Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Civil Procedure Outline

Law Outlines > Civil Procedure Road Map Outlines

This is an extract of our Civil Procedure document, which we sell as part of our Civil Procedure Road Map Outlines collection written by the top tier of University Of Virginia School Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure Road Map Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

ESTABLISHING Subject Matter Jurisdiction (or lack thereof) Orig. Jurisdiction= Diver. Or of those, then you can get original claim is on diversity,
$75K requirement itself)

Citizen of a state for purposes of
-Must be a US Citizen
-Must be a Domiciliary of the State
-A person's true and permanent home where he intends on returning to when it is absent from
-Change of domicile only by 1) taking up residence in a different domicile with the 2) intent to stay there (mas v.

JURISDICTION motion to dismiss for FQ. Once you have one supplemental. (i.e. if it must meet the entire

Diversity of Citizenship 28 U.S.C. SS 1332 at time of filing complaint a) Amount in dispute > $75,000 AND A single P may aggregate claims against a single D to 1) Citizens of different states (def), OR meet amount req 2) Citizens of a state and a foreign state (except
? US Citizen domiciled abroad is diverse from no if perm. Resident alien and domiciled in same one state as other party); OR
? Aliens have no domicile, cannot have alien on 3) Citizens of different states and of which both sides of litigation- but they are diverse from us citizens citizens of foreign states are additionalPermanent resident alien is domiciled in that parties; OR Corporate Citizenship 4) Citizens of a foreign state as plaintiff [per Where it is incorporated and where it has its principal place of business. (May be foreign)
SS1603a] and citizens of a state or different states Federal Question
SS 1331 Any civil action that arises laws, or treaties of the
-Essential Federal the face of the complaint [Louisville &

SS 1441 Removal from State to Fed Court
? Cannot be removed solely on the basis of diversity if any D is a citizen of the state of the state suit
? Case can be non-removable at the outset of litigation but then become removable along the way

Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. under the constitution, United States Element must appear on plaintiff's well-pleaded Nashville RR. v. Mottley]

Article 3 of the US Constitution Any civil action affecting ambassadors, other Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule public ministers and consuls, cases of If the plaintiff's complaint is created admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, controversies by federal law, plaintiff can bring it to which the US is a party, controversies between into court. Cannot raise anticipated two or more states, between a state and citizens of defense for federal question another state, between citizens of the same state
claiming lands under grants of different states
-In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction Step 1: Determine if there is a SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION constitutional basis to hear the claim
? ALWAYS consider and talk-out if there is pursuant to Article 3 (common an independent basis for SMJ first, nucleus)-Consider ALWAYS talk-out if 1367(b) applies, andfacts that are NOT ALWAYS consider that 1367(c) that common says as well the case does not HAVE to be heard Step 2: Determine if it falls within
? Once the court has original jurisdiction,
SS1367 and is not an exception under all other claims can fall under supplemental jurisdiction
? Supp Jurisdiction on federal question claim= Pendent Jurisdiction

? Pendent Juris. is a doctrine of discretion, it is not a right-justification lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants (Gibbs)
? If a state claim predominates it can be dismissed
? Fed claims dismissed before trial- state claims should be as well (Gibbs) Supplemental Jurisdiction SS 1367 UMW v. Gibbs: The supplemental claim must arise under the "common nucleus of operative facts" as the federal claim. Under SS1367, the district courts may decline to 1367(b) Exceptions exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: No Supp Jurisdiction (need DIV or FQ) if

1. Claim raises a novel or complex issue of Original Claim is based solely on diversity state law over claims by plaintiffs made parties under:
? Rule 14 (third-party defendants)

2. Claim substantially predominates over the
? Rule 19 (mandatory joinder of party) claims over which the district court has original
? Rule 20 (permissive joinder of party) jurisdiction
? Rule 24 (intervention)

3. The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction

4. Other exceptional circumstances SERVICE/NOTICE (or motion to dismiss for lack of/improper) Must meet both: a. Rule 4(e)

1. Pursuant to state law of which the district court is located, OR

2. Personally delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint, OR

3. Leaving copies of the summons and complaint and the individuals house with someone of suitable age and discretion, OR

4. Delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or law to receive such b. Constitutional Standard- 14th Amendment Due Process (Mullane v. Central Hanover Question) a. "must be reasonably certain to inform those affected" OR b. Form chosen is not substantially less likely to bring home notice than another method Problem with actual notice?
PERSONAL JURISDICTION (or motion to dismiss by D for improper) Jurisdiction in State X over Defendant if:

1. Defendant is a resident of state X (Pennoyer v. Neff) If not a resident of State X:

2. Long Arm Statute: Does the state have a long-arm statute to capture the out-of-state defendant? If so, is it satisfied? AND

3. Find and personally serve defendant in state X (TAG- reaffirmed in Burnham v. Superior) OR

4. Defendant "appears" (responds/answers to the complaint or consents) [Pennoyer] OR

5. Minimum [International Shoe] & Purposeful [WW Volkswagon] contacts that establish either: a. General Jurisdiction: Systematic & Pervasive contacts, may be sued for anything
[Goodyear Tire & Helicopteros]. Consent, Residence and TAG gives you GJ b. Specific Jurisdiction: No consent, residence or TAG but have contacts that give rise to the litigation. Overall Question: Could D reasonably have anticipated being brought to suit here?

i. If minimum contacts are met, Asahi fairness factors (must weigh heavily against if MC are met):

1. Consider actual burden on D for litigating in the forum

2. Consider burden on P if they were unable to go forward here (burden of having to file somewhere else)

3. Consider interest of the forum state in hearing the case (Is it its law? Is one of the parties a resident?)

4. What is the interest other forums would have litigating the case?

5. Is there a forum that would be better served to hear the case?
VENUE (Motion to dismiss for lack thereof or transfer venue pursuant to SS 1406---below) 28 USC 1391(b) (1) District in which defendants located, OR (2) Any district in the suit (3) If no district and D is subject

Residency for SS 1391 Persons: Residence=Domicile Corporations: Anywhere subject to PJ (so, place of incorporation, headquarters, or district subject to PJ if that district were considered a separate state)

D resides (domiciled) IF all residents of the state where district is which substantial evens giving rise to occurred, OR under (1) or (3), any district in which to the court's PJ

TRANSFER OF VENUE (SS1406 if bad venue, SS1404 if good)
? Just because venue goes against Forum Selection Clause, that does not mean venue is bad (Lauro Lines)
? However, presence of a forum section clause weighs very heavily in a SS1404 analysis (Rico / Lauro Lines)
SS1404(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, district court may transfer to another district where it could have been brought (SMJ, PJ, and V must be good) (same factors as fairness factors for PJ)
-Thumb on the scale for P's choice of venue. D must argue the district she seeks is substantially Relative Diff. of Meeting preferable to the current district. FF's:
-Convenience of Parties: Interests of P, Interests of D

1. PJ (toughest)
-Convenience of Witnesses: Ease of access to proof, if

2. Forum Non Convenience witnesses will be able to be in new forum

3. Transfer of Venue
-Interests of Justice: Interest of Forum: Parties' citizenship, applicable law, location of events Interest of Other Forum: Parties' citizenship, applicable law, location of events Interests of Judicial System: Convenient package of claims and parties
SS1406 An alternative to dismissal when either Venue or PJ is bad.
-No thumb on the scale for P's choice of venue. If different districts are urged by each party, do a SS1404 analysis. FORUM NON CONVENIAS: Motion to dismiss a case in federal court to allow the parties to go forth in a substantially more convenient [Piper v. Rayno] non-US court if they desire. A state court, under its forum non-convenience rules, may dismiss a case to allow it to go forward in another state.

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