Civil Procedure Flashcards
(10 cards)
Compulsory Counterclaim
A compulsory counterclaim is one that must be asserted by the defendant against the plaintiff in the suit that arises from the same transaction or occurrence at issue. Because Mother was not a party to the first suit, her claim does not constitute a waivable compulsory counterclaim.
Federal Claim Preclusion
Federal claim preclusion prohibits a party from bringing a claim that has previously been adjudicated if the subsequent action 1) involves the same parties; 2) involves essentially the same claim as was previously brought into court (actual litigation on the merits is not required – i.e. a dismissal not on the merits is sufficient to satisfy this requirement because the claim was nevertheless brought into court); and 3) a final judgment on the claim by a court with jurisdiction (again, not necessarily litigated on the merits). Claim preclusion does not bar Mother’s claim because she was not a party in the previous lawsuit, her adult son was.
Federal Issue Preclusion
Federal Issue Preclusion, a stricter test than claim preclusion, prohibits subsequent litigation of an issue previously adjudicated provided 1) the issue was actually litigated (i.e. adjudicated on the merits); 2) by a court with jurisdiction; and 3) at least one party is common to both the first suit and the subsequent suit. The facts establish that the issues in Son v. Driver were adjudicated on the merits after actual litigation (a jury made the findings of fact), and the facts further indicate that the court has jurisdiction. The federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claim via diversity jurisdiction – the parties were citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75K. Further, the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant because his contract with State A gave rise to the suit (specific jurisdiction), and jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Traditional requirement of mutuality
Defensive Issue Preclusion
In many states, the traditional requirement of mutuality (i.e. the requirement that, like claim preclusion, the parties both participated in the original suit that decided the issue) has been abandoned in favor of two non-mutuality standards: offensive and defensive issue preclusion. In defensive issue preclusion, a defendant in the present suit who was a party to the previous suit in which the issue was decided (in this case, Driver) may assert issue preclusion against the plaintiff, who was not a party to the original suit. In this case, Driver participated in a suit in which the issue of Mother’s negligence was adjudicated by a jury. As a result, defensive issue preclusion allows him to assert this issue and relieves him of the duty to litigate the issue once again.
Offensive Issue Preclusion
Unlike the previous issue, Driver is not precluded from litigating this issue, and Mother cannot rely on the previous adjudication of the issue. In offensive issue preclusion, the plaintiff is not a party to the original suit and asserts a previously adjudicated issue against the defendant, who was a party to the original suit. Generally speaking, offensive issue preclusion is not permitted, primarily because it seems unjust to allow a plaintiff who was not a party to the original litigation to prove her claims against a defendant without additional litigation. The plaintiff, Mother, brought the suit and therefore she cannot be relieved of her burden of proof.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only hear certain cases and controversies. In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction, there must be subject matter jurisdiction over the case, which includes either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
Federal Questions Jurisdiction
A case falls into federal question jurisdiction when Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint arises under federal law, such as by seeking to enforce a federal right. Anticipating that Defendant’s defense might raise a federal question is not enough. Here, the woman is suing for anticipatory breach of contract. Contracts are a matter of state law, and there is no federal issue raised so she cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction to get into federal court. Thus, the case must fall under diversity jurisdiction.
Diversity Jurisdiction
Diversity Jurisdiction requires (1) complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants and (2) an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. Diversity is determined based on citizenship. For corporations, citizenship is determined by the corporation’s state of incorporation and principal place of business.
Venue
Venue refers to the proper forum to hear the case, and is proper where a case could originally have been filed. Here, Defendant alleges that State A is the improper venue for the case. A motion to dismiss falls under FRCP 12 (b) and certain Rule 12 motions are waiveable unless brought in the first Rule 12 response. Here, it appears that Defendant brought its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the same Rule 12 response, and it appears to be the first response, so Defendant has not waived its ability to dismiss for improper venue. If a case is properly in federal court, Plaintiff can lay venue in any district where all Defendants reside, or where a substantial proportion of the events giving rise to the cause of action occurred. For purposes of venue, a corporate Defendant resides in any state where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.
Venue based on PJ
Plaintiff can still prevail on the motion to dismiss for improper venue if she can show that defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in State A. Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s power over the parties. Personal jurisdiction must comply with statutory and unconstitutional grounds. Here, the state long-arm statute provides for jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The constitutional Due Process test requires such minimum contacts with the state so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and justice. If a defendant’s actions in the forum give rise to the cause of action, then personal jurisdiction will be based on specific jurisdiction. The defendant must have contacts with the state, meaning it must have purposefully availed itself of the state’s resources, such that it was foreseeable that it could be hauled into court there, and those contacts must be related to the state. In addition, there must be a consideration of fairness, by looking at the state’s interests in a forum, the Plaintiff’s interest in choosing a forum, and convenience. If the Defendants contacts with the state do not give rise to the cause of action, then personal jurisdiction is general and is based on where a defendant is essentially at home. For a corporation, that means its state of incorporation and principal place of business.
