Mgmt 246--Sp25 Court System and Procedures
Page 2: Overview of the American Court System
The U.S. has a "dual" or "parallel" court system:
Federal court system (governance over the entire U.S.)
Each state has its own court system
Initial case filings occur in trial courts where trials take place
District Court: Main federal trial courts, can govern full state or parts
Superior Court: California state court covering all 58 counties
Appeals:
Right to appeal from trial court to intermediate appellate court
Purpose is to correct legal errors, not to retry evidence
Court of Appeals:
Federal: 13 circuits
California: 6 districts
Page 3: Continuing the Court System
Appeals from intermediate appellate court to supreme courts:
U.S. Supreme Court or California Supreme Court
Appeal at the discretion of the court; no required reasons for denial
Conditions to appeal to U.S. Supreme Court:
Case must involve federal question
Supreme Court's purpose: to oversee and guide the legal system, not to correct all lower court errors
Key textbook references:
"The State and Federal Court Systems" (p. 75)
"Geographic Boundaries of the U.S. Courts of Appeals" (p. 79)
"Types of Courts" (p. 80)
Page 4: Becoming a Judge
Federal Court System:
Appointment involves presidential nomination and Senate confirmation
Judges serve for life, removed via resignation, death, or impeachment
California State Court System:
Superior Court: Appointed by Governor or elected, judges serve 6-year terms
Court of Appeal and Supreme Court:
Appointed by Governor for 12-year terms, confirmation election at term's end
Removal by Commission on Judicial Performance for misconduct
Page 5: Jurisdiction Introduction
Jurisdiction: Court's power to decide cases
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Power over certain types of cases
Personal Jurisdiction: Deciding cases against certain parties
Actions taken without jurisdiction are void and can be overturned
Page 6: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Defines a court's authority to decide particular case types
State Courts: General jurisdiction to hear various cases unless preempted by federal law
Diversity of cases in state courts: range from small claims to significant value cases
Page 7: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Continued
Federal Courts: Limited jurisdiction, dependent on case type
Federal Question: Case involves federal law
Diversity: Based solely on state law claims, requires no shared domicile between plaintiff and defendant
Domicile: Affects jurisdiction based on residency and business location
Page 8: Personal Jurisdiction Overview
Court's power to hear cases involving specific parties
Fairness: Courts ensure fair treatment via due process
Two standards for establishing jurisdiction:
General: Applies to various parties
Specific: For non-domiciled defendants in the forum state
Page 9: Personal Jurisdiction Standards
General Jurisdiction:
Applies to plaintiffs in the forum state, defendants domiciled there, or non-domiciled defendants with significant contacts
Specific Jurisdiction:
Requires purposeful direction of activities at forum state residents
Claims must arise from defendant's forum contacts
Must be reasonable to exercise jurisdiction
Case Studies:
Whale-watching boat case
Gucci America, Inc. v. Wang Huoqing (focus on "purposeful availment")
Page 10: Concurrent vs Exclusive Jurisdiction
Concurrent Jurisdiction: Multiple courts can hear a case
Exclusive Jurisdiction: Certain cases must be heard in specific courts
Case examples:
Car accident involving a defendant from another state
First Amendment violations under federal law
ERISA lawsuits must be filed in federal court
Page 11: Civil Lawsuit Introduction
Civil lawsuits can be costly and time-consuming
Cost/benefit analysis before pursuing litigation:
Probability of winning, expenses, judgment value, defendant's financial stability, and potential for early settlements
Page 12: Procedures in Civil Lawsuits
Follow various procedures pre and post-trial
Noncompliance can lead to sanctions
Importance of evidential proof over mere truth
Page 13: Civil Lawsuit Chronology
Steps in a lawsuit vary based on circumstances
Initial incident(s) leads to party consulting with an attorney
Review of facts, documents, retainer agreement, and statute of limitations
Page 14: Pre-Lawsuit Actions
Informal investigation and settlement negotiations may occur
Many disputes resolve without court intervention
Exhausting administrative remedies for specific cases (especially against government entities)
Page 15: Filing of Complaint
Complaint outlines parties, facts supporting claims, and relief sought
Contains factual specifics and attorney contact information
Summons provides notice; response time typically 30 days in California
Page 16: Service of Process
Summons and complaint serve as notice to defendants
Injunctions may be requested in urgent matters
Responsive pleadings include answers or motions to dismiss based on procedural grounds
Page 17: Discovery Phase
Discovery gathers information for trial preparation
Motions may be filed to compel proper responses
Status conference for case calendar review and trial readiness
Page 18: Motion for Summary Judgment
MSJ: Only granted if no material fact disputes exist
Judge does not weigh evidence at this stage; tough standards lead to many denials
MSJ approvals result in case resolution in moving party’s favor
Page 19: Post-MSJ Process
If MSJ denied, further discovery continues, including expert witness depositions
Pretrial conference focuses on settlement discussions or case preparation
Page 20: Trial Process
Typical timeline: 12-18 months from complaint filing to trial
Sequence:
Opening statements
Presentation of evidence
Closing arguments
Jury deliberation or court decision leading to judgment
Potential for settlement or mistrial during trial
Page 21: Post-Trial Motions
Lawsuits extend beyond judgment entry
Motions include requests for new trials or judgments notwithstanding the verdict
Winning parties can seek attorney fees or cost reimbursement
Page 22: Appeals
Appeals can take 1-3 years post-judgment
Appeal success rates: 1 in 4 appeals are victorious
Appellate courts do not re-evaluate factual disputes but examine procedural correctness.