CivPro

Remedies in civil actions

monetary fines or injunctions

U.S. Constitution Article III § 1

establishes the Supreme Court and allows Congress to make lower courts

FRCP 1

civil trials are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules should be construed for JUST, SPEEDY, and INEXPENSIVE suits

28 U.S.C. § 2072 - Rules Enabling Act (1934)

Congress gave SCOTUS authority to widely establish rules for civil litigation in federal courts, these rules are the FRCP.

FRCP 2

Civil actions are the only forms of action.

Adversarial system

parties represent clients and argue to an impartial judge

Inquisitorial system

system where judge investigates the case

FRCP 3

Filing a complaint is the first step in starting a lawsuit

FRCP 8a

Requirements of complaints:
1) jurisdiction
2) states claim for relief that is legally and factually sufficient
3) state relief sought

Conley v. Gibson

no set of facts sufficient to show that the union did not represent Black railroad workers as required, notice pleading is an interpretation of R8a2

Swierkiewicz

notice pleading only requires the discriminated against Hungarian employee to give enough information for the other party to know what you are talking about, you do not need a prima facie case in the complaint

Twombly

When Bell Atlantic was accused of acting in a way that violated the Sherman act, only alleging that LEC heads acted in the same way is not enough because the inference of antitrust activity is not taken as true on motions to dismiss unless there are enough facts to believe the inference over the null hypothesis

Iqbal

Legal conclusions, like Muller and Ashcroft acted with a discriminatory mind set when holding Arab men in ADMAX, are not assumed to be true, and do not further R8a2 factual sufficiency

FRCP 9

heightened pleading standard for fraud and states of mind

FRCP 7

states the types of pleadings

FRCP 10b

complaints must be in a certain format which includes numbered paragraphs

U.S. Constitution Amendment VII

In suits at common law… the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

FRCP 38

Right to a jury trial must be preserved in the initial complaint

Common law courts

rigid writs that were cases with the same fact pattern that were decided before, could issue damages or declare ownership of property, had juries

Equity courts

power of the crown, expensive and slow trials, could create substantive law, issue injunction and specific performance, no juries

Chauffers, Teamsters, and Helpers.

A group of truckers who were not represented by their union can have a jury despite feduciary duties being semi-equitable because this is for a breach of a contract and only seeks common law monetary damages, If Congress has not stated that this cause of action gets a jury trial, then is there a similar common law writ? What type of relief is sought?

FRCP 4

Summons. Must be done properly in accordance with the state or jurisdictional law by someone over the age of 18. Summons attaches personal jurisdiction and satisfies the Due Process Clause. If it is not waived by the defendant then they are responsible for paying the cost to serve them

Due Process Clause

“government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”, comes from 5th and 14th Amendments

5th Amendment

DP clause applies to the federal government - “No person shall … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

14th Amendment

DP clause applies to states - “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Mullane

Where addresses are known, it is not too burdensome to serve them, but when address are not know, placing the notice in the newspaper is a acceptable way of notice as to not violate the Due Process Clause and the 14th Amendment. You must take reasonable steps to notify defendants.

Requirements for Federal Jurisdiction

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction

Types of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Question Jurisdiction, Diversity Jurisdiction, and Supplemental Jurisdiction

Professor Neuborn

Pro-Federal SMJ; federal judges are more technically competent and state judges are often elected and answer to the people while federal judges are willing to go against the majority attitudes

Professor Seinfeld

Anti-Federal SMJ; federal judges are biased and they deal with too wide of a range of law to be “experts on any part of it

U.S. Constitution Article III § 2

Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States (FedQJ)

28. U.S.C. § 1331

Federal Question Jurisdiction Statute. DisCos have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constiution, laws or treaties of the US

FRCP 12b

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) improper venue;
(4) insufficient process;
(5) insufficient service of process;
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.

FRCP 12h

12b(2-5, 7) (personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, failure to join) can be waived if not raised in the responsive pleading

Mottley

Since we want to limit cases that come to federal courts, cases where a federal law prohibiting free train travel will be a defense against a breach of contract cannot go to federal court. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule: is the federal question necessary to the complaint? Could the complaint survive a motion to dismiss without the federal issue? No - go to state court.

Osborne

federal ingredient test; here a federally-created-bank trying to sue an Ohio man for breach of contract) entirely in state law can be under federal jurisdiction because there is a federal “ingredient” in the bank’s creation

U.S. Constitution Article III § 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, between citizens of different states, DivJ

Professor Kramer

Anti-DivJ because it is time consuming and bias based on residency isn’t a thing anymore

28 U.S.C. § 1332

Federal Statute giving rise to DivJ. Need >$75k in controversy (cannot add up parties) between citizens of different states

Strawbridge

You must have complete diversity to have diversity jurisdiction, all different residencies on each side of the v.

JTH Tax, Inc. v. Frashier

After Frashier wanted to bring his Liberty Mutual client list with him, it was determined that there was a good faith controversy of >75k at beginning because there was no law prohibiting recovering that amount such there there was no legal certainty that he could not recover that

Sheehan v. Gustafson

Individual domicile is based on the adult's last citizenship and intent to remain which is why a man holding a Nev. drivers license is still a Nev. man despite owning property in Minn.

Hertz Corp.

Corporate domicile is determine as where a business is incorporated and where it has its principle place of business. Principle places of business are the nerve center of the executives, not in California where everyone does a large portion of business

28 U.S.C. § 1367

Federal supplemental jurisdiction. allows federal courts to hear state law claims that arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact so long as there is an anchor claim that has federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

A state claim for tortious interference with a contract to open a mine can be tacked onto a federal violation of Labor Act in federal court if the claims have a common nucleus of operative face. Is there overlapping evidence? Is it the same transaction or occurrence? Is the factual connection only loose?

Professor Perdue

Pro-PerJ, can be justified because there are practical consequences to the choice of forum: choice of law, convenience for a party, and local bias or perception that local judges/juries are less generous. Notes that the EU establishes PerJ based on events not on defendants

In rem

pre-judgment attachment disputes arising out of the property itself (who owns it)

Quasi in rem

pre-judgment attachment for purposes of obtaining personal jurisdiction, when a property is seized for the purposes of satisfying the plaintiff’s claim; think in rem + in personam, not a think any more

In personam

courts' power to adjudicate matters directed against a party

28 U.S.C. 1738

Full Faith & Credit Statute. Records & judicial proceedings of state 1 can come to state 2 if they have the seal & judge’s certificate

U.S. Constitution, Article IV § 1

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Pennoyer v. Neff

Since Neff was not in Oregon & had no land in Oregon at the time of the original lawsuit, Oregon lacked personal jurisdiction over him, so they had no grounds for taking his land because he was not in the territory. Service in state.

Formalism (Rules)

“speed limit is 65”, Pennoyer made a rule based in territory, which was a formalist approach to federalism and states not stepping on each other’s toes because each state has an interest to protect their own citizens

Functionalism (Standards)

“drive safely”, International Shoe makes a standard based on sufficient minimum contacts, which is a functionalist approach to Due Process and individuals benefiting from a state and not being held to trial there.

International Shoe v. Washington

International Shoe did need to pay into the Washington unemployment fund because they employed people in the state, did a fair amount of business in the state, and would have benefited from the Washington courts if needed.
A business can be sued in a state where they are not incorporated or their principle place of business if they have sufficient minimum contacts which are systematic and continuous and being tried in the state would not offend fair play and substantial justice. Also consider fair play and substantial justice.

Enumerated Long Arm Statutes

a list of requirements that must be satisfied in order to bring a non-resident in to a suit (think Delaware because everyone is incorporated there)

General Long Arm Statutes

will allow pretty much anything that the 14th Amendment would allow you to bring, revert to the personal jurisdiction menu (think California with a lot of resources and alot of passion)

FRCP 5

Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers - generally done through Paser in federal courts, basically just upload the document

FRCP 6

Compute and Extend time.

McGee

If there is one contact (an individual that you chose to sign on after a merger) that remains systematic within the state, like paying premiums, then that state has personal jurisdiction.

Hanson v. Denckle

A defendant must CHOOSE to participate in business in the forum state for there to be personal jurisdiction. Since there was only unilateral activity on the part of Donner, and her trustee did not reach out to FL such that she could foresee going to court there, the FL courts had no personal jurisdiction over the trust.

Keeton v. Hustler

Keeton was a public figure who was defamed in Hustler, which had a small circulation in New Hampshire. Since there was some, albeit small, circulation in New Hampshire, they had PJ over Hustler.

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp

A car sold from a NY VW dealership crashed in OK but that small dealership couldn’t be sued in OK since they did not business there and the consumer brought the product there alone.

Burger King

Rudzewicz was a business man who made a BK franchize but couldn’t pay his fees. The K he signed had a choice of law clause which the court upheld since he was a businessman who had reached out to that state to form the contract and it was reasonably foreseeable that he would be sued there.

Asahi Metal

Asahi, a foreign manufacturer, sold parts to another foreign manufacturer who then sold them in the US. The product injured a californian who settled the case. Since there were only foreign parties left, and Asahi had not diverted the stream of commerce to get their parts into the US, there was no PJ.

J. McIntyre

A McIntyre machine injured a NJ man. McIntyre went to US trade shows but they did not sell, market, or have offices in NJ. Since they did not target their business to that state, there was no PJ.

Zippo Manufacturing

Zippo.com was a CA news website that reached PA. Manufacturing was a PA company that sued .com for trademark infringement. Since Zippo had actively exchanged information with PA residents, then they were considered to have reached out the state and there was PJ. There would not be PJ if the website was a passive advertisment.

Daimler AG

Bauman was an Argentenian who sued Daimler in CA because their subsidiary MBUSA sold cars there. However, this was not a cause of action that arose out of those car selling activities, and that is not a strong enough connection to consider Daimler at home in CA such that a suit of this kind could be brought. There was not general jurisdiction over Daimler in CA.

Burnham

The Burnhams were getting a divorce. The wife served the husband when he showed up at her house in California, despite living in NJ. Husband could be served in CA and have PJ because service in state has so much dang precedent.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

The Shutes, a Wash. couple were injured on a Carnival Cruise, before embarking they signed a forum-selection clause. This was valid as a way to consent to personal jurisdiction.

Specific Jurisdiction

when the claims arise out of the contacts, requires fewer contacts in a minimum contacts analysis

General Jurisdiction

when the claims are unrelated to the contracts, requires far more contacts

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

A class of people brought suit in CA claiming that B-M’s drug injured them. However, many in the class were not from CA and did not purchase the drug in CA. Since the injury claims for those plaintiffs did not arise out of or relate to B-M’s activities in CA, they cannot be sued for them there. There were not enough contacts for general jurisdiction and the claims did not arise out of the contacts for specific jurisdiction

Professor Fuller

Anti-Joinder because rules allow polycentric problems to be adjudicated as such there will be unequal pulls on and remedies available to parties

FRCP 13

Statute allowing defendant claim joinder through a1A compulsory counterclaims and a1B permissive counterclaims

FRCP 18a

Statute allowing plaintiff to join any claims so long as there is an anchor claim

Painter v. Harvey

When an alleged wrongful arrest and defamation counterclaim arise out of the same evidence and has a logical relationship, the counterclaim is compulsory.

Griggs v. Holt

Three incarcerated people brought claims against separate correctional officers and one common administrative staff claiming assault as a result of use of excessive force which was a same question of law or fact and out of the same transaction or ocurrence that allowed the plaintiffs to join as one.

Luyster v. Textron

Use the broad definition of coparty - any third party may sue any other third party, even a air space company who wished to bring a negligence suit against the US government after people died in a plane crash

FRCP 20

Defendants and Plaintiffs can join parties if the claim against them arises out of the same transaction or occurrence.

FRCP 23

Statute governing class actions

FRCP 12a

you must file an answer within 21 days of being served UNLESS you waived your right to service, then you get 60 days, or 90 if you are outside of the US. Can file a responsive pleading and motion under R7

FRCP 8b

answers deny, admit, or say not enough information and include “deny any remaining allegation in the complaint” at the bottom as anything not denied is admitted.

Milton v. General Dynamics

You can admit, deny, or state that you do not have enough knowledge, but you MUST respond. You cannot claim a section does not apply to you and then use that section to answer yours.

GEOMC v. Calmare

Generally apply Twiqbal to affirmative defenses, but STRONGLY take into account how long they had to prepare the defense.

Claim Preclusion

res judicata - a thing adjudicated, an affirmative defense in second lawsuit between P_1 and D_1, no CP in P_1 v. D_2

Merger

when claimant won (winning P’s claim is merged into the judgment)

Bar

when claimant lost (P’s claim against D is barred because they lost)

R2d of Judgments § 17

Statute giving rise to claim perclusion

You get one bite at the apple.

Sentected for claim perclusion. You means that the judgment only applies to the parties or parties who were represented. Bite if the first suit was valid, final, and on the merits. Apple means that claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or common nucleus of operative fact are precluded.

Rush v. Maple Heights

One action gives rise to one claim. You cannot try the same claim twice, even when both you and your bike were injured.

Issue Preclusion

Collateral estoppel, applies to elements of a claim and binds the loser in future lawsuits with new parties

R2d of Judgments § 27.

Statute giving rise to issue perclusion. When the same issue of fact or law (identical in all elements) has been actually litigated and resolved, and the issue was necessary to the judgment, the court's valid and final judgment stands

Parklane Hoisery

The stock holder could recover because Parklane had ever incentive to adjudicate against the SEC and the shareholder couldn’t have joined in the original lawsuit. Where it is unfair to the defendant or the plaintiff could have joined in S_1, there cannot be offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel.

Venue

Not a constitutional mandate but is a housekeeping rule in big states that dictates in which district you can bring a suit

28 U.S.C. § 1390a

Venue is the proper geographic court

28 U.S.C. § 1391

except for specialized venue statutes, consider for each district:
b1) residence route
b2) events route
b3) if neither residence or events, then any district where there is PJ

Removal

defendant can remove a case filed in state court to federal court since federal courts and state courts often have concurrent jurisdiction

Judiciary Act of 1789

originally enabled removal

28 U.S.C. § 1441

modern statute enabling removal. Defendants can remove a case from state to federal court if it could have been brought in the federal court though SMJ, PJ, and Venue. However, they cannot do so if they are residents of the state and the case would only get in on diversity.