Civil Procedure

What is civil procedure?

A body of rules, regulations, and standards that courts follow when adjudicating non-criminal, private or public civil lawsuits

FRCP Rule 1

Scope and Purpose

These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in rule 81

FRCP 2

There is one form of action - the civil action

FRCP 3

• civil action is commenced by filing a complaint

Joinder

Establishing what claims or parties will join in the action

Types of Joinder

• Permissive: what you may join

• Compulsory: what you must join

Counterclaims

A counterclaim is defined as a claim for relief filed against an opposing party after the original claim is filed. Most commonly, a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff.

FRCP 13

Counterclaim and CrossClaim

FRCP 13(a)

• compulsory counterclaim: a pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that at the time of of service, the pleader has against the opposing party

  • must arise out of same transaction or occurrence

  • doesn’t require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction

  • if not brought timely, right to bring is lost

Nasalok v. Nylok

Facts:

• Nylok sued Nasalok for trademark infringement

• Court entered default judgement against Nasalok

• Nasalok sought cancellation of trademark

• Nylok said cancellation action was compulsory under FRCP 13(a) so trademark cancellation action was invalid

Holding:

• Court held that counterclaim of trademark invalidity and trademark infringement lawsuit were substantially different enough to not be same transaction or occurrence

Transaction/Occurrence Test

1. whether the legal and factual issues raised by the claim and counterclaim are largely the same

2. whether substantially the same evidence refutes both the claim and the counterclaim

3. whether there is a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim

FRCP 13(b)

• permissive counterclaim:

  • may bring any counterclaim regardless of transaction or occurrence once a claim is brought against the defendant

FRCP 13(g)

Crossclaim:

• a pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a co-party if the claim:

  • arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim,

  • or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action

RMG v. Atlantis

Facts:

• RMG had contract with Atlantis to move passengers

• RMG’s boat hit another boat, and injured sued RMG and Atlantis

• Atlantis filed a cross-claim against RMg for breaking contract, contribution, and indemnity

• RMG did the same

• RMG later filed a separate lawsuit against Atlantis for Damage to their boat

• Atlantis asked for summary judgment saying RMG needed to include these claims in 1st lawsuit as compulsory counterclaim

Holding:

• Court held that a party does become an opposing party if a cross-claim

• any claims relating to same transaction or occurrence must be filed as compulsory counterclaims

FRCP 18

Joinder of Claims

• a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party

• a party may join 2 claims even thought one of them is contingent on the disposition of the other

McCoy v. Like

Facts:

• Dr. Like was acting as POA for Martha McCoy and sold himself land at a reduced price

• McCoy died and Dr. Like was appointed executor

• four beneficiaries brought suit to contest the will and sued Dr. Like in his capacity as executor

• After Dr. Like was deposed, he was added as an individual with additional claims

Holding:

• a party can include all claims it has against another party in one lawsuit

• court can decide to separate rules if it would be easier to handle them separately

FRCP 20(a)

Permissive Joinder of parties - Persons who may Join or be Joined

FRCP 20(a)(1)

Joinder of Plaintiffs:

• persons may join in on action as plaintiffs if:

  • they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative

  • with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences

  • any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action

FRCP 20(a)(2)

Joinder of Defendants

• persons may join in on action as defendants if:

  • they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative

  • with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences

  • any question of law or fact common to all Defendants will arise in the action

Liberty Media v. BitTorrent Swarm

Facts:

• Liberty Media owned the copyright to a movie

• they sued 38 people who used a system called BitTorrent to download the movie

• the 38 people all downloaded the movie at different times over 2 months and never directly interacted

Holding:

• just because a bunch of people do the same wrong in the same way, it doesn’t mean they can all be sued together

• you can only sue people together if their actions are apart of the same transaction or occurrence

• conduct that appears the same doesn’t mean it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence

• Defendant’s didn’t act in concert so these cases all have to be different causes of action

Personal Jurisdiction

• Binding judgment against a defendant requires a federal court to have personal jx over a defendant

• personal jx is the authority of a court to exercise power over a person, entity, or property and enter a lawful judgment against that defendant

• geographical limitation

General Jurisdiction (GJ)

• GJ doesn’t require a plaintiff’s claim to arise activities of the defendant in the forum state

• GJ comes from defendant’s continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state that make it fair to subject defendant to suit in Ohio

• GJ may function as a back-up to specific jurisdiction in the event the nonresident’s conduct in forum state doesn’t satisfy language of long arm statute

• for an individual, GJ is the individuals domicile

• For corporations, GJ is when their affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum state

  • “at home” means where the corporation is incorporated or where it maintains their principal place of business

In Personam jurisdiction

• Courts jurisdiction is based on its authority over the defendant’s person

• court can impose a personal obligation on the defendant in favor of the plaintiff

In Rem Jurisdiction

Courts jurisdiction is based on courts power over property within its territory

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

courts jurisdiction comes from authority to exercise power over a defendant’s property by attachment and use it to satisfy plaintiff’s claim against defendant

Specific Jurisdiction

• Jurisdiction that arises from the minimum contacts that enables a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in that state without violating due process because of the extent of the defendants’ activities within that state

• continuous and systematic

• Defendant has purposefully availed itself of conducting business in the forum state

Pennoyer v. Neff

Facts:

• Neff hired Mitchell for legal work but didn’t pay him

• Mitchell sued Neff and published notice in papers

• Neff didn’t live in Oregon and didn’t show up to court so court ruled against him

• To get payment, Neff’s land was seized and sold to Pennoyer

Holding

• state can’t exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident because they own property there

• states have power to adjudicate the rights of people inside their borders

• valid judgment against non citizen means court can seize land

• state doesn’t get to determine legal rights of a non resident

• service only proper is personally served within state or voluntarily appears

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Facts:

• Intl. Shoe was a delware corporation with a principal place of business in missori

• Intl Shoe employed salesmen who resided and worked in washington

• Intl. Shoe didn’t pay into unemployment compensation saying it wasn’t a Washington Corporation, wasn’t doing business in Washington, and had no registered agent there

• Washington served notice of assessment

Holding:

• a state may subject a corp. to in personam jx if the corp has such minimum contacts with forum state to make it reasonable to require corp to defend a suit there

• corp deemed present in a state for jx purposes if activities of the corp. in the state have been continuous and systematic

• due process is violated if state makes binding judgment in personam against a person or corp. defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations

• If a corp. does business in a state and has obligations there, it’s not too much to ask for the corp. to respond to a lawsuit there

• Intl. Shoe was considered present

Long-arm Statute

Statute that allows for a court to obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant on the basis of certain acts committed by an out-of-state defendant if the defendant has a sufficient connection with the state

Daimler AG v. Bauman

Facts:

• plaintiff’s brought suit against defendant in California alleging their subsidiary, Mercedes Benz Argentina (MA) collaborated with Argentinian forces

• Suit was brought in California District Court based on claim of district courts jx over Mercedes Benz USA (MBUSA)

• Daimler was a german company and MA’s actions took place solely outside of the United States

• MBUSA was incorporated in delaware and its principal place of business was in new jersey

Holding:

• court cannot assert general jurisdiction over a corp. if contacts with forum state aren’t so continuous and systematic as to render corp. home in state

• acceptable contacts are corps. place of incorporation and principal place of business

• Defendant’s contacts with California are not so substantial that they justify suit being heard here

• Since defendant sells cars in every state, if court gave jx to california, then they’d have to give jx to every state in which any corp. does business

Burnham v. Superior Court

Facts:

• Plaintiff was married and living in New Jersey until their split; wife would move to California and plaintiff would stay in New Jersey

• Plaintiff was in California when he was served with a summons and divorce petition

• Plaintiff filed motion to quash summons

• Plaintiff argued under 14th Amendment, California couldn’t exercise jx over him because he lacked minimum contacts with state

Holding:

• Due process permits court to exercise personal jx over non-resident defendant who was personally served within the forum state

• States have personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in state

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

Facts:

• Defendant’s wanted to open a Burger King in Detroit

• Burger King was headquartered in miami

• Defendant’s were given a franchise and one of them went to Miami to learn to run the Burger King

• Other defendant bought lots of equipment from Burger King in Miami

• They stopped paying fees to Burger King and Burger King filed suit in Florida District Court

• Defendant’s claimed court didn’t have jurisdiction over them

Holding:

• in determining minmum-contacts requirement for personal jx, court must look to purposefully directed activities of defendant toward the forum state, and whether harms arising out of or relating to those activities are the cause of litigation

• once court concludes mimum contacts exist between forum state and defendant, court must consider whether fair play and substantial justice would be offended if defendant had to defend themselves in forum state

• If defendant purposefully availed himself of forum state, defendant must present a compelling case that these factors indicate jx would be unreasonable

• Defendants should’ve reasonably known they were affiliating themselves with an organization based in florida and that litigation that arose from their actions could come from florida

Fair Play and Substantial Justice Factors

• Burden on the defendant

• Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief

• Forum states interest in adjudicating the dispute

• Judicial systems interest in the efficient resolution of controversies

• Shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

Facts:

• Plaintiff’s bought a Volkswagen (VW) in NY and decided to move to Arizona

• While driving to arizona, the plaintiffs were struck by another car in Oklahoma

• The car caught fire and severly injured plaintiffs

• Plaintiffs brought suit in Oklahoma state court against WWVW

• WWVW made special appearance arguing that OK didn’t have personal jx because they didn’t do any business in OK, didn’t advertise in OK, and were’t located in OK

Holding:

• Due process clause of 14th amendment limits power of state court to assert personal jx over nonresident defendant

• Intl Shoe requires minimum contacts for personal jx

• That WWVW could foresee their products use in OK is not purposeful availment and not sufficient to establish personal jx

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

Facts:

• Plaintiff became seriously injured while using defendants machine

• Injury occurred in NJ, but the machine was manufactured in England where defendant was incorporated

• Defendant filed suit in NJ

• Defendant never marketed goods in the state nor shipped them there

Holding:

• court may subject defendant if defendant has sufficient contacts with forum state such as to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

• courts exercise of power requires some act on behalf of defendant to purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws

• defendant has to follow a course of conduct directed at the society or economy existing with jx of a given sovereign so that sovereign has power to subject defendant to judgment concerning that conduct

• it is defendant’s actions, not expectations (expectation that something of theirs may come into contact with forum state), that allow a state’s courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant

• McIntyre didn’t engage in any conduct purposefully directed at NJ, so it cannot be subjected to jx of a NJ court

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

Facts:

• Franklin (resident of CA) purchased life insurance policy from defendant, a company with no offices or agents located in CA

• Franklin paid his premiums until his death, at which point defendant refused to pay out

• Plantiff brought suit in CA and won on default and was forced to go to TX to collect

• Question of whether TX had to enforce judgment because CA had personal jx

Holding:

• a state cdourt has jurisdiction over an out-of-state company if that company has substantial connections with the state

• CA court has jx over defendant because of its connections with forum state

Hanson v. Denckla

Facts:

• Donner, who lived in PA, made a trust in DE with a DE bank

• Donner moved to FL where she died

• Dispute over trust, and FL court wanted control but DE court disagreed

Holding:

• Courts have personal jx over defendants who have minimal contacts to the state

• unilateral activities of someone in the state who claims a relationship with a nonresident defendant aren’t sufficient to satisfy this minimal-contacts requirement

• FL couldn’t control DE trust because DE bank didn’t do anything in FL

Venue

• Place or places where a lawsuit may be properly instituted

• federal venue is calculated by judicial district

28 USC § 1390

Defines venue and provides certain types of cases are exempt from rules set out in § 1391

28 USC § 1391(b)

• provides plaintiffs a list of options for proper venue

• district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in one district

• judicial district in which substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial party of the property that is the subject of the action

• if there’s no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the courts personal jurisdiction

  • only applies if other two do not

28 USC § 1391(c)

Residency for all venue purposes

• natural person shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled

• an entity with capacity to sue and be sued shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it’s subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction

28 USC § 1406 (a)

Forum non conveniens

• courts discretionary power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction where another court, or forum, may more conveniently hear a case

• case can still be refiled

Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden America, Inc.

Facts:

• plaintiff hired defendant who signed NDA and non compete clauses that named RI as proper place for dispute resolution

• Defendant asked to move fo FL

• Defendant was hired by defendant and they were sued by plaintiff

• Defendant alleged improper venue in RI

Holding:

• § 1391(b)(1) provides venue in any judicial district where defendant resides, so long as all defendants reside in same state

• § 1391(b)(2) provides venue where substantial part of the events occurred

• multiple judicial districts may satisfy venue, courts don’t need to pick the best one

28 USC § 1404

Change of venue

• for the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interest of justice

• upon motion, consent, or stipulation of all parties

• district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending

Meteoro v. Six Flags

facts:

• plaintiff was incorporated in NM and principal place of business was new york

• Plaintiff sued defendant, who was incorporated in Oklahoma

• Defendant wanted to move the case to OK, CA, or SDNY

Holding: Venue Case

• 28 USC § 1404(a) allows fed court to transfer a case to any district with jurisdiction where suit could’ve been brought

• courts will consider a list of items

• convenience to witnesses a big factor

• Any of the above would’ve been appropriate but court went with OK because majority of witnesses of defendant and their offices were there

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Which district courts have authority over the topic of litigation

28 USC § 1331

Federal question Jurisdiction: District courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States

Louisville and Nashville Railroad. Motley

Facts:

• plaintiffs were injured in an accident and then defendants gave them free ride passes

• congress passed law saying trains couldn’t give free rides anymore and so they cut off plaintiffs and plaintiffs sued

Holding:

• in order for federal question jurisdiction to be granted, plaintiffs complaint must state a federal question

Diversity Jurisdiction

Way to obtain subject matter jurisdiction

28 USC § 1332(a)

Diversity Jurisdiction:

• District courts will have original jurisdiction in all civil actions where matter in controversy exceeds $75k

• between citizens of different states

• citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state

  • except district courts shall not have original jx in an action between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent resident

• citizens of different states in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parti

Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc.

holding:

• diversity jx requires diversity of citizenship so plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant

• citizenship means domicile and courts look at important factors in deciding that

Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood

Holding:

• citizenship of an LLC is determined by its members

• If only member of an LLC is another LLC, pass through that to find the next members citizenship

Supplemental jx

• Requires diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction

• requires that claims must be closely related to at least one of the existing claims that the federal court has original subject matter jurisdiction over

• common nucleus of operative fact

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

• federal courts can hear a case that is premised on both federal and state law

• court can hear such a claim as long as both claims grow from the same factual background and they constitute one case

• if state claims constitute overwhelming basis of the claim, then they should be dismissed

• can be made at any time during the course of litigation

28 USC 1367

Supplemental Jurisdiction

28 USC § 1367(a)

• district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims brought by or against additional parties such as third party defendants

28 USC § 1367(b)

• court doesn’t have have supplemental jurisdiction to hear claims by or against additional parties if their presence in the cause would destroy complete diversity

Reasons against supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim if

• claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law

• the claim substantially predominates over the claim

• district court has dismissed all claims over which it has jx

• in exceptional circumstances

28 U.S. Code § 1441

Removal of civil actions

• 1441(a): unless otherwise expressly provided by congress, any action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the US have original jx may be removed by the defendant or defendants to the district court

• 1441(a)(1) notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of service of process

Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing

Holding: Grable Test

• Necessity: state-law claim raises a federal issue claim

• Actually disputed: federal issue is actually being contested in court

• Substantiality: federal issue was important. and federal court had a strong interest in addressing this issue

• Disruptiveness: granting jurisdiction will not flood the courts

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thomson

facts:

• case involved five common tort claims and one violation of federal law with no private cause of action

• federal jurisdiction was improper

holding:

• not proper to remove to federal court because courts would’ve been flooded with little tort claims

• also. not substantially a federal question

28 USC § 1446(b)

• defendant has only 30 days following service to remove a case

• each defendant has 30 days following the date it was served to join the notice of removal

FRCP 19(a)(1)

persons required to be joined if feasible

• a person who subject to service of process whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction must be joined if

  • persons absence means court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties or

  • the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may