INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION 7
A. Federal Civil Procedure
1. Definitions
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. Limited/General, Original/Appellate, Exclusive/Concurrent
C. Sources of Law
1. Federal Law = C,S,T,FRCP
2. State Law = S,C
D. American Court System Structure
E. Stages of a Lawsuit
1. PDPTPA
F. Article III
1. Art. III, Sec. 1- Supr. Ct, Congress can make federal courts
2. Art. III, Sec. 2- Federal court jurisdiction (Constitutional umbrella)
· 9 areas including Fed. Q. and Diversity
· Supr. Ct. only has original juris. over Ambassadors and “U.S. is a party”
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
II. CONSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW 8
A. 8 Important Takeaways
o Capron v. Van Noorden
§ “you didn’t prove you had SMJ”
o Marbury v. Madison
§ Can’t create original juris when Const. gives appellate
III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 9
A. Purpose- protect out-of-state Ds
B. 28 U.S.C. § 1332
1. Complete Diversity
· § 1332(a)(3) Exception
2. Amount in Controversy
3. Citizenship
· “U.S. citizen” = U.S. citizen + domicile
· Domicile- “present” with “intent to remain indefinitely”
· Citizenship of aliens
· Citizenship of corporations
4. Cases
o Gordon v. Steele
§ Domicile incorrectly decided for this student
o Mas v. Perry
§ Students domiciled in previous home, AIC established at outset
o Hertz Corp. v. Friend
§ Hertz gets federal ct bcuz of corporation domicile
C. Rules vs. Standards
IV. FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION 11
A. 28 U.S.C. § 1331
1. Art. III, Sec. 2: Constitutional grant of juris to federal cts
2. Evolution of Fed Q Jurisdiction (OMG)
· Non-frivolous
· Well-pleaded complaint from P
· Important federal issue
o Smith Exception
o Holmes Test
3. Cases
o Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
§ Can’t attempt fed Q juris through a potential defense
o Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing
§ Fed juris over Darue’s state quiet title action
V. REMOVAL JURISDICTION 12
A. 28 U.S.C. § 1441
o Amitts v. Amoco
§ Can’t remove if federal ct doesn’t have original juris
VI. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION in the SUPREME COURT 13
o Mims v. Arrow Financial Services
§ Cause of action for TCPA claims in federal court?
§ No (accd to Goldsmith)
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
VII. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 14
A. Personal Jurisdiction
1. In Personam – over the person, presence
2. In Rem – over attached property
3. Quasi In Rem – uses property to bring D to forum
B. Due Process Clause (14th Amend)
C. Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 1)
D. Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction Determinants (PHS)
1. Questions to Ask for PJ
· Long-arm statute?
· “arise out of” or “relate to”?
o “But for” or “substantive elements”
E. Cases
o Pennoyer v. Neff
§ Ct. had no juris to act on Neff’s property
o Hess v. Pawloski
§ Implied consent driving between states
o International Shoe Co. v. Washington
§ Salesmen had enough contacts to pay for unemployment
VIII. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION 15
A. Specific Jurisdiction
1. Minimum Contacts
2. Reasonableness
B. Contracts
1. Considerations
C. Choice of Law Clause
1. Doesn’t necessarily grant PJ like Choice of Forum clause
D. Cases
o World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson
§ Not enough that it’s foreseeable that a car will enter the state
o Burger King v. Rudzewicz
§ Factors are satisfied to give FL PJ over Rud
o Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (4-4-1)
§ Unreasonable = yes, Minimum Contacts = unsure
IX. GENERAL JURISDICTION 18
A. Domicile/Home (ppl)
B. Place of Incorporation (corp)
C. Principal Place of Business (corp)
D. Consent (both)
E. Presence/ Tag Juris/ Transcient Juris (ppl)
F. Continuous & Systematic Contacts (corp)
G. Cases
o Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall
§ Not enough G&S contacts for TX to have PJ over Peru
o Burnham v. Superior Court
§ Burned by wife who got PJ on a tag
X. NOTICE 18
A. Service of Process
B. Rule 4: Summons
1. Rule 4(c): Service
2. Rule 4(e): Serving an Individual within a Judicial District of the U.S.
C. Cases
o Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
§ “Reasonable” notice
DISCOVERY
XI. DISCOVERY 20
A. Overview
1. Purposes
B. Rule 26(b)(1): Discovery Scope and Limits
1. Rule 26(b)(5)(A): Privilege
2. Rule 26(b)(3):Trial Prep Docs: “substantial need” and “hardship”
3. Rule 30:Depositions
4. Rule 33: Interrogatories
5. Rule 34: Request for Documents
6. Rule 37: Compel Disclosure
VENUE
XII. STATUTORY VENUE 20
A. Overview
1. 28 U.S.C. § 1391: judicial district, residence of D, events/property of case, corp. special residence
B. Cases
o Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise
§ Puerto Rico is a proper venue
XIII. TRANSFER and FORUM NON CONVENIENS 21
A. Statutory Basis
1. 28 U.S.C. § 1404
2. 28 U.S.C. § 1406
3. Forum Non Conveniens
B. Cases
o MacMunn v. Eli Lilly
§ 1404 transfer allowed in DES case
o Piper Aircraft Company v. Reyno
§ 1441, 1404, and FNC lead to Scotland
PLEADING
XIV. BASIC PLEADING 22
A. Rule 8: Pleading
1. Rule 8(a): Complaint Requirements
2. Rule 8(b): Defenses; Admission and Denials
3. Rule 8(c): Affirmative Defenses [Ingraham]
4. Rule 8(d): inconsistent pleading allowed
5. Rule 9(b): Heightened Pleading
6. Conley Rule (Notice Pleading)
7. Twombly-Iqbal (Plausible Pleading)
B. Twombly-Iqbal Today
C. Cases
o Dioguardi v. Durning
§ ELL showed he was entitled to relief under some applicable law
o Doe v. Smith
§ Doe gave enough facts to show she was entitled to relief
o Leatherman v. TCNICU
§ Ct. not allowed to decide when to require heightened pleading
o Ashcraft v. Iqbal
§ Iqbal failed to meet the high bar of pleading sufficient facts
XV. ADVANCED ISSUES 25
A. Responding to the Complaint
1. Answer
2. Rule 12 Motions
3. Rule 15: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
4. Rule 55: Default Judgment
5. Rule 11: Care and Candor in Pleading (Hays, p41)
B. Cases
o Virgin Records America, Inc. v. Lacey
§ Lacey’s entry of default led to default judgment
o Matos v. Nextran, Inc.
§ Many motions
o Hunter v. Serv-Tech, Inc.
§ Can’t “reserve” a PJ defense
o Reis Robotics USA, Inc. v. Concept Industries, Inc.
§ Affirmative defenses are like pleadings (Rule 8(b)(1)(A))
JOINDER
XVI. BASIC JOINDER of CLAIMS and PARTIES 26
A. Joinder of Claims: Rule 13, Rule 18
B. Joinder of Parties: Rule 20
C. Joinder of Both: Rule 14
D. Cases
o Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of MN
§ Non-tort claims weren’t ripe in C1
o Holbein v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co.
§ Each of the 4 Ps’ claims satisfied Rule 20(a)(1)
o Erkins v. Case Power & Equipment Co.
§ Case can implead Fitzpatrick and Erkins for contribution
XVII. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 28
A. 28 U.S.C. § 1367
B. Cases
o United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
§ “Same nucleus of operative fact” allows supp jur over state claim
o Owen Equipment & Erection Company v. Kroger
§ No supp juis because statutory bar (complete diversity) not met
o *Finley v. United States
§ Led to 1990 enaction of §1367
o *Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc.
§ AIC required both Ps suing 1 D
o *Zahn v. International Paper Co.
§ AIC required for each member of the class
o Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services
§ AIC not required since there’s complete diversity
C. Comparison between GOE
CHOICE OF LAW
XVIII. THE ERIE DOCTRINE 31
A. Swift v. Taylor, Justice Story, federal general common law
B. Holmes’ View, Legal Positivism and Legal Realism
C. State Supreme Court Predictive Approach
D. Choice of Law
E. Post-Erie Federal Common Law
F. Cases
o Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow …
§ B&Y’s contract is valid accd to federal general common law
o Erie R.R. Co. v. Tomkins
§ No federal general common law, PA common law reigns and it says Erie R.R. isn’t liable to trespassers
o Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric MFG Co.
§ Fed ct is in DE, so DE choice of law rules apply
o United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California
§ Congress, not a federal ct, should decide whether to allow the U.S. to recover for injury to a soldier
ADJUDICATION WITHOUT or BEYOND THE JURY
XIX. SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASICS 33
A. Rule: Summary Judgment
B. Burden of Proof
1. Proof-of-the-Elements SJ
2. Disproof-of-an-Element Motion for SJ
3. Absence-of-Proof Motion for SJ
C. Cases
o Slaven v. City of Salem
§ Brother having belt is immaterial
o Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc.
§ No question that Shell was not responsible for slippery board
XX. SECOND-GUESSING THE JURY 34
A. Pre- These Motions
B. Rule 50- JMOL
C. Rule 59- New Trial, Altering or Amending a Judgment
D. Rule 60- Relief from a Judgment or Order
FINALITY
XXI. CLAIM PRECLUSION (RES JUDICATA) 35
A. Rule
B. Definitions, Transactional vs. Same Evidence
C. Claim Preclusion for Non-Present Parties
D. Cases
o River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park
§ P should have brought state claims in C1
o Taylor v. Sturgell
§ No preclusion through virtual representation so Taylor is not barred
XXII. ISSUE PRECLUSION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL) 37
A. Rule
B. Goals
C. Cases
o Felger v. Nichols
§ Felger is CE in trying the malpractice claim
o Panniel v. Diaz
§ Diaz & RWJ won’t be CE bcuz of public policy
o Cambria v. Jeffrey
§ C wins bcuz his contributory negl wasn’t necessary to C1
D. One bite at the apple
E. Non-Mutual Defense Collateral Estoppel
F. Non-Mutual Offensive Collateral Estoppel
G. Difference Between RJ and CE
H. Cases
o Blonder-Tongue Laboratories v. Univ. of Ill. Foundation
§ Univ. of Ill. can’t relitigate the patent infringement issue
o Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore
§ Parklane is CE bcuz ct already determined that the proxy statement was false and misleading
XXIII. INTER-SYSTEM PRECLUSION 39
A. Rules, Full Faith and Credit
XXIV. CLASS ACTIONS 40
A. Rule 23 Requirements
B. Cases
o Hansberry v. Lee
§ Hansberry/Burke are NOT precluded and C1 was NOT a class action
o Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
§ In a class action in which everyone got notice, forum could exercise juris over absent class members (Ps)
Section One: Introduction
I. introduction
A. Federal Civil Procedure
Procedure-about the rules that govern inside the court
-where you go to resolve disputes and how you resolve them / Substantive Law
-regulates behavior in the world: contracts, torts, etc.
-what you can or cannot do out in the world
Civil
-for damages or injunctions / Criminal
-for jail time/ sentencing
Federal
-courts of U.S. government
-fed procedures are the same in all fed cts / State
-MA state court, NY state court, etc.
-state procedures vary between states
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. SMJ = the power of a court to hear and decide a case
a) Limited/General
o Fed cts have limited SMJ (they only have power given to them by statute and Art III, Sec. 2
o For state trial cts, there’s typically general SMJ
b) Original/Appellate
o Most original juris is in trial ct
o Supreme Ct also has some original juris [Ambassador, U.S. is a party]
c) Exclusive/Concurrent
o Concurrent juris is when both state and fed cts have juris over a case
C. Sources of Law
1. Federal Law includes
o Constitution
o Congressional statutes
o Treaties (agreements between countries)
o Federal Laws of Civil Procedure (86 rules made by Supreme Ct to govern procedure of district cts)
2. State Law includes
o State statutes
o Common law (judicial decisions)
D. American Court System Structure
U.S. Supreme Court-created by Art. III, Sec. 1 of Constitution
-reviews 1-2% of cases presented to it
State Supreme Court / Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals / Federal District Court
-limited SMJ (only cases allowed by Art. III, Sec. 2 AND congressional statute 28 U.S.C.)
-11 circuits, plus DC, plus federal circuit
Trial Court / Magistrates
E. Stages of a Lawsuit
Pleading à Discovery à Pretrial à Trial à Post-Trial à Appeal
F. Article III
1. Article III, Section 1
o Establishes Supreme Court and gives Congress power to create other federal courts
2. Article III, Section 2
a) Describes what the federal cts have juris over
o Subject Matter Jurisdiction
· Federal Question [Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction]
-“all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”
· (Foreign) Ambassadors [Supreme Court has original jurisdiction]
· Admiralty [appellate]
o Party Structure
· U.S. is a party [original]
· Between states [appellate]
· State and citizen of another state [appellate]
· Citizens of different states [appellate]
· Same-state citizens claiming land grants from different states [appellate]
· U.S. citizen v. alien [appellate]
b) States have concurrent jurisdiction over the above
c) Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over federal question (§1331) and diversity cases (§1332)
Section Two: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
II. Constitutional Overview
A. 9 Important Takeaways
1. Federal cts have limited SMJ
2. Federal cts must have affirmative Congressional authority (28 U.S.C.) and Constitutional authority (Art. III)
3. Art. III defines the outer limits of federal jurisdictional power
4. Congress cannot extend beyond Art III, Sec 2
5. SMJ defects can be raised at any time
o Even by the P (Cabron)
o Even on appeal (Cabron)
o Even by court hearing the case (Marbury) – [“sua sponte” – on its own authority]
Case 1: Capron v. Van Noorden: Supreme Court, 1804 (S1)