r/s Flashcards
(81 cards)
removal
-SMJ
-D is not a citizen of the state if in diversity
-all defendants consent
-30 days of receipt by or service
-at time of removal diversity must still exist
Personal Jurisdiction
Traditional bases: service while in state, domiciled, consent
Attachment of property—if claim is not related to ownership of attached property, there must be minimum contacts between D and forum state to establish JX
Long Arm Statute
Due process
-minimum contacts:
–> purposeful availment
–> foreseeability
–> relatedness (specific jurisdiction: particular contacts; general jurisdiction: at home)
-fairness: fair play and substantial justice. DIES
–>D’s burden
–>interest of forum state
–>efficiency
–>shared social policies
venue
-where any D resides IF all D’s reside in same state (domicile for individuals, PJ for business)
-substantial part of events or omissions or property location
-fallback if the above don’t work: any D subject to PJ
transfer analysis
Original district:
-SMJ original district
-PJ original district
-venue original district
New District:
-SMJ new district
-PJ new district
-venue new district
-then, interest of justice
venue, California
real property: where located
K: where K entered into or expected to be performed
tort: act/omission
multiple places: where any D resides and if none in CA, any county
business: executed the K or breach, liability occurred, principal place of business
Erie analysis
diversity
procedural or substantive? –> substantive apply state law.
if unclear, ask if there is conflict between federal and substantive law. If there is a conflict, ask does federal law directly address the issue?
–> yes: is fed law arguably procedural, or does it modify a substantial right or the manner/means of it? if procedural, apply fed law.
–> no fed law on point: apply state law if outcome determinative and no countervailing fed interest
CA conflict of interest
real property: where property is
contracts/torts: governmental interest. what is the comparative impairment of each state’s interests?
choice of law in contract: is law substantially relating to parties? if yes, does it conflict with the govt interest test and public policy?
if no, unenforceable
service methods
personal service
substituted service (CA: follow up mailing)
at home: defendant’s dwelling and left with a resident of suitable age and discretion
if foreign: any method permitted by law of foreign country or certified mail and return receipt
complaints (fed)
short and plain statement of claim; facts to show substantive plausibility
SMJ statement, statement of claim, statement for relief
if fraud/mistake: particularity needed
complaints (CA)
fact pleading. operative facts for each cause of action, demand for relief, amount of damages
relation back (fed)
new claim: original complaint timely and new claim is out of same transaction/occurrence
new party:
-same conduct/transaction
-new party received notice within 90 days of original complaint
-new party knewo r should have known it would be brought against them
relation back (CA)
-new claim: same accident/injuries and refer to same offending instrumentality
-new party: even if SOL runs, P can correct
CA permissive joinder of claims
one question of law or fact common to all Ds and court can sever
compulsory joinder of parties - elements
party is necessary
PJ
SMJ
when is party necessary
-cannot complete relief without them
-danger of harm if excluded
-risk of inconsistent judgments or double liability
when is party indispensable
-judgment would prejudice parties in person’s absence
-prejudice reduced/avoided by other means
-judgment rendered would be adequate
-P would have adequate remedy if action was dismissed
must dismiss
scope of discovery
relevant to claim/defense
proportional to case/burdens on other party
not privileged
need not be admissible.
information may be discoverable if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
CA scope of discovery
relevant to claim/defense
proportional to case/burdens on other party
PLUS all material relevant to subject matter
weigh the party’s interests in seeking discovery against the privacy interests of the party resisting discovery.
atty client privilege
confidential comm
licensed attorney and client
purpose of seeking legal advice
work product doctrine exception
info not reasonably available by other means
party wold be substantially prejudiced
experts and discovery
-party can depose any expert witness of opponent who may testify
-protected: report drafts, communications between attorney and expert; report in anticipation of litigation from expert that is not W
experts (CA)
must disclose expert witness list, details of prospective testimony, all writings/reports
starting discovery
fed: confer at least 21 days before scheduling conference
CA: initial case management within 180 days of complaint
depositions limitations
fed: 10/party unless good cause
CA: as many as you want, 20 day limit upon notice of deposition