Exam Essay Questions Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction
Rule: Personal jurisdiction is a court’s power to decide the rights and obligations of this person/can the plaintiff “hale” the defendant in this state. It is fair for a state court to decide a person’s legal rights and obligations (1) when they have notice the court is going to do that and (2) if the person is a citizen of the state in question.
Other: If party did not raise this defense in the first rule 12 motion/answer, waived
Issue 1: Does the state’s long-arm statute allow for the state to exercise jurisdiction over defendant
Rule: The California long arm statute gives CA state courts all the personal jurisdiction the federal constitution allows them to exercise.
Issue 2: Would asserting jurisdiction here violate the due process clause of the federal constitution?
Rule: Due process allows courts to exercise personal jurisdiction on two bases, general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction.
- General Jurisdiction: allows a defendant to be sued on any claim where it is domiciled (“at home”). A corporation is “at home:” in 1) any state where it is incorporated; 2) the state where its top management is located.
- Specific Jurisdiction: the due process clause of the U.S. constitution requires that for a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party, the prospective defendant must have adequate minimum contacts with the forum state in the transaction on which the claim is based. Under Burger King, “minimum contacts” are adequate and a court may exercise specific jurisdiction: 1) over one who has “availed himself” of the forum state; 2) so long as exercising jurisdiction is reasonable, 3) claim relates to/arises out of contacts with the state
Sub-Issue 2(a):
Personal Availment:
(1) Reached out to the Florida corporation
(2) Negotiated with the corporation from Michigan while the corporation’s negotiators stayed in Florida
(3) Entered a long-term 20 year contract
(4) Which called for ongoing relations and supervision from the Florida corporation
(5) Signed a contract with a Florida choice of law clause
Sub-Issue 2(b):
Reasonableness:
Three Important Factors:
1. *Burden on the defendant (grave disadvantage)
2. Forum state’s interest in adjudicating (efficiency to litigate in the forum state)
3. *Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief
Sub-Issue 2(c):
Claim must “Relate to or Arise out of” their Contacts with the State:
- Ford v. Montana—two accidents, lawsuits for defective design and construction—Court held lawsuits “related to” Ford’s activities in Montana.
- The critical facts: Ford, the defendant, advertised, sold, and serviced its cars there, including the models at issue in both lawsuits.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diversity Jurisdiction
a. Determine citizenship of parties
b. Is there complete diversity?
c. Claim for over $75,000?
- can include other plaintiffs that don’t meet $75k, but at least one plaintiff must.
d. if yes, then yes diversity jurisdiction - Federal Question Jurisdiction
a. Is there question that arises under federal law?
b. If state law claim, is there substantial federal interest in claim?
c. Does claim satisfy well-pleaded complaint? - Supplemental Jurisdiction
a. Is there a state law claim that does not qualify under federal question or diversity, but is attached to a claim that does?
b. Do both claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact?
c. Is there a Class Action or Permissive Party Joinder that does not destroy diversity?
d. Does claim qualify for denial under court discretion?
i. novel state issue
ii. state claim predominates
iii. federal claims dismissed
iv. other circumstances - Removal Jurisdiction
a. Does federal court have original jurisdiction?
b. Has D filed within the 30 day deadline?
c. If multiple defendants, is decision unanimous?
d. Motion to Remand back to state
i. must file remand within 30 days of filing notice of removal
ii. Must assert a lack of subject matter jx.
iii. usually an irreversible decision.
Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted:
Rule 8: A pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Sub-Rules/Cases:
Twiqbal: A complaint must allege enough facts to make its claims plausible. That does not mean that the claims must be probable, but it does mean they must be more than possible. Iqbal tells us that to decide, a court should: (1) ignore conclusory allegations and (2) assume remaining allegations of fact are true.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (no): Alternative, nondiscriminatory explanation (response to 9/11, keep people in the most secure setting possible until cleared). If there is a more plausible explanation, the less likely explanation is not plausible.
Palin v. New York Times (yes): Plausible inferences of defamation drawn from remote statements.
Erickson v. Pardus (yes): Represented himself in the lawsuit (more permissive standard).
DHS v. Regents of California (no): P argued DACA was disbanded by DHS because of hostility toward Latinos through Trump statements (DACA not terminated by him and remote in time/unrelated context from repeal of DACA), disproportionate impact (likely reflected that disproportionate # of immigrants is Latino), and history of DHS’s opinions around DACA. Allegations insufficient because they did not plausibly describe intent to discriminate.
Class Action
Rule 1: There are two things you have to do if you want to bring a class action: (1) you have to include class allegations plausibly pleading that Rule 23 is satisfied and (2) make a motion asking the court to certify the class.
Rule 2: One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of members only if there is numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy (FRCP 23(a)).
Sub-Rule 1: Numerosity → The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Sub-Rule 2: Commonality → There are questions of law or fact common to the class (Walters, General Telephone). Sub-Rule 3: Typicality → The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claim or defenses of the class (General Telephone) Sub-Rule 4: Adequacy → The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (might also include attorney’s qualifications) (Walters, General Telephone)
Rule 3: 23(b)(2) → Equitable relief order (asking the court to do or not to do something)
Example: The plaintiffs in Walters wanted the court to ask the government to send them fair notices and reopen cases.
Rule 4: 23(b)(3) → Involves damages. Need
- Common question of law or fact is not enough.
- Your question should PREDOMINATE over any other question
- you need to show the class action is a SUPERIOR way to deal with the case
- you must send NOTICE to all the members of the class because money is involved.
Preliminary Injunction
Rule 1: A request to the court to tell someone not to do something until the legal system can resolve it and see if they’re entitled to it or not (purpose: preserve the status quo).
Sub-Rule: TROs and preliminary injunctions should have:
1. reasons why it’s issued,
2. state its terms specifically,
3. post security
4. describe the act or acts restrained or required,
(RSPD, Rachel Shefer, please don’t)(Rule 65).
Rule 2: The classic standard for a preliminary injunction in federal court is that the moving party must show:
1: irreparable harm (cannot be compensated with money damages)
2: likelihood of success on the merits
3: balance of hardships
Note: Talk about both approaches if the question does not specify.
4: public interest
The 9th (and some other Circuits) say that if the moving party shows the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor, they need only show they have presented a serious question of law instead of likelihood of success. It is not clear that the Supreme Court has accepted this modification of the traditional standard. 9th Circuit’s Sliding Scale Approach: If the balance of hardships tips sharply in your favor, you only need to show serious question of law rather than likelihood of success on the merits/the moving party is likely to be hurt more if the order is not issued than the non moving party is likely to be hurt if it is issued Take into account any absent parties that may be affected by the preliminary injunction
Motion to Compel
Before you go to court, you’re going to have to certify that you tried to meet and confer with the other side → Did the parties meet and confer?
Motion to Compel
Did D make a proper objection to discovery device
To object effectively, a responding party must state the objection with specificity and provide the reasons. A general objection based on “burden” is not effective.
Fischer v. Forest = no general objections, must object with specificity
Since there was no effective objection, Party X failed to file a timely response. Accordingly, a court could simply order Party X to comply.
However, as we have seen (Liebovitz) even if an objection has been waived, Courts sometimes overlook the waiver and at other times still ask if a discovery request is within the scope of discovery. Recognizing that possibility, the issue at the heart of the problem: Scope
Scope of Discovery
1. Relevance
It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and
The fact is of consequence in determining the action.
2. Nonprivileged
Attorney/client privilege
Work product doctrine
3. Proportional
a. The importance of the issues/broad social impact (policy/importance beyond parties in the case, is there a legal principle at stake)
b. The amount in controversy (modest/expensive, emotional damages - McCabe)
c. The parties relative access to relevant information (who has the hard drive)
d. The parties resources (who has $)
e. The importance of the discovery to resolving the case (vital to P’s claim, unreasonably duplicative)
f. Whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit (burden on D to produce)
Can mitigate burden through protective order limiting disclosure of anything opposing party learns during discovery
Responding party asks for a protective order (26(c)) because the discovery request subjects you to undue burden/expense. Court can limit discovery (can’t use beyond case).
Responding party doesn’t show up at all. Sanction.
Court can order the party to complete discovery request anyway —> would not count as a burden (maintain trade secrets)
Did the Judge have the authority to limit discovery
FRCP 26(c) (here applicable through FRCP 37(a)) allows the judge to limit discovery, so that would authorize the limitation to [two years] if the burden of getting materials seemed great and the potential for punitive damages seemed remote and the value of the case modest
Motion for Summary Judgment
Issue: Has the nonmoving party shown enough evidence in support of their claims that X happened to survive summary judgment?
Rule 1 (for deciding): Summary judgment should be granted to a defendant if no reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff on an essential element of its case.
Rule 2 (viewing the showings from the parties): In deciding if a reasonable juror could find for the nonmoving party, the Court
1. must not weigh the evidence (that is, decide whose evidence is more credible);
2. instead, it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all inferences in their favor.
If a reasonable juror could find for the nonmoving party, the motion must be denied.
Other:
Might also include: The moving party must offer evidence which, if not contradicted, would leave a reasonable juror no choice but to find for him/her. if he or she does not, the motion must be denied. Assuming that standard is met, the nonmoving party must respond with evidence which would allow a reasonable juror to find for her.
Houchens (no evidence on a critical element of the claim)
McCabe (a plaintiff’s own testimony about their state of mind is enough to support damages and send that issue to the jury).
Caustic deposition testimony → analogize to Tolan (reasonable juror could infer that “take your hands off my Mom” was not a threat but a plea. Draw inference to nonmoving party’s favor)
Bias - Moving party may argue that the Court should disregard testimony since it comes from a close family member, much as COA did in Bias. However…
Guenther: Testimony discrepancy → analogize to Guenther (a plaintiff directly contradicted testimony of an eyewitness, and the eyewitness’s testimony was essential for plaintiff’s expert to be admissible…the Court of Appeals held that a reasonable juror could believe the plaintiff was mistaken about the color of the tire and instead accept the eyewitness testimony essential to his expert)
Judgment as a Matter of Law
A FRCP 50 motion can be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury/when a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial. Typically a defendant’s motion (you have to wait until the party against whom you’re moving has presented all of its evidence first). A defendant wants to move for JMOL to take away the case from the jury. It is directed to evidence you have already shown in trial.
The court decides whether a judgment as a matter of law should be granted when no reasonable juror could find for the nonmoving party. They also evaluate the evidence in deciding whether to grant the motion when.
The evidence is evaluated in the light more favorable to the nonmoving party
All inferences must be drawn in the nonmoving party’s favor, and
Judge may not weigh the evidence (exact same as summary judgment) (FRCP 50)
Result of a JMOL = nonmoving party loses the case; result of a new trial motion = do-over
Preclusion
Rule 1: Preclusion is a set of doctrines under which a party can be prevented from litigating a claim or an issue because it either was, or in some circumstances, could have been litigated before. It is meant to implement the core principles that while everyone should have one opportunity to litigate their legal rights and duties, all disputes must end, and they should have just one opportunity to litigate.
Rule 2: Claim preclusion prevents litigation of an entire claim. Mention factors. (Against preclusion = analogize to Taylor (a party can litigate a claim even if it’s the same claim already litigated by an independent informally linked party) or distinguish from Manego (both legal claims concerned same basic facts, denial of a permit to operate a club))
Sub-Rule 1: Arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
Sub-Rule 2: Same parties
Sub-Rule 3: Final judgment
Sub-Rule 4: Final judgment on the merits
Rule 3: There are 6 exceptions where someone is treated as having been a party to the first case even though they technically weren’t
1: Agreement
2: Legal relationship
3: Adequate representation
4: Non-party had control of the 1st case
5: If a party to the first case is actually in control of the 2nd case
6: Statutory relationship
Rule 4: Difference between claim and issue preclusion = (1) only to issues actually litigated (claim preclusion precludes you from re-litigating issues from first case AND any issues you could’ve litigated in the first case), (2) parties don’t have to be the same (non-mutual issue preclusion = the extent to which you can preclude somebody on a litigated issue even if the parties are the same).
Rule 5: Issue preclusion prevents litigation in a current case of an issue from an earlier case. Mention factors.
2 Questions:
Was the party to be precluded in the earlier case? If not, there can be no preclusion
Is the person seeking preclusion defending or trying to score? If defending, simpler non-mutual defensive rules apply (try to use 1st case to prevent party from 1st case from imposing liability on them). If scoring, the complex non-mutual offensive rules apply.
1: Party to 1st case
2: Issue is the same in the 2nd case as in the 1st case
3: The issue was litigated and decided in the 1st case
4: Decision on the issue was necessary to the outcome in the 1st case
5: defensive v. offensive nonmutual issue preclusion
Sub-Rule 1:
Defensive: Someone who was not a party to the first case raises preclusion to prevent being held liable. Issue preclusion applies if a party seeking to impose liability litigated the issue before and lost (Bernhard).
Sub-Rule 2:
Offensive = Someone who was not a party to the earlier case establishes an issue by showing the other party litigated the issue before and lost (Hardy).
Parklane: It can only be invoked if (1) the party seeking to use it did not purposely sit out the first case, (2) the party against whom preclusion is sought had both a fair opportunity and the incentive to litigate the first case, (3) preclusion would not be inconsistent with other judgments involving the party against whom preclusion is sought, and (4) the processes used in the current case would not open the possibility of a different result.
