Civ Pro Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction
Courts must have personal jurisdiction over the parties of a lawsuit to hear the suit. Plaintiffs are presumed to consented to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction, as they voluntarily brought the case to court. Personal jurisdiction can be established over defendants on (1) traditional, (2) statutory, and (3) constitutional bases.
Traditional Bases for Personal Jurisdiction
(1) Domicile: individual = (presence in state + intent to reside indefinitely) ; corporation = nerve test OR place of incorporation.
(2) Present while served in state (not by fraud / force)
(3) Consent to jurisdiction (merely trying to contest personal jurisdiction is not consent)
Statutory Basis for Personal Jurisdiction
Long arm statutes allow states to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. California’s long-arm statute provides for long-arm jurisdiction which is coextensive with the Constitutional basis for jurisdiction.
Constitutional Basis
Pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, exercise of jurisdiction requires:
(1) minimum contacts between D and forum state; and
(2) that “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” are not offended.
Minimum Contacts for Constitutionally-Based Personal Jurisdiction
(1) Purposeful availment of the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws (2) such that defendant reasonably foresees being taken to court in forum.
“Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice”
Jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” where/when there is:
(1) Systematic and continuous contact between the defendant and the forum;
(2) Relation between suit and defendant’s conduct with forum state;
(3) No unconstitutional inconvenience to the parties (i.e., requiring defendant to defend in forum would not impose unreasonable burden on the defendant)
Other Factors to Consider if Result Is Not Clear Cut
(a) State’s Interest in Providing Redress for Residents
(b) Plaintiff’s Interest in Obtaining Convenient Relief
(c) Court’s Interest in Judicial Economy
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Courts must have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim to hear it in court.
A federal court has SMJ when:
(1) federal questions arise under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, or federal statutes;
(2) there is diversity of citizenship
(3) there is supplemental jurisdiction
(4) there is removal jurisdiction.
State courts have subject matter jurisdiction over any case over which no other court has exclusive jurisdiction (i.e., copyright and patent disputes).
Diversity Jurisdiction - Subject Matter Jurisdiction
There is diversity jurisdiction when:
(1) All plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants (domicile test for people; state of incorporation + nerve test for corporations);
(2) A good faith pleading of an amount in controversy over $75k.
Single Ps can aggregate all claims they have against a particular D to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.
Multiple Ps can only aggregate claims related to single title, a right of common, or undivided interest.
Supplemental Jurisdiction - Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction requires:
(1) That there is an underlying claim with independent federal Q or diversity jurisdiction;
(2) the claim asserting supplemental jurisdiction has no federal Q or diversity jurisdiction; and
(3) there is a “common nucleus of operative fact” between the underlying claim and the claim for which supplemental jurisdiction is asserted.
The supplemental jurisdiction is ancillary when the underlying claim is raised by a plaintiff who is different from the plaintiff raising the claim supported by supplemental jurisdiction.
The supplemental jurisdiction is pendant when the same plaintiff raises the underlying claim and the claim supported by supplemental jurisdiction.
Removal Jurisdiction - Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Removal jurisdiction exists when, at the time of the removal, the case could be filed in federal court.
The case must be removed to the federal district court that encompasses the state court where the action was initiated.
Once removed, the case can be transferred to, or consolidated in, another federal court.
Plaintiffs can’t remove.
Plaintiffs can successfully object to removal if federal jurisdiction is based on diversity and at least one of the defendants is a citizen of the state where the lawsuit was filed.
No “reverse removal”; can’t move back to state court unless removal was improper.
Venue
(A) Analysis
(1) Where all Ds reside; or
(2) where substantial part of claim arose;
(3) If none of the above…
DIVERSITY CASES
Where all Ds subject to personal jx.
NON-DIVERSITY CASES
Where ANY D can be found.
(B) DEFINITION OF RESIDENCE
Human => domicile
Corp. => any place personal jx is appropriate.
Venue - Non-Diversity Cases
Where all Ds reside
Venue - Transfer
District courts can grant transfer of venue for any civil action when:
(1) convenient for parties and witnesses, and
(2) in the interest of justice
(3) to any other district where case could have originally been brought.
Venue - Forum Non Conveniens
Defendant can move to dismiss on grounds of FNC. The doctrine requires the court to balance convenience against the plaintiff’s right to choose a forum. Courts will consider the following factors when assessing FNC:
(1) Location of witnesses;
(2) Location of relevant evidence and records;
(3) Potential undue hardship for D
(4) Availability of adequate alternative forums for P
(5) Proper allocation of judicial resources;
(6) Choice of law
(7) Public policy
(8) Relative resources of parties
Erie Doctrine
Federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction are required to apply substantive law of the state in which the court is located and federal procedural law, unless there is federal law directly on point
If no federal law is on point, courts can decide whether to apply state or federal law using the (1) “outcome determinative” test; (2) balancing of interests test; or the (3) forum shopping deterrence test.
Erie Doctrine - Outcome Determinative Test
Law/issue is substantive if outcome changes depending on whether state or federal law is applied.
Erie Doctrine - Balancing of Interests Test
Court will balance the interests of the state versus the interests of the federal government in having its rule applied.
Erie Doctrine - Forum Shopping Deterrence Test
Must follow state law if failing to do so would cause litigants to flock to federal court
Erie Doctrine - Conflict of Laws
Federal courts in CA must apply CA’s conflict of law rules:
If torts case:
(1) If state A and state B’s substantive laws are not identical, and
(2) each state has an identifiable interest in application of law
==> court will analyze comparative impairment to each interest, and choose the law of the state with the stronger interest.
If contracts case + choice-of-law clause:
If (1) clause encompasses all claims; and
(2) state chosen by clause has substantial relationship to parties or transaction
==> court will enforce clause.
If contracts and no choice-of-law clause:
If (1) chosen state’s law conflicts with fundamental CA policy, and
(2) CA has materially greater interest than other state in determining issue
==> court will choose CA law.
Pleadings - Rule 12(b) Defenses
(1) Lack of personal jx
(2) Improper venue
(3) Insufficient process
(4) Insufficient service of process (waived if not raised by motion/answer)
(5) Lack of SMJ (can be raised at any time, even on appeal)
(6) Failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted
(7) Failure to join indispensable party
(8) Summary judgment
(9) Collateral estoppel
(10) Res judicata
Pleadings - Counterclaims
Counterclaims may be compulsory or permissive. If they are compulsory, D must raise them in his answer or will be barred from raising the underlying claim in the future. If they are permissive, D may elect to raise them in his answer or in future litigation. D’s claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as P’s claim are compulsory; all other claims are permissive.
Pleadings - Relation-back Amendments
Ordinarily, claims cannot be raised after the statute of limitations tolls. However, under the R-back doctrine, a claim can still be brought against a new party if:
(1) it asserts a claim or defense concerning the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original pleading;
(2) is made within 120 days after filing of the original complaint;
(3) the party newly brought in receives notice of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits, and
(4) party knew “but for” a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity, it would’ve been named originally.
Pleadings - Rule 11 Sanctions and “Safe Harbor”
(1) Paper must not have been filed for improper purposes;
(2) Legal contentions must be warranted by law;
(3) Factual contentions must have evidentiary support (or likely after investigation), and
(4) Denials of factual contentions have evidentiary support.
BUT
“Safe harbor” is provided by Rule 11(c)(2)
Requires service of Rule 11 motion on adversary + 21 days “safe harbor” where adversary can withdraw or correct paper. The “safe harbor” provision effectively makes Rule 11 motions for sanctions toothless.
Compulsory Joinder
Joinder is compulsory if:
(1) joinder will not remove subject matter jurisdiction;
(2) complete relief cannot be provided in person’s absence;
(3) disposition in person’s absence may impair party’s ability to protect its interest;
(4) absence of the person exposes existing parties to substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations.
If compulsory joinder is not made, a MTD for Failure to Join Indispensable Party can be filed.
