Civ Pro - Model Rule Statements Flashcards
(14 cards)
persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if…
Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if (i) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, and (ii) there will be any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs.
counterclaim
A counterclaim is a claim for relief made against an opposing party after an original claim has been made. A defendant must include in her answer to a complaint any claim that (1) the defendant has against the plaintiff that arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim and (2) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. A party who fails to assert a compulsory counterclaim waives the right to sue on the claim and is generally precluded from ever suing on the claim in federal court.
doctrine of issue preclusion
The doctrine of issue preclusion, often called “collateral estoppel,” precludes the re-litigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined in an earlier adjudication.
A party asserting that collateral estoppel precludes the re-litigation of a factual issue must establish: (1) the issue sought to be precluded is the same as in the prior action and the relevant facts and applicable law must be identical; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action; (3) the issue must have been determined by a valid and binding final judgment; and (4) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the prior judgment. In addition, the party to be precluded must have been a party to the original action.
claim preclusion vs. issue preclusion
Unlike claim preclusion, issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties; it requires only that the party against whom the issue is to be precluded was a party to the original action.
Thus, “offensive” use of collateral estoppel by a nonparty to the original action is permitted. Trial courts have broad discretion to determine whether offensive collateral estoppel should be applied. If a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or if offensive estoppel is found to be unfair to a defendant, then a trial judge should not allow it.
The preclusive effect of federal judgments is typically determined under federal law. However, federal common law requires that the preclusive effect of a judgment by a federal court sitting in diversity must be governed by the law of the state where the federal court is located.
removal & diversity jurisdiction
Generally, the defendant in any civil action filed in state court has the right to remove it to the district court for the district in which the state court action was filed as long as the civil action is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of a U.S. district court.
Federal courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction over actions when (i) the opposing parties to an action are citizens of different states and (ii) the amount in controversy in the action exceeds $75,000.
Generally, a plaintiff’s good-faith assertion in the complaint that the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement is sufficient, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount alleged.
Additionally, if removal is sought solely based on diversity jurisdiction, then the claim may be removed only if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed.
proper venue and transfer
For the convenience of the parties and in the interests of justice, a district court in which venue is proper may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. Venue is proper in a judicial district in which (i) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located, (ii) a substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is based occurred, or (iii) a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is located.
when transfer is sought on the basis of a forum selection clause
when transfer is sought on the basis of a forum selection clause in a contract, the clause is accorded respect. If the clause specifies a federal forum, most circuit courts treat the clause as prima facie valid, to be set aside only upon a strong showing that transfer would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause was invalid for reasons such as fraud or overreaching. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that a forum selection clause should be given “controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.”
what happens when the venue of an action is transferred when the original venue was proper
Generally, if the venue of an action is transferred when the original venue is proper, then the court to which the action is transferred must apply the law of the state of the transferor court, including that state’s rules regarding conflict of law.
However, when venue is transferred based on a valid forum selection clause, the transferee court must apply the law, including the conflict-of-law rules, of the state in which it is located.
doctrine of claim preclusion
The doctrine of claim preclusion (i.e., res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relitigating an identical claim in a subsequent action. For claim preclusion to apply, the claimant and the defendant must be the same (and in the same roles) in both the original action and the subsequently filed action. Because application of claim preclusion is limited to the parties (or their privies), a similar action by a different party would not be precluded.
when should issue preclusion apply
trial courts have broad discretion to determine when issue preclusion should apply. If a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action, a trial judge may not allow use of offensive collateral estoppel.
long arm statutes
A federal district court will look to the jurisdictional statutes of the state where it is located to determine whether it can exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties. State long-arm statutes provide a means of exercising jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, provided it complies with due process. In general, due process requirements are satisfied if the nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
specific jurisdiction vs. general personal jurisdiction
Specific personal jurisdiction may be warranted even if the contact is the defendant’s only contact with the forum state when a cause of action arises out of or closely relates to that conduct. When a cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, general personal jurisdiction is warranted only when the defendant is “at home” in the forum state. A corporation is “at home” in the state of its incorporation and the state where its principal place of business is located.
original jurisdiction
Federal courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States. In general, if the cause of action is expressly created by federal law, and federal law provides the underlying right, then federal question jurisdiction will exist. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the federal law issue must be presented in the plaintiff’s complaint.
when a district can hear vs. deny to hear a claim based on supplemental jurisdiction
When the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction for a claim is based on the existence of a federal question, additional claims against the same party can be heard by the court through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the common-nucleus-of-operative-fact test is met. Claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact if they are part of the same case or controversy and should be tried together.
However, a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (i) over claims that raise new or complex state law issues or that substantially predominate over claims within original federal jurisdiction; (ii) when the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed; or (iii) if there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.
