CIV PRO ESSAY RULE STATEMENTS – Flashcards

*DOES COURT HAVE JURISDICTION?* PJ+SMJ+VENUE *WHAT LAW GOVERNS THIS DISPUTE?* Erie *PROPER PLEADINGS?* *PROPER PARTIES + CLAIMS?* Joinder of Parties/Claims *DISCOVERY?* *CAN DISPUTE BE RESOLVED WITHOUT A TRIAL?* 12(b)(6)/Dismissal/Sum. judg. *IF THERE'S A TRIAL----> JUDGE OR JURY?* *APPEAL?* *IS DECISION BINDING IN FUTURE CASES?* Res Judicata+Collateral Estoppel

*PJ: Court's power to exercise its judicial authority over a particular D* *Traditional*: Automatic jx when D: (1) R; (2) C; (3) S *Statutory*: long-arm statute: ID's precise circumstances under which a court has PJ over D *Constitutional Limitations*: State long-arm statute must still comply w/limitations of DP clause: *(a) Sufficient MC between D and forum state*; (i) PA: privilege of conducting activities in the state, invoking the benefits+protections (ii) RF that D will be "haled into court" in the forum state *(b) Does not offend "traditional notions of FP+SJ"*: Main Factors: (1) Relatedness of claim to the contact w/the forum state 'systematic or continuous activity' such that D is 'essentially at home in the forum' (enough for PJ for any COA against D, even if arose from activity outside state) (2) Convenience: convenient unless 'so gravely inconvenient..." DP does NOT guarantee convenient forum (3) Forum state's interest: interest = providing redress for its residents Other factors: --P's interest --Interstate judicial system's interest --Shared interest of states *(c) The exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable*; (did party reas. anticipate PJ in forum?) *(d) Reasonable notice* (i.e. to notify D of pending lawsuit)

IPJ refers to the *court's ability to exercise power over a particular D*

Most states have statutes granting their courts PJ where D: 1. is *present + personally served in the forum state*, 2. is *domiciled* in the forum state, 3. *consents* to jurisdiction (or waived consent) 4. *where D has committed acts bringing him within the scope of the statute*

*A long arm statute gives the court PJ over an out of state D* If D falls within the scope of the statute, then jurisdiction is proper as long as the exercise of jurisdiction meets federal constitutional requirements *CA's long arm statute gives courts power over any person over which the state can constitutionally exercise PJ

Once it's determined that a state has a statute that allows the court to exercise PJ over D, *the constitutionality of the jurisdiction must be tested*. To be constitutional there *must sufficient contacts with the forum state so as to not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice*

In order for the jurisdiction to be proper, sufficient minimum contacts must exist between D and the forum state. Minimum contacts requires a showing of *purposeful availment* & *foreseeability*

The courts must find that *D purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state*, *thus invoking the benefits+ protections of its laws*. Here, ...

The D also must have known (or reasonably anticipated) that *his activities in the forum **render it foreseeable** that he may haled into court there*. Here,

The *claim must arise from D's contacts w/the forum.* This *requires a showing of either SJ or GJ* If the claim asserted against D arises in some way from D's contacts w/the forum, the court is more likely to find the jurisdiction is fair+reasonable.

**claim arising from activity in the State ** If D's in-state activity is *less than systematic+continuous*, *PJ will only be proper for COAs that arose from that in-state activity*.

** systematic+continuous activity such that D is "essentially at home"** Where there's no SJ, the court will look to see if the D had *systematic+continuous activity in the forum state such that the D is essentially at home in the forum.* If D was "essentially at home" in the forum state, the *court could find this activity a sufficient basis for exercising PJ*

The court in determining whether exercising PJ over D is fair will look at the *convenience to the D*, the *state's interest*, and *other factors*.

A forum is *constitutionally acceptable unless it is so gravely difficult + inconvenient that the D is put at a severe disadvantage* (*does not have to be the best alternative)

The forum state may have a *legitimate interest in providing redress for its residents*.

Other facts include *P's interest in obtaining convenient+effective relief*, the *Interstate judicial system's interest in efficiency;*, and the *shared interests of the states*

In civil actions, venue is proper 1. in a *judicial district where any D resides, if all Ds are residents of the state*, 2. *where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred*, or 3. If no district satisfies 1 or 2: *where any D is subject to PJ*

For the purposes of venue, a corp. is *deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to PJ* at the time the action is commenced. *If a state has more than one judicial district*, the *corp. is deemed to reside in any district in the state where the corp.'s contacts would be sufficient to subject the corp. to PJ* (if the district were a state) (*Treat districts in state as separate states + determine if there is PJ*)

The *discretionary doctrine of FNC allows a fed court to transfer a civil action to any other district where it might have been brought*, or to *dismiss* if transfer is not possible The fed court *must evaluate both public + private factors in making its decision*

*Important public factors* for the court to consider include the *availability of an alternative forum*, *P's choice of forum*+ the *forum's state interest in providing a forum for its residents*. *Important private factors* include *convenience* of the parties+Ws, *location of the evidence*+*where the COA arose*

*Prevents re-litigation of a claim between the* (1) *Same parties* (2) *Arising out of Same T/O* | *CA: Same claim* involved (Primary Right Doctrine) (3) Decided by a *valid final judgment on the merits* by a court w/proper jurisdiction CA: Judgment is not final until conclusion of appeal (FED: final when rendered)

Prevents re-litigation of an issue between the (1) *Same parties* (2) that was *actually litigated* + decided (3) and *that decision was necessary to the judgment*

A *non-party* to the first case can use collateral estoppel against a D who *WAS a party + lost* the issue *if D had a *full+fair opportunity + could foresee multiple suits + incentive to litigate*

D can prevent P from re-litigating a common issue P previously lost against a different D

Parties are entitled to obtain information reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence unless the information is privileged

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL): (CA: JNOV) Timing: May be brought after other side is heard Standard: **Reasonable people could not disagree on the result** (CA: nonsuit motion has same standard) *View evidence in light most favorable to non-moving party *Renewed JMOL (radical! grants opposite verdict)* Timing: Brought *within 10 days* of entry of judgment ***MUST HAVE moved for JMOL at close of ALL EVIDENCE. If not, then cannot bring RJMOL!!!**

Motion for a new trial: Brought within 10 (CA: 15) days of entry of judgment Standard: *claim that errors made at trial require a new trial* a. prejudicial error b. prejudicial misconduct of a party, atty, 3rd party or juror c. new evidence arises that could not have been obtained before d. judgment against weight of evidence e. unfair accident or surprise during trial f. excessive or inadequate damages

Remittitur (FED+CA): P must accept amount less than the jury verdict or submit to new trial Additur (*CA only*): D must pay an amount greater than jury verdict or submit to new trial

Summary Judgment before trial: *FED*: *Moving Party*: After P presents evidence, must show: *(a) No dispute as to material issue of fact* *(b) Entitled to judgment as a matter of law* *Non-moving Party*: must present new evidence (typically an affidavit) *Cannot rest on pleadings + Cannot use inadmissible evidence to counteract the MSJ *Court views facts in light most favorable to non-moving party

AMENDING PLEADINGS: P can amend once before D serves answer (or demurrer) FED: Relation back; Amending after SoL has run: To join a *new claim*: Amendment will relate back if they concern same conduct, T/O To *change a D* after SoL has run: will relate back if: *P sued wrong D + right D knew about it*

PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS: FED: RULE 12 DEFENSES: PJ/Venue/Process/Service---> waived if not raised by motion or in answer Lack of SMJ ----> can be raised anytime (even on appeal) Failure to State Claim/Join Party ----> can be raised at any time before trial or at trial

General or Special Demurrer (in unlimited cases only) *General Demurrer*: (1) *Pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a COA* or (2) *Court lacks SMJ* *Special Demurrer*: *Uncertain Pleading; or Lack of capacity or misjoinder of parties*

CA: Anti-SLAPP MTS (requires D to make a showing that COA arises from activity protected by 1A) **Exception: Cannot use if P is suing on behalf of the general public If D prevails, he may bring a SLAPP back motion (basically a COA for malicious prosecution) *Wrongful Institution of legal proceedings (Malicious Prosecution)* (1) Initiation of CRIMINAL proceedings (maj: extended to civil too) (2) Termination in P's favor on the merits (3) D did not have PC (4) Improper purpose ("malicious intent"; something other than bring a person to justice) (5) Damages (P can recover for all harms caused by the prosecution-PUNIES TOO)

FED: 12(b) Motion or in Answer *12(b)(6) motion*:*failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted* Court assumes truth of all well-pleaded facts Court asks: if everything is true, would the person win? (If no, then case dismissed) *CA: General Demurrer* or motion for Judgement on the Pleadings

*(a) Who is necessary? ("needed for just adjudication")* Court may order joinder for these absentees: (1) If w/out them, court can't give complete relief to those already in lawsuit (2) Absentee's interest may be harmed if he isn't joined (practical harm); (3) Absentee claims an interest which subjects an existing party to the risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations *Joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties *If party not needed for just adjudication, look at permissive joinder *(b) Is joinder feasible? (won't destroy diversity)*; Feasible if: *(a) PJ over new party * *(b) Joining won't destroy diversity*

(a) Claims *arise from same T/O*; AND (b) *Claims raise at least one common question of fact or law*; (c) Have *SMJ*

*(a) Include Responses to Complaint*: The following must be included or cannot use at trial: (1) Admit; (2) Deny; (3) State that you lack sufficient info to admit or deny (*Failure to deny can = admission on any matter except damages) *(b) Raise affirmative defenses*: Must plead affirmative defenses, or else waived

L must sign all pleadings, motions, papers certifying to best of his knowledge that: (a) Paper is not for an improper purpose (b) Legal contentions are warranted by law (i.e. not frivolous) (c) Factual contentions/denials have evidentiary support (now or likely after discovery); (d) Denials in good faith

(a) Grounds for federal jurisdiction (b) Statement of claim showing that entitled to relief; AND (c) Demand for judgment for relief

Mandatory: if no SMJ Discretionary: Where fed claims resolved+only state claims left for which no diversity JX

If there's a more convenient forum—> court may DISMISS claim (allows P to refile in new court) *Balancing test: public+private factors* *Public factors*: --*Availability* of alternate forum --*Forum state's interest* in providing a forum for its residents *Private factors*: --*Convenience* (of parties+witnesses) --*Location of evidence * --*Where COA arose* **Can only transfer to a fed. district court where case could have been filed (PJ + SMJ)*

(1) Original court IMPROPER; OR (2) Original court PROPER...BUT INCONVENIENT: *an action may be transferred to another district where the action "might have been brought"* The *transferee court must have PJ over D* + *SMJ over the action* The case *should only be transferred in the "interests of justice"* (*convenience*: where are the *Ws?* the *evidence?*)

In diversity cases, federal court must apply state substantive law + federal procedural rules

If state rule is SUBSTANTIVE law—> Erie requires fed. ct. to apply state law These are all substantive (substantive: *bound by rights+obligations created by state law*): (1) Elements of a claim (2) Statute of limitations (3) Rules for tolling SOL (4) Choice of law *CA Choice of Law Rules*: A fed court sitting in CA must apply CA law, which: (1) looks to *each state's interest* in applying its laws to the case + (2) if a *contract action*---> *look for a clause* setting forth which state's laws apply

1. **If there is any federal law on point—-> use federal law** (based on supremacy clause); *an FRCP law is valid even if only arguably procedural 2. If state law *seems PROCEDURAL*—> can apply if ignoring it would substantially affect the outcome (*Procedural = "form or mode" of enforcing a state right, not the right itself*) If unclear—> courts use 3 tests to determine if matter is substantive: (1) Outcome determinative (favors state law): *use this test even if substantive (even if SoL) *Substantive if law substantially affects outcome of case* (2) *Balance* of interests: who has greater interest in having its rule applied (state or fed?) *(3) Forum shopping deterrence (favors state law)*: Judge should apply state law because otherwise litigants would flock to fed. court

*Allows a claim to be heard by fed court when they would otherwise have no JX over the claim * --But must have at least one valid claim already in federal court *RULE: A non-federal/non-diversity claim (non-SMJ claim) can be heard in fed court under supplemental jurisdiction if it arises from the same T/O unless it is: *(a) Asserted by P* *(b) In a diversity of citizenship (not FQ) case*; AND *(c) Would violate complete diversity* *Discretionary Factors*: Court has discretion not to hear the supplemental claim (1) If the *fed claim is dismissed early* in the proceedings (2) If the state law claim is *complex*; OR (3) *State law issues would predominate* *Court still has jx even if federal claim is later dismissed

*(1) Ancillary*: allows fed court to assert JX over claims brought by a D that arises from same (T/O) as an action properly within court's SMJ *Look for cross-claims + cross-complaints *(2) Pendant*: allows P w/jurisdictionally sufficient FQ claim to join, in original complaint, related items that otherwise wouldn't have SMJ --Mnemonic: 'Pi in 'pendant' like 'P' in 'plaintiff' **Look for state claims brought in conjunction with federal claims by P

Work product: (prepared in anticipation of litigation) not discoverable unless can show: *(a) Substantial need* (e.g. building destroyed); AND *(b) Not otherwise available* (avoid undue hardship)

FED: Jury decides *facts on law first*, then court deals w/equity claim CA: *equity COA first*....then jury decides the facts on the law COA

FED: if you're gonna move for RJMOL, you must have moved for JMOL CA: No requirement of moving for directed verdict prior to bring JNOV

FED: just race+ gender CA: peremptory challenges may not be used on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or similar grounds."

ex: D, a nonresident, is served while in CA to be a W or party in a civil case FED: D is *immune* for a Federal Case CA: *D is NOT immune from a state case*

FED: *any non-privileged matter relevant to the claim or defense* CA: *anything "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action"* _______ FED: If a discovery request intrudes on privileged matter, responding party *must object or risk waiver* CA: *CA Constitution recognizes a right of privacy, which can be claimed to limit discovery* *It's not absolute-court balances: need for info vs. need for privacy