Civil Procedure Outline PDF

[Introduction and Definitions 1](#_Toc1143323188) [Diversity Jurisdiction Elements 1](#diversity-jurisdiction-elements) [Federal Question Jurisdiction 2](#_Toc696128609) [Removal 3](#_Toc888552962) [Penoyer Rule 4](#penoyer-rule) [International Shoe Test 4](#international-shoe-test) [Specific...

[Introduction and Definitions 1](#_Toc1143323188) [Diversity Jurisdiction Elements 1](#diversity-jurisdiction-elements) [Federal Question Jurisdiction 2](#_Toc696128609) [Removal 3](#_Toc888552962) [Penoyer Rule 4](#penoyer-rule) [International Shoe Test 4](#international-shoe-test) [Specific Jurisdiction 4](#specific-jurisdiction) [General Jurisdiction 5](#general-jurisdiction) ["Tag" Jurisdiction 5](#_Toc222583223) [Notice 6](#_Toc1445076037) [Mullane Standard 6](#_Toc293121476) [Venue 7](#_Toc1026951058) [Erie 8](#_Toc131450550) [Heightened Pleading 10](#_Toc727558502) [The Answer 10](#_Toc1473961519) [Rule 11 Sanctions 11](#rule-11-sanctions) [Discovery Tools 14](#_Toc341526639) [Step 1: Required Disclosures 14](#step-1-required-disclosures) [Step 2: Interrogatories 15](#step-2-interrogatories) [Step 3: Request for production of documents and things 15](#step-3-request-for-production-of-documents-and-things) [Step 4: Depositions 15](#step-4-depositions) [Joinder 16](#joinder) [Rule 18(a) Joinder of claims 17](#rule-18a-joinder-of-claims) [Counter Claims 17](#counter-claims) [Cross Claims 17](#cross-claims) [Joinder of Parties 17](#joinder-of-parties) [Intervention as of Right 19](#_Toc2118594593) [Permissive Intervention 19](#permissive-intervention) [Supplemental Jurisdiction 19](#_Toc2045574618) [Summary Judgment 20](#summary-judgment) [Burden of Proof 21](#burden-of-proof) [Claim Preclusion 22](#claim-preclusion) [Issue Preclusion 23](#_Toc1655568948) [Elements 24](#_Toc2095551854) [Appeals 24](#appeals) [Steps 25](#steps) [What to do if you want to alter the judgement of appeal 25](#what-to-do-if-you-want-to-alter-the-judgement-of-appeal) [28 U.S.C. § 1291 Federal Final Judgement Rule 25](#u.s.c.-1291-federal-final-judgement-rule) [28 U.S.C. § 1292 Certified Appeals 26](#u.s.c.-1292-certified-appeals) [Rule 54: Partial Judgement 26](#rule-54-partial-judgement) [Collateral Order Doctrine 26](#collateral-order-doctrine) - Rule 41 Dismissals - Most dismissals are without prejudice []{#_Toc1143323188.anchor}[Introduction and Definitions] - Factual Disputes - Disputes about what happened in the past - Legal Disputes - Disputes about legal consequences of something in the past - Demurer - A person who files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim - Declaratory Judgement Action - Defending party asks the court to declare what a law is - In rem Jurisdiction - Lawsuit over property - Due Process - A general guarantee of life and liberty - Complaint - A document that sets out the facts that the plaintiff thinks entitle them to some sort of relief - Summons - Α court order that tells the defendant they need to show up [Subject-Matter Jurisdiction] - 2 types - Diversity Jurisdiction - Federal Question Jurisdiction - Does this court have the power to adjudicate this case? - Article 3 gave congress options of what types of cases federal courts can hear - Concurrent Jurisdiction - Both federal and state courts have jurisdiction over that case - State courts generally can hear federal issues - Per querium - "of the body" - Anonymous Diversity Jurisdiction Elements ------------------------------- - Needs to be over \$75,000 - **St. Paul Mercury/ Amount in Controversy test** - Is it legally certain that the amount received is less than the required amount? - If it is legally certain that they would receive less than the required amount then it is not satisfied. - If there is a statute that caps/ has a max on recovery, then that statute controls - Individual plaintiffs can aggregate unrelated claims to meet the amount in controversy - Multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate claims together - You cannot aggregate separate claims against different defendants - Can sue multiple defendants to meets amount in controversy rule, even if you aren't certain each defendant is liable - From Different States [or,] - Citizenship effective at the time the case is filed - To be a state citizen, you must be a U.S. Citizen - Foreign Citizens - Can be joint parties with a citizen of a foreign state and a citizen of a different state - Domicile test for individuals - Domicile is what determines an individual\'s state citizenship - **Go somewhere else** - Physical presence - **Intent to remain indefinitely** - US citizens who are domiciled abroad are no longer state citizens and they are not a foreign citizen for the purpose of Diversity Jurisdiction - 2 foreign citizens cannot sue each other under the diversity statute - There must be a statute that authorizes federal courts to have a certain jurisdiction (long arm statutes) - Must have complete diversity - No party on either side can be from the same state - If it turns out that there is no SMJ, the court **[must]** drop the case - Court can raise the issue on their own - Domicile test for Corporations - Partnerships and unions are not corporations and have different laws - They are citizens of states where all of their unions reside - **Look at the state of incorporation** - **Principle place of business** - Nerve center test= HQ - Operations= where most of their business is operated out of []{#_Toc696128609.anchor}[Federal Question Jurisdiction] - Must have some sort of federal question ingredient within the case - **District Court Rule** - Narrow - **We look to the plaintiffs claim to determine if there is a federal issue** - Federal claims cannot just be in the counter claim; must be in the original claim - We do this for administrative simplicity - A federal appellate court can always say a trial court lacks jurisdiction - **Holmes Test** - What law created the right to recovery? (state or federal?) - **Supreme Court Rule** - Broad - Supreme Court can have SMJ over state cases that have any federal ingredient - Don\'t just have to look at the claim []{#_Toc888552962.anchor}[Removal] - Defendants can remove a case from state court to federal court only if - It has original jurisdiction over the case (**could've been tried in federal court to begin with)** - **Has to be done within 30 days from when the complaint was filed** - Plaintiffs are not allowed to remove a case - They already had the first choice on where the case would be when they filed the complaint - 1446(b)(2)(a) - **All joined defendants must agree on removal** - Remand - Send back to district/state court - Plaintiff moves to remand if removal was done improperly - There is no requirement to put the law in the complaint so if there turns out to be no FQJ then they would ask to remand the case - **Home State Defendant Rule** - Defendant can't remove a case if it is filed in the state they are domiciled - Only if jurisdiction is based on Diversity - Even if there are multiple defendants, if one is domiciled in the same state as filing, then this rule applies - If a new complaint (amended complaint) is filed with a new federal question, the defendant has 30 days from the filing of the new complaint to remove the case - If the case was originally removable then they cannot later remove it - **Procedural Improper Removal** - Removal was done improperly - Only applies to defects after 30 days - **Venue statute for removal** - venue is proper in whatever district that state court sat [Personal Jurisdiction] - The court's power to enter judgement on those parties - Derives from the 14^th^ amendment, section 1 (due process clause) - Need both PJ + SMJ to enter a judgement - Need State Long Arm statute and the constitution\'s due process clause to satisfy personal jurisdiction - Defendant's obligation to raise PJ issue Penoyer Rule ------------ - Person must be personally served the lawsuit within the state the suit is filed - *In Personam Jurisdiction* - No longer in effect International Shoe Test ----------------------- - Requires certain minimum contacts with the state so the suit doesn't offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice - Don't look to this for our tests anymore Specific Jurisdiction --------------------- - Contact - Must be reasonable. Consider\..... - State\'s interest - Plaintiff\'s interest - Defendant\'s burden to get to that state - Possible that this is enough, but burden has to be extreme - Efficient resolution (state's rights) - State policy - Purposeful/deliberate contact with the foreign state - Can't be involuntary - Once you\'ve made purposeful contact it is foreseeable you will be sued - Purposeful availment- did the defendant benefit from the state's resources - A contract alone is insufficient to establish the minimum contacts for the specific jurisdiction - To establish the minimum contacts for a contract we look at\.... - Place of negotiation - Place of performance - Contents of the contract - Also see if they have a choice of law provision - claim arises from that contact - Arising = but for rule **[or]** relates to General Jurisdiction -------------------- - Such extensive contacts that they are essentially at home - Purpose is that if the defendant is at home then there is no bias or inconvenience - Corporations - At Home Test/ Nerve Center - Where the corps high level officers have their offices - Usually Headquarters - State of incorporation - Could be a 3^rd^ place but only in very extreme circumstances - Reasonableness is not a factor - Individuals - Domicile Test - **Go somewhere else** - Physical presence - **Intent to remain indefinitely** []{#_Toc222583223.anchor}["Tag" Jurisdiction] - When a state can essentially "tag" you with personal jurisdiction because you are present in the state at the time you are served - Has to be authorized, but almost every state has authorized it already - Does not work on Corporations - Personal instate service - Need it in order for a court to assert personal jurisdiction - **Scalia Approach** - Only need instate personal service - Can just step foot in the state - Satisfies Pennoyer tradition - There is an exception for people who were brought there against their will - **Brennan Approach** - Is the in state service fair or reasonable? - If no then no tag jurisdiction - Did they take advantage of state resources? - **Consent** - Must consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction - Can be done contractually or through legislation - **Waiver/ Forfeiture** - If you fail to raise a PJ defense in a timely manner, then you lose that defense [Long-Arm Statutes] - They authorize a court system to exercise personal jurisdiction in certain circumstances - Federal Long Arms Statute- Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k) - US district courts have the personal jurisdiction of the states in which they sit - Constitution only says what a state can do, but does not authorize it - Have to look at the state's statute - If a state's long arm statute is congruent with the Due Process Clause, then you only need to satisfy the due process clause - If the statute does exercise PJ different than due process still have to make sure it is constitutional []{#_Toc1445076037.anchor}[Notice] - Golden standard of notice is in person hand delivery []{#_Toc293121476.anchor}[Mullane Standard] - Notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action - afford them an opportunity to present their objections. - The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it - Courts say different methods of notice are okay. Just pass these questions\... - Is the form of notice authorized by a statute? - Is it constitutional? - Unconstitutional- sliding notice under the door - Publication is unconstitutional but allowed as the last resort - Court's considerations for notice - Expense of IDing - Expensive of actual service - Likelihood of actual notice - Stakes of the lawsuit - Practicalities - Other protections of the people's interests [Service] - Service is how we give notice - Service can be done by any over the age of 18 that is not a party in the suit - Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) **Serving an individual within the US federal courts** - Use methods of state law - Or methods authorized by federal law - Personal service - Leaving a copy at the defendant's house with someone over suitable age - Delivering a copy to a person who is legally designated to receive that person's process - Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1) **Serving a Corporation** - To serve a corporation you can\.... - Use methods of state law - Personal service to officers of the company (CEO, COO) or agents authorized by state law (secretary of state law) - **Rule 4D Waiver of Service** - Ask the defendant to waive their right to formal service - Def doesn't have to pay for formal service - Gets more time to respond (usually 30 days, now 60-90 days) - Def has 30 days to respond to the waiver - if they refuse then they have to pay the service fees - Risky to do when you are close to the statute of limitations []{#_Toc1026951058.anchor}[Venue] - Asks what district should we hold the case in - 28 U.S.C. § 1391 - **(b) Venue in General- A civil action may be brought in-** - **1) if the defendants are all in the same state, then a district where any defendant resides** - **2) where a substantial part if the events occurred** - **Just have to be apart of the story that led to the action** - **3) if there is no district where it can be brought in (1&2 fail) then use any judicial district where a defendant has personal jurisdiction** - **If outside the US then go straight to \#3** - \(c) Residency - 1\) district where they are domiciled if they are a person - 2\) district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction - Treat each district as if it were a state, so look at where the specific jurisdiction is or their HQ - \(d) Corporations in states with multiple districts - Treat districts like states for personal jurisdiction - General - Headquarters - Incorporation - Specific - Minimum contact + claim arises + reasonable - Challenges to venue - §1406 Improper Venue - A district court where a case laying venue in the wrong division - Dismiss and Transfer to where venue would be proper - Ie. District where it was filed does not have proper venue - §1404 Inconvenient Venue - Transfer to a more convenient forum with their own court system - Place where it was brought was proper but inconvenient - Ask could the case have been brought in the proper forum? - Should we go there? - Up to the court's discretion - Forum Non Conveniens - If it is brought in an inconvenient forum but can't transfer to another court system, then dismiss. Even though the venue is proper - Usually when it took place over seas - **Should we go there consideration (inconvenient venue)** - **Plaintiff\'s choice** - **Defendant's choice (convenience of the defendant)** - **Where did the injury occur (local Interest)** - You can only transfer from - Federal District court to another Federal District Court - A State Court to the same State's court (states have their own transfer statutes) - Venue statute for removal - venue is proper in whatever district that state court sat [ ] []{#_Toc131450550.anchor}[Erie] - In Federal Cases that arises under state's rights, the court should apply state law - Still apply federal procedural law - Eerie Guess - Fed. Courts guess what a state court would do in those circumstance if a state court hasn't done it/ decided on it before - Not binding in state courts - Certification - Fed. Courts certifies a question to a state Supreme Court and ask what they would decide in that case - Issue has to be very important to the case - Binding in state courts - State supreme courts do not have to answer - Klaxon Rule (choice of law) - Determines which state's choice of law approach should a federal court use - **Use the choice of law rule of the state where the suit was filed/ sits** - **Ex. Fed Court in Virginia- will apply Virginia choice of law rules** - Fed Court has not developed their own choice of law rules [Pleading] - A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court - Claim - An event, transaction, or occurrence that gives someone the right to relief under the law - Claim must identify the relative substantive law that gives some right to relief - Pleadings must contain the factual allegations of the claim - Types of Pleadings (7a) - Complaint - Answer to a complaint - Notice pleading - The purpose of the complaint is to give someone notice of the suit so that they can start preparing their defense - A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (8a) - A short and plain statement of the courts jurisdiction - A short and plain statement of the claim - Must provide notice - Must be legally sufficient - Iqbal test - A Demand for relief - **Rule 12(b)(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted** - Didn't meet the pleading standards - When defendant moves for this, they are accepting the allegations are true for the sake of the argument - Rule 8(d) Alternative Pleading - Plaintiff can provide alternatives in their complaint. - Rule 8(d)(3) Inconsistent claims or defenses: - a party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency. - Ex.: I don't know which police officer hit me so I sue them all - (Either Officer Smith or Officer Jones hit the plaintiff) - In discovery and jury trial you can pursue both theories - In the verdict though - it can only be that one of them hit the plaintiff - The verdict must be consistent with the Plaintiff's theory of the case - Iqbal Test- determine legal sufficiency - Step 1: take all well pleaded allegations as true, and disregard conclusory allegations - Conclusory allegations- allegations that just repeats the elements but no facts that tie them to the actual case - Step 2: can we plausibly infer enough facts (non-conclusory allegations) - Doesn't have to be the most likely - Ignore conclusions of law and focus on allegations of fact - Facts must be plausible - To determine plausibility the judge uses their own experience []{#_Toc727558502.anchor}[Heightened Pleading] - Only have to do for fraud, mistake, or special damages - With some claims general pleading does not provide enough notice - The concern is that these frauds claims are going to be lacking in merit - You can't just say the defendant committed fraud - you must be specific. - Rule 9(b) - In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. - Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally []{#_Toc1473961519.anchor}[The Answer] - Response Options - Default - Defendant fails to appear before the court or respond - File a motion - Can be one of the 12b motions - Answer - **12b motions to dismiss** - 1)Lack of subject matter jurisdiction - 2)Lack of personal jurisdiction - 3)Improper venue - 4)Insufficient process - 5)Insufficient service of process - 6)Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted - 7)Failure to join a party under rule 19 - Rule 12(g)(2) - You can only raise a 12b motion once - Rule 12(h) - Defendant waives 12(b)(2-5) if they fail to raise it in their first response to the complaint - On an amended complaint is not waived, but still can't be used after the amendment - \#6 and 7 can be raised all the way through trial - Answer can contain - It\'s own claims - Response to all the allegations - Affirmative defense - Rule 12b defenses that you have not waived - Answer must contain 1 of the following - Admittance - If an allegation has some parts that\'s true but some parts that are false, then they can partially admit to some parts of it - Denial - If you don't deny any allegations then you are automatically admitting to it. - You are allowed to deny all allegations (general denial) but it almost never happens - Lack information or knowledge necessary to answer (functions as a denial) - Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike (challenge and answer) - May strike from a pleading **insufficient, impertinent, or scandalous** matters - Strike without prejudice - Get rid of a certain portion of the answer, but they can re-try it later - Rule 8c: Affirmative Defense - Admitting that the facts in the allegations are true, but have additional facts that prove that the defendant is not/ less liable - Must be pleaded in answer or else it will be waived - If used as a counterclaim courts are lenient and will let it slide Rule 11 Sanctions ================= - Limits what you are allowed to do in litigation - **11(a)** - Everything you file with the court must be signed by an attorney - **11(b)** This signature affirms that there is a - reasonable inquiry - Legal Basis - Factual Basis - Evidentiary support or a reasonable belief of it - Proper purpose - **11(c)** - 1\) after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond if the court says 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose sanctions on an attorney and/ or firm - 2\) Motion for Sanctions must be separate from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b) - must give the opposing party 21 days to correct the filing before moving for sanctions with the court - 3\) Court on it's own initiative may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct has not violated 11(b) - There is no 21-day correction opportunity - Judges have discretion on the types of sanctions, but it must be proportional to the misconduct - They cannot sanction the individual party for making frivolous legal arguments, unless they are representing themselves - Snapshot Rule - We look at the state of the world at the time the document was presented (filed, signed, submitted, or later advocated) - Hays v. Sony - The law they wanted relief from was abolished but they tried to claim that it was still applicable because it included materials that were written before the law was abolished. - Failure to make a reasonable inquiry is negligent - Negligence standard- you must take cost justified steps - A frivolous argument is a legal argument that no reasonable attorney would bring because there is no possible way of success - Must have a meet and confer before you seek sanctions [Amendments]\ Amendments as of Right - Can do it themselves within 21 days of original filing Amendments with Leave - Get permission from the court **Rule 15(a)(1) Amending as a matter of Course** - \(A) can amend within 21 days of serving the pleading - \(B) if the pleading requires a response, then you have 21 days to amend the complaint after service of the response; or 21 days after a 12(b)(e) or (f) motion Rule 15(a)(2) Other Amendments - Can amend with the consent of the other party or courts leave. Court should freely give leave when justice so requires **Forman v. Davis Considerations for Amending Complaints with leave (Multi Factor balancing test)** - Undue Delay/ Bad Faith/ Dilitory Motive (Just doing entirely tooooo much) - Bad Faith= Didn't do enough work in original complaint) - 1 year out= yes; 1 week out= no - Previous Failures - Previous Failure= They already tried to fix the pleading and failed - Undue Prejudice - Through the amendment you are changing the facts of the case, so would the other side have enough time to prepare a response to the amended pleading - Undue Prejudice= preparation prejudice= can the other party adapt their case in enough time? - Futility - Futility= fails to state a claim or legally sufficient defense - Relation back (15c) **Rule 15(c)** - 1(A) some states allow amendments past the statute of limitations if it relates back to the original claims - For relating back the courts look to the operational facts in the original set of facts - Would relate back to the original pleading; so could be caught if the new claim had a different statute of limitations - 1(B) the amendments assert a claim or defense that arose out of conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out or attempted to set out in the original pleadings [Discovery] Rule 26(b)(1) In order for something to be discoverable it must be\.... - Non privileged - Not attorney- client or patient-doctor - Relevant - Proportional to the need of litigation - Inadmissibility at trial is almost irrelevant - Information in the scope of discovery need not be used in trial - Work Product Protection - Stuff lawyers/ agents make when preparing for litigation - Can include lawyers, insurance agents, doctors, and people working on behalf of the defendant - Accident reports do not count because they would have done it anyway - Same for anything they would have been required to prepare as part of their operations anyway - Work product is not privileged - Court gave work product protection for these reasons - Lawyers would stop writing stuff in fear of it being discoverable - Avoiding free handouts(freerides)(paying for interviews) - Attorneys can't be witnesses and if we used their work from interviews we would be challenging their credibility - **26(b)(3)(A) Work Product Protections- Documents and Tangible Things** - **Written work (documents and tangible things)** - **Pictures, videos, audios** - **Anything a lawyer makes to help them prepare for litigation** - **No protection for specific questions and underlying facts like "was there rust on the boat"** - **26(b)(3)(A) Exceptions** - **(i) if the information is needed to make their case and,** - **(ii) They cannot get it any other way** - **26(b)(3)(B)** - **Court still must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation to outsiders** - Anticipation of litigation= anything once a lawyer starts working on the case []{#_Toc341526639.anchor}[Discovery Tools] **Step 1: Required Disclosures** -------------------------------- - Initial facts both parties must give each other - Stipulations= Parties can agree to stop required disclosures - Can also get a court order to pause required disclosure - Can reject during pretrial conference by putting it in the discovery plan and submitting to the court - Rule 26(a)(1)(A) in required disclosures you must disclose - Names that they may use at trial - Documents and things they plan to use at trial - If this names and documents are not disclosed then can't be used at trial - Calculation of damages - Insurance coverage - This and calculation of damages helps determine if they should settle - Meet and confer= initial meeting where parties plan the entire litigation - Basically talk about anything relating to the suit - Parties must do this before they seek sanctions - Reasons to pause required disclosures - Motions to dismiss - Settlement - They need more time - It saves time effort and money - Supplement response - If a discovery response becomes incomplete or inaccurate, you must let the other side know in enough time in advance **Step 2: Interrogatories** --------------------------- - A list of questions you send to the other side - Non-parties do not have to answer - Lawyer must answer under oath - Both sides agree in a number of questions during the meet and confer - For a company, 1 person is chosen to represent them, but they answer on behalf of the entire company - They answer as the collective entity knowledge - **Contention Interrogatory** - Ask what they are going to argue/ are they going to argue something? - Can't ask questions on the law **Step 3: Request for production of documents and things** ---------------------------------------------------------- - Ask the other party for documents and physical things and e-files - Request goes directly to the party - Can\'t go to non-parties - If the party doesn\'t want to disclose something, then the MUST object - Can't silently object - Must tell the other party **Step 4: Depositions** ----------------------- - Under oath interviews done in front of a court reporter - Substitution for an in-court testimony - If you want them to bring something to the deposition, then you have to send a request for production - Subpoena - Notice for a person to appear and brings them within the jurisdiction of the court - If a person doesn\'t show up to a subpoena they can move for sanctions immediately - Requires a 3rd party to show up - Don't need a subpoena to get a party to sit for a deposition - Just need to give the party notice of the deposition - Rule 30(b)(6) Subpoena to an organization - Tell an entity what you want to talk about and the entity will send someone to answer on their behalf - Company prepares the people to answer questions on those topics - For CEOS and high level officials just send them a notice - Subpoena Duces tecum - Tells the nonparty to bring certain documents to the subpoena - When doing a subpoena, you need to send notice to all parties [Discovery Control] - Response must be complete and correct - Consequence of not responding to a claim is that they admit to all the accusations - Rule 26(g) - All disclosures, requests, and objections must have a legal basis, Proper Purpose, and not be unduly burdensome - Responses and Disclosures must be - Complete and correct - Have a legal basis - Proper purpose - Not unduly burdensome - Rule 37(a)(1) - Motion to compel the defendant to respond to the discovery - If you don't respond to the discovery request at all then you can be sanctioned - Rule 12 motions can also be used to control discovery - Rule 26(c)(1) - Protective orders can be used to protect from the disclosure at all, or not allowing certain information outside of the litigation Joinder ======= - We can join claims because it is more efficient - Not a requirement to join - Steps - 1^st^ we must identify the kind of joinder discussed in the problem - 2^nd^ find out the rules for it - 3^rd^ determine how the rules apply Rule 18(a) Joinder of claims ---------------------------- - Can join as many claims as you want together - Doesn\'t matter if they are seeking different kinds of relief - Doesn't matter if the claims are unrelated Counter Claims -------------- - Compulsory Counterclaims - Same transaction or occurrence - Between opposing parties - Must be brought up at the first opportunity - Permissive counterclaim - Between opposing parties - Not the same transaction or occurrence - Can bring at anytime Cross Claims ------------ - Claims against parties on the same side - Got to be Co-parties - Arises out of the same transaction or occurrence - Cross claims against co parties are permissive - Can bring at anytime - Still must be the same transaction or occurrence - Rule 13(h) - When bringing in a counter/cross-claim you can bring a new party as long as it is proper and consistent with the rules of joinder of parties Joinder of Parties ------------------ - Rule 20(a)(1) Joinder of Plaintiffs - Other plaintiffs claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence - Common questions of law or fact - When joining plaintiffs, look for a common question in the defendant\'s conduct - Rule 20(a)(2) Joinder of Defendants - Other plaintiffs claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence - Common questions of law or fact - When joining defendant's look for the plaintiff's common injury - Reasons why Joinder is beneficial - Sever claims - Judges can separate claims if they think it will confuse the Jury. - Usually, would be d0ne right before trial - Claim preclusion - If you could have joined claims together in a single action, but you didn't then you can't bring it later on. - If claims are related then you must bring them the first time - "claim is barred by claim preclusion" - Estoppel- prevent someone from doing something - Rule 19(a)(1) Required Parties - A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if - \(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot award complete relief among existing parties - Rule 12(b)(7) - Motion to dismiss for failure to join a party under rule 19 - Mainly about forum shopping and tactical advantage - Steps for joinder of Required Parties - Step 1: Should the nonparty be joined? - Will there be inconsistent obligations? - If they join the new party they would bound the court decision, and everyone would be on the same page? - Will there be complete relief if they don't join? - Will the nonparties interests be impaired if they are not joined? - Step 2: Can we join them/ is it feasible? (jurisdiction) - Step 3: If can't be joined then, should we be dismissed? - 19(a)(1) - \(A) without the nonparty the court cannot give complete relief - \(B) a nonparty has an interest in the case that could be impaired if they don't join - 19(b) - Determine whether the action should proceed with the parties before it, or should they dismiss; consider these factors - Not feasible if the judgement might be prejudicial to the person or other parties - The extent to which there is a protective provision in the judgement, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided - Whether a judgement rendered in the person's absence would be adequate - Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for non-joinder - Can they go to a different court - Rule 21: Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties - Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action - On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a\ party. - The court may also sever any claim against a party. []{#_Toc2118594593.anchor}[Intervention as of Right] - Rule 24(a)(2) court can permit a person to intervene if - 1\) If the motion to intervene is timely - 2\) Interveners has a substantial legal interest to subject of the case - Substantial interest does not have to be a legal right (ambiguous) - 3\) their ability to protect the interest may be impaired in the absence of intervention - 4\) parties already involved may not adequately represent their interests - The interveners would need to make a minimal showing that the parties would not make all of their arguments Permissive Intervention ----------------------- - Judge has discretion - Rule 24(b)(1) - On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: - B\) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact - Amicus Brief - Friends of the court can file a brief making arguments to the courts (not parties of the case) - If the district court denies intervention, parties have a right to an immediate appeal []{#_Toc2045574618.anchor}[Supplemental Jurisdiction] § 1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute - If there is a case in federal court that falls on original subject matter jurisdiction, we can bring in additional claims, but - 1\. claim that has original jurisdiction (Diversity or FQ) - 2\. do those claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence - There is no supplemental jurisdiction for claims made by plaintiffs against persons made parties under - Rule 14: Third Party Practice (bringing in 3^rd^ party) - Rule 19: Joinder of Parties (Required) - Rule 20: Permissive Joinder of Parties - Rule 24: Intervention § 1369 (c) - The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdictions over a claim under subsection (a) if - The claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law - The claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction - The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction or - in exceptional circumstances there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction Exceptions - If a plaintiff brings in a new defendant, cannot have supplemental jurisdiction if it destroys complete diversity - It's okay if a defendant does it though - FQ as the original and the bring an additional state law claim that is okay Summary Judgment ================ - Whether we need to have a trial - If either side have a chance of winning = trial - If its overwhelming on one side = summary judgement - Judge grants summary judgement when there is **no genuine dispute of material fact, such that the emoving party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law** - To do this we look at the evidence and assume that it is all true - Determines if there are factual disputes - you do not deny summary judgement just because there is a dispute about what the law is - then after they end the law dispute and determine the substantive law, then they determine the material facts - **Steps on Deciding to grant summary judgement** - 1\) Identify the substantial law - Tells us what facts matter - 2\) Decide what the material facts are - Material facts= facts that determine the outcome of the case - Ex. Slaven- whether the officers knew/ should have known he was at risk for suicide - 3\) Decide if there is a genuine dispute of material fact - Look at the summary judgement record (everything in discovery- affidavits and depositions) - Just have to be able to put it into an admissible form - **How to move for Summary Judgement** - No Evidence motion for summary judgement - When moving for summary judgment the defendant can say that the plaintiff didn't have enough evidence - Disproving or Negating Evidence - Defendant produces its own evidence to show that the element is not satisfied - Circumstantial Evidence= allows you t infer a certain fact - Direct Evidence= eyewitness, straight from the mouth - Judges weigh the evidence to determine what a reasonable jury would do. But if it looks like either party could win, then let the jury decide at trial - You can ask the court for more time to oppose summary judgement - Plaintiffs can move for summary judgement on an affirmative defense saying the defense does not work - When the party moving for summary judgement bears the burden of proof, they would have to show that every jury member would decide in their favor - Normally is a plaintiff **Burden of Proof** ------------------- - The plaintiff bears the burden of proving every element of the claim - if there is no evidence on either side, the defendant wins because the plaintiff didn't prove their burden - The defendant just has to disprove one element of the law to have summary judgement - Burden of Production - Party needs to produce enough evidence so that they could win - Helps Figure out if we need a trial - Goes to judge - Burden of Persuasion - How convincing the evidence needs to be to actually win - Burden for the jury - Done at trial [Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and Relief from a Judgment] Rule 50: Judgment as a matter of law ------------------------------------ - Stop the trial when we no longer need it - Can be during or immediately after - Plaintiff can not move for JMOL until the defendant has put on their evidence in the trial - If defendant moved for JMOL for lack of evidence, then the plaintiff can fix it - Same standards as summary judgement - 1\) Identify the substantial law - Tells us what facts matter - 2\) Decide what the material facts are - Material facts= facts that determine the outcome of the case - Ex. Slaven- whether the officers knew/ should have known he was at risk for suicide - 3\) Decide if there is a genuine dispute of material fact - Look at the summary judgement record (everything in discovery- affidavits and depositions) - Just have to be able to put it into an admissible form - Can be a different outcome than summary judgement because sometimes the evidence may look different in court - Dismissal with prejudice - Can not file again in the same district court - Dismissal without prejudice - Can be refiled in the same court - Rule 50(a): Motion for judgment as a matter of law - Directed verdict - Usually mid trial Rule 50(b): Renewed Motion for JMOL ----------------------------------- - Motions for judgement not withstanding the verdict - Challenges the jury's verdict - **Can only be done after the judge denies 50(a)** - **Judge basically overrules jury's verdict, because their decision was stupid** - Judge can raise this on their own - Court will grant 50(b) before 50(a) to prevent appeals and the trial starting over - If 50(b) motion gets appealed all they have to do is reinstate the jury verdict and don't have to start a new trial Rule 59: Motion for a New Trial ------------------------------- - 1\) Weight of the evidence error - Jury's verdict is against the weight of evidence - Court says the decision was reasonable but wrong - Judge can consider credibility in this instance, but can\'t look at credibility in Summary Judgement and JMOL - 2\) Procedural Errors (something went wrong in the original trial) - Can be improper arguments to the jury, jury influence, evidence issues - Harmless Error: there are errors at most trials, these are errors that are made but didn't affect the outcome. Therefore, not grounds for new trial Rule 60b: Motion for Relief from Judgement ------------------------------------------ - Asks the court to undo the judgement, set aside - Must be made within reasonable time, probably after learning of the grounds - First 3 grounds must not be made later than 1 year from final judgement - 1\) Mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect - 2\) Newly discovered evidence - 3\) Fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct by party - 4\) judgement is void: court lacked SMJ or PJ - 5\) Judgement has been satisfied - 6\) Any other reason that justifies relief (catch-all) but can't be used when any above applies Claim Preclusion ================ Why claim preclusion? - Harassment - Consistency - Efficiency/ social cost - Perception of the courts by the public - Reliance Claim Preclusion/ Res Judicata- an affirmative defense - Plaintiff is precluded from litigating the claim again - Applies to what actually was decided and what could have been decided - 1\) same claim - Same evidence used in the 1^st^ case - Transactional test- same operative facts as the 1^st^ case - Same claims= same legal theories; legal theories= why they are entitled to relief - Rights test= did the injury violate the same legal rights - 2\) valid final judgement on the merits - Court had SMJ + PJ + Notice - If the party had a chance to litigate the above and didn't raise it as an issue, then the judgement is still valid - Default judgements (no shows) may not be valid because the party didn't have the chance to raise SMJ, PJ, or Notice - A claim cannot be barred because of dismissal. A plaintiff may of right dismiss an action one time without prejudice before the defendant serves its answer - Final Judgement= once the district court proceeding is over - Some states hold off until appeal process is over - On the merits= Judicial resolution pf the claim - Summary Judgment, JMOL, failure to state a claim - NOT lack of SMJ, PJ, Improper Venue, failure to join under rule 19 - 3\) same parties - Same arrangement of parties - If sides flip then they are no longer the same parties; so sides can flip - Limited Jurisdiction Exception - When a court would have lacked jurisdiction claim preclusion does not apply - "if you couldn't have brought it in the first action, you wouldn't be barred in the 2^nd^ - Ex: Plaintiff tried to bring Fed and State law claims to Federal Court. Federal court denied state claims for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff can bring claims in state court the second time around. - Prejudice does not include preclusion - Once a breach of contract claim happens it can no longer be litigated (claim preclusion) []{#_Toc1655568948.anchor}[Issue Preclusion ] - Preclusion must be raised in a timely manner - Usually comes up in summary judgement - Plaintiffs use issue preclusion because it avoids the risk of different ruling than in the first case - May not want to use if they lost on the issue previously even if they won a bunch of times []{#_Toc2095551854.anchor}[Elements] - Same Issue - Have to have been actually litigated - Valid Final Judgement - Necessarily decided - Full and Fair Opportunity to litigate the issues - Same Parties - Some states don't give guilty pleas preclusion effects - Requests for admissions do not have issue preclusion effects - Issue Preclusion could apply even if the issues are the same/ already litigated - Standards of proof can affect preclusion - If something was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then they necessarily met preponderance of the evidence standard. - Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion - Not the same parties, but issue was already litigated - Non-Mutual Defensive Issue Preclusion - Defendant uses this to prevent a Plaintiff from proving something that was already litigated and failed - Plaintiff can't raise this defense if they won the 1^st^ case - New defendant never had an opportunity to litigate the issue so it's not fair - Non-Mutual Offensive Issue Preclusion - Plaintiff using issue preclusion against defendant who was a party to the first lawsuit, but plaintiff was not - Purpose - Encourages plaintiff to wait on other lawsuits before filing - Discourages joinder - Discretionary to district courts - Waiting is not required Appeals ======= Why courts of appeals exist - Error correction - Law development - Uniformity - Procedural justice - Legitimacy Steps ----- - File a Notice of Appeal in District court - Does have content and timing requirements - **Jurisdictional requirements** - **Late notice of appeal causes court to lose jurisdiction** - Court of Appeals sets a briefing schedule - Opening Brief - Argues why there were errors in the previous trial - Response Brief - Argues why there aren't errors - Reply Brief - Reply to response - Not always required - Oral Argument - Infront of 3 Judges and they ask questions - Not always required - Deliberation - They decide who writes opinions or if there will be separate opinions What to do if you want to alter the judgement of appeal ------------------------------------------------------- - Preserve - Present issues fully in brief - Error leads to standard of review - Defer to trial court - De novo= reviews as if trial court never reviewed the case - Abuse of discretion= did the trial court go outside its realm of reasonableness - On Bac hearing= oral argument in front of more judges (rare) - Clear error= clearly erroneous - Harm - Timing- most appeals come at the end of trial (final decision) - Better to wait until the end to avoid multiple appeals - Appellate judges decide everything at once 28 U.S.C. § 1291 Federal Final Judgement Rule --------------------------------------------- - grants the courts of appeals jurisdiction over appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States - The rule is designed to prevent piecemeal appeals and to ensure that appellate courts review cases only after the trial court has made a final determination on all issues. This principle helps maintain judicial efficiency and respects the trial court\'s role in managing the case 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Certified Appeals ---------------------------------- - District court thinks the case should be appealed - Appellate court has discretion - Not common Rule 54: Partial Judgement -------------------------- - District court can issue a judgement just on the resolved portions and send it to appellate for review - Intervention Appeals must be done immediately Collateral Order Doctrine ------------------------- - There are certain issues in the case that are separate and collateral - Exceptions to final judgement rule - Can send to appeals immediately - Need to know all timelines we talked about - Don't need to know rule numbers; just Rule 11 and 50 a&b