Civil Procedure IProfessor Baird
Fall 2000
Substantive law- law that regulates human behavior in ordinary life
Procedural law- governs the behavior of courts and litigating attorneys; it deals with the ways in which courts can be used to resolve disputes and thereby enforce rights created by the substantive law
I. Jurisdiction and the Limits on the Judicial Power
The first major procedural decision is the selection of a proper court
Gordon v. Steele
[Π, a student in Idaho, sued Δ physician for malpractice. Π filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania, all Δs were citizens of Pennsylvania. Π claimed citizenship in Idaho, Δs claimed that Π was actually a citizen of Pennsylvania and filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the district court lacked diversity subject matter jurisdiction]
Held: That Π was a citizen of Idaho (citizenship determined if two facts could be established: residency and a simultaneous subjective intent to remain indefinitely)
Citizenship at the time of filing suit is controlling
The question of citizenship must be decided by balancing facts that argue for and against citizenship in a designated state
Courts have equated state citizenship for diversity purposes with the common law concept of domicile, which is usually defined as the state where he has taken up residence with the intent to reside indefinitely
Why a preference for federal court?
Federal judges usually insulated from political pressures, may be more “impartial” than state judges
Federal dockets may be less crowded
Federal rules of procedure and rules of evidence may be more “liberal” or more favorable to Π’s case
State trial courts are divided into trial courts with general jurisdiction and trial courts with limited jurisdiction
The federal trial court is a court of limited jurisdiction
Whether a particular state court or federal court is a proper court depends upon the rules of civil procedure for subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue
A. Subject matter jurisdiction- power or authority of a court to decide a particular type of legal dispute
State trial courts with general jurisdiction are competent to hear all types of disputes not exclusively assigned to other state courts
State trial courts with limited jurisdiction have subject matter jurisdiction over matters expressly assigned to them (family court or small claims court)
Federal trial courts are courts of limited jurisdiction because the Constitution permits them to decide only particular types of legal disputes (Congress has enacted statutes precisely prescribing federal subject matter jurisdiction) Remember: “Congress giveth and Congress taketh away”
Two most important statutory provisions are in Title 28 of US Code
§1331 Federal question; amount in controversy; costs
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US (authorizes jurisdiction over matters involving a federal question)
§1332 Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
(authorizes jurisdiction over disputes where no Π is a citizen of the same state as a Δ and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, called diversity jurisdiction)
Title 28
§1332
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-
(1) citizens of different states;
(2) citizens of a State, and citizens and subjects of a foreign state;
(3) citizens of different States and in which foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof are additional parties;
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as Π and citizens of a State or of different States.
For the purposes of this section, an alien admitted to the US for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the Sate in which such alien is domiciled.
(b) (what happens if matter in controversy does not exceed $75,000)
(c) (citizenship of corporations, insurers, and representatives of the estates of decedents, infants, and incompetents)
(d) The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
B. Personal or territorial jurisdiction- judicial power over the person or property involved in the lawsuit
Two sets of rules governing personal jurisdiction: rules that apply to lawsuits filed in state court, and rules for lawsuits filed in federal court
C. Venue- the place of trial
Two sets of rules, one governing litigation in state courts and one governing litigation in federal courts, the rules attempt to allocate business among courts within the state or federal judicial system
1. Federal venue rules- permit a lawsuit to be tried in the district where the claim arose or where the Δ resides. Some federal venue rules permit a lawsuit to be filed wherever the Δ may be found in the US.
2. State venue rules- state trial courts are normally organized along county lines. State venue rules permit a lawsuit to be tried in the county where either Π or Δ resides, where the claim arose, or where Δ does business
The fact that a federal court is empowered to hear a case does not automatically mean that a state court cannot. State courts have very broad subject matter jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over most cases that are within federal court jurisdiction. The usual rule is that start courts have “concurrent jurisdiction” over cases that federal courts can hear unless Congress provides that federal jurisdiction is exclusive.
In diversity cases, Πs may choose to bring suit in a state court even though they could also choose a federal court
Does Π have a cause of action?
The court must have the power to enforce its decision on the Δ
II. Commencing the Case
Rule 3- Commencement of Action
A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court
A. Service of Process
Greene v. Lindsey
[Tenants of housing project brought suit after claiming to have not been notified that their apartments were being repossessed. Deputy sheriffs had posted a copy of the writ of forcible entry and detainer on the door to tenants’ apartments, and tenants claimed to have never seen them. Tenants claimed to have learned of eviction proceedings only after default judgments had been entered against them and their opportunity for appeal had lapsed]
Held: Tenants did not have adequate notice of the proceedings against them, therefore the State had deprived them of property without the due process of law required by the fourteenth amendment
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is the notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
Rule 4- Summons
Establishes two alternative methods of notifying the Δ
Waiver of service (informal and inexpensive, Π mails Δ the complaint)
Service of summons (formal and expensive) if Δ refuses to waive service, a summons and complaint are served on defendant in accordance with the procedures specified in Rule 4 (include personal delivery or, depending on the circumstances, some form of substitute service of process such as delivery by mail)
Some kinds of procedure don’t require notice (example: TRO)
B. Common Law Pleading
A case began at common law with the Π’s purchase of an appropriate writ from the king, which the Π then delivered to the sheriff who was responsible for getting the Δ into court
The major purpose of common law pleading was to define the purpose for trial
Π made a declaration that set forth the Π’s claim
The Δ had several alternative responses to the declaration:
1. Demurrer- Δ alleges that declaration fails to state a legally recognized claim for relief (motion to dismiss)
2. Special demurrer- Δ claims that the declaration is defective as to form
3. Traverse- Δ denies the allegations in the declaration
4. Plea of confession and avoidance- Δ admits the facts alleged in the declaration, b/ offers new evidence that shows why he should be able to avoid the legal effects of his actions (shows why he is immune from liability)
Whether the Π must reply depends upon the nature of the Δ’s pleading
Courts decide demurrers, juries decide traverse, b/ if Δ pleads a confession and avoidance, Π must enter one of three pleadings
1. Question of whether the Δ is really entitled to immunity (general demurrer)
2. Π denies that Δ is immune (replication [traverse])
3. Π alleges that Δ is no longer immune (alternative replication [confession and avoidance])
Code- a state procedural system that took root in the US during the 19th century and that replaced the common law system
Federal rules- replaced code procedure in many states and in the federal courts
III. Modern Pleading
Rule 8(a)
(1) Jurisdiction
(2) Claim
(3) Relief
Rule 8- General Rules of Pleading
(a) Claims for relief: A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it,
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and
(3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks
Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded
A. Stating a Claim
1. Code and Notice Pleading
Under Code pleading (a minority of states still employ this including, CA, NY, & IL) a pleader must set forth facts constituting the cause of action, which means that a Π must lay out the facts of the dispute in sufficient detail for a court to determine whether the Π was legally entitled to a remedy
Must lay out a theory, and proofs must be consistent with that theory
Notice pleading (federal rules are a good example)- the Π need only make a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. Any general statement of a claim is valid if the Δ is notified of the nature of the Π’s legal theory.
Basic philosophy of federal pleading is that a lawsuit should be tried on the merits, not on the pleadings
Pleading is important b/c it allows the Π to remain in litigation long enough to reach discovery and it gives the Δ the opportunity to end litigation before it gets going
To state a claim, allegations of the complaint must invoke a particular legal theory of liability and be reasonably specific
(Code and Federal systems take different approaches to these requirements)
People ex rel. Department of Transportation
[Π sued CA DOT for damages related to head-on collision on claim that Δ failed to put up an adequate barrier b/t north and south bound lanes of the highway. Δ filed demurrer asserting that the complaint didn’t contain an adequate description of the facts to state a cause of action. Judge overruled demurrer stating that any complaint using the form in question was “nondemurrable” and Δ sought a writ of mandate to force the judge to grant the demurrer]
Held: Writ granted. Judicial Council form complaints were not invulnerable to a demurrer. The adoption of official forms has not changed the statutory requirement that the complaint contain sufficient detailing of facts to state a cause of action.
Allegations must be sufficiently defined by the Π so as to afford the Δ an opportunity to properly respond
Inadequate pleadings prevent the opposing party from identifying strategy.
Problem in that median may have been negligently designed, b/ complaint did not say why
The scope of discovery is shaped by the complaint.
Don’t want to pin yourself down b/c there may be other possible theories that entitle Π to relief.
In a Code pleading situation, you worry about limiting yourself.
Under federal rules, you can have multiple inconsistent theories.
Haddle v. Garrison
[Π alleged that Δs conspired to have him fired from his job in retaliation for obeying a federal grand jury subpoena and to deter him from testifying at a federal criminal trial. Π’s 42 U.S.C. §1985(2) claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and Π appealed. Supreme Court granted certiorari.]
Held: Third-party interference with at-will employment relationships states a claim for relief under §1985(2), case remanded for further proceedings.
Point of case: Shows how the Supreme Court used §1985 to put the issue into established “boxes” so that Haddle’s complaint could be construed as a legally cognizable injury
Effect of Rule 8(a)- must capture a legal theory consistent w/ the injury that a person has suffered
(Outside parties interfering w/ the working relationship, this is a tort)
Normally not an “injury” when a person is fired b/c of at-will employment
Must explain why Haddle’s firing was a violation of §1985
Crucial thing to remember about 12(b)(6) at the pleading stage is that the facts don’t matter as long as the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) are met
Must be reasonably confident that you can produce facts to support the claim.
2. Constraints Imposed by Pleading
A complaint under the federal rules is still a rough draft. It’s okay to have stories that are inconsistent with one another.
Business Guides v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises
[Π and counsel were sanctioned under Rule 11 for failing to conduct a reasonable exploration into the facts of the case and the basis of their claim that a competitor had engaged in copyright infringement, conversion, and unfair competition]
Held: A party (whether or not represented by a lawyer) who signs a pleading or other court paper without first conducting a reasonable inquiry shall be sanctioned, even though he may have acted with the best of intentions
Olsen v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
[Π sued Δ, former employer, claiming that Δ promised him job security to induce him into revoking his participation in an early retirement plan, then fired him soon after. Π’s claim was dismissed, and Π appealed the dismissal of his common law fraud claim]
Held: The Court concluded that Π’s fraud claim failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and remanded to permit Π an opportunity to seek leave from the district court to file a well-pleaded amended complaint that complies with Rule 9(b)
Rule 9(b): Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind
In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.
When a complaint charges fraud it must detail the statements that the Π contends are fraudulent, identify the speaker, state where and when the statements were made and explain why the statements are fraudulent.
Π had to show that Δs made untruthful representations.
Rule 11(b)(3) problem: need a reasonable basis to believe that they misrepresented themselves.
Leatherman V. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit
[Πs sued local officials, the county, and two municipal corporations that employed police officers that forcibly entered the Π’s homes. Πs alleged that the police conduct had violated the Fourth Amendment and the basis for municipal liability was the failure of those bodies to adequately train the officers. The district court dismissed the complaints because they failed to meet a “heightened” pleading standard and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Court of Appeals concerning the applicability of a heightened pleading standard to §1983]
Held: A federal court may not apply a heightened pleading standard that is more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983
There is a distinction between freedom from liability and immunity from suit.
To sue the municipality, Πs must show that the bad conduct of police was a result of the way the police department was run.
Also must prove a pattern of events, not just a single event.
Problem is that it’s hard for Πs to know with particularity what’s going on at the police department.
If §1983 was added to Rule 9 (heightened pleading standard), it would seriously cut back on the effectiveness of Civil Rights actions by limiting the ability of victims to seek a civil remedy.
B. Prayer for Relief
Rule 8(3): [A complaint shall contain] a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be determined.
1. Damages
US v. Hatahley
[Federal agents rounded up Π’s horses and burros and sold them to a glue factory. Πs sued to recover the value of the animals and damages. District court awarded damages and Δs appealed]
Held: Reversed and remanded for a new trial as to damages (held that the assignment of damages was arbitrary, pure speculation, and clearly erroneous)
The fundamental principle of damages is to restore the injured party, as nearly as possible, to the position he would have been in had it not been for the wrong of the other party
Arguing this case:
Explain why the amount of money awarded for each animal was supported by the evidence.