Civil Procedure Outline Flashcars

Rule 6(a) Time Calculation

Exclude the first day; count Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.

Rule 6(a) Weekend/Holiday Rule

If a period ends on a weekend or legal holiday, it rolls over to the next business day.

Rule 6(b) Extensions

Court may grant extensions before original time expires or upon motion for excusable neglect.

Litigation Phase 1: Pleading

Plaintiff files complaint; Defendant moves to answer or dismiss.

Litigation Phase 2: Discovery

Parties investigate facts, take discovery, and file or argue pretrial motions.

Litigation Phase 3: Pretrial

Includes a pretrial conference and possible summary judgment or evidentiary motions.

Litigation Phase 4: Trial/Post-Trial

Involves trial, post-trial motions, entry of judgment, and potential appeals.

Rule 18(a) Claim Joinder

Plaintiff can assert any and all claims against a defendant in a single complaint.

De Novo Standard of Review

No deference given; applies to questions of law

appellate review of 12(b)(6), summary judgments or JMOLs

Mixed Questions of Law and Fact

Reviewed de novo if answering the question involves primarily legal work.

Clearly Erroneous Standard

Minimal deference; applies to a judge's factual findings.

Reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed.

Abuse of Discretion Standard

Deferential standard applied to lower court's discretionary trial management and evidentiary orders.

Jury Standard of Review

Complete deference; whether a reasonable juror could reach the decision under the 7th Amendment.

JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law) 50(a)

Granted when a facts are not an issue and no reasonable jury could find for the losing party. Can make motion at any time before the case goes to the jury, but have to do it otherwise you lose 50(b) ability

Renewed JMOV (Rule 50(b))

Can renew motion for JMOL if you previously filed motion for JMOL under 50(a). Have 28 days after entry of judgment or jury discharge to make motion

Williams v. Gaye

Appellate court must uphold district court's determination on abuse of discretion if no error occurred. A 50(b) post-verdict motion for JMOV requires a 50(a) motion for JMOL

Rule 50(a) Requirement

A Rule 50(b) post-verdict motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict requires a prior 50(a) motion.

Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial

Allowed post-verdict only if the jury's verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)

The constitutional and statutory power of a court to hear certain types of cases.

Federal SMJ Nature

Limited subject matter jurisdiction governed by Article III and federal statutes.

State Court Jurisdiction

Possesses general jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction over most federal claims.

Article III Section I

Federal courts (except SC) are Congress's creation and possess only granted authority.

Article III Section II

fed courts have jursidiction over cases arising under fed law, cases between citizens of diff states, citizens and alliances, cases in which US is a party, admirality

Constitutional Standing Elements

Injury in fact, causation fairly traceable to conduct, and redressability by court action.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)

federal district court jurisdiction over civil actions exceeding $75,000 between:

citizens of different states

citizens of a state or of foreign state, except lawful residents domiciled in same state

citizens of different states, where citizens or subjects foreign are additional parties

Complete Diversity Rule

No plaintiff can share state citizenship with any defendant in a diversity action.

Diversity Jurisdiction Time of Filing

Complete diversity between parties must exist at the exact time the action is filed.

Diversity Jurisdiction Removal

Diversity must exist both when the state action is filed and when the notice of removal is filed.

Fixing Defective Diversity

Diversity can be perfected mid-litigation by dropping a non-diverse defendant.

Gordon v. Steele Domicile Test

A person's domicile is determined by physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely.

Objective Manifestation of Intent

Shown through actions like paying local taxes, registering vehicles, and voting.

Mas v. Perry Domicile Rule

State citizenship for diversity requires U.S. citizenship and domicile in that state, last state in which they resided w/ intent to remain indefinitely

St. Paul Mercury Test

Plaintiff's claimed amount in controversy controls if asserted in good faith.

Amount in Controversy Legal Certainty

Dismissal occurs only if it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than $75k.

Refined Metals v. NL Industries

The amount in controversy must be calculated exclusive of interests and costs.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(b)

District court may deny or impose costs on a plaintiff who recovers less than $75,000.

Corporate Citizenship 28 § 1332(c)

Corporations are citizens of their state of incorporation and principal place of business.

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Established the 'nerve center' test for corporate principal place of business.

non corporate orgs: citizenship of every partner

Black v. White Taxi

manipulating jurisdiction possible by moving HQ not practical or common

Rule 7.1 Disclosure

Litigants must identify the citizenship of every corporate defendant upon filing or fed court removal OR when any later event occurs that could affect jurisdiction

Claim Aggregation Rule

A single plaintiff can aggregate multiple unrelated claims against a single defendant to meet $75k under 1332(a)

must be one plaintiff and one defendant

Tag along plaintiff 28 USC 1367

if P1 and P2 sue D1 for $165k and $65k, P2 may "tag along" as long as all other diversity elements met

Multiple Parties Aggregation

Aggregation is not permitted with multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants.

Indivisible Joint Interest

Plaintiffs suing on a joint interest/inseparable claimdo not split the amount in controversy requirement.

Federal Question Jurisdiction (§ 1331)

Grants federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

Osborn v. Bank of U.S.

Constitutional federal question test: the federal issue forms an ingredient of the original cause.

Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley

If plaintiff does not intentionally bring up a matter of federal law in their case, they failed to maintain that their case arose under federal issue

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Federal question must appear on the face of a properly pleaded plaintiff's complaint, then it "arises under federal law

Holmes Test

A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.

Declaratory Judgments (§ 2201-2202)

Allows a party to seek a court ruling before taking action. Would it arise under federal law if it were brought by party who would originally be plaintiff?

Embedded Federal Issue (Exception to Holmes test) SMITH v. US

State law claims can trigger federal question jurisdiction if they contain a substantial federal issue.

Gunn v. Minton (Grable Standard)

Federal jurisdiction over state claims lies if the federal issue is necessarily raised, actual disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution w/o disrupting fed-state balance

Case w/in case is not substantial to impact system as whole

Shoshone Mining exception

although federal statute authorized claims it did not create cause of action since the substantive standard

Removal Jurisdiction (§ 1441(a))

Defendants may remove a civil action from state court to the federal district court embracing it.

Removal Forum Defendant Rule (§ 1441(b)2)

Action cannot be removed on diversity if any properly joined and served defendant is a local citizen

Removal Procedure (§ 1446)

Defendants must file a notice of removal in federal court and provide a copy to state court.

Must remove w/in 30 days after "first ascertained" removable

Snap Removal

Defendants remove a diversity case before a local, diversity-destroying defendant is formally served.

Plaintiff Remand Window (§ 1447)

Plaintiff has 30 days after notice of removal to move to remand based on non-SMJ defects.

Avitts v. Amco Rule under 1441(a)

Removability is determined strictly by the allegations of the initial complaint.

b(2) bars removal by at home litigant if plaintiff chooses state court UNLESS plaintiff amends claim to add fed claim, case removable 30 days (b)(3)

Home Depot v. Jackson

Class action removal rules do not permit counter-claim defendants or third-party defendants to remove in §1453b and §1441a; rule 21 improperly used and cannot force plaintiff to litigate in fed court against will

Hain Celestial rule:

If a district court "cures" a jurisdictional defect prior to final judgment, then the court of appeals is not required to vacate on the merits, even if DC lacked jurisdiction at some point

BP v. Mayor of Baltimore

An order remanding a case is fully reviewable on appeal if removal was based on certain federal officer statutes.

Fraudulent Joinder

Improperly joining a non-diverse defendant to defeat diversity; can be ignored for removal.

Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)

A court's power over the parties; protects due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Waivability of PJ

Unlike SMJ, personal jurisdiction is easily waivable if not timely raised.

Rule 4(k)(1)(A)

Federal courts generally have PJ over a defendant if a court in the forum state would have it.

General Personal Jurisdiction

Court can hear any and all claims against a defendant because their contacts render them 'at home'.

Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Court's authority over a defendant based on claims arising from defendant's specific in-state contacts.

Specific PJ Three-Part Test

Minimum contacts (purposeful availment), claim arises from or relates to contacts contacts, and fair play/substantial justice (burden on defendant)

Burger King Test

when minimum contacts sufficient, factors can be used to establish reasonableness of extending PJ with "lesser showings" of minimum contacts

Pennoyer v. Neff

Established in rem and in personam jurisdiction

Pennoyer v. Neff In Rem Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction based on the court's power over property located within the territory, but not after judgment to satisfy it

DISPUTE ABOUT PROPERTY ITSELF

Pennoyer v. Neff Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction based on an absent defendant's property within the state, even if unrelated to the claim, can assert PJ simply b/c individual has property in that state

International Shoe Minimum Contacts

Defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play.

Int'l shoe Special Appearance

A court appearance made solely to challenge personal jurisdiction without submitting to the court.

Int'l shoe Collateral Attack

Refusing to appear, suffering default, and challenging the rendering court's jurisdiction when enforcement is sought.

Int'l shoe Full Faith and Credit Clause

Valid in personam judgments rendered by a court must be enforced by courts of other states.

Int'l Shoe minimum contact

by having somewhat significant business commitments in the state, a corporation is subject to PJ specific to the forum

doing large volume of business results in corp enjoying protections of the state, creates obligation to state

Specific in personam jurisdiction

if claim arises out of or sufficiently relates to defendant's deliberate contact w/ the state

Long-Arm Statutes

State statutes granting courts jurisdiction over non-resident defendants with minimum contacts.

Hanson v. Denckla

The defendant must purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state.

consideration of forum's connection to controversy is not minimum contacts substitute

Hanson v. Denckla Specific in personam jurisdiction

specific jurisdiction cannot exist unless defendant has deliberate in state contacts

Purposeful availment, forum connection to controversy not substitute for minimum contacts

Must find it reasonable to require defendant to defend suit there

McGee v. International Life- moved away from in Hanson

A single deliberate contract or connection can suffice for specific personal jurisdiction

Reasonableness factors: Interest in suing in the forum, forum state interest in matter, extent of inconvenience to defendants, and availability of witnesses

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

Unilateral activity of a third party bringing a product into a state does not establish minimum contacts.

defendants should be allowed to structure actions to decide whether they want to be made available to suit

contact must avail defendants of benefit of state law

Keaton v. Hustler

focus on defendant's contacts

Calder v. Jones Effects Test

Intentional torts aimed at a forum resident where the brunt of the injury is felt can establish min contact.

Walden v. Fiore

Personal jurisdiction may not be exercised over a nonresident civil defendant if the defendant's sole contact with the forum state is knowledge that the defendant's tortious conduct committed outside the forum state has an effect on the plaintiff in that state.

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Fair warning doctrine; contractual outreach and ongoing business can establish purposeful availment

phsyical entry not required, choice of law can be factor in determining whether a party intends to affiliate themselves w/ forum

Shuker v. Smith & Nephew

plaintiff presents nonfrivolous prima facie case for PJ, courts cannot dismiss PJ as MOL w/o relevant discovery

Shuker v. Smith Stream of Commerce Doctrine

Placing a product into the stream alone is insufficient; requires purposeful targeting of the forum state.

Alter Ego Theory

PJ over a parent corporation exists if its subsidiary is merely an agent under direct control.

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana

Specific PJ 'relates to' requirement does not demand strict causal connection between contact and claim.

Tag Jurisdiction

Personal service of process on a physically present natural person within the forum state.

Daimler AG v. Bauman

General jurisdiction over a corporation exists only where it is 'at home' (incorporation or PPB).

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court

Specific PJ requires a direct affiliation and connection between the forum and the underlying controversy.

Shaffer v. Heitner

In rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction must also satisfy the International Shoe minimum contacts test.

relationship among defendant, forum and litigation is central point of emphasis in establishing PJ in any form

liability limited to QIRJ

Tag Jurisdiction Martinez v. Aero

Tag jurisdiction based on physical presence does not apply to corporate entities

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway

States may require out-of-state corporations to consent to general jurisdiction as a condition of doing business.

Service of Process Purpose

Formally asserts court authority and notifies the defendant of the lawsuit to satisfy due process.

4(k)(1)(A):

· fed courts can usually exercise PJ over a defendant only if the courts in the forum state could exercise PJ