Civ Pro Outline

I. II. III. LEVELS OF AUTHORITY…………………………………………………………… 1 OVERARCHING POLICY THEMES………………………………………………. 1 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION………………………………………………. 1 a. Federal Question Jurisdiction………………………………………………………... 1 b. Diversity Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………… 3 c. Supplemental Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………. 5 d. Removal……………………………………………………………………………… 7 IV. PERSONAL JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………. 7 a. Specific Jurisdiction - Basics………………………………………………………... 7 b. Specific Jurisdiction - Values………………………………………………………... 8 c. Specific Jurisdiction - Development of Minimum Contacts………………………… 9 d. General Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………… 13 e. Consent to Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………… 14 f. Notice……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 g. Venue……………………………………………………………………………….. 16 V. ERIE…………………………………………………………………………………… 18 a. Flow Chart………………………………………………………………………….. 18 b. The Early Years…………………………………………………………………….. 18 c. Erie Applied………………………………………………………………………… 20 VI. PLEADING……………………………………………………………………………. 23 a. The Complaint/Sufficiency of Complaint…………………………………………... 23 b. Serving a Complaint………………………………………………………………... 25 c. Responding to a Complaint by Motion……………………………………………... 26 d. Responding to the Complaint by Answer…………………………………………... 27 e. Amending the Pleadings……………………………………………………………. 28 f. Policing the Pleadings (Sanctions)………………………………………………….. 29 VII. JOINDER……………………………………………………………………………… 30 a. Claim Joinder……………………………………………………………………….. 30 b. Party Joinder………………………………………………………………………... 32 c. Class Actions and MDL…………………………………………………………….. 34 VIII. DISCOVERY………………………………………………………………………….. 36 a. Mechanics of Discovery……………………………………………………………. 36 b. Scope of Discovery…………………………………………………………………. 38 c. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product………………………………………. 41 IX. JUDGE AND JURY…………………………………………………………………… 43 a. Summary Judgment………………………………………………………………… 43 b. Jury Trial……………………………………………………………………………. 44 c. Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)……………………………………………… 45 d. New Trial…………………………………………………………………………… 45 X. PRECLUSION………………………………………………………………………… 46 a. Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel) ……………………………………………... 46 b. Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) …………………………………………………… 47 c. Preclusion Generally………………………………………………………………... 48 "Procedure is power and often decides cases" I. LEVELS OF AUTHORITY IN ARGUMENTS (IN ORDER) a. b. c. d. II. Constitution Statutory Rules (common law if no applicable rule) Rule interpretation i. Public policy and societal values OVERARCHING POLICY THEMES a. Values of procedure i. Fairness and participation 1. Impartiality ii. Uniformity iii. Legitimacy iv. Access to justice b. Values of FRCP i. Accuracy/Uniformity ii. Efficiency iii. Costliness iv. Transaction/opportunity cost c. Congress has ultimate power over procedure i. Rule Enabling Act: Rules Advisory Committee drafts new provisions of FRCP, Supreme Court approves, then Congress approves ii. Congress can also just pass provisions itself iii. If Congress or the Court wants to diminish a right, they'll likely do it through procedural changes because most people won't notice (using procedure to change substance) d. Adversarial system i. Lawyer driven (as opposed to an inquisitorial, judge-driven system) ii. Pay your own way 1. Individual investment (vs. more bureaucratic/governmental system) 2. Systematically under-enforces laws due to systematic imbalance of resources a. Can be troubling for socially valuable laws e. Beware of a cert grant of a case that seems straightforward and/or decided correctly f. Difficult decisions/situations/events can make bad law i. Could indicate a shift in longstanding law g. Overarching trend in Supreme Court (via specific jurisdiction and in other ways): gradually decreasing access to courts III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION a. FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION i. Basics 1. Constitutional hook: Article III of Constitution a. "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties" i. Court has interpreted this broadly - any case in which there is a federal ingredient (Osborn) 1 1. Broader than § 1331 2. Statutory hook: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 a. "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 3. Policy: primary focus is the respective powers of federal and state governments [compared to specific jurisdiction with is focused on fairness to defendant] a. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of certain subject matters (e.g. bankruptcy, admiralty) 4. Plaintiff is master of the lawsuit, and can often find a federal law cause of action a. Not always though, such as in Grable 5. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived (Rule 12(h)(3)) 6. Plaintiffs may choose to bring a claim over which there is federal jurisdiction (as long as it's not exclusive federal jurisdiction) in either federal court or state court 7. NOTE: when a federal claim is brought in state court (and defendant doesn't remove to federal court), federal law applies a. In these instances, state courts usually still follow their own procedural rules (so long as it doesn't unduly burden the federal right, in which case federal procedure must be followed) ii. Mottley (1908) 1. Facts: Plaintiffs were injured by defendant's negligent conduct, and defendant settled the claims by offering lifetime passes for free rides on defendant's railroad. After Congress passed an act forbidding free transportation passes, defendant refused to honor plaintiffs' passes for free rides. Plaintiffs brought suit for breach of contract. 2. Rule: For a suit to "arise under" the Constitution and laws of the United States, a plaintiff must allege a cause of action based upon those laws or that Constitution ("well-pleaded complaint") a. Federal question must be necessary to the complaint b. An anticipated defense to a plaintiff's claims doesn't satisfy federal question [nor do counterclaims] 3. [Arguments in favor of "well-pleaded complaint" rule: a. Protects value of litigation autonomy of defendant i. Unfair for plaintiff to say what defenses defendant will raise b. Efficiency (reduces number of cases that qualify for federal question jurisdiction c. Easier to implement/administer (knowing what court the case will be in)] 4. [Arguments against "well-pleaded complaint" rule: a. Could undermine interest in having a federal forum b. Federal competence (often federal judges are better, and this makes access to them harder)] 5. Even with well-pleaded complaint, no jurisdiction if the federal cause of action applies a state law standard (Shoshone Mining) 2 iii. American Well Works (1916) 1. A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action (bright-line rule) a. Bright-line rule rejected by Grable iv. Smith v. Kasnsas City Title & Trust Co. (1920) 1. State-law claim could give rise to federal question jurisdiction so long as the right to relief depends on the construction or application of federal law a. More broad than Mottley and American Well Works tests v. Merrell Dow (1986) 1. "Mere presence" of a federal claim in insufficient - it must be substantial vi. Grable (2005) 1. Facts: IRS notified plaintiff by mail that it seized plaintiff's property, and then sold the property to defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant under a state law cause of action (no similar identical/similar federal law cause of action), claiming plaintiff was still the owner because U.S.C. required the IRS to give plaintiff notice by personal service. Defendant removed case to District Court because the title claim depended on an interpretation of federal tax law. 2. Rule: Grable test (below) - part 1 is a yes or no question; parts 2-4 are factors to be weighed 3. Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: a. (1) embedded in a state law claim; b. (2) actually disputed; c. (3) substantial (to the federal system as a whole); and d. (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress i. [Policy argument: certain areas of law that federal courts are more well-versed in (e.g. federal tax) 1. Counter policy argument: too many federal cases would upset federal judges; federal courts are already over-worked] 4. [Very small number of cases can satisfy Grable standard] vii. Gunn v. Minton (2013) 1. Facts: Plaintiff brought suit for legal malpractice (for poor representation in a suit involving a patent issue) in Texas state court, which granted summary judgment against defendant. On appeal, Plaintiff argues claims arising under Acts of Congress relating to patents are exclusively federal jurisdiction (Grable federal question issue) 2. Rule: (example of an instance in which federal question jurisdiction is not proper for a case that originates in state court) a. Not substantial to the federal system as a whole because this case will not have any effect on federal patent law, it will only solve the legal malpractice dispute i. Minimal federal law embedded and minimal federal interest b. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION i. Basics 1. Constitutional hook: Article III of Constitution a. "the juridical power of the United States… shall extend to all cases between citizens of different states" 3 2. Statutory hook: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 a. 1332(a): amount in controversy must be > $75,000 AND is between: i. (a)(1): citizens of different states ii. (a)(2): citizen of a state and citizen of a foreign state (unless the foreign citizen is also "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" in the US and domiciled in same state) iii. (a)(3): citizens of different states and in which citizens of a foreign state are additional parties iv. (a)(4): a foreign state as a plaintiff and citizens of a state or different states v. [1332(a) imposes a requirement of complete diversity (Strawbridge v. Curtiss) 1. Note: partnerships, labor unions, and other unincorporated associations are considered citizens of every state in which any member is a citizen] b. 1332(c)(1): a corporation is deemed to be a citizen in every state which it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of business 3. AIC requirement is subject to Rule 11 4. "Domicile" = presence + intent to remain (Sheehan v. Gustafson) a. Can only have one domicile b. Intent to remain is the more important part 5. Citizenship determined at time lawsuit is filed (JTH Tax) a. Note: amended complaint supplants original complaint 6. Dismissing for lack of jurisdiction due to amount in controversy: burden is on the moving party a. Dismissing for lack of complete diversity: burden is on the nonmoving party 7. No diversity jurisdiction when amount in controversy is exactly $75,000 (Freeland v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.) 8. Policy: 1332 exists largely to prevent bias towards out-of-staters 9. Policy: concern with federal interpretation of state law a. Should err on the side of no diversity jurisdiction in general (narrow reading of 1332) ii. Sheehan v. Gustafson (8th Cir. 1992) 1. Facts: Plaintiff, a Nevada citizen, brought a breach of contract claim against defendant, who was allegedly a citizen of Minnesota. There was evidence to support defendant being "domiciled" in Minnesota and evidence supporting he was domiciled in Nevada. 2. Rule: When determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists, an individual must be present in the purported state of domicile and must intend to remain there indefinitely (2-part test) 3. Burden of proving SMJ is on the party seeking adjudication in the federal forum 4. Defendant was constructing new house in Nevada, which show intent to remain a. Contact with Minnesota are primarily business contacts 4 iii. Hertz (2010) 1. Facts: Plaintiffs brought suit in CA state court for damages relating to violations of CA's wage and hour laws. Defendant sought to remove to federal court pursuant to 1332(d)(2); 1441(a). Plaintiffs alleged defendant's PPOB was in CA because a majority of its business activities were conducted there 2. Rule: For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a corporation's principal place of business refers to the place where the corporation's high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the company's activities ("nerve center" test) a. Policy support: Administrative simplicity and predictability (waste of judicial resources if courts are struggling to determine diversity jurisdiction, so we need a straightforward rule) b. [Counter: this simple headquartered rule may allow corporations to headquarter in a state with law most favorable to them, even if majority of business is in another state (which may have law less favorable to the corporation)] 3. Interpretation of PPOB under Hertz will often overlap with that involved with personal jurisdiction a. Difference: PJ must satisfy Fourteenth Amendment, but SMJ is Article III, which is broader i. Limitation in PJ is constitutional, but SMJ is statutory iv. JTH Tax (4th Cir. 2010) 1. Facts: Plaintiff brought suit in the against defendant for breach of a franchise agreement. Plaintiff sought $80,000 in damages and a permanent injunction compelling compliance. In a subsequent motion for summary judgment, Liberty changed its damages calculation to $60,456.25 and injunctive relief. 2. Rule: Subsequent events (after complaint is filed) that reduce the amount in controversy do not deprive a federal court of diversity jurisdiction 3. If plaintiff's claimed damages are > $75,000, federal court may only dismiss if court can say with legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recovery the amount claimed (St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.) a. If a party moves to dismiss for lack of AIC, that party bears that burden of showing with a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recovery > $75k 4. Court can also consider monetary value of injunctive relief sought 5. Valuing injunctive relief: (1) value to plaintiff; OR (2) cost to defendant a. Courts are split on which to use, but many do the higher of the two c. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION i. Basics 1. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 a. (a): if a federal court has jurisdiction over an action, then the court "shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." b. (b): No supplemental jurisdiction under (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 OR claims by 5 persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 or seeking to intervene under Rule 24, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332 [i.e. when no complete diversity or AIC not met] c. (c): Federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: i. (1) claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law ii. (2) state law claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction iii. (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction iv. (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction d. No supplemental jurisdiction for plaintiff's claims against a third-party joined by Rule 14 if the parties don't otherwise have diversity jurisdiction (Kroger) i. Policy: court would be unable to exercise jurisdiction if plaintiff brought suit against the third-party in a separate suit, so can't allow plaintiff to circumvent the complete diversity requirement by amending the complaint to include the third-party e. Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (2005) i. Gets rid of complete diversity requirement for class actions and creates a $5mil minimum aggregate amount in controversy ii. Gibbs (1966) 1. Facts: Defendant laid off workers, and those workers harassed plaintiff to the point that he could not do his job. Plaintiff brought suit in federal court under the Labor Management Relations Act as well as Tennessee common law. 2. Rule: A federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if federal and state claims are "derive[d] from a common nucleus of operative fact." a. The types of claims that would ordinarily be brought together 3. Policy: district court is not to take jurisdiction without considering judicial economy, fairness, and convenience to litigants 4. Rule 18 is broader than Gibbs iii. Exxon (2005) 1. Facts: Supreme Court consolidated to cases to resolve a split in the circuits regarding the amount in controversy in diversity cases. The first was Exxon, a class action of Exxon dealers who brought suit against the company for overcharging them for fuel. The second case was Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, in which a girl sued Star-Kist when she cut herself on one of their tuna cans. She attempted to join her parents as plaintiffs, but they didn't meet the AIC requirement. 2. Rule: Where at least one named plaintiff satisfies the AIC requirement, 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over other plaintiffs in the same case, even if that plaintiff does not satisfy the AIC requirement. a. Complete diversity still required 6

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Outlines.