Civil Procedure II Flashcards
(34 cards)
Venue Rules
Under § 1391, venue in civil actions in the federal courts is proper in:
- (a) A judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located;
- (b) A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
- (c) If there is no district anywhere in the United States which satisfies (a) or (b), a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
Note: These rules do not apply when a case is removed from state court to federal court. Venue only applies to cases that are filed in federal court originally.
Rule 15 (Relation Back)
For statute of limitations purposes, an amendment to a pleading that arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence that was set forth (or was attempted to be set forth) in the original pleading generally is deemed filed on the date that the original pleading was filed. In other words, the filing of the amendment relates back to the filing date of the original pleading. Of course, the original complaint must have been filed within the applicable statute of limitations period.
Rule 15(c)(1)(A)
Under 15(c)(1)(A), the claim relates back if the law providing the statute of limitations allows it to relate back. In other words, the more generous law is applied. If the law does not allow it, then 15(c)(1)(C) might come to the rescue.
Rule 15(c)(1)(C)
Under 15(c)(1)(C), an amendment changing the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if (1) the amendment concerns the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original pleading and (2) if, within 90 days under Rule 4(m), the party to be brought in by amendment: (i) has received such notice of the action that she will not be prejudiced in maintaining her defense on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity, the action would have been brought against her.
Note: A “John Doe” defendant cannot be named as a placeholder until the plaintiff figures out the name of the proper defendant. The Supreme Court has emphasized that it is the knowledge of the party to be brought in by amendment (not of the plaintiff) that is relevant. And again, the original complaint must have been filed within the applicable statute of limitations period.
Rule 13(a)
Compulsory Counterclaims → If a claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence, it must be joined. If left out, it cannot be the subject of another suit.
Rule 13(b)
Permissive Counterclaims → Claims not arising from the same transaction or occurrence may be joined but do not have to be.
Rule 13(g)
Crossclaim Against Coparty → A party may only sue another coparty (crossclaim) if the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence. If a party has a crossclaim against another party, they may add other claims they have against that party as well. Under Rule 13(g), crossclaims are always permissive.
- Note: There is a split among the courts in whether an original defendant and a third party defendant are coparties. The Jorgensen court says they are, while the Asher court said they weren’t.
Rule 13(h)
Joinder of Additional Parties → Allows a party to add a non-party to a crossclaim or counterclaim consistent with rules 19 or 20.
- Example: A sues B and C in federal court. If C had a 13(g) crossclaim against B, 13(h) could allow C to add D to that crossclaim, but only if Rule 20 allows it. Note that some courts wouldn’t allow C to add D if D was brought in already by B on another claim.
Rule 14(a)(1)
Claims Against Third Party (Impleader) → A defendant may make a claim against a third party defendant if he feels that the third party is liable to him for some or all of the damages (derivative liability). It must be done by a defending party, and the claim must be against a nonparty. Once the third party is brought in, the party who brought them in can make other, even unrelated, claims against that party under Rule 18.
- Note the split in authorities regarding whether an original defendant and a third party defendant are coparties. Some courts will not consider a third party to be a nonparty after they are brought in by another party.
Rule 21
Sever, File Claim, and Consolidate → Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may add or drop a party, and may also sever out any claim against a party.
Rule 42
Consolidation and Separate Trials → Rule 42(a) allows the court to consolidate actions before it when the actions have a common question of law or fact. Rule 42(b) allows the court to order separate trials of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or other issues when such separation will foster judicial economy.
Rule 20
Permissive Joinder of Parties (Plaintiff’s Rule) → Parties may join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants whenever:
- (1) All claims arise out of or relate to the same transaction or occurrence; and
-
(2) There is a common question of law or fact to all the parties.
- Note: When (1) is met, (2) is almost always met.
Rule 19
A Rule 19 issue arises when an absent party is not included even though the plaintiff could have brought them in under Rule 20. The defendant may want to join the additional defending party, but cannot use Rule 20 because it is a plaintiff’s rule. The defendant then files a 12(b)(7) motion for failure to join someone under Rule 19. The Rule 19 analysis has three parts:
- (1) Does the absent party meet the requirements of 19(a)?
- (2) If so, is joinder feasible?
- (3) If not, should the action proceed without the absent party under 19(b)?
Rule 19(a)
The absentee should be joined as a party when:
- (a) Complete relief cannot be accorded among the other parties to the lawsuit without the absentee being made a party; or
-
(b) The absentee has such an interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit that a decision in his absence will:
- (A) impair or impede his ability to protect the interest; or
- (B) leave any of the other parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations.
Rule 19(b)
If the absentee cannot be joined, the court must determine whether the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absentee thus being regarded as indispensable. Most importantly, the decision requires consideration of the extent of prejudice to the absentee or available parties of a judgment, and whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy (e.g., in another forum) if the case is dismissed for nonjoinder.
Rule 22 v. Statutory Interpleader
If Rule 22 interpleader is relied on, the normal rules as to personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue apply.
Under the Federal Interpleader Statute, on the other hand, the jurisdictional requirements are less restrictive. Under § 2361, a sort of federal long-arm statute, federal courts have personal jurisdiction over all U.S. citizens for statutory interpleader. The federal statute permits subject matter jurisdiction where the amount in controversy is $500 or more and where there is diversity between any two contending claimants. Venue lies where any claimant resides, and process may be served anywhere in the United States under the statute.
Intervention of Right (24(a))
An absent party must be permitted to intervene when:
- (1) the motion is timely;
- (2) the party has an interest relating to the subject property or transaction;
- (3) there is a risk of impairment of the absent party’s ability to protect its interest; and
- (4) there is no adequate representation of that interest by the existing parties.
Permissive Intervention (24(b))
On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
Appellate Jurisdiction (§ 1291)
Under § 1291, only final orders are reviewable on appeal (“appeal as of right”). A final order is one that disposes of the whole case on its merits, by rendering final judgment not only as to all the parties but as to all causes of action involved.
Cohen Collateral Order Doctrine
If the claim or issue is separable from and collateral to the main suit and is too important to require deferring appellate review, it may be classified as a judgment in a separate (“collateral”) proceeding and thus be appealable. In order to fit the exception, three requirements must be met:
- (1) the order must finally resolve the issue;
- (2) the issue must be collateral to the merits (not part of the suit but affected by it); and
- (3) it must be non-reviewable on appeal from a final judgement.
Hint: Think about whether the person’s rights would be lost if they had to wait until the end of the trial to appeal. Would the trial have already done its damage by the time the appeal would be heard?
Matters of Law Standard of Review
On appeal, when it is alleged that the trial judge erred on a pure matter of law, the appellate court may substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge. This is called a de novo review. Appellants have a better chance of winning on a question of law, since there is less deference to the trial court.
Questions of Fact Standard of Review
In a bench trial, the trial judge will make findings of fact. The trial judge’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless they were “clearly erroneous.” A factual determination by the jury is afforded even greater weight on appeal. Findings of fact by a jury will be affirmed on appeal if, while viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming the jury’s verdict, a reasonable jury could have reached the same conclusion. This is similar to the standard a trial judge faces when deciding whether to grant a judgment as a matter of law.
Mixed Questions of Law and Fact Standard of Review
Mixed questions of law or fact are reviewed de novo. It is often difficult to determine whether the question is purely factual, purely legal, or mixed. Generally speaking, whether a set of facts meets a legal definition (e.g., whether the use of copyrighted material is “fair use” under copyright law) is considered to be a mixed question of law and fact.
Discretionary Matters Standard of Review
Many decisions a trial judge makes are left to her discretion (e.g., whether to consolidate or sever cases, whether to grant leave to amend a pleading, etc.). On appeal, the standard of review is whether the judge “abused her discretion” in making her decision. This means that the judge’s ruling will not be overturned on appeal unless is it plainly wrong or without an appropriate basis.
