Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Civ Pro Outline
Civ Pro Outline
* General Note: You need to have Article III, Section 2 AND either 28 U.S.C §1331 or §1332
for a federal court to have SMJ.
REMOVAL
Things to Memorize:
U.S.C:
o §1441, §1446, §1447
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Personal Jurisdiction (PJ):
Imposes limits on the π’s capacity to sue the ∆ in the courts of the state that is most
convenient or favorable to the π.
PJ hinges on two fundamental questions:
o Whether the state has jurisdiction over the ∆ under its long-arm statute, and
o Whether the exercising of jurisdiction is a violation of due process under the
Constitution (must meet traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice).
PJ Walkthrough:
Does the state long-arm statute allow for this claim?
o Federal Courts must check the State long-arm statute under Rule 4(k)(1)(A).
o * For the Exam: Usually dismiss this pretty quickly… it will always satisfy state
long-arm statute, but still be sure to mention the rule.
Is Due process satisfied? (traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)
o Pennoyer v. Neff
Due process has been satisfied if the ∆ voluntarily appears in court or
Personal service has been rendered in the forum state.
o Prior Consent
Forum Selection Clause Clause that states what court the ∆ can be
hailed into, thus giving it prior consent.
Ex: Carnival Cruises case.
o ^ * Note: Due process is satisfied by any of these three options (Pennoyer or
Prior Consent).
Is due process satisfied through purposeful availment?
o Did the ∆ have minimum contacts in the state?
o Did the ∆ avail itself through the Stream of Commerce theory?
O’Connor/Kennedy View: Better for ∆s
Conservative There’s more than just Stream of Commerce
SoC+ Don’t call it this.
o Must be an action directed towards the forum state.
o If you are designing the product specifically for a state,
then that, in it of itself, is purposeful availment.
o Look for intent to sell product in that forum state…
Other/liberal-er views would say that you don’t need to
“target” the forum state, so long as you just put the product
into the SoC.
Brennan View: Better for πs
Brennan’s view is more liberal, mirrors the more class SoC view.
Basically, if the ∆ was aware or should be aware that its
good/product could enter the stream, then it can be brought into
court in the forum state.
Stevens/Brayer/Alito View:
Liberal, middle leading justices/view.
There must be a continuous flow and a certain volume of the
good/product.
o Can’t just be one or two products
Mirror Eddy Metaphor Idea that a stream is a big body of water,
versus an eddy, which is just a small pool.
^ If this is how far it can go, then you should look at how long
it was being sold for and the amount… Then also consider how
extreme this SoC analysis can be.
o Should smack you in the face.
o Calder Test: Did ∆ expressly aim at the forum state? (Separate from SoC, really
looking to the effects test of Calder v. Jones) NEED AN INTENTIONAL
TORT TO USE THIS.
Are the effects of the ∆’s conduct felt in the forum state?
Actions by the ∆ must be expressly aimed/toward π in the forum state for
it to be able to be called into court in the forum state. NOT ON THE
EXAM
Does the court have general or specific jurisdiction? (*Exam Note: Pucillo likes this
attacked at the end of the analysis)
o General Jurisdiction: Allows all issues to be brought up
Is the ∆ at home? Is it domiciled there?
Is ∆ a corporation, does it have substantial contacts?
Is ∆’s actions so continuous and systematic that ∆ is essentially at
home in the forum state.
Perkins showed that it was subject to general jurisdiction since its
nerve center was in the forum state.
o Specific Jurisdiction: Isolated incidence
Are ∆’s contacts not substantial, but highly related to the claim at issue?
Apply the Asahi “Fairness Factors”: Weigh them
o What is the burden on the ∆ to litigate in forum state?
Keep in mind geographic location and factors in foreign (out of country)
judicial system is different than U.S. law = severe burden.
o What are the π injuries (what’s π’s interest in litigating in forum state)?
Normally, π’s interest in litigating in forum state is to get
convenient/effective relief.
o What is the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute?
Has its interest already been met through prior suits?
Is this a matter that they feel the need to rule on?
Was the π from the forum state already compensated, thus negating the
need to rule on case?
If it has already been compensated, forum state has no interest
since its member has already been compensated.
Things to Memorize:
Cases:
o Pennoyer v.Neff Due Process/Personal Service
o Int’l Shoe v. Washington Evolution of Pennoyer
o Asahi “Fairness Factors”
o Calder v. Jones ‘Calder Test,’ Express Aiming at the Forum State
VENUE
* Exam Note: Bunch of multiple-choice questions on Venue.
Venue Walkthrough:
These steps are only necessary if the problem does
Step 1: Do SMJ not ask you to disregard them. Most problems
Step 2: Do PJ won’t make you do both jurisdiction and venue.
Step 3: Is the π a Corporation or
Individual?
o If π is a Corporation, it is residing where its principal place of business is
§1391(c)(2).
o An individual is a resident wherever it is domiciled §1391(c)(1).
Step 4: Are ∆s Corporations or Foreign?
o If Foreign, ∆s can be sued in any district §1391(c)(3).
o If a Corporation, venue is proper anywhere the ∆ Corporation is subject to
personal jurisdiction §1391(c)(2).
Step 5: Determine how §1391(b) applies.
o (b)(1) – Do ∆s reside in the same state? If so, venue is proper in the district where
a ∆ resides. For an individual ∆, venue is proper where that ∆ resides.
^ Can’t use this if you have ∆s that reside in different states.
o (b)(2) – Where has a substantial part of the events underlying the dispute
occurred? Venue is proper there.
^ Venue can be proper in many venues depending on the facts.
Ex: Bates
o (b)(3) – What if neither apply? Suit can be brought anywhere the ∆ or any of the
∆s, if multiple, are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
v. v. 3P
∆ filing action against the 3P∆ becomes a 3Pπ since it is filing
its own action against a new ∆. *Note: Whether for indemnity
or contribution, there must be a casual connection. If π v. ∆
falls apart, then ∆(3Pπ v. 3P∆ falls apart as well.
v.
(g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty – A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by
one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is
the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any
property that is the subject matter of the original action.
o Crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the
crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the
crossclaimant.
Possible/
Conceivable Plausible Probable
> 50%
Things to Memorize:
Cases:
o Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly Short/Plain Statement
o Ashcroft v. Iqbal Short/Plain Statement Must Have Specifics Giving Reason
To Go To Discovery
Rule 50 – Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial
Conditional Ruling:
(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial.
o If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under
Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject
to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion.
o The movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may
include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on
the renewed motion, the court may:
(1) Allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;
(2) Order a new trial; or
(3) Direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.
In Sum:
Summary Judgment Can be brought at any time during the trial. A party can motion
for Summary Judgment after it has made its claim stating that the other side does not
have enough evidence to prove its claims wrong.
Judgment As A Matter of Law After a judgment has been passed, the losing party can
motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the ruling is incorrect and should be
found in its favor on a basis of law, even though the fact finder has found for the winning
party.
RES JUDICATA
Res Judicata:
^ This can also be called “preclusion” Matter has been adjudicated.
Two forms of Res Judicata:
o Claim Preclusion
Could be called “claim splitting,” or Res Judicata.
Claimant is barred by res judicata from asserting the same cause of action
in a later lawsuit.
Once a claimant has received an award, it can no longer look for rewards
on that same claim.
o ^ Application of Claim Preclusions:
Mutuality (same parties)
Only party to the judgment who can assert claim preclusion against
each other for the judgment.
Judgment on the merits
Court actually considered the merits of the claim.
Same “claim” or “cause of action”
Different Elements…
o But conception of claim means does it have substantially
similar underlying facts.
o Would you need to apply substantially similar
underlying fact? If yes, should have brought the claims
together.
^ Ex: Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade
o Issue Preclusion
Could be called “collateral estoppel.”
Judgment binds the π or ∆ (or privies) in subsequent actions on different
causes of action between them (or their privies) as to issues actually
litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action.
This conclusive effect of the first judgment is called collateral estoppel.
Focuses on something relatively narrow an issue that was litigated and
determined in the first case, and that is relevant in a second case. In this
scenario, the issue is deemed established in the second case without need
to proffer evidence on it.
o ^ Application of Issue Preclusion:
Same issue?
Issue that was ACTUALLY LITIGATED and decided.
“Actually litigated” - Parties disputed it in relation to how issue
should be resolved.
Necessary to the judgment.
Not all courts use this…
Party against whom issue preclusion is sought had an opportunity to
litigate (thus there has already been a ruling). KEY PART.
Non-Party Preclusion:
Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel Still need to cover this.
Someone who is not party ro beginning litigation is now trying to use a finding in earlier
litigation against someone who was already a party.
ERIE DOCTRINE