Civ Pro Essay Flashcards
Supplemental jurisdiction
- Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court with subject matter jurisdiction over a case to hear additional claims over which the court would not independently have jurisdiction if all the claims constitute the same case or controversy (common nucleus of operative fact - same transaction or occurence)
When is there supplemental jurisdiction?
- federal question: same case or controversy - common nucleus of operative facts
- diveristy: same case or controversy - common nucleus of operative facts
- brought by D –> there is supplemental jurisdiction, but does not allow joinder of non-diverse party
- brought by P –> not asserted against a person made party under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 (joinder rules) –> supplemental jurisdiction
Aggregation of claims to achieve diversity
A single plaintiff can aggregate all of her claims (even if totally unrelated) against a single defendant to exceed 75K. No other aggregation is permitted.
When is removal appropriate?
- federal court has subject matter jurisdiction
- if diversity jurisdiction –> no D is a citizen of the state from which the claim was removed
- motion for removal filed within 30 days of receiving the complaint
- all defendants must (i) join in the motion or (ii) consent
traditional bases for personal jurisdiction
- proper service of process while voluntarily present in the forum state
- domicile in forum state
- consent
Long-Arm Statute
- CA courts may exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis that is in accord with CA or US Constitution. Due Process requires sufficient minimum contacts and fairness.
- Minimum contacts
purposeful availment
foreseeability
relatedness - specific jurisdiction (action arises out of ocntacts with forum state) general jurisdiction (defendant at home in forum state)
Fairness
interest of the forum state in adjudicating matter
burden on D of appearing in the case
interest of judicial system in efficient resolution
shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies
Venue
Venue proper in:
* all Ds reside in same state –> any district where any D resides
* judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omission occurred or the property is located
* if neither of above apply, proper where any D is subject to personal jurisdiction
Analysis for transfer of venue
- is venue appropriate in the original district?
- is venue appropriate in the new district?
- is there personal jurisdiction?
- is there subject matter jurisdiction?
- is transfer to the new venue in the interest of justice?
California venue rules
- actions involving real property - county where property is located
- contract actions - county where contract was entered into or expected to be performed
- tort actions - county where act or omission giving rise to the tort occurred
The Erie Doctrine
- federal question jurisdiction: federal substantive and procedural law will control
- diversity jurisdiction:
federal law/rule directly address issue –>
Federal rule –> Rules Enabling Act: arguably procedural + does not motify a substantive right –> apply federal rule
Federal law –> Erie Doctrine: state law outcome determinitive + no counterveiling federal policy interest –> apply state law
substantive law: conflict of laws, preclusion, damages calculation, statute of limitation, evidentiary privileges
Rule 8 and CA equivalent rule
Complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim sufficient to show the pleader is entitled to relief (recitation of elements of a claim and broad conclusory statements are insufficient)
CA: California state courts require fact pleading: pleadings must contain a statement of facts constituting each cause of action and demand for relief.
Rule 9
- certain pleadings have heightened standards
- complaint must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake
Rule 15: Amendments and Relation Back
- court should allow plaintiff leave to amend complaint unless it would cause undue prejudice against the defendant
- adding a new claim: relates back if 1) original complaint timely AND 2) new claim arises out of same transaction or occurence
- addition new party: relates back if 1) claim arose out of same transaction or occurrence 2) new party receive notice of action within 90 days of original complaint, and 3) new party knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against them, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity
Joinder
- Rule 18: Permissive Joinder of Claims: may join as many independent claims of whatever nature as the party may have against an opposing party
- Rule 13: Compulsory Counterclaims: must be asserted if the clain arises out of the same transaction or occurence
- Rule 19: Compulsory Joinder of Parties: 1) party must be necessary, 2) court must have PJ over new party, and 3) court must have SMJ (i.e. adding the party can’t destroy diversity)
necessary party: (i) court cannot afford complete relief without the party, (ii) there is a danger that teh party could be harmed without joining, or (iii) there is a risk of an inconsistent judgment or double liability
indispensible party factors: prejudice to parties of person not joining, extent to which prejudice could be reduced or avoided by protective provisions, whether a judgment rendered would be adequate, whether plaintiff would have adequate remedy if action were dismissed for nonjoinder
Rule 26
- may discover any evidence, information, or facts relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs (discusss elements of tort/contract and why evidence is relevant or not)
- court will consider whether the burden or expense of proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit
- cannot discover privileged information: attorney-client privilege, work product, physician-patient (CA only)
