Civil Procedure SCU 1L

129 terms by mrafanan13

Create a new folder

Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads

In personam jurisdiction

allows the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an individual
- always able to exercise it over a resident of your own state

Substantive Due Process

State must have power to act upon either property or person to subject him to personal liability

Procedural Due process

Adequate notice is given to defendant and defendant has the opportunity to be heard

In Personam Jurisdiction Over Non-Residents

- long arm statute of the state
- minimum contracts test
- presence in state (Burnham divorce case)
- Domicile (Milliken)
- Residence
- Consent
- Tortious acts done within the state or directed toward the state

Minimum Contacts Test

- International Shoe Case
- business is being done in that state
- the business is purposeful (denkla)
- Purposely availed themselves upon the state (burger king, McGee)

Where is a Corporation domiciled?

- never has an actual physical presence
- is either where they are incorporated
- OR where their principle place of business is

Specific Jurisdiction

where the cause of action arose (i.e. the conflict that gave rise to the suit) (McGee)

General Jurisdiction

though the claim may not arise our of actions that occurred within the state, if there is enough contacts with the forum state a defendant may still be brought in under general jurisdiction (Benguet)

Forum Selection Clauses

-clauses in a contract that decide where a suit will be adjudicated should one arise
- subject to a test of reasonableness
---> for example see Carnival Cruise Line

Purposeful Availment

- Burger King
- the benefits a would be defendant has obtained from its business activities conducted within the forum state, often involving contractual relations iwth forum residents
- the defendant was benefiting from the forum state laws, therefore should be able to be pulled into the jurisdiction of that state
- most often used in suits surrounding a contract

Purposeful Direction

- Asahi
- defendant's activities outside the forums tate that have consequences inside the forum state
- most often used in suits surrounding in tort
- where defendants' intentional, and allegedly tortuous, actions were expressly aimed at the forum state (calder v. jones)

The Effects Test

Defendant has:
- committed an intentional act
- expressly aimed at the forum state
- cause harm, most of it suffered and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state
--->for example see Calder v. Jones

Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

if the non-resident has property within the territorial limits of the state, plaintiff can bring claim against the property as a way to gain jurisdiction over the individual property owner (Harris v. Balk)

In Rem Jurisdiction

similar to quasi except here it actually is the property that is in contention

Proper Service on an individual

- personal
- substitute
- agent
- local state law
- methods allowed by treaties (for foreign defendants)

Proper Service for Corporations

- must be done upon an officer or an agent which has the authority to by appointment or law to receive service for the corporation
- local state law mandates

Waiver of Service

plaintiff can send a request for waiver of service to the defendant and if defendant agrees, then no service is necessary

Amenability to Suit

plaintiff must show that defendant is close enough linked ot the forum state
- for federal law: must show either federal question or diversity jurisdiction

Special Appearance

different from a general appearance
- this is a specific challenge to jurisdiction
- when this occurs the defendant has a sort of immunity to being served with in personam jurisdiction

Collateral Attack

a defendant who defaults in an action in one jurisdiction may collaterally attack the default judgment when it is sued upon in a second jurisdiction for follow through on the default judgment
- can be done through;
* personal jurisdiction, in rem, extrinsic fraud, subject matter jurisdiction
- Note: if defendant argues jurisdiciton and fails, the defendant cannot collaterally attack this but may appeal directly

Substitute Service

some states will allow for this type of service as a proper form so long as the person service is left with meets the "suitable age and discretion" standard

Suitable age and Discretion Standard

some states require that service be left with someone that is of the suitable age and discretion who lives at the residence that once is attempting to leave service

Constructive Notice for Non-Residents

can be done by mail
- will be tested on a reasonableness test (are they reasonably likely to receive this notice)

Service by Publication

generally held as insufficient unless the defendant is hiding himself within the state

Mullane Balancing Test

Factors must be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the service, including:
1. when considerations of economy limit the ability to inform every absentee defendant
2. if names and addresses are known
- this is a fact specific test

Diversity Jurisdiction

- FRCP 1332
- plaintiff and defendant must be from different states (complete diversity)
- amount in controversy must be at least 75K

Citizenship

determined by where the parties were citizens at the time of the event that gave rise to action
- measured by domicile, not residence ( mas v. perry)

Ways to Destroy Diversity

1. improperly or collusively designed
2. failure to name indispensible parties
3. assignment of claims
4. joinder of a non-diverse defendant

The Well Pleaded Complaint

- federal question basis of jurisdiction must come from plaintiff's original complaint
- cannot be an anticipation of a defense
- the remedy to the complaint is found in federal law

Federal Question Jurisdiction

- FRCP 1331
- based on a well pleaded complaint
- also applicable where a party is a gov't entity

Removal to Federal Court: Diversity Jurisdiction

- FRCP 1441b
- only removable if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought

Removal to Federal Court: Federal Question Jurisdiction

- FRCP 1441
- cases here may be removed no matter the citizenship of the parties

Removal to Federal Court: general

- must be the sort of case that could have originally been brought in federal court
- removal is done by the defendant only
- the whole case comes with them
- if the defendant makes extensive arguments on the merits in state court, he is viewed to have waived his right to remove the case to federal courts

Plaintiff's ability to defeat removal

- forego the federal claim, keeping only state claim
-join defendants who destroy complete diversity
-some claims are non-removable

Joinder Claims

- plaintiff may join all defendants under FRCP 20(a) that are liable to the plaintiff in the same transaction
-FRCP 18 lets plaintiff join all claims even unrelated

FRCP 20(a)

allows the plaintiff to join all parties that are liable to the plaintiff from the same transaction or event

FRCP 18

this allows the plaintiff to add all claims to their suit, even those unrelated to the tranaction

FRCP 1367

- Supplemental jurisdiction

Supplemental Jurisdiction and Diversity Jurisdiction

- INCLUDED where: compulsory counterclaim (13a), class action plaintiffs, cross claims (13g), impleader (14), permissively joined plaintiffs (20a)

- EXCLUDED where:
claims against third party defendants by plaintiff(14), compulsory joinder (19a)

Forum non conveniens

a court may decline to exercise their jurisdiction over a claim if a more appropriate forum is available (balance of state interest and parties convenience

Factors to decide forum non conveniens

1. if plaintiff is a resident
2. if witness are located in the forum
3. which forum is more familir

3 methods of finding venue in a judicial district

1. any defendants reside in the state containing the district
2. substantial amount of the events occurred in the state containing the district
3. escape hatch provision

escape hatch provision

1. in diversity cases it give venue to the judicial district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced IF there is no other district the action can be brought on other grounds
2. federal question cases it gives venue anywhere defendant can be found if there is no other district the action may be brought

Outcome Determinative Test

if the outcome of applying federal law will so drastically alter the outcome of the case then the issue at hand is treated as substantive and state law should prevail as a matter of policy (guaranty trust)

Balancing Test (Byrd)

1. integral part of the state statute
2. importance of the federal interest
3. outcome determinativeness

Twin Aims of Erie

1. discourage forum shopping
2. avoid inequitable administration of justice

Res Judicata

1. the original claim was judged upon the merits of the claim
2. there was a final judgment entered
3. the claim in the original action is the "same" in the action that is being barred

Res Judicata: "same" requirement

1. whether or not the claim is to be considered the "same" for res judicata purposes will be subject to the transaction test

Res Judicata: Transaction Test

claims that arise from the same incident or transaction involving the same parties and issues, will be barred from re-litigation by the doctrine of res judicata

Res Judicata: Claim Splitting

1. a plaintiff cannot split his claim. if he does he has implicitly given up his right to bring action on the other claim from the same transaction
2. this is so even where the claim splitting was done unintentionally

FRCP 41(b)

grounds for dismissal that will NEVER lead to claim preclusion:
1. lack of jurisdiction
2. improper venue
3. failure to join an indispensible party

Collateral Estoppel

- regarded as claim preclusion when the same issues are being litigated
- can be viewed as a sort of consequence or res judicata
- applies where any issue is the same, even though the causes of action are different
- this does not prevent suit but compels the court to to make the same finding of fact on the identical issue that the first court ruled upon

Requirements for Collateral Estoppel

1. the issue in the second case must be the same as the issue in the first
2. the issue must have been actually litigated
3. the issue must have been actually decided in the action
4. the issue must have been necessary to the court's judgment in the prior action

Non-mutual collateral estoppel

- this is where the parties may differ from those in the original action
- allows a new party to invoke collateral estoppel against a party who litigated and lost on an issue in the prior action

Mutuality Rule

- states that estoppel is confined to the original parties
- this has clearly been expanded

Defensive non-mutual estoppel

- occurs where a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim the plaintiff has previously litigated and lost against another defendant
-the party being estopped was usually the plaintiff in the original suit and chose the forum and the defendant against whom to litigate the issue
*this is why defensive estoppel is generally accepted as valid

Offensive non-mutual estoppel

- occurs when the plaintiff seeks to foreclose the defendant from litigating an issue the defendant has previously litigated unsuccessfully in an action with another party
- this is frowned upon and rarely allowed as valid

FRCP 1331

- federal question jurisdiction
- all civil actions arising under the US constitution, laws, treaties, have original federal jurisdiction

FRCP 1332 (c)

- citizenship of corporations for purposes of 1332 and 1441

FRCP 12(a)

time frame for parties to respond

FRCP 12(b)

possible motions to present notably:
1. 12b1: subject matter
2. 12b2: personal jurisdiction
3. 12b3: improper venue

FRCP 12(h)

waiver of the defenses

FRCP 1441 (a)

removal by defendant

FRCP 1441 (b)

removable subject matters:
1. federal question cases can be removed by ANY party
2. diversity cases can be removed as long as any defendant is not a citizen of the present forum

FRCP 1367 (a)

supplemental jurisdiction

FRCP 1367(b)

supplemental jurisdiction over diversity cases
- where the federal court has jurisdiction based only on diversity jurisdiction, complete diversity must be maintained

FRCP 1367(c)

declining supplemental jurisdiction
- court may do so if:
* claim raises a novel/complex issue of state law, is substantially predominant over the original claim, all other claims the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over were dismissed, exceptional circumstances

FRCP 1391(a)

venue in diversity cases only

FRCP 1391(b)

venue in non-diversity federal question cases only

1391(c)

venues with corporations

FRCP 1404(a)

change of venue can be done b/c of:
- convenience of parties
-convenience of witnesses
- in the interest of justice

FRCP 1404(b)

venue change must be consented to by all parties

FRCP 14(a)(2)

when defendants can implead third party defendants

FRCP 14(b)

when a plaintiff can bring in third parties defendants

FRCP 18(a)

essentially allows the plaintiff to join as many claims as there are possible even if they are unrelated to the original transaction

FRCP 19(a)

when persons are required to be joined

FRCP 19(b)

when a joinder isn't possible

FRCP 20(a)

permissive joinder

FRCP 4

proper service

Code Pleading

used in small amount of state courts, is also called fact pleading
- is a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language

Notice Pleading

- used in fed. district courts
- is a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

FRCP 8

tells what the pleading must include

What must a Pleading Include?

1. the basis to invoke subject matter jurisdiction
2. statement showing you are entitled to relief
3. a demand or prayer for the relief sought

FRCP 12(e)

calls for a more definite/detailed pleading

Dismissal with Prejudice:

means that you may not file the claim again
- aka res judicata is given full effect

Demurrer

essentially says "so what"
- even if everything that plaintiffs set forth is essentially true, plaintiff still cannot win b/c the law requires more than plaintiff has given therefore the law says you cannot win here

Heightened Pleading Requirements

1. for specific cases, like fraud, there needs to be more particularity in the pleading
2. the standard in these cases is FRCP 9(b)

Inconsistent Pleadings

- these are allowed where they are pleading in the alternative
- allowed in cases where the plaintiffs does not have enough knowledge to say what exactly occurred
- must not have known nor should not be held to have such knowledge
- done in the interest of giving plaintiff an adequate day in court

Safe Harbor Practice

allows for the attorneys to redraw and resubmit a pleading in order to make it not frivolous so long as it is within 21 days of original filing

FRCP 15(c )

- allows for a file to relate back to a previous claim so long as claim 1 was done so within the statute of limitations and claim 2 arises from the same set of circumstances through amending the complaint

FRCP 13 (a)

- compulsory counterclaims
- these these must be claimed or lost

Permissive Counter Claims

- where the ∆ is already the subject matter of an already filed other law suit
- in case where ∆ has a counterclaim arising from the same events but the court does not have jurisdiction over the ∆'s person
- these require separate SMJ

Real Party in Interest RUle

- a nominal party (like a guardian ad litim who has been named to represent a child in lawsuit) will be named in party but will not have any real effect of SJM
-see FRCP 17(a)

Impleaders

-consists of an action or a procedure by which you reach outside the scope of this litigation and you bring someone in
- often done by FRCP 14
- can be done by FRCP 13(h)

Impleader and Derivative Liability

- there is a relationship between the 3ed party ∆ and the ∆ that is between the two of them almost at the exclusion of π

Intervention

- done pursuant to FRCP 24a
- a person has a right to intervene
- or a person may intervene (permissive intervention)

Interpleader

- this is a special joinder device that allows a stakeholder to obtain a judicial determination that he owes an obligation to one of several competing claimants
- the company is willing to pay but wants to pay only once

Discovery: general

- discovery is done to give direction to the suit, the allow parties to prepare for trial/defense, to determine the salient issues etc

Methods of Discovery

1. automatic disclosure
2. depositions
3. interrogatories
4. requests to inspect documents or property
5. requests for admission of facts
6. requests for physical or mental examination

Function of Pleadings

1. fact stating
2. definition of issues
3. deterring and discovering shams suits
4. give notice to all parties of nature of suits
5. allow each party to make sufficient preparations

Sufficiency of the Complaint

1. 8a
2. a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

amendment of pleadings as matter of right

1. 7a
2. allows pleading to be amended at any time before the responsive pleading is served

amendment of pleadings by leave of court

1. 15a
2. allows the court to freely give leave to amend when justice so requires
3. prejudice may occur here

FRCP 30

oral depositions
limited to 10 per side

FRCP 31

written depositions

FRCP 33a

interrogatories to the parties
limited to 25 questions

FRCP 36

requests for admission

FRCP 34

requests to produce documents and to inspect land

FRCP 35

Physical and mental examinations

Scope of Discovery

FRCP 26
1. applies to all forms of discovery
2. the parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevent to any party's claim or defense

Relevance of Discovery

three categories of inadmissible but discoverable information
1. leads
2. legal theories
3. witnesses

Privilege

FRCP 26

Work Attorney Privilege

FRCP 26
1. work product is immune from discovery
2. this is inherently different from attorney-client privilege

Absolute Immunity

documents containing subjective thoughts of the attorney have absolute immunity

Qualified Immunity

this can be overcome by a strong showing that the discovering party has a
1. substantial need for the materials
2. the equivalent is not accessible by other means

Classification of Experts

FRCP 26b
1. experts who will be called at trial
2. experts who have been retained by counsel, but who will not be called at trial
3. experts who have not been retained, and who will not be called at trial
4. participant experts
5. parties who are themselves experts

Experts called at trial

must be revealed

experts retained to by counsel but not called

more difficult to obtain discovery but can be done
More difficult because of
1. parasitism
2. inhibition

Three things for mandatory disclosure

1. witness list
2. documents and tangible things
2. damages and insurance

Burden of Presumption

the party bears the initial burden of producing evidence of non presumption
1. if he produces no evidence, he suffers a directed verdict

Burden of Persuasion

1. if the defendant offers enough evidence of non presumption that a reasonable jury might find non presumption, it is clear that defendant has met his production burden, and that the case will go to the jury

Adjudication without Trial

1. voluntary dismissal by plaintiff
2. involuntary dismissal (frcp 41b)
3. summary judgment (frcp 56)

FRCP 48

discusses the jury and jury selection

FRCP 50a

directed verdict
1. takes the case away from the court
2. will only be removed from the jury where the evidence is such that reasonable people could differ as to the result

FRCP 61

order for new trial if:
1. evidence error
2. improper conduct
3. verdict against the weight of the evidence
4. verdict was excessive or inadequate
5. partial or new trial
6. newly discovered evidence

judgment not withstanding the verdict

allows the judge to set aside the jury's verdict and enter judgment for the verdict loser

FRCP 48

jury unanimity and at least 6 people on the jury

FRCP 61

order for a new trial if:
1. evidence error
2. improper conduct
3. verdict against the weight of evidence
4. verdict excessive or inadequate
5. partial or new trial
6. newly discovered evidence

Two Part Test for Constitutional Right to a Jury

1. compare the statutory action to the actions available in the courts of England
2. examine the remedy sought

Please allow access to your computer’s microphone to use Voice Recording.

Having trouble? Click here for help.

We can’t access your microphone!

Click the icon above to update your browser permissions above and try again

Example:

Reload the page to try again!

Reload

Press Cmd-0 to reset your zoom

Press Ctrl-0 to reset your zoom

It looks like your browser might be zoomed in or out. Your browser needs to be zoomed to a normal size to record audio.

Please upgrade Flash or install Chrome
to use Voice Recording.

For more help, see our troubleshooting page.

Your microphone is muted

For help fixing this issue, see this FAQ.

Star this term

You can study starred terms together

NEW! Voice Recording

Create Set