Civil Procedure PDF

Contents {#contents.TOCHeading} ======== [Subject Matter Jurisdiction 2](#subject-matter-jurisdiction) [Federal Question SMJ 2](#federal-question-smj) [Diversity SMJ 2](#diversity-smj) [Supplemental Jurisdiction 3](#supplemental-jurisdiction) [Removal and Remand 4](#removal-and-remand) [Remova...

Contents {#contents.TOCHeading} ======== [Subject Matter Jurisdiction 2](#subject-matter-jurisdiction) [Federal Question SMJ 2](#federal-question-smj) [Diversity SMJ 2](#diversity-smj) [Supplemental Jurisdiction 3](#supplemental-jurisdiction) [Removal and Remand 4](#removal-and-remand) [Removal Test 4](#removal-test) [Personal Jxdn 5](#personal-jxdn) [Specific Jurisdiction 6](#specific-jurisdiction) [General Jurisdiction 9](#general-jurisdiction) [Transient Jurisdiction (tag) 9](#transient-jurisdiction-tag) [Venue 10](#venue) [Preclusion 11](#preclusion) [Claim Preclusion 11](#claim-preclusion) [Issue Preclusion 12](#issue-preclusion) [Who can be bound? 13](#who-can-be-bound) [Sample Rule Statements 14](#sample-rule-statements) [Umbrella 14](#umbrella) [SMJ 14](#smj) [PJ 14](#pj) [Venue 16](#venue-1) [Removal 16](#removal) Subject Matter Jurisdiction =========================== - SMJ \-- the power of court to hear subject matter of a case - Two ways to get it 1. Federal Question (FedQ) \-- arising under federal law 2. Diversity Jurisdiction \-- parties from different states - Supplemental Jurisdiction \-- claim \#2 needs supplemental SMJ (state claim) Claim \#1 has independent SMJ Federal Question SMJ -------------------- - Well Pleaded Complaint Rule \-- the federal issue appears on the face of a well pleaded complaint, limited to the allegations necessary to state a proper claim for relief, relies on federal law, it can be heard in federal court - Defenses do not count - Declaratory Judgments - You must look at the complaint as if it was seeking coercive remedy 1. Ignore DJ claim itself 2. What could either party assert as a coercive claim 3. Ask if the hypothetical coercive claim is a federal claim - Centrality Rule \-- Federal law has to be \'central\' to the claim - Two ways to meet this - Federally created claim (Creation test) 1. Federal law creates the right to sue - State claim raises a \'substantial\' federal issue (Grable Test) 1. Necessarily raised by the state law claim; - Is federal issue essential to decide the state law claim 2. Actually disputed; 3. Substantial; and - Importance of issue to federal system as a whole 4. Hearing this - Type of case will not disrupt the federal state balance of judicial responsibility approved by congress 1. Can we move this type of case to federal without upsetting balance?   Diversity SMJ ------------- - Diversity needs 1. Complete diversity \-- no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant; AND 2. Amount in controversy exceeds 75,000 - Jxdn is determined at the time the suit is filed, so even if domicile is changed, domicile for the purpose of suit does not - Individuals 1. Domicile - A person is a citizen of the state in which they are domicile - A person is domiciled where they were last a. Present; AND b. With the intent to remain indefinitely - If there is a definite plan to leave, not domicile - If there are no plans, then domicile - Changing domicile \-- person takes up residence in a different domicile, is present and has intent to remain - US Citizen domiciled in foreign country \-- can\'t get diversity jxdn over them - but they can still be sued in federal court for FedQ - Licensed Permeant Residents \-- deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are domiciled in the US - Corporations 1. Corporations are citizens of both their state of incorporation and their principal place of business (PPOB) 2. Nerve Center Test \-- The corporation is a citizen where - It maintains its principal place of business (HQ - where it controls decisions from) - Unincorporated Entitles (partnership, union, LLC) 1. Deemed domiciled in every state of which a member is a citizen - Like a collection of individuals - Amount in Controversy 1. \< 75,000 2. Based on P\'s good faith allegations 3. Does not count - Atty fees - Interest - Filing and court costs 4. Aggregation - Each plaintiff individually has to be over 75,000 - Claims of one P against one D can be aggregated to meet amount, even if unrelated   Supplemental Jurisdiction ------------------------- - 28 USC 1367 - Authorizes the court to hear all other claims in the action that arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the original claim that confers jxdn to the federal court - (b) - The courts shall not have supplemental jxdn over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under 14, 19, 20, or 24 or those joined as plaintiffs by 19 or 24 - If the claim was made solely under diversity jxdn - Only applies if case is in federal court on basis of diversity; and - Plaintiff made claim against rule 12, 14, 19, 20, 34 OR - It is a claim by either a rule 19 or 24 plaintiff AND - Inconsistent with diversity - (c ) - Congress provided authority for federal judges to decline jxdn over supplemental claims - In exceptional circumstances if there are other compelling reasons for declining jxdn - In order to exercise discretion, one may be satisfied - Grant of Supp SMJ allows you to - Bring a claim into federal court that lacks federal SMJ on its own if it is sufficiently related to another properly plead claim - All P\'s can use, not just og - Use in any civil action of which the district courts have original jxdn - Find federal claim - Is there a claim in which federal courts have jxdn? i. Even if they lose this claim along the way, as long as it was a good faith claim from the start - Find the state claim - CNOF test - Identify CNOF i. Are they operative facts? - Would it be efficient to try them together? - Discretion - May exercise discretion at any point in the case - District courts may deny supp jxdn if - Claim raises complex state issue - EX - state has never ruled on this - State claim substantially predominates over the claim which the district court has original jxdn - EX - state claim is more complex than federal claim, requiring many more elements to establish - District court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jxdn, or - Exceptional circumstances     Removal and Remand ================== - Removal \-- gives the ability to D to move the case from state court to federal court - P cannot refuse - When D files, it is automatic, no ruling - Remand \-- sent back to state court - ALWAYS LOOK AT P\'s OG claim   Removal Test ------------ - 28 USC 1441 - \(a) Generally - Any civil action that has 1331 or 1332 - Only D can remove it - If multiple D\'s all must agree - \(B) Removal based solely on diversity - Citizenship of D sued under fictitious name shall be disregarded - Removal solely on the basis of jxdn of title may not be removed if any party of interest properly joined and served as a D is a citizen in which such action is brought - In-State-Action Bar \-- if P asserts a claim against D in the state court that has solely diversity jxdn , D cannot properly remove the case to federal court if any D is a citizen of the state where the case is pending - (c ) Joinder of Federal Law Claims and State Law claims - D can remove, but court will sever and remand - \(d) Timeline - Original has SMJ \-- 30 days - 30 days from amendment - No Fed SMJ and amended only has 1332 \-- 30 days from amended and less than a year from OG lawsuit     Personal Jxdn ============= - The power of the court to bind the parties \-- in particular the defendant \-- to a judgement - Independent of SMJ - Court must have both SMJ and PJ - Constitutional limits are on both state and federal courts - Three types - Specific - Minimum Contacts - Defendants contacts proximately result from defendants actions - Create a substantial relationship with the forum state - Reasonably anticipate being hauled into court in the forum - Arising out of/related to - Proximate cause - But for/logical reason - Reasonableness - Burden on D - Plaintiffs interest - Forum\'s interest - Interstate interest in efficiency - Shared states interest in social policy - General - Defendant is subject to general jurisdiction where the defendant is \"at home\" - Transient (TAG) - ALL MUST MEET THE STATUTORY GRANT AS WELL - Consent - Choice of Forum Clause - Stating that the use of the product means you consented to jxdn in the state listed - Consent to Jxdn - In a K - Other party can chose to sue you in a state that the clause states and you cannot object     - Specific Jurisdiction --------------------- Image preview   - Modern (International Shoe) - Two Steps - Long Arm Statute (Statutory Limits) - Constitutional Limits - D\'s contact within the state long arm statute - Find the long arm statute and look at provision - Is the exercise of PJ constitutional? - Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he not be present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintance of the suit does not offend \'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice\' a. Minimum Contacts i. D\'s contacts relate to the claim; and - Arise out of OR - Relate to ii. D is purposefully availed through minimum contacts i. Factors to consider - Burden on D - Relationship between contacts and claim - Burden on P - Quantity and quality of contacts - Foreseeability - Defendants conduct creates connection with forum state such that the defendant can reasonably anticipate being hauled into court - Quid pro quo - Seeks to serve the market - Sales - Solicitation - Advertising reasonably calculated to reach - Indirectly through others - Simply knowing P is in the forum state and defaming them is not enough, must be express aiming - Defendant has committed a tort - The plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm caused by that tort in the forum state such that the forum state was the focal point of the plaintiff\'s injury - The defendant expressly aimed the tortious activity at the forum state such that the forum state was the focal point of the tortious activity - Contracts - After burger king, a defendant who enters into a K with a forum resident has minimum contacts with the forum state when K creates a continuing obligation, the course of the negotiations are directed at the forum state and the provisions of the K afford the jxdn          - After burger king, a defendant who enters into a K with a forum resident has minimum contacts with the forum state when negotiations were directed to the forum state, the provisions in the K itself afford it - Stream of Commerce - Brennan - Arrives in the forum state as a part of the regular and anticipated flow of product - Aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum - O\'Connor - Substantial connection/intent to serve the market - Designing for the market - Advertising - Customer service - Sales agent - Stevens - Volume - Value - Hazardous Character i. Even if everything suggests that it is perfectly reasonably to litigate in the forum \-- still have to have minimum contacts A. Reasonable - Divorced from minimum contacts, even if minimum contacts are met that does not make it constitutional 1. Burden on D 2. Interest of the forum state 3. Plaintiffs interest in the forum 4. Interstate judicial system\'s interest in efficiency - Balancing test - Most likely not met with a foreign defendant, very niche      General Jurisdiction -------------------- - Defendant is subject to general jurisdiction where the defendant is \"at home\" - Individual = domicile - Corporation - State of incorporation - PPOB - Exceptional circumstances - where the defendants contacts are so substantial that they are essential at home - Have to be able to say the defendants contacts with forum state are disproportionate to everywhere else   Transient Jurisdiction (tag) ---------------------------- - Service on the defendant while the defendant is present in the forum state is sufficient - D\'s presence in the forum must be knowing and voluntary - Attachment - Relationship between Pennoyer & International Shoe - Pennoyer - Presence in the state while served - Property within state when attached - Shaffer \-- Quasi in rem - International Shoe - Minium contacts - Such that jxdn comports with - Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice - Limits set out in Burnham - Generally permits a state court to exercise jxdn over a defendant if he is served with process while voluntarily present in state     Venue ===== - A statutory limitation on the geographical location of litigation to prevent a plaintiff from suing where it would be burdensome for the defendant to appear and defendant - 28 USC1391 - (b)(1) in which D resides, if all Ds are residents of the same state - Citizenship - Entity - Resides in judicial district where is it subject to PJ - Non US resident - May be sued in any judicial district - (b)(2) substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred - Point of dispute; or - Connection to the claim - Includes relavant conduct of either party - (b)(3) which any D is subject to the court\'s PJ with respect to such action \-- if no other valid district - ONLY IF NO OTHER VALID DISTRICT - Issue spot - Multiple D\'s live in different states - Substantial events took place abroad - Transfer of Venue - For the convivence of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought to any other district or division to which all parties have consented - For the convince of parties and witnesses, - In the interest of justice - Private Interest - The plaintiff\'s choice of forum, unless the balance of convivence strongly in favor of defendants; - The defendants choice of forum, - Whether the claim arose elsewhere; - The convivence of parties; - The convince of witnesses; and - The ease and access to sources of proof. - Public Interest - The transferee\'s familiarity with governing laws; - The relative congestion of the challengers and the potential transferee and transferor courts; - The local interest in deciding controversy at home - Change of Venue - The district court of a district in which is filed a case layer venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought     Preclusion ==========   - Claim Preclusion - Res Judicata - Doctrine that prevents parties from litigating claims that they fully litigated in a previous case - Issue Preclusion - Collateral estoppel - Prevents parties from litigating issues that they previously litigated in another case   Claim Preclusion ---------------- - Elements 1. Final valid judgment on the merits (for lawsuit \#1) - Valid judgement \-- court must simply have SMJ over the claim and PJ over the defendant - Final judgment \-- judgement that ends the case and tells you who/what won - This is where you analyze \'on the merits\' 2. Same parties or privities 3. Same claim or cause of action - Traditional primary rights approach \--\> each type of injury or invasion is a separate claim - Same evidence standard \--\> same evidence is essential, focus on legal theories - R2 Transactional Approach \--\> common nucleus of operative fact 4. Could have been raised in the first court - First court must have had jxdn - Plaintiff has obligation to file in court w/ broadest jxdn - Element 1 On the Merits 1. Consider whether the previous decision was made on the merits 2. Anything other than a dismissal on the basis of jxdn or venue is on the merits - SoL is on the merits - Failure to state a claim - Modern rule is this is on the merits 3. P wins then the merits are always met 4. P loses for procedural reasons, not on the merits - Element 4 could have been raised in first lawsuit 1. First court must have jxdn 2. Plaintiff has obligation to file in court with broadest jxdn 3. Within the chosen system (federal or state) - Exception 1. Res Judicata is an affirmative defense and can be waived through consent or waiver 2. There is no res judicata when the court expressly reserves P\'s right to bring a subsequent lawsuit   Issue Preclusion ---------------- - Elements 1. Same issue - Identify a common issue of law or fact w/specificity 2. Actually litigated - Contested by the parties - Decided by the court - As opposed to stipulated or conceded 3. Essential to judgment/necessarily decided - What was decide in the 1st case? - Specific verdict \-- asks the jury to answer findings of facts and conclusions of law - General verdict \-- judgment for plaintiff or defendant - If P won, must have proved all elements of offense - Was it essential/necessary? - Finding has to merge into judgment - Support the judgment? - In order for a finding to have preclusive effect it has to be essential to the judgment and must support the judgment instead of being adverse to the judgment - Essential? - If you can get to the judgment another way, it does not have preclusive effect - If you change the finding on the issue it changes the outcome then it is essential and preclusive 4. Final judgment 5. Full and fair opportunity to litigate 6. Party to be bound was party or in privity with party in previous litigation   Who can be bound? ----------------- - Due process requires that to be bound by judgement they must have been a party - Exceptions - Consent - Privity - Adequate representation (class actions, fiduciaries) - Either - Party in the first suit understood representative capacity; OR - Court took steps to protect the interest of absent parties - Control over litigation - Party in second suit controlled first litigation - Party in first suit controls second suit - Proxy/Agent - Statutory exceptions - Mutuality - Nonparty cannot reap the benefits of a previous decision when it bore no risk of adverse consequences in the previous litigation - In order to assert preclusion you have to be a party to first lawsuit and at risk of judgment in first suit - Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel - Look at who the new party is - Offensive \-- new plaintiff uses estoppel against a defendant who lost to a different plaintiff previously - P was not a party to original lawsuit - P will not be bound because they were not parties - Unless you can show they were in privity with first plaintiff - But if D loses first lawsuit then D can be bound in the subsequent lawsuits by different P\'s - P can use doctrine of estoppel even if they were not parties to the first lawsuit, but courts have discretion in ways they are using it and can deny - Exception \-- - P could have joined, sufficient inceptives, different procedures, or inconsistent judgments - Defensive \-- new defendant uses against plaintiff who sues multiple defendants - D was not a party to original lawsuit - No matter what happened in the first lawsuit the second D cannot be bound by the first lawsuit if P won     Sample Rule Statements ====================== Umbrella -------- - The XYZ court may hear XYZ\'s claim only if: (1) XYZ court has SMJ over the action; (2) the XYZ court has PJ over the plaintiff & defendant; and (3) venue is proper in the southern district. SMJ --- - Federal - Federal district courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. - Generally, federal courts have jurisdiction over actions only if: (1) they are actions between diverse citizens; or (2) they raise a federal question. - Fed Q - Federal question jxdn exists only if: (1) an action raises a substantial federal issue (2) on the face of a well pled complaint. - An action raises a substantial federal issue if: (1) a federal statute creates the rights which the plaintiff seeks to vindicate or (2) a state law claim necessarily turns on the resolution of a federal issue. - Diversity - A court has diversity jxdn if: (1) the action is an action between U.S. citizens who are citizens of different states or if the action is between U.S. citizens and citizens of foreign states; and (2) if the amount in controversy in the action exceeds 75,000. - Amount in Controversy - The amount in controversy requirement is satisfied if the plaintiff in good faith alleges relief worth in excess of 75,000 and is satisfied unless it can be shown to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover more than 75,000. - Citizenship - Corporation - A corporation is a citizen of the state in which they were incorporated and the state in which it maintains its PPOB. - Individual - An individual who is a US citizen is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled. - A person is domiciled in the last place where he was physically present with the intent to remain. - State - Every state has at least one court of general subject matter jurisdiction. This means that state courts can hear any type of case. PJ -- - Specific - A court must be both statutorily authorized to exercise personal jxdn and the exercise of jxdn must comport with due process. - Federal Long Arm - Rule 4 - State Long Arm - Use whatever long arm statute is given to you. - Constitutional - Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he not be present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. - In order for the court to have specific personal jxdn over the defendant they must have (1) minimum contacts; the cause of action must arise out of/relate to D\'s contacts within the state and (3) be reasonable as to not offend the notions of fair play and substantial justice. - Minimum Contacts - Defendant through its own actions rather than the unilateral actions of another establishes an affiliating relationship with the forum state such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being subject to suit in the forum state and/or the defendant can be said to have received a benefit in the forum state such that it may be fairly held to defend a suit there - WWVW General Rule - Seeks to serve the market through; - Sales, solicitation, advertising reasonably calculated to reach, indirectly through others - Stream of commerce theories - SOC - when a defendant places a product into the stream of commerce and it arrives in in the forum state through anticipated stream of commerce, the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum - SOC+ - a defendant that merely places a product into the stream of commerce knowing that it may arrive in the forum state does not have minimum contacts with the forum state even though the product arrives in the forum through the anticipated stream. The defendant must do something more specifically that targets its conduct at the forum state. - Case-by-case - a defendant that places a product into the stream of commerce which arrives in the forum state through the anticipated stream of commerce may have minimum contacts when the defendant\'s products arrive in the forum state regularly and continuously. What is sufficiently regular must be judged in light of the number of sales in the forum, the value of the sales and the hazardous nature of the products or services sold. - Contracts - After burger king, a defendant who enters into a K with a forum resident has minimum contacts with the forum state when K creates a continuing obligation, the course of the negotiations are directed at the forum state and the provisions of the K afford the jxdn          - After burger king, a defendant who enters into a K with a forum resident has minimum contacts with the forum state when negotiations were directed to the forum state, the provisions in the K itself afford it - Arise out of/Relate to - For specific jurisdiction to be appropriate, the plaintiff\'s claim must \'arise out of or relate to\' the defendant\'s forum-state activities. - Either of the following tests 1. Causal Relationship A. But for \-- but for the defendants forum activities, the plaintiff would not have suffered injuries B. Proximate cause: the defendant\'s forum activities are a proximate cause of the plaintiff\'s claims 2. Strong relationship A. There is a strong relationship amongst the defendant, the forum and the plaintiff\'s claims. - Reasonableness - The exercise of jxdn over the defendant must be reasonable such that it comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. - Factors considered in balancing test: (1) burden on the defendant; (2) plaintiff\'s interest in the forum; (3) forum state\'s interest; (4) interstate interest in efficient dispute resolution; (5) shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policy. Venue ----- - A plaintiff must bring a lawsuit in a statutorily authorized venue. - Look for venue statute.   - Removal ------- - A defendant may remove a case that is filed in state court to the federal court in the district in which the action is pending if the federal court would have original jxdn over the action. - Go to the top & analyze federal SMJ - Federal SMJ - Federal district courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. - Generally, federal courts have jurisdiction over actions only if: (1) they are actions between diverse citizens; or (2) they raise a federal question. - Diversity - A court has diversity jxdn if: (1) the action is an action between U.S. citizens who are citizens of different states or if the action is between U.S. citizens and citizens of foreign states; and (2) if the amount in controversy in the action exceeds 75,000. - EXCEPTION - When SMJ is based on diversity, a defendant may not remove if any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is filed. - FedQ - Federal question jxdn exists only if: (1) an action raises a substantial federal issue (2) on the face of a well pled complaint. - An action raises a substantial federal issue if: (1) a federal statute creates the rights which the plaintiff seeks to vindicate or (2) a state law claim necessarily turns on the resolution of a federal issue.