Civ Pro Outline- Condensed checklist format For each claim, go through the following process: List the

e claims Is there personal jurisdiction? Traditional Basis Domicile !illiken" Presence Burnham" #gent $ane" Consent %&pess Carnival" 'mplied (ess" )aiver *aenger, +, -" +" . +, g"" O-/ections *pecial appearance *tate $oplin" Federal +, -" ," #ppeala-ilit0 'gnore suit . collateral attack 1lannon p2 34 for possi-le scenarios" Does the long arm statute authori5e P67 %numerated #ct 8ong-#rm *tatutes !ust -e specific P6 Bulge #rea 1ra0" Coe&tensive long-arm statutes 'nterpret specific categories as li-erall0 as DPC allows Federal Courts: F9CP :k 8ook to state;s 8# Bulge rule #uthori5ed -0 federal statute F< case #=D no state would have P6 #=D it wouldn;t violate the Const2 's this authori5ation constitutional7 )hen to ask 'f in personnam or in rem *haffer e&tends 'nt *hoe" !inimum Contacts Test does auth violate the DPC7" Time: Time when D acted, not time of lawsuit *pecific or 1eneral 'nternational *hoe" 1eneral *0stematic and continuous Perkins" =ot unilateral activit0 of a third-part0 (elicopteros" !a0-e /ust corporations Burnam"

 Polic0: forum shopping *pecific 1eneral rules> scenarios Purposeful availment, no unilateral contacts (anson" (armful act outside state causes harm w>in Calder" *ingle act> -reach of $ !c1ee" Continuous -ut limited> franchise Burger $ing" *tream of commerce anal0sis Ongoing flow of D;s goods into forum state through a distri-utor or final manufacturer *tream of Commerce . aim #sahi pluralit0" Forseea-ilit0 #sahi dissent" !anufacturer deli-eratel0 cultivates in-state market ))?)" 'nternet *liding scale @ippo" !odified @ippo> no 5ippo> e&panded @ippo *nown0" Domestic dispute> minor activit0 insuff2 $ulko" Traps Better ops elsewhere irrelevant (ustler" Anilateral activities of third part0 irrelevant (anson, ))?)" Fair pla0 and su-stantial /ustice P6 presumptivel0 reasona-le once minimum contacts esta-lished, -urden on D to prove FPB*6 pro- Burger $ing" Primar0 concern: %&tent of inconvenience to D forced to defend awa0 from home #sahi" *oft factors: Convenient forum for P, interest of states in enforcing su-stantive law> polic0, interest of forum state in providing redress to its cits (ustler, #sahi" 's there su-/ect matter /urisdiction7 Federal <uestion 6urisdiction =ote Constitutional Basis #rt2 '''2," *tatutor0 Basis ,C A2*2C2 +44+", more narrowl0 interpreted %&clusive *tate cause of action> avoidance 8uckett" T0pes *ecurities-law Class actions Bankruptc0 Patent #ctions against foreign consuls and vice consuls #ctions to recover fine, penalt0 or forfeiture under fed law #ctions involving certain sei5ures #nal0sis

+2 Federal ingredient approach Os-orn", now re/ected ,2 )ell-Pleaded Complaint 9ule determines what to info to look at when deciding if it arises under federal law2 Did P have to raise fed issue in a complaint which includes the leements she needs to prove to esta-lish her claim and onl0 those elements7 !ottle0" Onl0 P;s claims matter ?ornado" Declarator0 /udgments *kell0 Oil" =o Dartful pleadingE Betchel" 42 Does the claim Darise underE federal law7 Federal cause of action #rising under: (olmes creation test #merican )ell )orks" #8*O need Federal-law created private cause of action #ssume not intended unless e&press 'mplied if : factors met #sh" Constitution can provide Bivens" %&ception: fact intensive, swing on local meaning, rules *hoshone" *tate Cause of #ction #rising under: (olmes creation test #merican )ell )orks" %&ception: 'n order to esta-lish a state law claim, P must prove a proposition of federal law *mith v2 $ansas Cit0" %m-edded federal Fuestion must -e sufficientl0 su-stantial =o: !errell Dow, no private cause of action intended for FDC# violations Ges: 1ra-le B *ons, necessaril0 raise, actuall0 disputed and su-stantial, division of powers" =o: %mpire (ealth Choice: =arrows 1ra-le to signif future impact pure legal Fuestion and federal agenc0 not , private parties or factual issues" *upplemental 6urisdiction- Federal <uestion2 +4HI a" c" +2 Constitutional #uthorit0 C=OF for /urisdictionall0 insufficient and sufficient claims 1i--s" ,2 *tatutor0 authorit0 9eFuired for /urisdictionall0 improper pendant and ancillar0 claims #ldinger, $roger, Finle0" +4HI a" Codifies 1i--s C=OF, including /oinder +4HI c" Discretionar0 factors Codifies 1i--s" =ew state law issue, state predomination, orig /ur issues dismissed, other compelling reasons +4HI d" *tatute of 8imitations Diversit0 6urisdiction

 Constitutional Basis: #rt2 '''2, *tatutor0 Basis: ,C A*C +44, Diversit0 of parties +44, a"" Basics Time: Citi5enship at the time the complaint was filed is relevant2 Complete diversit0 reFuired *traw-ridge" Parties 'ndividuals Domicile J ph0sicall0 move w> intent to remain indefinitel0 !as" #liens J citi5ens of their state of residence Corporations: +44, c" , citi5enships: states of +" incorporation and ,"principal place of -us PPB: +" =erve Center %gan", ," Operating assets, 4" Total activit0 test Teal" Conflict -tw headFuarters and dail0 activit0 dail0 activit0 'nsurance Companies: also cit of insured;s state +44, c"" Anincorporated #ssociations cit of ever0 state in which one of its mem-ers is a citi5en 9epresentative #ctions Class actions, derivative suits, etc" 8ook to representative, not represented part0, unless minors, estates, incompetents2 +44, c" Controls on 1amesmanship Onl0 real parties matterK can;t /ust -ring in to destro0 diversit0 9ose" Can;t /ust -ring in to create diversit0 $ramer" #'C 9eFuirement *tatutor0 reFuirement: +44, a": Dmust exceed I3k, e&clusive of interests and costs Test: To re/ect, +" legal certaint0 that claim is reall0 for less than /urisdictional amount, and ," P must have op to show good faith #2F2#2 Tours" Damages: 9egular . Punitive included2 'n/unctions trick02 #ggregation rules *ingle P, *ingle D, can aggregate ever0thing %verett" *ingle P, !ultiple Ds, can;t aggregate, can;t -ootstrap !ultiple Ps, *ingle D2 *eparate and distinct claims: can;t aggregate *ingle title or right, with a common and undivided interest: can aggregate Durant One meets #'C reF and the other doesn;t: Can use supplemental /urisdiction to -ootstrap if same case or controvers02 %&&on !o-il, reverses @ahn" LDo a supplemental /urisdiction anal0sis in this case2

 %&ceptions Domestic relations cases involve onl0 divorce, alimon0, child custod0 #nken-randt" Pro-ate %state planning, no *!6"2 !arshall" *upplemental 6urisdiction in Diversit0 Cases +4HI" +" Constitutional #uthorit0 C=OF for /urisdictionall0 insufficient and sufficient claims 1i--s" ," *tatutor0 authorit0 9eFuired for /urisdictionall0 improper pendant and ancillar0 claims #ldinger, $roger, Finle0" +4HI a" Codifies 1i--s C=OF, including /oinder +4HI -" limits to prevent gamesmanship in diversit0 /urisdiction =o supplemental /uris over claims against persons made parties under: F9CP +:, +M, ,N or ,: #pplies onl0 to claims -0 Ps or Ps /oined under +M or ,:" T0picall0 oka0 if claims J P+ v2 D+, or D+ v2 third part0 T0picall0 pro-lematic if claims J P+ against parties added to the suit, or -0 Ps who come in through /oinder2 9ule +:: Third part0 practice 9ule +M: Compulsor0 /oiner 9ule ,N: Permissive /oinder 9ule ,:: 'ntervention +4HI c" Discretionar0 factors Codifies 1i--s" =ew state law issue, state predomination, orig /ur issues dismissed, other compelling reasons +4HI d" *tatute of 8imitations Class actions, see separate section2 9emoval, ?enue, Transfer of ?enue, Forum =on Conveniens, )aiver 9emoval 9ationale: same protections to D *tatutor0 -asis: ,C A*C +::+ 9ules +2 Onl0 an original D can remove ,C A*C +::+ a"" P can;t remove -ased on D;s counterclaim *hamrock" Third-part0 D can;t remove First =ational Bank of Pulaski" !ultiple Ds: all must agree to remove Chicago, 92'2 B P2902 Co2" +::+ a" DDefendantsE ,2 #ction could originall0 have -een filed in the fed court ,C A*C +::+ a"" Federal court must have *!6 Doesn;t matter if orig state court didn;t ,C A*C +::+ f""

 #ction could originall0 have -een -rought in fed court +4HI applies in removal 'nt;l College of *urgeons" 42 Citi5enship and its effect ,C A*C +::+ -"" Federal Fuestion: D can remove regardless of his citi5enship Diversit0 *ingle D: can;t remove if cit of state where action was -rought !ultiple Ds: =one can -e cit of state where action was -rought 'nterstate class action e&ception min diversit0 and O3mil", remova-le w>o regard for whether Ds are from forum state and w>o need for consent of all Ds2 C#F#" 6oinder Case removed as a whole, su-/ect to fed discretion 1i--s" +::+ c" 6oinder 9emoval together :2 Onl0 remove to fed dist court in the same district originall0 filed, even if this wouldn;t have originall0 -e the proper venue2 ,C A*C +::+ -" !echanics Filing: +::H a" Ancertaint0: can allege unknown to demonstrate grounds +::H a"" !ultiple Ds, some not 0et served onl0 Ds actuall0 served need to /oin in removal +::H -" D can move for remand after /oinded if don;t like removal2 ,C A*C +::C, (utchins Timing: 4N da0s w>in receipt> amend, diversit0 onl0 w>in one 0ear of commencement of action2 +::H -" =otice to state court: +::H d", +::I c" *tate court post-removal: free5es +::I c" Challenging removal and waiver +::I c" *!6 -asis an0time Other -asis w>in 4N da0s of filing of notice of removal2 Challenging P6 after removal: fine2 9emoval isn;t a waiver of o-/ection2 ?enue Purpose: convenience of parties, /udicial econom02 *tatutor0 Fuestion2 Federal venue provision: ,C A*C +4M+ Diversit0 cases a" +" #ll Ds reside in same state district where an0 D resides ," Dist where su-stantial part of events>oms giving riseclaim oc;d 4" Default: onl0 if the other , won;t work: district where an0 D is su-/ect to P6 at the time the action is commenced2 Federal Fuestion cases -" /uris not founded solely on diversit0" +" #ll Ds reside in same state district where an0 D resides ," Dist where su-stantial part of events>oms giving riseclaim oc;d 4" Default: District where an0 D ma0 -e found

!eaning of DresideE under a" +" and -" +" 'ndividuals: domicile in district not state" Corporations: +4M+ c" +" Traditional domicile in each district incorp> PPB" ," !inimum Contacts anal0sis> P6 anal0sis for each district 1eneral P6 ma0 appl0 where no PPB 4" Default: district w> most significant contacts Anincorporated #ssociations: treat like corps for venue Denver" !eaning of Dsu-stantialE under a" ," and -" ," Broad interpretation Trademark decision to market . district where sold Pilates" Products 8ia-ilit0 manufactured . cause in/ur0 De-t de-tor resides where receive collection notice Bates" !eaning of DfoundE under -" 4" 'ndividuals: Pro-2 *ervice of process Corporations: pro- an0where su-/ect to P6 %&ceptions Patent and cop0right cases ,C A*C +:NN" Patent infringement cases: ,C A*C +:NN 'nterpleader actions and actions against fed officials 8ocal actions interest in land" Consent )aiver: +, h" +"- must file o-/ection or its waived Peven if original venue improper: +:NH -"Q Forum selection clauses: generall0 upheld if fair Carnival Cruise" 9emoval and ?enue +4M+ onl0 applies to cases commenced in fed court, not state removal2 Transfer of ?enue Basics: from one fed ct another, either part0 can initiate , scenarios +" Original venue choice was proper2 ,C A*C +:N: a" +"For convenience or parties, wits, in interest of /ustice fact dep" ," Transferee court must J court where action might have -een -rought Burden of proof: on part0 initiating the transfer ," Original venue choice was improper2 ,C A*C +:NH Court ma0 +" dismiss or ," transfer to district where case might have -een -rought, prefer transfer O$ if transferor court lacks P6 1oldlawr", -ut potential for *o8 gamesmanship Ferens" !eaning of Dmight have -een -roughtE : can;t agree to transf to improp (offman"

Choice of 8aw and Transfer Onl0 applies to +:N: a" transfers where original venue was proper 9ule: choice of law rules follow w> the transfer ?an Dusen" 1amesmanship: Ferens Forum =on Conveniens )hat: Common law doctrine, can dismiss when *!6, P6, venue valid -ut crapp0, useful when state court isn;t working since st courts can;t transfer to other state courts or to foreign courts2 Factors to consider w>r>t motion -ased on principle of forum non 1il-ert" +" 's there another sufficient open forum7 ," Balancing test: Private interest of litigant v2 factors of pu-lic interest 8ess favora-le su-stantive law in another forum isn;t enough to defeat Piper" 'nsufficient alternative forum will defeat =emariam" Default forum J P;s choice Piper" *tandard on appeal: a-use of discretion Piper" Choice of law: can -e compelling reason for dismissal *weetening the pot Piper" P;s ties to forum: greater ties J greater inconvenience to P to move )iwa" =ationalit0: less likel0 to award f2n2c2 for #mreicans than for foreigners P6: District court can respond to forum non plea -efore addressing other threshold o-/ections such as P62 *inochem" Choice of 8aw: %volution 9ules of Decision #ct laws of the several states e&ceptR" *wift and the potential for gamesmanship natural law view" %rie: 9epudiates *wift2 8aws of the several states include common law2 )hat is the state law7 Older trend: Follow e&isting state precedent, even if it;s a district court Fidelit0" no predictions w>r>t future changes )est" !odern trend: !ore fle&i-ilit0 Predict how state supreme court would decide if no decision Bosch" Certification st supreme court, -ut e&pensive 1enerall0 follow supervisor0 federal court;s predictions on state law 1amesmanship: file in fed court if want law to change, it might -ut hasn;t 0et, ->c the0 can anticipate change, st2 court -ound -0 stare decisis2 )hich state law should the court appl07 ?ertical uniformit0, hori5ontal chaos" Different state tests: 'nterest anal0sis: consider interest of each affected state in ap;ing own law !ost significant relationship: e&pectations, polic0 interests, uniformit0 !an0 others e&ist Federal test for choosing state law: #ppl0 forum state;s choice of law rules in a federal diversit0 case2 $la&on, appl0ing polic0 underl0ing %rie2

 1amesmanship: forum shop -tw fed courts in dif states> st courts in dif sts Transfer of venue Federal +:N: transfer +" use orig court;s choice of law rules, ," determine what state su-stantive law would -e under Erie, appl0 it2 Van Dusen Op for gamesmanship *tate One state C#=;T transfer to another state court2 Choosing -etween federal and state law %volution *tate law must -e applied when it;s a su-stantial right2 Dunlap Outcome-determinative test: signif affects the result of litigation, follow the state rule2 *o8 state when o2d2 York Outcome-determinative test . an0 countervailing federal policies that arise from a fed court;s status as an indep /udicial s0stem2 Byrd -ut state procedural rules can still sometimes supercede F9CPs (anna rescues the F9CPs Facts: service of process o-d (anna part ,: )hen: F9CP or F9#P or statute in the picture +" 's it valid7 #uthorit0 #rt2''' =ecessar0 and Proper Clause authori5es adoption of federal rules of procedure 9%#2 Congress and the Court have power under the 9%# to promulgate an0 rule that is +" Dargua-l0 proceduralE and ," Doesn;t a-ridge, enlarge, or modif0 a su-stantive right2E Test a" argua-l0 procedural (anna, *i--ach" -" Does it a-ridge, enlarge or modif0 a su-stantive right7 =ot necess to det for fed statutes- don;t fall under 9%# F9CPs rarel0 violate, heav0 presumption of validit0 )ould have to affect D;s primar0 -ehavior2 ," 's it applica-le 'ssue: Direct collision -tw Fed rule and state law7 Test: 's the F9CP;s scope sufficientl0 -road to cover the issue7 F9CP C c" e&ception: glannon ,,,, F, Pconstrued narrowl0Q 4" Outcome Ges to +" and ," go w> F9#P, F9CP, or statute =o to an0 do %rie part + anal0sis :" Outcome J follow fed law, mention what York outcome would -e (anna Part + %rie test"

 )hen: #nal05e choice -tw uncodified fed /udicial practice B state law +" !odified outcome-determinative test, using Erie twin aims a" prevent forum shopping, -" prevent ineFuita-le administration of laws i2a2: fed approach would open up a sig diff2 in litigation opportunit0, viewed prospectivel0 Hanna" %&ists where allow suit to go forward in fed that would -e -arred in state court Walker" ," !ention Hanna concurrence stricter test": )ould difference affect primar0 conduct7 4" York anal0sis: Compare how Gork o-d would have turned out2 :" Byrd test: 'f state law wins, should a countervailing fed interest status as indep /udicial s0stem" make fed law trump an0wa07 6oinder of Claims and Parties 6oinder of Parties F9CP +M compulsor0 /oinder 's the a-sent part0 a reFuired part0 under F9CP +M a"7 'n that person;s a-sence, court can;t accord complete relief +" #" That person claims an interest in the action, and disposing of the action in the person;s a-sence ma0: +" B" i" 'mpair or impede the other person;s a-ilit0 to protect that interest2 Haas stock" ii" 8eave an e&isting part0 su-/ect to a su-stantial risk of incurring dou-le, multiple, otherwise inconsistent o-ligs ->c of the interest2 'f the a-sent part0 should -e /oined, can he>she -e /oined7 *!67 ,C A*C +4HI -" lists F9CP +M- this could destro0 diversit0 P67 F9CP: k" +" -" -ulge rule comes in hand0- can get P6 when otherwise couldn;t in fed court if it;s a compulsor0 /oinder ?enue7 F9CP +M a" 4" and o-/ections improper 'f the a-sent part0 should -e /oined and can;t -e, what happens7 4 options: 8et the case go on w>o the a-sent part0 Dismiss the case 1o forward w>o the a-sent part0, guided -0 F9CP +M -" discretionar0 factors F9CP ,N Permissive 6oinder Test: 0ou ma0 /oin an0 parties whose claims P /oinder" or potential lia-ilit0 D /oinder" +" stem from same TBO> series of TBOs, #=D ," There;s at least one common Fuestion of law or fact 8i-eral application in favor of efficienc0 and consistenc02 F9CP +:: 'mpleader Third Part0 Claims"

9ule: Defending part0 ma0 serve a summons and complaint on a nonpart0 who is or ma0 -e lia-le to it for all or part of the claim against it2 %fficient ->c consolidate2 8ia-iliti0: third part0 D is lia-le to original D 4rd part0 P", not P+ 1etting off the hook: +: a" ," C", defeat P;s original claim> +: a" ," #", defeat D;s derivative claim2 'mpleading multiple parties: fine, the0 ma0 all -e lia-le, or alternativel0 =arrower than ,N and +42 *!6: must still e&ist, treated like a -rand new action and must meet all F9CP reFuirements2 *!6 ma0 e&ist through +4HI Diversit0: measured -etween 4rd part0 P and 4rd part0 D, doesn;t destro0 diversit0 of original claim, might get through supplemental /urisdiction prevent gamesmanship" F9CP +4 h": 6oining parties on a crossclaim or counterclaim F9CP +M and ,N govern the addition of parties to ccs B ccs 9emem-er that crossclaims reFuire same TBO 6oinder of Claims Claim 6oinder: F9CP +C =o T B O reFuirement once there;s alread0 a proper claim against same part0 ?er0 -roadl0 construed Tenet" 9es 6udicata concerns good to -ring ever0thing with same TBO *till need *!6 over all claims F9CP :, -" severa-ilit0 F9CP ,+ mis/oinder- not a ground for dismissing action2 Counterclaims: F9CP +4 a-f" Compulsor0 counterclaims +4" a" #rise from same TBO as claim Don;t reFuire adding another part0 over whom court can;t get /uris #ll Ds must file- not /ust original includes cross-claims" %&ceptions: F9CP +4 a" ,", include no P6 . no waiver )hen in dou-t, treat as compulsor0, -road treatment (e0ward" Permissive counterclaims +4" -" #n0 non-compulsor0 counterclaim :, -" usuall0 severed #dded -0 an0 D not /ust original" D can -ring in either pending action -0 same P Pickard" )atch out for *!6S =o ancillar0 /urisdiction Cross-claims: F9CP +4 g" *ame side of the v Permissive2

!ust -e same TBO, ma0 include indemnification 8ook out for *!6 Parties who are cross-claimed against must file an0 compulsor0 counterclaims2 *ee +4 h" for /oining parties on cross-claims2 Consolidation: F9CP :, a" Court can consolidate multiple pending actions or issues" that are in the same court and deal w> a common Fuestion of law or fact2 =ote: 'f not 0et in same court, would have to transfer venue -efore consolidating2 *upplemental /urisdiction LL+4HI in F< and *!6 sections Notice, er!ice o" #rocess $ the %pportunity to &e heard Notice Purpose: DPC Constitutional adeFuac0: +:th DPC !ullane" 9easona-l0 calculated to apprise 9easona-le method 9easona-le time Factors *ee outline !ail generall0 ok =ewspaper generall0 disfavored )alker, *chroeder" )hen notice -0 mail is returned 6ones v2 Flowers" er!ice o" #rocess Basics Process J summons . complaint , availa-le challenges: 'nsuff process +, -" :", insuff service +, -" 3" =ote that P6 could -e an issue, even if service was ok Indi!iduals in the ' , ()*# +,e , #" deliver personall0, , B" leave it at the home w> someone of age . discretion, , C" deliver to agent authori5ed -0 appointment or -0 law, +" Ase method of service in state where fed ct sits, +" 'f service is made outside state where action was commenced, 0ou can use that state;s service rule2 Indi!iduals outside the ' . ()*# +," *orporations, #artnerships, /ssociations 'nside the A* F9CP : h" +" a": directs to , F9CP : e" +" options F9CP : h" +" -": adds agent> officer methods (ellenic Challenger- not restricted to formal titles2

Wai!er o" #rocess F9CP : d": 4N da0s to return or charged if domestic D : d" 4": incentive to waive- HN rather than ,N da0s to respond 0imin1 F9CP : m": P has +,N da0s w>in filing to serve, or can dis w>o pre/udice )eturn o" er!ice F9CP : l": P must file after serving False return of summons and /udgment: ruling stands !iedreich" Immunity Purpose: protect from interferences w> /udicial process2 Proper where served when onl0 there to -e a witness *tate e& rel *ivnkst0" or statute governs Eti2uette Purpose: limit gamesmanship, don;t allow tricks Fraud affection /urisdiction J lack of /urisdiction )0man" %pportunity to &e Heard *onstitutional )e2uirement: DPC reFuires at a Dmeaningful timeE and in a Dmeaningful manner2E 1old-erg2 *onstitutional limits ,3- Depri!ation &y 1o!ernment. !athews -alancing test: +" private interest that has -een affected -0 government action risk of erroneous deprivation of interest through procedures used", ," the pro-a-le value of additional or su-stitute procedural safeguards, 4" government interest in conserving fiscal and administrative resources that the additional or su-stitute procedural reFuisites would entail2 !athews: Termination of social securit0 disa-ilit0 doesn;t reFuire evidentiar0 hearing2 1old-erg: termination of pu-lic assistance pa0ments w>o evidentiar0 hearing violates DPC 4- Depri!ation &y pri!ate indi!iduals Test: think a-out process -oth pre- and post- deprivation when considering whether it meets the 1old-erg standard2 Fuentes, no prior notice or op to defend when stove repo;d, violates DPC !itchell, *eFuestration order reFuiring doc proof and /udge auth O$ Di-Chem, Conclusor0 allegations dealing w> garnishment provision violate DPC, esp since onl0 need clerk, not /udge Doehr, statute involving pre-/udgment attachment of D;s house2 ?iolates DPC #leadin1 and ummary 5ud1ment 0he complaint F9CP 4: commence civil action -0 filing complaint w> court, gives notice2

F9CP C: 1eneral 9ules of Pleading2 a" Claims for relief: Pleading stating claim for relief must contain +" short, plain statement w>r>t /uris unless no new grounds needed, ," short, plain statement of claim showing pleader deserves relief, 4" demand for relief sought, ma0 include relief in alternative> different t0pes of relief2 d" Pleading Concise and directK #lternative statements, inconsistenc0 #leadin1 dama1es 6eneral dama1es foreseea-le conseFuences of in/ur0 alleged in petition" F9CP 3: c": 9elief granted can e&ceed relief reFuested in pleadings %&ception: default /udgments can;t e&ceed amount demanded in plds2 Punitive damages ma0 -e stricken if P doesn;t give notice seeking #nheuser-Busch" pecial dama1es not necessar0 or inevita-le result of in/ur0 alleged in petition2 @iergovel2" F9CP M g": must -e specificall0 stated if claimed2 ()*# 34 7otions and de"enses 34,a- 0imin1: #nswer w>in ,N da0s after service, unless waivedHN da0s from time waiver sent, unless A*, then MN2 34,&- De"enses Wai!a&le 34,1-,4-: ," 8ack of P6, 4" 'mproper venue, :" 'nsufficient process, 3" 'nsufficient service of process Not 8ai!a&le 34,h-,49:-. H" failure to state a claim upon which relief can -e granted, +" 8ack of *!6, I" Failure to /oin a part0 under rule +M 34,&-,;- in depth. #urpose: )eed out the -ad claims /nalysis: Timing: can -e an0 time =eed *!6 and P6- need them to dismiss on +, -" H" ->c su-stantive iss Possi-le grounds for granting: +" no legal relief availa-le, ," claim wasn;t adeFuatel0 alleged )hat to use: Onl0 look at pleadings, assume P can prove alleged facts2 0ests Conle0: Requirement for complaint: give D fair notice of claim and grounds for it2 Requirement for dismissal: -e0ond a reasona-le dou-t that P can;t prove facts to support claim that would entitle him to relief Twom-l0 antitrust, allege parallel actions of Ds" Conceiva-le Plausi-le2 Pleadings must contain enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the illegal agreement2 9e/ect Conle0, which allows for conclusor0 statements2 Post-Twom-l0 confusion Does Twom-l0 heighten the pleading standard7

%rickson: refers to Twom-l0, -ut onl0 part citing Conle0;s fair notice reFuirement2 ()*# 34,e- 7otion "or a more de"inite statement Can;t reasona-l0 file response2 Point out defects2 +N da0s to respond2 ()*# 34,"- 7otion to trike Court can strike from pleading -0 motion or on own +" insufficient defense, or ," redundant, immat2, scandalous matter2 Timing2 0he /ns8er +" #dmissions and Denials 4 choices for each allegation C -" +": +"admit, ,"den0 general or specific2 <ielinski", or 4" den0 for lack of information negative pregnant, con/unctive denials" ," #ffirmative defenses C c" +"2 !ust raise in responding to pleading2 'ncludes res /udicata, *o8, waiver, laches, statute of frauds 4" Counterclaims ()*# 3=. /mendin1 the /ns8er )ithout permission: +3 a" +" )ith Permission: +3 a" ,"2 Court has discretion, grants li-erall0, -ut harder once trial has -egun 9elation -ack of amendments, +3 c": *ame TBO to relate claim -ack2 To change part0 name, must -e same TBO and -asicall0 a mistake2 ()*# 33. 0ruth"ulness in #leadin1s =onfrivolous, -elieve it;s true, etc2 *anctions2 Doesn;t appl0 to discover02 Disco!ery Purposes: Preserve evidence, narrow issue, go fishing gamesmanship" The /o0 of depositions: F9CP 4, a" :" can use depositions of unavaila-le witnesses at trial2 49part /nalysis ,3- Is disco!ery permissi&le under the &road scope o" 4;,&-,3-? 9ule: !ust -e a" relevant to claim or defense, -" not privileged, c" reasona-l0 calculated to the discover0 of admissi-le evidence 1amesmanship: #ttorne0s will sa0 going for punitive damages ->c gives -roader access to financial records2 Discover0 plan ,H f" Protective orders ,H c" +" ,4- Do any limits to the disco!ery o" rele!ant in"ormation apply? #ri!ile1e, ()*# 4;,&-,=-,a %&pressl0 make the claims, descri-e the nature of the documents #ttorne0-client, priest-penitent, dr-patient, hus-and-wife #ttorne0-client privilege: +" DclientE ," Dlaw0er J a" Dmem-erE of the -ar and -" acting as law0er, 4" communication relates to a fact of which Dattorne0E was

formed J a" -0 client -" w>o presence of strangers c" to secure i" legal opinion or ii" legal services or iii" legal assistance and not -" to commit a crime, and :" the privilege has -een a" claimed and -" not waived -0 client2 )ork product: F9CP ,H -" 4", not a privilege -ut a protection +" info reasona-l0 o-tained -0 other means no discover0 ," su-stantial need . su-stantial hardship ma0-e 4" opinion work product can never -e discovered2 Hickman Initial Disclosures and disco!ery sanctions F9CP ,H a" +" #" Dut0 to disclose: : categories of mandator0 initial discl F9CP 4I Failure to make Disclosures or to Coop in Discover0: *anctions !ust tr0 on own first, little court sanctioning, lots of gamesmanship F9CP HN -" 4" 9elief from 6udgment or Order: fraud, misrep, misconduct *ummin1s 0he duty to supplement responses, spoliation and the duty to preser!e e!idence Dut0 to supplement responses: F9CP ,H e", discover0 J ongoing dut0 #lso must fi& incomplete, incorrect responses2 *poilation: Dut0 to not destro0 ev -egins even -efore lit starts2 il!estri Disco!ery De!ices ()*# :>. %ral Deposition (igh impact, high cost2 Cross-e&amination allowed2 ()*# :3. Written Depositions Cheaper -ut low impact, no follow-up, onl0 serve on parties to the action ()*# ::. Written interro1atories <uestions written, sent -0 mail Cheaper -ut low impact, no follow-up, onl0 serve on parties to the action 44 d" -usiness records- must specif0 where the0 are ()*# :;. )e2uest "or /dmissions !ust admit, den0 or sa0 wh0 0ou can;t> shouldn;t have to answer2 *ilence presumption of admission Onl0 good for litigation at hand 1amesmanship- den0 much more than reall0 should2 Cheap ()*# :+. #roduction o" Documents and property =o court order needed, responding part0 must go to court to -lock if feel inappropriate2 1amesmanship: often draft -roadl0 and produce w> as narrow a construction of reFuest as possi-le2 O9 send a ton of stuff to sift through2

()*# :=. #hysical and 7ental E?aminations =eed court motion, must demonstrate good cause E?pert Witnesses Testif0ing e&perts: F9CP ,H a" ,"2 9eFuires e&tensive disclosure =on-testif0ing e&perts: F9CP ,H -" :" B": =o disclosure unless e&ceptional circumstance ummary 5ud1ment, Voluntary Dismissal and De"ault 5ud1ments ummary 5ud1ment, ()*# =; #urpose: 1et rid of claims that don;t need a trial for resolution =;,c-: !oving part0 must show +" no genuine issue of material fact #=D ," entitled to /udgment as a matter of law2 #roo" and #rocess ,()*# =; ,e-,4-: =onmoving part0 must respond directl0 ,c-,3-7aterial (act: Fact that will affect case outcome ,c-,3- 6enuine issue o" material "act: 6ur0 could reasona-l0 reach dif conclusions w>r>t the fact ,c-,4- 5ud1ment as a matter o" la8: )hole claim thrown out of P can;t prove one element of claim2 ,d- #artial summary jud1ment ,"- *ontinuances to allow nonmoving part0 to develop case, discretionar0 What to look at 6Io7(. Pleadings, discover0 and disclosure materials on file, an0 affidavits- doesn;t have to -e admissi-le evidence When to 6rant +" !oving part0 -ears the -urden of persuasion at trial !oving part0 must show would -e entitled to a directed verdict at trial Burden then shifts to nonmoving part0 to controvert2 *elote?: need not negate non-moving part0;s claim ," =on-moving part0 -ears the -urden of persuasion at trial a" *u-mit affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the non-moving part0;s claim O9 -" Demonstrate that non-moving part0;s evidence is insufficient to esta-lish an essential element of his claim2 *elote? *elote? D demonstrated that P couldn;t carr0 -urden of proof of showing as-estos e&posure at trial" Lundeen Clear affidavits of the onl0 persons who could know the facts can -e a -asis for *6" *ross 6udge can;t draw fact inferences on a motion for *6" E!identiary standard Comport w> evidentiar0 standard that will -e set for trial- what could the /ur0 reasona-l0 find given the standard7 /nderson li-el case, reFuires clear and convincing evidence that D had actual malice" #-sence of plausi-le motive is relevant in det2 1'o!F2 7atsushita

Court can;t adopt P;s version of facts when -latantl0 contradicted -0 the record2 cott Voluntary and In!oluntary Dismissal. ()*# +3 ,a- Voluntary Dismissal Purpose: 1et out of lawsuit w>o affecting legal rights -efore waste O, /ud r 9ule: :+ a" +": w>o court order if i" -efore receive answer or motion for *6, or ii" signed stipulation -0 all parties2 )>o pre/udice2 a" ," -0 court order, default J w>o pre/udice2 ,&- In!oluntary Dismissal D ma0 move ->c P failed to prosecute w> due diligence, or court can do it on its own, usuall0 w> pre/udice, ver0 discretionar0 Link> pretrial conf" De"ault 5ud1ments. ()*# == De"ault Clerk ma0 enter when fail to plead or defend2 9eFuires no notice2 33 c": !otion to set aside default -0 showing good cause2 HN -": Can also use to set aside defaults2 De"ault 5ud1ment: -" +", Default . complaint for certain sum .no D appearance . not a minor or incompetent, enter D6 in that amount2 -" ," otherwise it goes to court, trial /udge has discretion2 HN -" motion to set aside default /udgment: stricter standard =otice to other side: -" ," reFuires notice where part0 has appeared 0rial &y 5ury and 57%L 5ury 0rials (ederal *onstitutional )i1ht to 5ury 0rial Ith #: right of a /ur0 trial shall -e DpreservedE Test: +" 'ssue of fact underlies claim for legal relief /ur0, ," issue of fact underlies claim for legal and eFuita-le relief /ur0, 4" issue of fact underlies a purel0 eFuita-le matter /udge w> no /ur02 8egal or eFuita-le7 0erry test: +" 8ook at +Cth cent2 statutor0 action -efore merger- legal or eFuit ," 's remed0 sought legal or eFuita-le in nature7 more emphasis" Division of la-or -tw /udge and /ur0 6udge instructs /ur0 on applica-le law, /ur0 applies it to the facts F9CP 3+: if 0ou don;t o-/ect to the instruction, 0ou waive right 's it a Fuestion of law or fact7 7arkman Test: +" use historical evidence and precedent2 ," )hen murk0, ask who;s in a -etter position to decide2 Demand and 8ai!er o" jury trial. ()*# :@ 'f it;s /ur0 tria-le and either side demands a /ur0 trial, 0ou get one2 F9CP 4C -" +"- serve other side w> written demand, +N da0s F9CP 4C c" 0ou can specif0 which of /ur0 tria-le issues 0ou want /2t2 on

F9CP 4M -": court has discretion, on motion, to order /ur0 trials that weren;t previousl0 demanded2 57%L ,Directed Verdict-. ()*# =>,a #urpose: Once trial has -egun, keep cases from going to a /ur0 when a reasona-le /ur0 couldn;t find for the non-moving part02 ()*# =>,a-: +" )ule: Court can grant 6!O8 on claim, defense, issue when finds a reasona-le /ur0 wouldn;t have a legall0 sufficient evidentiar0 -asis to find for the part0 on that issue2 ," !otion2 #n0 time -efore case goes to /ur02 )hat;s a legall0 sufficient evidentiar0 -asis7 ,3- 7ere scintilla test: # few states2 Barel0 need an0thing to go to /ur02 Bro8n ,4- #lainti""As e!idence test: 6!O8 onl0 if evid2 supporting nonmoving pt0, in light most favora-le to that pt0, isn;t enough2 Wilkerson ,:- (ederal tandard: a" =onmoving part0;s evidence in light most favora-le to it . -" other part0;s non-contradictor0 evidence2 Boein1 # mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient Ase this to interpret 3N a" 0imin1: +" D can move for 6!O8 directl0 after P presents evidence, ," Both can move for 6!O8 after D presents evidence in response to P2 #ost9trial 7otions 5N%V. )ene8ed motion "or 57%L. ()*# =>,& #urpose: 'f overturned, no risk of new trial )edman: this is oka0" )e2uirement: Previousl0 filed 6!O8 chance to cure> avoid gamesmanship" Limits: 8imited to 6!O8 0ou filedK depends on where, what 0ou o-/ected to2 tandard: *ame as 6!O82 tandard on re!ie8: #-use of discretion2 0imin1: F9CP 3N -", no later than +N da0s after entr0 of /udgment Ne!er denied: #utomaticall0 reserved if 6!O8 not granted2 #ossi&le outcomes: +" keep verdict, ," new trial, 4" direct 6!O8 *om&ined 5N%V and Ne8 0rial 7otions ()*# =>,c-: )hen com-ined 3N -" and 3M, determine if there should -e a new trial conditional on how 6!O8 ruling is treated on appeal2 )esult: 6!O8 ruling upheld, no new trial2 6!O8 ruling shot down, moving part0 preserved option of new trial rather than keeping verdict ()*# =>,d-: Gou win at trial, 3N -" granted against 0ou, 0ou can move for new trial w>in +N da0s- might happen if 0ou had o-/ections to original trial2 ()*# =>,e-: Gou win at trial, 6!O8 not granted against 0ou2 Gou can argue that there are grounds for a new trial in case the other part0 appeals and the Court of #ppeals rules 6!O8 should have -een granted against 0ou2 7otion "or a ne8 trial. ()*# =B tandard

Errors in the trial process: !ust -e pre/udicial, had to o-/ at trial to preserve, must move w>in +N da0s Verdict is a1ainst the clear 8ei1ht o" the e!idence: Consider credi-ilit0 of witnesses2 )eaker than 6!O8>6=O? standard2 6asperini: review under a-use of discretion standard2 /ppeals: =o interlocutor0 appeal availa-le- no final /udgment *onditional Ne8 0rial: 'f 6=O? fails, file for 6=O? and c2n2t2 at once2 )emittitur , /ddittur unconst" 0imin1: F9CP3M a" +N da0s after entr0 of /udgment 7otion "or relie" "rom a jud1ment or order. ()*# ;> a" -lunders in e&ecution like clerical errors -" Bases for relief, w>in reasona-le time, discretionar0, hard to get2 'ncludes mistake, fraud, -ased on earlier /udgment that was reversed2 )hen the law changes after /udgment, not enough2 0itle =ewl0 discovered evidenced: #atricks criteria, +" would pro-a-l0 change result, ," discovered since trial, 4" couldn;t have -een discovered -efore trial -0 due diligence, :" material, 3" not merel0 cumulative> impeaching2 Per/ured testimon0: 'f material, /udgment set aside2 #eacock )ecords /ppeal 0he (inal 5ud1ment rule tatutory: 4@ ' * 34B32 Co# has /uris over all final decisions of dist2 courts2 E?amples (inal 5ud1ment Not a "inal jud1ment +, -" H" granted +, -" H" denied *ummar0 6udgment 1ranted *ummar0 6udgment Denied 6!O8 granted pro-2 Partial" 6!O8 denied 9enewed 6!O8 granted pro- partial" 9enewed 6!O8 denied =ew trial granted *O!%T'!%* final" =ew trial granted *O!%T'!%*" Li&erty 7utual: partial s2/2 onl0 on lia-ilit0, not on relief sought2 Orders not appeala-le as final /udgment2 E?ceptions to the "inal jud1ment rule *erti"ication o" interlocutory appeal, 34B4,& Both trial /udge and ap /udge must agree that +" controlling Fuestion of law ," su-stantial ground for difference of opinion, #=D 4" immediate appeal ma0 materiall0 advance ultimate termination of litigation Dis ct sa0s all 4 are there- certifies, then circuit court has discretion *ases in!ol!in1 multiple claims. ()*# =+,&-

 District court /udge can enter final /2 on some -ut not all of claims if +" enter final /2 on severa-le and ," determines there;s no /ust reason for dela02 Deferential standard2 7ackey 0he *ollateral %rder Doctrine %ffectivel0 unreviewa-le on appeal from final /udgments Will #ra1matic (inality Basicall0 finished- need finalit0 to move on2 Bro8n hoe 7andamus not tested" 0imin1 "or appeal: Time limit -egins to run w> final /2 usuall0 4N da0s2 tandard "or re!ie8: +" Fuestions of law de novo, ," Fuestions of fact ver0 deferential, 4" mi&ed Fuestions a-use of discretion standard2 *laim and Issue #reclusion *laim #reclusion ,)es 5udicata #urpose: Prevent claims from -eing split into two separate suits 0est: +" Case + resulted in a final /udgment ok if appeal to f2/2 pending" ," 6udgment in Case + was on the merits w> pre/udice J on the merits, w>o pre/udice isn;t P must have full op to litigate on the merits 6!O8 counts, so does +, -" H" dismissal in some states after amendments or when amendments are futile2 4" The decision in Case + was valid no fraud, had *!6 and P6" :" The claims must -e the same in Case + and Case , Federal and 9estatement approach: *ame TBO, can;t relit later if 0ou failed to /oin at first2 %&ception: , disease rule as-estos> cancer" in man0 state courts Primar0 rights approach *ame legal theor0 test 3" Case + and Case , were asserted -0 the same Claimant or their priv0" against the same defendant or their priv0"2 *u-stantial control: Priv0 if had2 Burden of proof on moving part02 ?irtual representation: show nonpart0 has had actual>constructive notice of earlier litigation and the -alance of eFuities tip preclusion2 #deFuac0 of rep2 not dispositive2 9ule-Based 9es /udicata: 'f 0ou didn;t -ring a compulsor0 claim, 0ou;re claim precluded2 Polic0: keep in line w> rules2 Issue #reclusion ,*ollateral Estoppel #urpose: #void relitigating the same issue twice2 0est: +" Case + ended in a valid final /udgment on the merits *ee C2P2 +-4" ," The issue in the second case is the same as the issue in the first2

 Consider: a" su-stantial overlap in evidence or argument, -" application of the same rule of law, c" similarit0 in pretrial prep and discover0, d" (ow closel0 related are the claims involved )estatement , econd- o" 5ud1ments, 4C 4" The issue was actuall0 litigated ,9aised at trial" :" The issue was actuall0 decided in the previous action must have -een a winner on the issue 3" The issue was necessar0 to the court;s /udgment Test: 'f the finding on the issue had come out the other wa0, would the /udgment -e the same7 1eneral verdicts: )hat if court finds for lit on , indep, suffic grounds7 =either gets 'P (alpern, -ankruptc0" #lternate rule: -oth get issue preclusion )inters" Or estoppel if record-oth holdings got full consideration 7alloy #arties and 7utuality in Issue #reclusion 6eneral )ule: =onmutual estoppel estopped part0 must have -een a part0 in +st suit, had chance to litigate the issue2 1ranting is alwa0s discretionar02 Nonmutual De"ensi!e *ollateral Estoppel Case +: P+ v2 D+ P+ loses on issue T" Case ,: P+ v2 D, D, tries to use 'P to prevent relitigation of issue T" Blonder90on1ue 0est: Consider fairness, doesn;t matter if D, could easil0 have /oined2 1oal J minimi5e litigation2 Aniversit0> patent infring" Nonmutual %""ensi!e *ollateral Estoppel Case +: P+ v2 D+ D loses on issue T" Case ,: P, v2 D+ P, seeks to use issue preclusion to esta-lish issue T in action against D2" #arklane 0est: Consider +" )hether part0 using 'P could easil0 have /oined, ," Fairness to D: a" incentive to vigorousl0 litigate, -" procedural op2s differ, c" inconsistent /udgments on -ooks when Case , litigatedD ,*ecurities actions, test completel0 passed" tate o" the La8 !utualit0 /urisdictions don;t allow either *ome states allow defensive, -ar offense Federal approach and some states: allow -oth Burden J on part0 seeking to use preclusion 1ov: no nonmutual 'P can run against the gov, -ut it can use it against Ds Favors one-shotters over 9Ps *lass /ctions #olicy: %fficienc0 . empowerment of Ps v2 fairness to a-sent class mem-ers 0ransu&stanti!e: *pecial C# rules in securities fraud, immigration, legal services2 *erti"ication. ()*# 4:,a takes: high for D, huge incentive to settle2

(inality: Certification never final2 #ppeal entirel0 discretionar02 )e2uirements. ,3- Identi"ia&ility, de"inin1 the class: ,4 c" +" B"2 Definition must -e precise, o-/ective, presentl0 ascertaina-le2 *houldn;t depend on su-/ective criteria or merits of the case or reFuire e&tensive factual inFuir0 to determine who is a class mem-er2 ,4- *lass )epresentati!e must &e a mem&er o" the class: !ust have standing2 !ootness of claim e&cused if post-cert or nature e&pire, such as pretrial detention w>o pro-a-le cause2 ,4 a" ,:- Numerosity: 6oinder of claims impractica-le2 ,3--ad, :N ok, middle7 ,+- *ommonality: Common Fuestions of fact or law reFuirement, -road interpretation, even one significant common Fuestion sometimes enough2 Critical Fuestion: )ill differences in factual -kg of each claim affect outcome of the legal issue7 8as ?egas phone surcharge Compare to 6oinder, rule ,N ,=- 0ypicality: 9epresentative;s claims are t0pical of the class when +" each class mem-er;s claim arises from the same course of events, and ," each class mem-er makes similar legal arguments to prove the D;s lia-ilit02 (alcon !e&ican-americans tr0 to prove discrim in hiring practice in C#" Pleadings must show a clear and specific link -tw indiv and class claims2 %vidence showing that indiv was passed over ->c of his ract doesn;t alone carr0 a presumption that there;s a s0stematic polic0 of discrimination at the compan02 ,;- (air and /de2uate )epresentation. a" DPC concerns . -" pragmatic concern over adeFuac0 of rep to avoid collateral attack2 6oals: +" Ancover CO's -tw named part0 and class represent, and ," ensure named P resps class interest w> sufficient vigor *ecurities-fraud cases: Private *ecurities 8itigation #ct, must -e one w> largest financial interest in relief sought2 0ypes o" *lass /ctions. 4:,& ,&-,3-. #rejudice class actions: mandator0 class action created -0 cert- no opt out, no notice reFuirement2 Decision to cert consider pre/ud2 To nonclass parties and whether this would impair their a-ilities to protect their interests2 , kinds: a" 'f didn;t cert, incompati-le standards of conduct for opposing part0 could result from multiple indiv suits, -" if didn;t cert, could impair>impede non-included parties; a-ilit0 to protect their interests2 ,&-,4- Injuncti!e and declaratory relie": !ostl0 civil rights, emplo0ment discrimination, consumer, or environmental cases2 1oal J change D -ehavior> polic0 prospectivel0, not to provide indiv comp2 =o opt out2 ,&-,:- Dama1es *lass actions- mass torts, etc where mem-ers claim to have -een in/ured in the same wa0 -0 the D2

Notice ,&-,3- and ,&-,4- no notice reFuirement though man0 do- discretionar0 ,&-,:-9 notice is mandator0 tandard: ,4 c" ," B": =otice reFuirement is higher standard than !ullane reFuires: D-est notice that is practica-le under the circumstances, including individual notice to all mem-ers who can -e identified through reasona-le effort2 !ust have op2 to present o-/ections2 hutts *ontent: see c" ," B" *osts. -orne -0 part0 -ringing the class action2 'f class is successful, costs of notice can -e su-tracted from the class recover02 Eisen /ppeala&ility Discretionar0 ->c cert decision isn;t final F9CP ,4 f": Discretionar0 interlocutor0 appeal of certification order ettlementF Voluntary Dismissal ()*# 4:,e- )ule +" court approval ," notice and op to o-/ect to all class mem-ers, 4" for ,4 -" 4"s, second opportunit0 to opt out Onl0 applies when C# certi"ied Burden: those who propose settlement must show fair, reasona-le, adeFuate *ettlement kno8n "rom start: ,4 -" 4" managea-ilit0 reFuirement will -e less stringent /nchem" %pportunity to &e Heard *pecial 9ule: since interests of those not /oined in C# same as those who are, and where latter fairl0 rep the former in prosecution, DPC concerns are met Onl0 -ound if was adeFuate representation -0 parties present Hans&erry" 75 Di!ersity 5urisdiction Di!ersity o" parties. Onl0 look at citi5enship of class reps Ben9Hur" /I* re2uirements +4HI> C#s, as long as representative has sufficient claim, other mem-ers of class can tack on2 E??on 7o&il %) see */(/, ,C A*C +44, d" a" Basic rule !inimum Diversit0 *ingle D from a single P" and total of more than O3 mil in controvers0, C# allowed2 Anincorp;d associations: treat like corp for citi5enship2 +44, d" +N"

)e2uirements: +" Predominance: common Fuestions predominate over Fuestions affecting onl0 individual mem-ers, #=D ," *uperiorit0: The C# is superior to other availa-le methods for fairl0 and efficientl0 ad/udicating the controvers02 E ee 4:,&-,:-,/9D- "or discretionary "actors, including likel0 difficult0 of managing a class action2 *astano 6udges might peek ahead at the merits in deciding to certif0

 9emem-er, this is for federal courts onl0, adds to what 0ou can get through +4HI E?ceptions. 3::4,d +" Primar0 Ds J states, st officials, or other gov entities +44, d" 3" #" ," Class contains less than +NN mem-ers d" 3" B" 4" Onl0 contains claims involving a covered securit0 or corporate governance issues2 d" M" :" 1reater than ,>4 of the mem-ers are citi5ens of the state in which the action was filed and at least one D from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a signif -asis for claims asserted -0 the proposed P class is also a citi5en of that state2 +44, d" 4" 5ud1eAs discretion in this case. 3::4,d-,: #-F" #ersonal 5urisdiction and *hoice o" La8 #ersonal 5urisdiction For Ps, we;re not so concerned a-out minimum contacts- for DPC, /ust reFuire notice . opportunit0 to -e heard, ->c the0 -ear less of a -urden than Ds and have a-ilit0 to opt out2 hutts *hoice o" La8 Due Process Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause limits on Choice of 8aw: These restrictions reFuired Uthat for a *tateVs su-stantive law to -e selected in a constitutionall0 permissi-le manner, that tate must ha!e a si1ni"icant contact or si1ni"icant a11re1ation o" contacts, creatin1 state interests, such that choice o" its la8 is neither ar&itrary nor "undamentally un"airD; Allstate 'f the law of the state court hearing the case does not conflict with the law that would -e applied, 0ou don;t need to worr0 a-out it2 Considerations: fairness in the e&pectations of the parties, idea of overreaching state -oundaries Venue. Onl0 look at residence of class rep, ignore residence of a-sent class mem-ers for venue purposes2 #reclusion in *lass /ctions. # /udgment in a properl0 entertained class action is -inding on class mem-ers in an0 su-seFuent litigation2 Basic principles of res /udicata merger and -ar or claim preclusion" and collateral estoppel issue preclusion" appl02 # /udgment in favor of the plaintiff class e&tinguishes their claim, which merges into the /udgment granting relief2 # /udgment in favor of the defendant e&tinguishes the claim, -arring a su-seFuent action on that claim2 # /udgment in favor of either side is conclusive in a su-seFuent action -etween them on an0 issue actuall0 litigated and determined, if its determination was essential to that /udgment2E Cooper

EWhat a&out parties that opted out9 are they precluded? DidnAt ha!e op to liti1ate, so I donAt think canAt &e9 only those that liti1ated and lost can &e estopped a1ainstD