Civil Procedure

Res Judicata - elements

(claim preclusion - one bite of the apple) 1) claim is fairly considered part of the same claim involved in the first lawsuit -transactional test - a claim encompasses all rights to relief w/ respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of transactions, out of which the action arose 2) case 1 and 2 were asserted by the same claimant against the same D 3) it must have been a valid final judgment on the merits ~interests: finality, D's right to repose, consistency, efficiency

Collateral Estoppel - elements

(issue preclusion) 1) generally same parties or in privity (but nonmutual collateral estoppel) 2) same issue in prior action as in present action 3) issue must have been litigated and determined in prior action; AND 4) resolution of the issue must have been necessary to the judgment reached in the earlier case ~interests: finality, D's right to repose, consistency, efficiency

Personal Jurisdiction - due process

1) 14th amendment - due process clause -No "State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" 2) Rule 4(k)(1)(A) - PJ in fed courts -generally "serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant...who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district is located" 3) state long-arm statutes -law which gives a state court jurisdiction over an out-of-state company or individual whose actions caused damage locally or to a local resident

A Civil Action - Anderson v. W.R. Grace (1986)

1) 7 children in Woburn, Mass. contracted leukemia (5 died) - contamination of the water wells by Riley Tannery and Cryovac Plant 2) class action against W.R. Grace (owned Cryovac) and Beatrice Foods (owned Riley) in state court 3) removed to federal court 4) rule 11 - motion to dismiss frivolous lawsuits 5) complaint -initial pleading that begins civil action -states basis for claim, court's jurisdiction, and demand for relief 6) answer -responds to plaintiff claim -gives P notice of issues D will raise 7) depositions -out of court testimony by relevant witnesses -figure out what they'll say in court; help/hurt your case -reduced to writing for use in discover and court 8) JMOL -party's request that court enter a judgment in its favor, prior to submitting to jury; or after contrary jury verdict - b/c there is no legally sufficient basis on which the jury could find for the other party 9) plaintiffs lost against Beatrice; settled with W.R. Grace

Preclusion across different legal systems

1) Art IV - §1 - full faith and credit -state courts need to give full faith and credit to other state courts 2) 28 U.S.C. §1738 - fed courts need to give full faith and credit to state courts 3) Durfee v. Duke (1963) 4) Semtek (2001) 5) Cromwell (1877) 6) ParkLane (1979) 7) Blonder-Tongue (1971)

Personal Jurisdiction - stream of commerce

1) Asahi (1987) i) O'Connor: purpose availment requires more than putting product in stream of commerces. Need additional conduct showing intent or purpose to serve market. ii) Brennan: as long as company place product in stream of commerce and was aware final product would be in forum state, that's enough for PJ over company iii) decided on fairness grounds instead 2) Nicastro (2011) i) there is no majority opinion that tells us the jurisprudence to follow in stream of commerce cases ii) NJ didn't have PJ - no purposeful availment

Judgment as a Matter of Law

1) JMOL during trial - formerly motion for directed verdict 2) JMOL after trial - formerly j.n.o.v. 3) JMOL brought during and after trial; same standard as SJ - whether a reasonable jury could find for nonmoving party 4) Rule 59 - New trial motion - often brought w/ renewed JMOL motion 5) grounds for new trial: -admission of improper evidence -improper jury instruction -insufficient evidence in support of verdict 6) criticism: SJ & JMOL violate 7th amendment - right to jury trial in civil cases 7) in order to move for j.n.o.v., must have moved for JMOL during trial too 8) judge isn't overturning verdict (unconstitutional) - reexamining previous rejection of JMOL

Summary Judgment - post-trilogy

1) Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp (1986) 2) Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 3) Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986) 4) new standard: i) grant summary judgment if: -claim not plausible; factually insufficient -reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party ii) burden of persuasion -moving party can simple point out there is no evidence in record -non-moving party must show evidence supporting claim 5) Scott v. Harris - problems

Modern Pleading - Twombly and Iqbal modern pleading

1) Twombly (2007) i) is the claim "plausible" if facts are "taken as true" ii) if you don't accept conclusory legal statements, are the remaining factual allegations plausible? 2) Iqbal (2011) i) expanded new pleading standard to all civil cases

Subject Matter Jurisdiction -diversity of citizenship

1) art. III, §2 establishes that fed courts are courts of limited SMJ 2) state courts are courts of general jurisdiction 3) fed courts - diversity of citizenship; fed question 4) diversity jurisdiction established b/c of potential prejudice against out of state citizens - governed by Constitution and statutes 5) Strawbridge - establishes complete diversity requirement 6) diversity requirements: AIC>$75K; complete diversity of citizenship 7) individual - citizen of state if U.S. citizen and is domiciled in state 8) corp. - citizen where incorporated, where principal place of business 9) SMJ v. PJ -D can consent to any state's jurisdiction -but if court doesn't have SMJ, it cannot hear case 10) Strawbridge v. Curtiss (1806) 11) Mas v. Perry (1974) 12) Hertz v. Friend (2010)

Civil Procedure - purpose of filing a complaint

1) begin a method to obtain relief from another party 2) give the court info about the suit & ask the court to take power over the action 3) notify D of legal action 4) the initial pleading that begins the civil action - states basis for claim, court's jurisdiction, and demand for relief

Civil Procedure - definition

1) body of law governing the legal procedures of the courts in civil actions

Summary Judgment - process

1) complaint 2) motion to dismiss 3) discovery 4) motion for summary judgment 5) trial 6) JMOL 7) Motion for new trial and/or remittitur

Civil Procedure - sources of law - courts

1) constitution, statutes, cases, federal rules of civil procedure 2) fed rules - govern all aspects of procedure for civil matters in the U.S. district courts 3) courts -federal: U.S. Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Courts -state: state supreme court, appellate courts, trial courts

Modern Pleading - English Writ System

1) courts of equity; courts of law 2) common law courts could grant damages; equity courts - injunctions 3) had to plead in an established writ; certain forms of actions - fit pleading into that format 4) overly technical forms; inefficient; not conducive to serving justice

Discovery - definition/purpose

1) def. pretrial process of disclosing and collecting info about claims/defenses from non parties 2) purpose -need info to prove claim/defense -know what other side will argue -preparation for trial -facilitate settlement

Discovery - work product doctrine

1) documents and tangible things not discoverable if they are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial or for another party or its rep. 2) purpose i) privacy essential to attorney's work (Hickman) ii) promote orderly prosecution and defense of claims (Hickman) iii) as for oral statements to an attorney, in the form of the attorney's mental impressions or memoranda, there are grave dangers of inaccuracy, untrustworthiness, and negatives w/ an attorney testifying such that these may never be discoverable (Hickman, Upjohn) 4) Hickman (1947) - WPD - codified later

Personal Jurisdiction - International Shoe (1945)

1) due process requires that in order to subject a D to a judgment in personal, if he be not present w/i the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" are not offended 2) satisfaction of due process depends on quality/nature of activity

Modern Pleading - Code/Fact Pleading

1) eliminated writ system; division of equity and common law courts; all forms of actions >> causes of actions; tried to unify civil procedure for all causes of action 2) had to plead causes of action and facts to support each element 3) influenced by NY Field code of 1848 4) too fact intensive; complainants may not have access to info necessary to withstand motion to dismiss under fact pleading

Supplemental Jurisdiction

1) every claim in a case must satisfy a basis of fed SMJ 2) supplemental jurisdiction refers to exercising jurisdiction over individual claims over which fed courts do not have original jurisdiction 3) Gibbs sets forth that fed courts can exercise supp. juries. over a state claim "derived from a common nucleus of operative fact" of the fed claim over which the court has original jurisdiction. The state claims are part of the same case or controversy 4) 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) "the district courts 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" 5) complete diversity still required 6) United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (1966) 7) Finley v. United States (1989) 8) Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroeger (1978)

Discovery - attorney-client privilege

1) exception to discovery 2) def. -private communications between attorneys and their clients, during and in furtherance of the relationship, that are protected from disclosure -possible exception if client seeks advice to commit crime 3) purpose -encourage full disclosure, thereby promoting public interest in observance of law and administration of justice -permit attorney to advocate and advise in the best manner possible 4) Upjohn (1981) - ACP applied to corp.

Modern Pleading - Notice Pleading

1) fed rules adopted in 1938 2) Rule 8(a)(2) - "A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: ... (2) a short and plaint statement of facts showing the pleader is entitled to relief" 3) Rule 12(b)(6) - "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be be granted"-main motion to dismiss 4) Conley v. Gibson (1957) -complaint should not be dismissed under 12(b)(6) unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief

Civil Procedure - Rules Enabling Act

1) gives supreme court the power to draft general rules of practice, procedure, and evidence that govern U.s. district courts in civil actions 2) cannot abridge, modify, or enlarge any substantive right 3) laws in conflict w/ these rules shall be disregarded after rule has taken effect

Summary Judgment - pre-trilogy

1) litigant has right to trial when there is the slightest doubt as to facts 2) movant must point to actual evidence in the record showing absence of dispute

Subject Matter Jurisdiction -federal question

1) most of the jurisdiction is not exclusive; state courts can hear the cases 2) jurisdiction based on fed question governed by Constitution and statutes 3) fed question jurisdiction is determined by looking only at what is pleaded in the complaint and not defendant's defenses or counterclaims 4) fed question jurisdiction is based on the constitution, a federal statute, a treaty, or possibly a state claim - w/ respect to a state claim, a disputed and substantial fed issue is necessary and the intended fed/state balance should not be disturbed (Grable) 5) Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley (1908) 6) Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering (2005)

Collateral Estoppel - non-mutuality

1) mutuality -parties in present case bound by previous judgment -general rule: you must have been bound by previous judgment to make use of issue decided in another case 2) non-mutuality -one party in present case wasn't bound by previous decision 3) non-mutual defensive collateral estoppel -D in action tries to estop P from re-litigating issue decided against P in another case in which D was not a party 4) non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel -P in action tries to estop D from re-litigating an issue decided against D in a previous action in which P was not a party

Personal Jurisdiction - history

1) over person i) in personam - over the D himself or itself (suit directed towards a person -enforceable against person wherever he/she is 2) over property i) in rem -determination of owner binds the whole world -suit directed towards property (assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action) -enforceable where property is ii) quasi in rem I -determination of ownership binds only the parties in the lawsuit -a plaintiff sues to secure a pre-existing claim in the subject property iii) quasi in rem II -does not concern the ownership of the property -property used to obtain PJ in the state b/c can't obtain in personam jurisdiction over the D in the state 3) traditional bases for in personam jurisdiction -consent (appearing in court voluntarily or failing to object -D's residence in the state -service of process on a D in the state (referred to as presence) -service of process on an agent in the state (involves notions of presence and consent) 4) Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) 5) Harris v. Balk (1905) 6) McGee v. International life Insurance Company (1957) 7) Shaffer v. Heitner (1977)

Personal Jurisdiction - due process - sum

1) power that a court has over parties to make decisions to bind parties in a case in a state 2) sources of PJ: due process clause, fed rules, state long-arm statutes

Modern Pleading - Other

1) responding to a complaint -making a motion; answer including defenses, admissions, denials 2) purpose of answer -notify P that D received complaint, deny allegations 3) affirmative defenses -precludes party's liability -Twombly applies 4) amending pleadings -correct mistakes; efficiency -promote decision on merits -plaintiff receives new info -Krupski v. Costa Crociere (2010)-relation back 5) rule 11 and 28 USC §1927 sanctions -deter frivolous lawsuits; compensate

Removal

1) some case brought in state court that could have been brought in federal court can be removed to federal court 2) in a diversity case, if any defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was brought, removal is not permitted 3) defendant generally has 30 days to remove 4) notion of removal is filed in federal district court and division where the state action is and copy is filed in the state court 5) filing the notice causes the removal 6) generally, all defendants must join in or consent to removal 7) for a case removed on diversity grounds, the AIC is generally what was pled in the complaint 8) case can be remanded to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time prior to final judgment

Personal Jurisdiction - specific/general

1) specific i) "when a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum" ii) minimum contacts are generally determined by examining whether D purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state (Nicastro) iii) look at quality and nature of contacts; also must look at fairness 2) specific over a corp. i) activity in state is continuous and systematic and activity gave rise to cause of action; or ii) corp. commits single or occasional acts that render it answerable in state w/ respect to those acts 3) World-Wide Volkswagen (1980) 4) general jurisdiction i) "when a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit not arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum" ii) D's "affiliations with the State are 'so continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State" 5) Goodyear (2011) 6) Helicopteros (1984) 7) Perkins (1952) 8) contract: -Burger King (1985)

Personal Jurisdiction - internet and forum selection clauses

1) sum i) S.Ct. has not decided a case on the question of PJ involving the internet ii) International Shoe test continues to apply to PJ internet questions iii) forum selection clauses are generally enforceable 2) Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991)

Venue and Forum Non Conveniens

1) venue is the third hurdle after PJ and SMJ 2) unlike PJ and SMJ, venue is not based on the Constitution 3) venue - the place of the suit - is generally where the defendant resides or where the cause of action occurs 4) questions are: where the plaintiff can bring the case, whether the case can be transferred, and whether forum non conveniens applies 5) forum non conveniens factors are laid out in Gilbert and Piper 6) Piper Aircraft Company v. Reyno (1981) 7) Gulf Oil Corp. Gilbert (1947)

Summary judgment - sum

1) when: -usually occurs after discovery before trial 2) Rule 56(a) - Summary Judgment i) "the court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is not a genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" ii) interpretation: no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party 3) purpose -efficiency -if no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party - nothing for jury to decide - no question of fact

Joinder (and more supplemental jurisdiction)

1) §1367(b) restricts the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases on certain claims asserted by plaintiffs 2) Allapattah holds that when claims of some plaintiffs satisfy the AIC requirement but claims of other plaintiffs do not, supplemental jurisdiction can be exercised 3) complete diversity still required 4) joinder -united plaintiffs, defendants, and causes of action 5) 3 policy goals of joinder -litigated related matters economically -making trials manageable as to size and complexity -avoiding adverse effects on strangers to lawsuit 6) Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Allapattah Services, Inc. (2005) 7) there are compulsory and permissive counterclaims 8) Jones is an example of a permissive counterclaim that falls within supplemental jurisdiction 9) Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Company (2004)