Civil Procedure (visuals) Flashcards
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (visualize and explain)
Aggregation: when allowed
Amount in controversy
(aggregation of claims)
Procedural posture
Claims asserted
Outcome
One π v. one Δ
- Negligence – $40K
- Battery – $60K
- Aggregation allowed
- Amount in controversy = $100K
One π v. multiple Δs
- Negligence against Δ1 – $40K
- Battery against Δ2 – $60K
- Aggregation not allowed unless Δs jointly liable
- Amounts in controversy = $40K & $60K
Multiple πs v. one Δ
- π1 asserts negligence – $40K
- π2 asserts battery – $60K
- Aggregation not allowed unless πs enforcing common or undivided interest
- Amounts in controversy = $40K & $60K
- π1 asserts negligence – $40K
- π1 asserts breach of contract – $40K
- π2 asserts battery – $60K
- Aggregation allowed for π1’s claims
- Aggregation not allowed for π2’s claim
- Amounts in controversy = $80K & $60K
π = plaintiff; Δ = defendant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 18 allows a party to join (i.e., add) as many claims as it has against an opposing party in a single lawsuit. But like all disputes in federal court, a suit involving multiple joined claims must satisfy subject-matter jurisdiction. This can be established through either:
federal-question jurisdiction – when a claim arises under the U.S. Constitution, a federal treaty, or a federal law (not seen here) or
diversity jurisdiction – when the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
If subject-matter jurisdiction is based on diversity jurisdiction, then a party may aggregate (i.e., combine) all claims to be joined against a single opposing party to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement—even if those claims are unrelated (Choice D).*
Here, the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states. The plaintiff properly joined a negligence claim for $50,000 and a debt-collection claim for $30,000 even though they are unrelated. And though no claim individually satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, the claims can be aggregated to $80,000 to meet that requirement because they are asserted against the same defendant. The federal district court therefore has diversity jurisdiction, and the defendant’s challenge is invalid.
Class action certification requirements
default judgment & when/how it must be entered (Visualize )
The Two-dismissal (with prejudice rule) -visualize and spot potential issues & tricks
Subject matter jurisdiction with supplemental (visualize)
Notice and an opportunity to be heard
General venue rule
special venue rules
Erie & Choice of Law
interpleader v. statutory interpleader
Default Judgments
Juries- unanimity presumed, minimum of 6…
Juries and peremptory challenges (unlimited for cause)
Challenges to potential jurors
(FRCP 47)
Number allowed
Basis for disqualification
Peremptory
3 per party*
- Any basis other than race, ethnicity, or gender
- No explanation needed
For cause
Unlimited
- For bias or lack of impartiality—eg:
- relationship with party
- financial stake in party
FRCP = Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
*When a civil action involves multiple plaintiffs or defendants, the court may grant each side (1) three peremptory challenges or (2) more than three peremptory challenges that each side’s parties exercise separately or jointly.
FRCP 47 permits the court, the parties, or the parties’ attorneys to examine potential jurors during a process called voir dire. The prospective jurors are questioned about potential biases before being chosen to sit on the jury.* Each party in a civil action is entitled—but not required—to use up to three peremptory challenges to disqualify a potential juror for any reason (other than race, ethnicity, or gender), without the need for an explanation. But when a civil action involves multiple plaintiffs or defendants (as seen here), the court may:
consider the parties on one side of the litigation as a single party that is limited to three peremptory challenges or
grant more than three peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly by the parties (Choice C).
Here, the employer made two peremptory challenges, the first employee made two peremptory challenges, and the second employee made three peremptory challenges. Although the second employee exercised more peremptory challenges than the employer, the employer was not required to use all of its challenges (Choice D). And since the challenges were not motivated by race, the court did not err in granting them (Choice B).
*The court may examine the jurors or allow the attorneys to do so. If the court examines the jurors, it must either (1) permit the parties or their attorneys to make any further inquiry the court deems proper or (2) ask any of their additional questions the court considers proper.
Educational objective:
During jury selection, each party in a civil action is entitled to three peremptory challenges. In an action involving multiple plaintiffs or defendants, the court may consider them as a single party entitled to three peremptory challenges OR grant more than three peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.
Claim preclusion (be sure to distinguish from issue preclusion)
Final Judgment Rule and Mnemonic for exceptions
appellate standards of review (fact finding vs. law)
Claim preclusion v. Issue Preclusion
