Civil Procedure MEE Rule Statements

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The term "subject matter jurisdiction" refers to a court's competence to hear and determine cases of a general class and subject.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

In general, if the cause of action in question is expressly created by federal law, or federal law provides the underlying right, then federal jurisdiction is likely to be found.

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the determination of federal question jurisdiction must be made by considering only the necessary elements of the plaintiff's cause of action to determine whether there is a federal law issue. It is not sufficient that a plaintiff alleges some anticipated federal law defense.

Diversity Jurisdiction

Congress gave the U.S. district courts jurisdiction over actions in which the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The parties to an action must be citizens of different states, or citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign country. There is no diversity of citizenship if any plaintiff in the case is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.

Domicile of an Individual

To be a citizen of a state, an individual must be a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of the state. In general, an individual is a domiciliary of the state in which she is present and intends to reside for an indefinite period. An individual can have only one domicile at a time. Domicile is determined at the time the action is commenced.

Domicile of a Corporation

Corporations, unlike individuals, may be citizens of more than one state for diversity purposes. A corporation is domiciled in its state of incorporation and in the state of its principal place of business, if those states are different.

Amount in Controversy

The amount in controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000. Where the action is a claim for injunctive relief, a monetary value can be assigned for the purposes of meeting the amount-in-controversy requirement. The value of a single plaintiff's claims against each defendant may be aggregated, unless the claims are distinct and separate. If the defendants are jointly liable to the plaintiff, then aggregation to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement is permissible.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

A district court with jurisdiction over one claim may exercise "supplemental jurisdiction" over additional claims that it would not independently have subject matter jurisdiction over if the additional claims are so related to the original claim that the additional claims form part of the same case or controversy. In judging whether the claims are related, the test is whether they arise out of a "common nucleus of operative fact" such that all claims should be tried together in a single judicial proceeding.

Supplemental Jurisdiction (Federal Question)

When the district court's subject matter jurisdiction for a claim is based on the existence of a federal question, additional claims against the same party can be heard by the court through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the common-nucleus-of-operative-fact test is met. This rule applies to additional state law claims brought by the original plaintiff or additional plaintiffs, or cross-claims brought by the defendant against another defendant.

Supplemental Jurisdiction (Diversity Jurisdiction)

When the district court's subject matter jurisdiction for a claim is based on the existence of diversity, a plaintiff can bring any state law claim related to the basis of the original claim. An additional claim through through permissive joinder of an additional plaintiff is not required to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, but cannot result in a violation of complete diversity. A compulsory counterclaim may be asserted by a defendant against a plaintiff without satisfying the jurisdictional amount. A related cross-claim may be asserted by a defendant against another defendant or by a plaintiff against a plaintiff, without regard for the amount-in-controversy or the citizenship of the parties.

Rejection of Supplemental Jurisdiction

Courts have discretion to reject supplemental jurisdiction if: 1. The claims are complex and would predominate the lawsuit; 2. The federal law claims are dismissed; or 3. There are any other compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

Removal Jurisdiction

Any civil action commenced in a state court that is within the original jurisdiction of a federal district court may generally be removed by the defendant to the district court for the district and division in which the state court action is pending. The right of removal is a right of the defendant only, and must be exercised within 30 days of receiving the complaint. All defendants must join in or consent to removal. If removal is sought solely based on diversity jurisdiction, then the claim may be removed only if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed.

Full Faith and Credit

Under the U.S. Constitution, state courts are requires to give full faith and credit to the judgments of other states, and federal judgments. A party against whom enforcement of a judgment is sought may collaterally challenge the original state court judgement based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, only if the jurisdictional issues were not litigated or waived in the original action.

Personal Jurisdiction

In additional to having subject matter jurisdiction, a court must be able to exercise judicial power over persons or property involved in the cases or controversies before it. This authority is broadly referred to as "personal jurisdiction" and is governed by state statutes regarding jurisdiction and the due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

In Personam Jurisdiction

In personam jurisdiction is the power that a court has over an individual personally. When in personam jurisdiction exists, the court has the authority to issue a judgment, imposing an obligation against the party personally.

Methods for Exercising In Personam Jurisdiction

There are four methods by which a court can exercise in personam jurisdiction over a defendant: 1. Presence (voluntary presence in the forum state and service of process in the state); 2. Domicile (even if temporarily absent from the state); 3. Consent (defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be asserted in a the answer or by motion; failure to timely object waives the objection and is treated as consent); and 4. Long-arm statues.

Long-Arm Statutes

In many states, the long-arm statute either directly authorizes or has been interpreted as authorizing jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause. In general, due process requirements are satisfied if the nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Minimum Contracts

To warrant the assertion of in personam jurisdiction, a defendant must have minimum contacts with the state. A defendant's contact with the forum state must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being taken to court there. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant when the action arises out of the defendant's conduct in the state. A court may exercise general jurisdiction when the defendant is essentially "at home" in the jurisdiction. A court with general jurisdiction over a defendant can hear any case or controversy asserted against him.

Fair Play and Substantial Justice

Once minimum contacts are established, a court must still examine the facts to determine if maintenance of the action would "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Courts consider a variety of factors when making this determination, including: 1. The interest of the forum state in adjudicating the matter; 2. The burden on the defendant of appearing in the case; 3. The interest of the judicial system in the efficient resolution of controversies; and 4. The shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies.

Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard

Due process requires that, where an individual is deprived of property by adjudication, they are given notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Due process is satisfied if the notice is "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested persons of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." The constitutional test is, generally, what is reasonable under the circumstances. In addition to requiring notice of the claim being made, due process requires that a defendant be given an opportunity to be heard.

Venue

Venue concerns which court among the courts having subject matter and personal jurisdiction is the proper forum for hearing the matter. In general, venue in a federal civil action is proper in: 1. A judicial district in which any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located; 2. A judicial district in which a "substantial part of the events or omissions" on which the claim is based occurred, or where a "substantial part of the property" that is subject of the action is located.

Transfer when Original Venue is Proper

For the convenience of the parties and in the interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.

Transfer when Original Venue is Improper

If venue in a case is improper, then the district court must dismiss the case, or, in the interests of justice, transfer the case to any district where it might have been brought.

Transfer Based on Forum Selection Clause

When transfer is sought on the basis of forum selection clause in a contract, the clause is accorded respect. If the clause specifies a federal forum, most circuit courts treat the clause as prima facie valid, to be set aside only upon a strong showing that transfer would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause was invalid for reasons such as fraud or overreaching

Choice of Law (Transfer)

Generally, if the venue of an action is transferred when the original venue is proper, the new court must apply the laws of the state of the transferor court. In diversity cases transferred for improper venue, the new district court applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it is located, as opposed to the state law of the district court that transferred the case. In federal question cases transferred for improper venue, the new district court applies the interpretation of federal law by its Court of Appeals. When venue is transferred based on a valid forum selection clause, the new court must apply the law of the state in which it is located.

Erie Doctrine Rules for Federal Question Claim

If the action is a federal question claim, then federal substantive and procedural law will control, as well as federal common law.

Erie Doctrine Rules for Diversity Claim

In a diversity action, the district court is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which the district court is located. With regard to procedure in a diversity action, however, if a procedural issue is addressed by a valid federal law (e.g., a statute or Federal Rule of Evidence), then the federal law will be applied, even if a state rule or statute is in conflict.

Substantive vs. Procedural law (Erie Doctrine)

The following are substantive laws under Erie: 1. A state law that alters the calculation of damages; 2. A state law regarding a statute of limitations; and 3. State laws that create evidentiary privileges.

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

A temporary restraining order (TRO) preserves the status quo of the parties until there is an opportunity to hold a full hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction. A TRO may be issued without notice to the adverse party if: 1. The moving party can establish, under written oath, that immediate and irreparable injury will result prior to hearing the adverse party's opposition; and 2. The movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reason why notice should not be required.

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is a form of relief issued prior to a full hearing on the merits, but only upon notice to the defendant and a hearing on whether the injunction should be issued. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that: 1. He is likely to succeed on the merits; 2. He is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; 3. Issuance would be fair and equitable; and 4. The injunction is in the best interests of the public.

Service of Process

In the absence of service of process or waiver, a court ordinarily may not exercise power over a party named as a defendant in a complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for serving the summons and complaint upon the defendant through any nonparty who is at least 18 years old. Service generally may be made by: 1. Personally serving the summons and complaint on the defendant; 2. Leaving the summons and complaint at the defendant's usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or 3. Delivering the summons and complaint to an agent appointed by the defendant or authorized by law.

Service on a Corporation

Service on a corporation may be made on any officer, managing agent, general agent, or agent appointed and authorized by law.

Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss

Prior to filing an answer, a defendant may file a motion under Rule 12(b), raising any or all of the following defenses: 1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2. Lack of personal jurisdiction; 3. Insufficient process; 4. Insufficient service of process; 5. Improper venue; 6. Failure to join a necessary or indispensable party; and 7. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Timing for Raising a Defense

The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even on appeal. The defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, and insufficient service of process must be raised in a pre-answer motion or, if no pre-answer motion is made, in the answer, or the defenses will be waived. The defenses of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to join a necessary or indispensable party may be raised in any pleading, in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at trial.

Amendments to Pleadings

A party may amend a pleading once as of right within 21 days after service on the defendant. Otherwise, a party may seek leave of the court or written consent from the opponent to amend a pleading. The court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires.

Relation Back of Amendments

An amendment to a timely pleading will relate back to the date of the original pleading when the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading. If the amendment changed the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, then it will relate back to the date of the original pleading if: 1. It asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set out in the pleading; 2. The new defendant received notice of the action within 90 days after the filing of the original complaint; and 3. The party to be brought in by amendment knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against him, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

Standard for Filing

Under Rule 11(b), by presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of her knowledge, the documents are filed in good faith. The court may, in its discretion, impose sanctions on attorneys, law firms, and parties for violations of Rule 11.

Compulsory Joinder of Parties

Joinder is compulsory when joining a necessary party. A necessary party is a person whose participation in the lawsuit is necessary for just adjudication because: 1. Complete relief cannot be provided to existing parties in the absence of that person; 2. Disposition in the absence of that person may impair the person's ability to protect his interest; or 3. The absence of that person would leave existing parties subject to substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations. In addition to the party being necessary, a court must also have personal jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction over the new party.

Indispensable Parties

If adding the party would destroy diversity and subject matter jurisdiction, then the action should proceed without the party. However, where the party is indispensable, the action must be dismissed for nonjoinder. In determining whether a party is indispensable, the court considered the following factors (JPPR): 1. The extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; 2. The extent to which any prejudice could be reduced or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment; 3. Whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and 5. Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

Permissive Joinder

Courts may permit a plaintiff to join other plaintiffs in an action if: 1. They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or their claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence; and 2. There is a question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs.

Joinder of Cross-Claims

A counterclaim is a claim for relief made against an opposing party after an original claim has been made, and is asserted in the answer to the complaint or the reply to a counterclaim. Rule 13 provides that the defendant can bring a cross-claim as long as it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's original claim, and the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the cross-claim.

Impleader

Rule 14 sets out the rules governing impleader - third-party claims made by a defending party against a nonparty for all or part of the defending party's liability on an original claim. The plaintiff may also assert related claims against the impleaded party. In both cases, the impleaded claim must relate to the original claim against the defending party. The court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the impleaded claim.

Intervention as of Right

A nonparty has the right to intervene when: 1. The nonparty has an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject matter of the action; 2. The disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair the nonparty's interest; and 3. The nonparty's interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.

Permissive Intervention

A court will allow intervention when: 1. The movant has a conditional right to intervene under a federal statute; or 2. The movant's claim or defense and the original action share a common question of law or fact.

Discovery

Discovery is generally permitted with regard to any non-privileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense in the action. However, courts may limit discovery if it is unduly expensive or burdensome. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. The test is whether the information sought is not privileged, and relevant to any party's claim or defense.

Work Product

In general, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial or for another party or its representative. Such materials will be subject to discovery, however, if the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means. However, the mental impressions of an attorney are never subject to discovery.

Electronically Store Information

A party may request the other party to produce and permit the inspection of any discoverable documents or electronically stored information. A party may be subject to sanctions for failing to take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation. If a party failed to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved and it cannot be restored or replaced, the court may: 1. Upon finding prejudice to another party, order measure no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or 2. Upon finding that the party acted with intent to deprive another party of that information, presume the lost information was unfavorable to the party, instruct the jury that it may or must presume the same, or dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Physical and Mental Exams

If the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, then the court may order such person to submit to a physical or mental examination by a "suitably licensed or certified examiner."

Depositions

A party may take the deposition of any party or nonparty witness at any time after the party has made its mandatory initial disclosures. Parties are limited to 10 depositions. To depose a nonparty, the party must serve the nonparty with a subpoena. In addition, a subpoena duces tecum must be served on a nonparty for a request to produce documents.

Summary Judgment Motion

A motion for summary judgment must be granted if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue of material fact exists when a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.

Jury Trial Demand

Under the 7th Amendment, a party has a right to a jury trial when damages exceed $20. Any party may make a written demand for a trial by jury, by filing separately or making a demand in a pleading. It must be served within 14 days after service of the last pleading directed to the issue that is sought to be tried by a jury.

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Once a party has been fully heard on an issue at a jury trial, the court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law resolving the issue against a party if the court finds that there is insufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find for that party. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the opposing party. It may not consider the credibility of the witnesses or evaluate the weight of the evidence, and it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

If the court does not grant a motion for judgement as a matter of law, then the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury. After the jury renders a verdict, the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, asking the court to override the jury's verdict.

Final Judgment Rule

The federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals of the final judgments of the district courts. A final judgment is a decision by the court on the merits that leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. If more than one claim is presented in a case, or if there are multiple parties, then the district court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more issues or parties, but only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.

Interlocutory Appeals

Although most interlocutory orders, such as the denial of a summary judgment motion, a motion to dismiss, or the granting of a new trial motion, are not immediately appealable, certain equitable orders are reviewable immediately as a matter of right, including any orders relating to an injunction, or an order that changed or affects possession of property.

Claim Preclusion

The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from successive litigation of an identical claim in a subsequent action. For claim preclusion to apply: 1. The claimant and the defendant must be the same in both the original action and the subsequently filed action; 2. The original lawsuit must have ended in a valid, final judgment; and 3. The claimant is asserting an identical claim to the original lawsuit. Because application of claim preclusion is limited to the parties (or their privies), a similar action by a different party would not be precluded.

Issue Preclusion

The doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) precludes the re-litigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim. Issue preclusion requires: 1. The party against whom the issue is to be precluded was a party to the original action; 2. The issue sought to be precluded is the same as that involved in the prior action; 3. The issue was actually litigated in the prior action; 4. The issue was determined by a valid and binding final judgment; and 5. The determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment. However, trial courts have broad discretion to determine when issue preclusion should apply. If a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action, a trial judge should not allow use of offensive collateral estoppel.