question jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint establishes a claim created by federal law or a state-law claim that necessarily raises an actually disputed and substantial federal issue that a federal court may resolve without upsetting the federal-state balance. A federal defense or anticipated federal reply does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Supplemental Jurisdiction - Basic Rule

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim lacking an independent jurisdictional basis when the claim forms part of the same constitutional case or controversy as a claim within original jurisdiction. Claims form the same case or controversy when they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Supplemental Jurisdiction - Diversity Limitation

When original jurisdiction rests solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction generally does not extend to claims by plaintiffs against persons joined under the joinder, intervention, impleader, or required-party rules, or to claims by persons seeking to join as plaintiffs or intervene as plaintiffs, when exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the diversity statute.

Discretion to Decline Supplemental Jurisdiction

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state claim presents a novel or complex state-law issue, substantially predominates, all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons. Dismissal of federal claims early in the case usually favors declining jurisdiction.

Basic Removal Rule

A defendant may remove a state-court action to the federal district court embracing the place where the action is pending if the action could originally have been filed in federal court. Only defendants may remove, and federal-question removability is determined from the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.

Forum-Defendant Rule

An action removable solely on diversity grounds may not be removed if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed. The forum-defendant rule is procedural rather than jurisdictional.

Unanimity and Timing of Removal

All properly joined and served defendants must consent to removal. Each defendant has 30 days after formal service to remove; a later-served defendant may remove within its own 30-day period, and earlier-served defendants may consent. When the initial pleading is not removable, the 30-day period begins upon receipt of a later paper that first makes removability ascertainable.

One-Year Diversity Limit and Bad Faith

A diversity case generally may not be removed more than one year after commencement of the state action, unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.

Removal Procedure and Venue

The removing defendant files a notice of removal in the proper federal district court, attaches the state-court process and pleadings, gives written notice to adverse parties, and files a copy with the state court. Venue after removal is the federal district and division embracing the state court, regardless of whether ordinary federal venue would otherwise have been proper.

Remand

A motion to remand for a procedural removal defect must be made within 30 days after the notice of removal. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time before final judgment, and the federal court must remand whenever it determines that jurisdiction is lacking.

Fraudulent Joinder

A court may disregard the citizenship of a nominal or fraudulently joined defendant when there is no reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can establish a claim against that defendant under governing state law. The removing party bears a heavy burden to show fraudulent joinder.

Statutory and Constitutional Requirements

A court must have a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction must satisfy due process. A federal district court ordinarily uses the personal-jurisdiction reach of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court sits, subject to specific federal provisions.

Traditional Bases

Personal jurisdiction is ordinarily proper over an individual domiciled in the forum, a defendant who validly consents, and an individual personally served while voluntarily present in the forum. Service procured by fraud or force does not support jurisdiction.

General Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction permits any claim against a defendant. An individual is generally subject to general jurisdiction in the state of domicile. A corporation is generally subject to general jurisdiction in its state of incorporation and principal place of business, and only exceptionally elsewhere when its affiliations are so substantial as to make it essentially at home.

Specific Jurisdiction - Purposeful Contacts

Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful contacts with the forum created by the defendant. The defendant must deliberately reach out to the forum, invoke its benefits or protections, or purposefully direct conduct there; unilateral activity by the plaintiff or a third party is insufficient.

Relatedness

The claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum contacts. Strict but-for causation is not always necessary, but there must be a meaningful affiliation between the forum, the defendant's purposeful conduct, and the litigation.

Fair Play and Substantial Justice

Once minimum contacts exist, the court considers the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest, the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief, the interstate system's interest in efficiency, and the shared policy interests of the states. Jurisdiction is unreasonable only in an unusual case where these factors strongly defeat it.

Stream of Commerce

Placing a product into the stream of commerce, without more, may be insufficient. Stronger facts include designing for the forum market, advertising there, establishing distribution channels or customer service there, or otherwise purposefully targeting the forum.

Consent and Registration

A defendant may consent through a forum-selection clause, litigation conduct, appointment of an agent for service when the governing law clearly treats the appointment as consent, or compliance with a valid business-registration statute that expressly conditions registration on general jurisdiction. Consent must be interpreted according to the governing statute or agreement and due-process limits.

Waiver of Personal-Jurisdiction Defense

Lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, insufficient service, and improper venue are waived if omitted from the defendant's first Rule 12 motion or, if no such motion is made, from the responsive pleading. The defense also may be forfeited through substantial participation inconsistent with timely objection.

Service on an Individual

An individual may be served by following state law in the state where the district court sits or service is made; personal delivery; leaving process at the individual's dwelling or usual abode with a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or delivery to an authorized agent.

Service on a Corporation or Association

A corporation, partnership, or association may be served by following applicable state law or by delivering process to an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service.

Waiver of Service

A plaintiff may request that an individual, corporation, or association waive formal service. A defendant located in the United States that fails without good cause to waive must pay the expenses later incurred in making service. Waiver extends the time to answer and does not waive objections to jurisdiction or venue.

Time Limit for Service

The plaintiff must serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing. If service is not timely, the court must dismiss without prejudice or order service within a specified time; the court must extend the period when the plaintiff shows good cause.

Territorial Reach

Service generally establishes jurisdiction over a defendant who is subject to the forum state's courts. Federal rules also allow jurisdiction over certain joined parties served within 100 miles of the courthouse and, in federal-question cases, over a defendant not subject to any state's general jurisdiction when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole.

Basic State-Law Rule

A federal court exercising diversity or supplemental jurisdiction applies federal procedural law and the substantive law of the forum state, including that state's choice-of-law rules. The court must predict how the state's highest court would decide unsettled state law.

Federal Constitution or Statute

A valid federal constitutional provision or federal statute governs when it directly conflicts with state law and is within federal authority.

Federal Rule on Point

When a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure directly addresses the issue and conflicts with state law, the federal rule governs if it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act and the Constitution. A rule is valid if it genuinely regulates procedure and does not abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights.

No Federal Rule on Point

When no federal rule or statute controls, the court considers whether ignoring state law would materially affect the outcome, encourage forum shopping, or cause inequitable administration of the laws. Strong federal interests in the federal judicial system may justify a different federal practice.

Substantive State Rules

State rules governing elements of claims and defenses, burdens of proof on substantive issues, statutes of limitations, tolling, damages, claim-preclusion law for state judgments, and state-law privileges are generally substantive for purposes of choosing between state and federal law.

Federal Procedural Rules

Federal rules governing pleading, joinder, discovery, trial management, and the allocation of functions between judge and jury generally apply in federal court, subject to any controlling federal statute or rule.

Choice of Law

A federal court sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits. After a transfer for convenience, the transferee court ordinarily applies the choice-of-law rules the transferor court would have used; after transfer from an improper venue, the transferee court applies its own choice-of-law rules.

Federal Common Law

Federal courts may develop federal common law only in limited areas involving uniquely federal interests, such as obligations of the United States, interstate disputes, admiralty, and certain matters committed to federal governance. Otherwise, federal courts may not displace state substantive law merely because a uniform rule would be desirable.

Preclusive Effect of Federal Judgments

Federal law determines the preclusive effect of a federal judgment. For a federal-question judgment, uniform federal preclusion principles apply. For a federal diversity judgment, federal common law generally adopts the preclusion law that the state courts of the rendering state would apply, unless incompatible with federal interests.

General Federal Venue

In a civil action, venue is proper in a judicial district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property is located, or, if no district otherwise qualifies, in any district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

Residence of Individuals

For venue, an individual resides in the judicial district of domicile. A nonresident defendant may generally be sued in any judicial district, and that defendant’s presence is disregarded in determining venue as to other defendants.

Residence of Entities

An entity with capacity to sue or be sued resides, when a defendant, in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action. In a state with multiple districts, the entity is treated as residing in a district in which its contacts would support personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state; if no district qualifies, it resides in the district with the most significant contacts.

Local and Transitory Actions

The federal venue statute generally governs civil actions without the common-law distinction between local and transitory actions, subject to specific venue statutes and rules governing particular claims.

Venue After Removal

A removed action is venued in the federal district and division embracing the state court where the action was pending. The ordinary original-venue statute does not determine whether the removal venue is proper.

Transfer from a Proper Venue

For the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer an action from a proper venue to another federal district where the action could originally have been brought or to which all parties consent. The court weighs private and public convenience factors, and the moving party ordinarily bears the burden.

Choice of Law After Convenience Transfer

When a case is transferred from a proper venue solely for convenience, the transferee court ordinarily applies the same state substantive law and choice-of-law rules the transferor court would have applied. A valid forum-selection clause may alter that consequence.

Transfer from an Improper Venue

When venue is improper, the court must dismiss or, if the interest of justice favors preservation, transfer the action to a district where it could have been brought. After transfer from an improper venue, the transferee court applies its own choice-of-law rules.

Cure of Want of Jurisdiction

A federal court lacking personal jurisdiction may transfer an action in the interest of justice to a court where the action could have been brought, rather than dismissing it, when the governing transfer statute permits.

Forum-Selection Clauses

A valid mandatory forum-selection clause is generally enforced absent extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the parties’ private convenience. The clause receives controlling weight in the transfer analysis, the plaintiff’s chosen forum receives no weight, and private-interest factors are treated as favoring the selected forum.

Forum Non Conveniens

A court may dismiss under forum non conveniens when an adequate alternative forum is available and the balance of private and public interests strongly favors trial there. The doctrine is generally used when the more appropriate forum is a foreign or state court because transfer is available between federal courts. Conditions may be imposed to ensure the alternative forum remains available.

Waiver of Venue

Venue is a personal privilege and may be waived. A defendant must raise improper venue in the first Rule 12 response or it is waived, but a court may still transfer a case from a proper venue for convenience.

Rule 12 Motion Timing

A defendant may raise specified defenses by motion before answering. If no Rule 12 motion is made, the defenses must be included in the responsive pleading when required. Joining multiple available defenses in one motion is permitted and generally required for defenses subject to waiver.

Waivable Rule 12 Defenses

Lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, and insufficient service of process are waived if omitted from the first Rule 12 motion or, if no such motion is made, from the first responsive pleading or permitted amendment as of right.

Failure to State a Claim

A complaint survives a motion to dismiss when its well-pleaded factual allegations, accepted as true and viewed favorably to the plaintiff, state a plausible claim for relief. Legal conclusions and conclusory recitations are not assumed true. The court ordinarily considers the pleadings, attached or incorporated documents, and matters properly noticed.

Failure to Join a Required Party

Failure to join a required party may be raised in any pleading, by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at trial. The court first determines whether the absent person is required and feasible to join; if joinder is infeasible, the court determines whether equity and good conscience require dismissal.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A party or the court may raise it at any time, and the court must dismiss when it determines jurisdiction is absent.

Judgment on the Pleadings

After the pleadings close but early enough not to delay trial, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. The standard generally mirrors failure to state a claim: the court accepts the nonmovant’s well-pleaded facts and grants judgment only when no material factual dispute remains and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment must be granted when the movant shows there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant, and a fact is material if it could affect the outcome under governing law.

Summary Judgment Burdens

A movant with the trial burden must support each essential element with undisputed evidence. A movant without the trial burden may point out the absence of evidence on an essential element. The nonmovant must then identify admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute and may not rest on allegations or denials.

Summary Judgment Evidence

The court views evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor without weighing credibility. Materials need not be presented in admissible form at the motion stage if they can be presented in admissible form at trial.

Rule 56(d) Relief

When a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that specified facts essential to oppose summary judgment cannot yet be presented, the court may defer or deny the motion, allow discovery, or issue another appropriate order.

Judgment as a Matter of Law

During a jury trial, the court may grant judgment as a matter of law after a party has been fully heard on an issue when a reasonable jury would lack a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for that party. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts entitling the movant to judgment.

Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law

A party may renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law after judgment only if the party made a timely preverdict motion on the same grounds. The renewed motion must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment and may be joined with a motion for new trial.

New Trial

A court may grant a new trial after a jury verdict for reasons historically recognized, including a verdict against the great weight of evidence, excessive or inadequate damages, prejudicial error, juror misconduct, or newly discovered evidence. The judge may weigh evidence and credibility but should not simply substitute judgment for the jury’s.

Remittitur and Additur

A federal court may condition denial of a new trial on the plaintiff’s acceptance of a reduced award when the verdict is excessive. A federal court may not increase an inadequate jury award through additur because doing so violates the Seventh Amendment.

Relief from Judgment - Clerical Error

A court may correct a clerical mistake or error arising from oversight at any time, subject to appellate limitations. This procedure cannot be used to change the substantive judgment.

Relief from Judgment - Specified Grounds

On timely motion, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence that could not reasonably have been found in time for a new-trial motion, or fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. These grounds generally must be raised within a reasonable time and no more than one year after judgment.

Relief from Judgment - Other Grounds

A court may grant relief when the judgment is void, has been satisfied or discharged, its prospective application is no longer equitable, or extraordinary circumstances justify relief. The motion must be made within a reasonable time, and the catchall provision requires exceptional circumstances not covered by the other grounds.

Default and Default Judgment

When a party fails to plead or otherwise defend, the clerk enters default. The clerk may enter judgment for a sum certain against a defendant who has not appeared and is not a minor or incompetent person; otherwise the court enters judgment and may hold a hearing. A party who appeared must receive notice before a court hearing on default judgment.

Setting Aside Default

An entry of default may be set aside for good cause. A final default judgment may be set aside only under the stricter grounds for relief from judgment. Courts consider culpability, a meritorious defense, prejudice, and promptness.

Harmless Error

A court must disregard an error that does not affect substantial rights. A new trial or reversal generally requires both error and prejudice.

Temporary Restraining Order

A court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice only when specific facts in a verified complaint or affidavit show immediate and irreparable injury before the adverse party can be heard, and counsel certifies efforts to give notice and reasons notice should not be required. An ex parte order must state the injury and reasons, be narrowly drawn, and expires within 14 days unless properly extended.

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction generally requires likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a balance of equities favoring the movant, and consistency with the public interest. Notice and an opportunity to be heard are required.

Security for Interlocutory Injunction

The court may require the movant to post security sufficient to pay costs and damages sustained by a party later found to have been wrongfully restrained. The amount rests within the court’s discretion, subject to governing law.

Complaint

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of subject-matter jurisdiction, a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, and a demand for relief. Fraud or mistake must be pleaded with particularity, while intent, knowledge, and other mental conditions may be alleged generally.

Answer

An answer must admit or deny the allegations and state defenses. A denial must fairly respond to the substance; an allegation other than damages is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and it is not denied. Affirmative defenses must be stated or risk forfeiture.

Amendment as of Right

A party may amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the pleading or, when a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive pleading or specified motion, whichever is earlier.

Amendment by Leave

After the period for amendment as of right, a party may amend with the opponent’s written consent or court leave. The court should freely give leave when justice requires, but may deny for undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure, undue prejudice, or futility.

Relation Back - New Claim

An amendment adding a claim relates back to the original filing when the claim arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out or attempted to be set out in the original pleading.

Relation Back - New Defendant

An amendment changing a defendant relates back when the claim arises from the same conduct or occurrence and, within the service period, the new defendant received notice without prejudice and knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning identity.

Supplemental Pleading

On motion and reasonable notice, the court may permit a supplemental pleading describing events occurring after the original pleading. A supplemental pleading differs from an amendment, which corrects or adds matters existing earlier.

Certification of Filings

By presenting a pleading, motion, or paper, an attorney or unrepresented party certifies after reasonable inquiry that it is not presented for improper purpose, legal contentions are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for change, factual contentions have or likely will have evidentiary support, and denials are warranted.

Sanctions for Improper Filings

Sanctions may be imposed after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond and must be limited to deterrence. A party seeking sanctions must serve the motion and allow 21 days for withdrawal or correction before filing it. The court may act on its own without the safe harbor but follows separate procedures.

Pretrial Conference and Order

The court may hold pretrial conferences to manage the action, facilitate settlement, control evidence, and formulate issues. The resulting pretrial order controls the course of the action unless modified to prevent manifest injustice.

Right to Jury Trial

The Seventh Amendment preserves a jury right in federal court for legal claims analogous to common-law actions when the amount in controversy exceeds the constitutional threshold. Equitable claims carry no jury right. When legal and equitable issues overlap, legal issues ordinarily are tried to the jury first.

Jury Demand

A party must serve a written jury demand no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue and file it as required. Failure generally waives the jury right, though the court may order a jury trial in its discretion.

Jury Selection

Prospective jurors must be selected from a fair cross-section without purposeful discrimination. Challenges for cause are unlimited when supported; peremptory challenges are limited and may not be exercised on constitutionally prohibited grounds.

Jury Instructions

A party must timely request instructions and object on the record, stating distinctly the matter and grounds, to preserve error. An unpreserved instructional error may be reviewed only under the demanding plain-error standard.

General and Special Verdicts

A jury may return a general verdict, a special verdict with findings on factual issues, or a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories. When answers are inconsistent with the verdict or each other, the court must attempt reconciliation and may direct further deliberation or order a new trial as permitted.

Findings in Bench Trial

In a bench trial, the court must find facts specially and state legal conclusions separately. Findings may be stated orally or in writing and are reviewed for clear error, with due regard for credibility determinations.

Permissive Claim Joinder

A party may join as many claims as it has against an opposing party, whether related or unrelated. Joinder does not itself create subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim.

Permissive Party Joinder

Multiple plaintiffs or defendants may join when claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series and share at least one common question of law or fact. The court may sever or order separate trials to avoid prejudice or inconvenience.

Compulsory Counterclaim

A pleading must state a counterclaim against an opposing party that arises from the same transaction or occurrence and does not require adding a person beyond the court’s jurisdiction, unless the claim was already pending or falls within another exception. Failure to plead generally bars a later action.

Permissive Counterclaim

A counterclaim not arising from the same transaction or occurrence is permissive and need not be asserted. It requires its own basis of subject-matter jurisdiction unless supplemental jurisdiction applies.

Crossclaim

A party may assert a crossclaim against a coparty arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or counterclaim, or relating to property at issue. Crossclaims are permissive, and once a proper crossclaim is asserted, unrelated claims may generally be joined against that coparty.

Impleader

A defending party may implead a nonparty who is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. Impleader is derivative and cannot be used merely to allege that the third party is directly liable to the plaintiff instead.

Intervention as of Right

A timely applicant may intervene when a federal statute grants an unconditional right or when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction, disposition may practically impair that interest, and existing parties do not adequately represent it.

Permissive Intervention

A court may permit timely intervention when a statute grants a conditional right or the applicant’s claim or defense shares a common question with the main action, considering delay and prejudice.