Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure

Method for determining the proper court for civil litigation and how to proceed once you get there.

Purpose of civil procedure

To provide a just, efficient, and economical means by which parties can resolve their disputes.

Federal Courts

Courts with limited jurisdiction that handle cases involving federal law or disputes between parties from different states.

State Courts

Courts that handle cases involving state law or disputes between parties from the same state.

Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear a case involving a particular defendant based on their presence or activities within the court's territory.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear a case based on the type of dispute involved.

Notice/Opportunity to be heard

The defendant must be properly notified of the lawsuit and given the opportunity to present their side of the case.

Venue

The location where a court case will be heard, determined based on jurisdiction and convenience.

Erie Doctrine

In federal court, the doctrine that determines whether federal or state law should govern in a given case.

Pennoyer v Neff

A landmark case involving personal jurisdiction, where the court held that a court lacking jurisdiction over a party cannot render a binding judgment.

International Shoe Test

A test used to determine if a nonresident defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum state to establish personal jurisdiction, based on fairness and justice.

Long Arm Statutes

State laws that allow courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants based on specific acts or connections to the state.

Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)

The authority of a court to exercise its power over a defendant in a legal case.

Minimum Contacts

The requirement that a defendant must have sufficient connections or activities within a forum state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them.

Purposeful Availment

The act by which a defendant purposefully engages in activities within a forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.

Sufficient and Minimum Contact

The level of contact a defendant must have with a forum state in order for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them.

Long Arm Statute

A state law that allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants based on their contacts or activities within the state.

Special Appearance

A legal motion challenging personal jurisdiction on the basis of lack of connection to the forum state.

General Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear any type of case involving a defendant, regardless of whether the case is related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state.

Specific Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear a case that arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum state.

Stream of Commerce

The concept that placing a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not sufficient to establish purposeful availment for personal jurisdiction.

Notice and Opportunity to be Heard

The requirement that a defendant must be properly notified of a lawsuit and given an opportunity to present their objections before a court can exercise jurisdiction over them.

Mullane Standard

The standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust, which requires that notice be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties of the lawsuit and afford them an opportunity to respond.

Service of Process

The delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendant, notifying them of the lawsuit and their obligation to appear in court.

Dismissal Without Prejudice

The dismissal of a case without barring the plaintiff from refiling the case within the statute of limitations.

Waiver of Summons

The voluntary relinquishment of the right to be formally served with a summons in a lawsuit.

Waive formal service

Choosing not to require formal service does not waive the right to challenge venue, personal jurisdiction, etc. (Rule 4 (d5))

Clock on the statute of limitations

The clock on the statute of limitations is stopped when the plaintiff files a lawsuit.

Service

Service refers to the delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendant to notify them of the lawsuit.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject Matter Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular subject matter, such as federal courts having jurisdiction over federal law issues.

Federalism

Federalism refers to the division of power between the federal government and the state governments.

Diversity Jurisdiction

Diversity Jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases between parties from different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Amount in Controversy

Amount in Controversy refers to the minimum value required for a case to be eligible for federal court jurisdiction.

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Under the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule, a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint for federal question jurisdiction to apply.

Aggregation Rules

Aggregation Rules determine whether multiple claims or parties can be combined for jurisdictional purposes in federal court.

Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)

CAFA allows class action lawsuits to be heard in federal court if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Supplemental Jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear state law claims that are related to the federal claims in a case.

Pendent Jurisdiction

Pendent Jurisdiction exists when a federal court hears a state law claim along with a federal claim that arises from a common nucleus of operative fact.

Gibbs Standard

The Gibbs Standard states that pendent jurisdiction exists when the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and can be considered as one constitutional case.

Discretionary Factors

Discretionary Factors are considerations such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness to litigants, and avoidance of needless decisions of state law that influence a court's decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Discretionary Factors

Consideration of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants.

Implication that if federal claims are dismissed before trial, state claims should be dismissed as well.

State claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution in state court if state issues substantially predominate.

Likelihood of jury confusion in treating divergent legal theories of relief.

Section 1367(b)

In federal court solely on diversity, federal courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction over certain claims brought by plaintiffs against third parties, necessary parties, or parties intervening, when it would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of 1332.

Carmen's claim against Grace

Supplemental jurisdiction is not allowed because the federal court can hear the claim under 1332 and 1367 states that plaintiffs added through rule 20 do not have supplemental jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over Carl's claim against Lindsey

The New York federal court does not have jurisdiction over Carl's claim because it is proposed to be joined as a plaintiff under Rule 19.

Removal Jurisdiction

Defendants have the option to remove a case from state court to federal court to level the playing field and have a federal judge.

Supplemental jurisdiction and removal work together, and the federal court cannot cherry pick what they want to hear.

Defendants have 30 days to file a notice of removal after receiving the initial notice of the complaint.

All defendants must agree to removal, not majority rules.

The case becomes removable if the plaintiff amends the complaint to include a federal question within 30 days of receiving the information of the change.

Only defendants can remove a case, not plaintiffs.

Complete diversity

In cases where there is no concern of bias, the requirement that all plaintiffs are from different states than all defendants.

Bias concerns

Only applicable in cases solely based on diversity, not in federal question cases.

Supplemental jurisdiction

The authority of a federal court to hear additional claims that are related to the original claim.

Venue

Pertains to the geographical location where a case should be heard, determined by 28 U.S.C. section 1391.

Constitutional issues

Venue does not raise concerns about constitutional matters.

Litigating the claim

The process of narrowing down the venue to where the claim will ultimately be heard.

Venue rule

Each state has its own rule regarding venue.

Standard for venue

The criteria used to determine the appropriate venue for a case.

Moving venue

The process of transferring a case to a different venue within the federal system.

Fall back provision

Refers to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b)(3), which is used when a proper venue cannot be determined under section 1 or 2.

Proper venue

The place or venue in which a case can be heard and the state or federal courts have jurisdiction to hear the case. If a proper venue is found under section 1 or 2, there is no need to look at section 3.

Businesses and venue

Businesses are domiciled in the place where they are citizens or have their nerve center/principal place of business/incorporation/where their employees are located.

Residency analysis

All residency determinations for venue purposes are made under the same analysis.

Substantial part

Refers to the legal requirement for a significant portion of the events or actions related to the case to have occurred in a particular venue.

Transfer of venue

The process of moving a case from one venue to another.

Burden of proof

The responsibility of the party seeking a transfer of venue to demonstrate that the transfer is appropriate.

Conflict of laws

The issue of which state's laws should be applied in a case involving multiple states.

Choice of law in transfer

If a case is transferred under 28 U.S.C. section 1404, the law that was going to govern the lawsuit will move with the case.

Arbitrary discretion

Refers to the standard applied to decisions made by a court, even if one disagrees, if a reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion, the decision must be upheld.

practical problems created by Swift

Encouraged forum shopping as parties selected between two different bodies of law; And Led to inequitable administration of law - not all parties could engage in this type of federal v. state forum shopping

Easy Erie

A federal court, when sitting in diversity, must apply state substantive law (which includes judge-made common law.)

Erie Conundrum

(1) Start with state pratcie and determine whether substantive?

(2) Start with federal pratice and determine whether procedural?

(3) Would application of the state v. federal approach lead to a different outcome?

Outcome Determinative Test

Don’t focus on categorization of rule as substantive vs. procedural; rather would application of the federal rule/practice significantly affect the result of the litigation? If so, the state rule/practice should be applied, such that litigating in federal court as opposed to state courts would not lead to a substantially different result.

Does the federal consitution require notice?

no.

The Goal of Erie Doctrine

Consistent outcome between the state and federal court

Federal Court were created to

Prevent bias

Siibbach test (the procedural test)

Does the rule really regulate procedure, - the judicial process {manner and means} for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them.

When would the original erie analysis?

When there is no federal rule of civil procedure or federal procedural statutes at use.

Twin aims of Erie Doctrine

discourages forum shopping; and avoiding inequitable administration of laws.

Modified Outcome Determinative Test (Judge-made practice)

Not enough that application of the federal rule night affects the outcome must be read with reference to the twin aims of Erie: (1) discouraging forum shopping; and (2) avoiding inequitable administration of laws.