Rule Statements

Question 1

Subject-matter jurisdiction

Answer 1

Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s competence to hear and determine cases of a specific subject matter. In California, subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the classification of civil cases as “limited” ($25,000 or less) or “unlimited.”

Question 2

Federal Question

Answer 2

Under federal question jurisdiction, district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Question 3

Diversity Jurisdiction

Answer 3

Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction when parties are citizens of different states or citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign state, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. There must be complete diversity, such that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state or citizen of the same foreign country as any defendant in the case.

Question 4

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Answer 4

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims for which the court would not independently have subject-matter jurisdiction, but that arise out of a “common nucleus of operative fact” such that all claims should be tried in a single judicial proceeding.

Question 5

Removal Jurisdiction

Answer 5

A defendant may generally remove a case from state court to federal district court with subject-matter jurisdiction. Generally, the right to remove is determined by the pleadings filed when the petition to remove is filed. Diversity must exist at the time of filing of the original action as well as at the time notice of removal is filed.

Question 6

Bases for In Personam Jurisdiction

Answer 6

In personam jurisdiction is the power that a court has over an individual party. There are four bases for in personam jurisdiction: (i) voluntary presence; (ii) domicile; (iii) consent; and (iv) long-arm statutes.

Question 7

Due Process Requirements

Answer 7

The due process requirements of the constitution are satisfied if a non-resident defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Question 8

Minimum Contacts

Answer 8

A defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate (foresee) being taken to court there. When the cause of action does not arise out of or relate to defendant’s contacts with the forum state, then jurisdiction is only warranted when defendant’s contacts are systematic and continuous.

Question 9

Fair Play and Substantial Justice

Answer 9

The maintenance of an action in the forum state must also not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Courts consider a variety of factors when making this determination, including interest of the forum state in adjudicating the matter, burden on defendant of appearing in the case, interest of the judicial system in an efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interests of the states in promoting common social policies.

Question 10

Venue in CA State Court

Answer 10

For transitory actions when the claim arose elsewhere, venue is proper in any county where a defendant resides when the action commences, or where proper if the defendant is not from California. Even if venue is proper, the court may transfer venue if a fair trial cannot be had in the original county, the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice so require a change, or there is no judge of the court qualified to act.

Question 11

Venue in Federal Court

Answer 11

Venue concerns which court among the courts having personal and subject matter jurisdiction is the proper forum for hearing the matter. In general, venue in a federal civil action is proper in only one of the following judicial districts: (i) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located; or (ii) a judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which the claim is based occurred, or where a “substantial part of the property” that is the subject of the action is located.

Question 12

Change of Venue

Answer 12

If the original venue is proper, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it might have been brought or to any district to which all parties consent. If the original venue is improper, then the district court must dismiss the case, or if it’s in the interest of justice, transfer the case to any district in which it could have been brought.

Question 13

Forum Non Conveniens

Answer 13

Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court will dismiss an action, even if personal jurisdiction and venue are otherwise proper, if it finds that the forum would be too inconvenient for parties and witnesses and that another, more convenient, venue is available.

Forum non conveniens is only used in federal court when the forum that is deemed most appropriate for the action is a state or foreign court. In California, a court can stay or dismiss an action if it finds, in the interest of substantial justice, that such action should be heard in a different state or country.

Question 14

Choice of Law: Erie

Answer 14

If the action is a federal-question claim, then federal substantive and procedural law will control. If the action is a diversity jurisdiction claim, then state substantive law and applicable federal procedural law will control.
If the determination is unclear, but there is a valid federal statute on point, then federal law will be applied. But if there is no federal rule on point, then state law will be applied if failure to do so would lead to a different outcome.

Question 15

Res Judicata

Answer 15

The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes sufficiently identical parties parties from successive litigation of an identical claim in a subsequent action. In California, a judgment is not final until the time for appeal has expired or an appeal has concluded.

Question 16

Collateral Estoppel

Answer 16

The doctrine of issue preclusion precludes the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim with a final, valid judgment. Issue preclusion requires only that the party against whom the issue is to be precluded must have been a party to the original action. The facts relevant to a particular issue and the applicable law must be identical, and an issue is essential to a final judgment if it constitutes a necessary component of the decision reached.

Question 17

Objection to Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 17

An objection to subject matter jurisdiction can be presented by any party at any stage of a proceeding, including on appeal, or may be raised by the court.

Question 18

Principal Place of Business

Answer 18

The principal place of business refers to the “nerve center” of the corporation. The nerve center is generally the location from which the high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the activities of the corporation. Typically, the nerve center is the corporate headquarters.

Question 19

Amount in Controversy

Answer 19

The amount in controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and collateral effects of a judgment. The amount in controversy is determined at the time the action is commenced in federal court, or, if the action has been removed to federal court, at the time of the removal. The party seeking to invoke federal court jurisdiction must allege that the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement. In general, a plaintiff’s good-faith assertion in the complaint that the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement is sufficient.

Question 20

Aggregation of Claims: Multiple Ps

Answer 20

If the action involves multiple plaintiffs, then the value of their claims may be aggregated only if the multiple plaintiffs are enforcing a single title or right in which they have a common or undivided interest. If multiple plaintiffs, each having separate and distinct claims, unite for convenience or economy in a single suit, then each plaintiff’s aggregate claims are judged separately in determining whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met. If the aggregate claims of at least one plaintiff separately meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, then the court has diversity jurisdiction over that plaintiff’s claims, provided the diversity-of-citizenship requirement is met. The court may also have supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of any other plaintiff, even though that plaintiff’s claims do not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement

Question 21

Permissive Joinder

Answer 21

Although the additional claim is not required to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for purposes of supplemental jurisdiction, when the additional claim is asserted by a party seeking to join the action under permissive joinder, the addition of that party cannot result in a violation of the requirement for complete diversity of citizenship.

Question 22

Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 22

Personal jurisdiction refers to the judicial power over the persons or property involved in the cases or controversies before it. There are three general types of personal jurisdiction: (i) in personam jurisdiction; (ii) in rem jurisdiction; and (iii) quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.

Question 23

Aggregation of Claims: Single P against Multiple Ds

Answer 23

The value of a single plaintiff’s claims against each defendant may not be aggregated if the claims are separate and distinct. If the defendants are jointly liable to the plaintiff, then aggregation to meet the amount in controversy requirement is permissible.

Question 24

Amount in controversy: Injunctive relief

Answer 24

In the case of injunctive relief, when it is difficult to assess a dollar amount, the court determines both the value of the plaintiff’s harm if an injunction is not imposed and the defendant’s cost of complying with an injunction. If the amount of either exceeds $75,000, then the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

Question 25

Final Judgment Rule

Answer 25

The federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from the final judgments of the district courts. A final judgment is a decision by the court on the merits that leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.

Question 26

Complete Diversity

Answer 26

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between opposing parties in a case. There is no diversity of citizenship if any plaintiff in the case is a citizen of the same state as any defendant in the case or if any plaintiff and any defendant are aliens. Two plaintiffs in a case may be from the same state without destroying diversity, as long as no plaintiff is from the same state as any defendant in the case. When the action is commenced, there must be complete diversity between opposing parties. The citizenship of each party must be determined to ensure complete diversity.

Question 27

Long Arm Statutes

Answer 27

Most states have enacted statutes that authorize personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who engage in some activity in the state. In many states, the long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause.

Question 28

Purposeful Availment

Answer 28

A defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be purposeful and substantial, such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being taken to court there. Foreseeability depends on whether a defendant recognizes or anticipates that by running his business, he runs the risk of being party to a suit in a particular state.

Question 29

Personal Jurisdiction: Specific and General Jurisdiction

Answer 29

The scope of the contacts necessary for the assertion of personal jurisdiction depends on the relationship that the cause of action has with the forum state. A court will have specific jurisdiction over a defendant when the cause of action arises out of or closely relates to a defendant’s contact with the forum state. A court will have general jurisdiction when the cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contact with the forum state, but the defendant’s contact with the state has been systematic and continuous.

Question 30

Compulsory Joinder

Answer 30

A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction or destroy venue must be joined as a party if: (i) complete relief cannot be provided to existing parties in the absence of that person; or (ii) disposition in the absence of that person may impair the person’s ability to protect his interest; or (iii) the absence of that person would leave existing parties subject to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations. A necessary party is therefore a person whose participation in the lawsuit is necessary for a just adjudication.

Question 31

Compulsory Counterclaim

Answer 31

A counterclaim is a claim for relief made against an opposing party after an original claim has been made. A pleading is required to state as a counterclaim any claim that, at the time of service, the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. A federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the counterclaim. By definition, though, a compulsory counterclaim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as does the original claim before the court. Thus, a compulsory counterclaim will likely fall under the supplemental jurisdiction of the federal court and not need independent subject matter jurisdiction from the original claim. A compulsory counterclaim does not have to meet the statutory jurisdictional amount requirement to be considered by the court. A district court with jurisdiction may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over additional claims over which the court would not independently have subject-matter jurisdiction but that arise out of a “common nucleus of operative fact” such that all claims should be tried together in a single judicial proceeding.

Question 32

Discovery

Answer 32

Discovery is generally permitted with regard to any matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense in the action that is not otherwise privileged. This includes the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.

Question 33

Discovery - Relevance

Answer 33

Admissibility of the evidence at trial does not matter for determining relevance for purposes of discovery. The test is whether the information sought is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Information may be discoverable if it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Question 34

Work Product Doctrine

Answer 34

The work product doctrine provides limited protection for otherwise discoverable trial preparation materials or the work product of attorneys. In general, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative. Such materials will be subject to discovery, however, if the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means. If the court orders discovery of trial-preparation materials, the court must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s attorney or other representative concerning the litigation. Whenever a party withholds information on the basis of a privilege, such as the attorney-work-product privilege, the party must expressly state the claim of privilege and describe the materials or communications not produced in a manner that will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.

Question 35

Discovery - Motion to Compel

Answer 35

If a party fails to respond to discovery that has been properly served, the party seeking the information may move to compel such disclosure or discovery. A motion to compel must be served on all parties and be accompanied by a certificate that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the opposing party in an effort to obtain the disclosure or secure the information or material without court action.

Question 36

Amendment

Answer 36

The court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. Generally, a court will first determine if the proposed amendment to the pleading would be futile because it would immediately be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). If it would not, the amendment will generally be permitted unless the amendment would result in undue prejudice to the opposing party.

Question 37

Relation Back

Answer 37

An amendment to a pleading will relate back to the date of the original pleading when the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out, or attempted to be set out, in the original pleading. This may be important for the purposes of complying with the applicable statute of limitations. An amendment will also relate back to the date of the original pleading if the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back.

Question 38

Relation Back Doctrine—New Party

Answer 38

If the amendment changes the party, then it will relate back to the date of the original pleading if: (i) it asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out, or attempted to be set out, in the original pleading; (ii) within 120 days after the filing of the original complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment receives notice of the action such that he will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (iii) the party to be brought in by amendment knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against him, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.