ATTACK OUTLINE: CIVPRO 1L
PJ: FIND FOR EACH PARTY
1. Consent: waiver, estoppel, contract
(forum selection clause)
2. Presence: in personam, tag
jurisdiction, continuous and systematic
contacts
3. Domicile: intent to remain, HQ, Incorp.
General jurisdiction
4. Minimum contracts: BK 2-step test
(foreseeability of suit + does it violate
due process)
General jurisdiction if cont. &
systematic contacts (defacto home)
VENUE/TRANSFER: FIND ALL PROPER
VENUES
• 1391a: Must be proper for each cause
of action through original jurisdiction,
statute or T/O
• 1391b: where Δ resides, where T/O took
place (substantial), or where there is PJ
for D (at time action is commenced)
• 1391c: resides = domiciled,
HQ(principal business), def. not
residing in US = venue ok anywhere
• Multiple districts: def corp resides in
any district where contacts subject to
PJ
• 12b3: dismiss claim proper venue
• 1404a: forum non conveniens and
applicable law
• 1406: improper forum = dismisss or
transfer
SMJ: FIND FOR EACH CLAIM
1. 1331 Federal question: private right
of action through statute? Federal issue
embedded in state law? (well-pleaded
complaint + grable test)
2. 1332 Diversity Jurisdiction: complete
diversity of parties? AIC > $75k?
3. Supplemental J: Need anchor claim in
diversity or fed. q. + relatedness
1367(a): relatedness in anchor claim;
Gibbs Test/CNOF
1367(b) ONLY DIVERSITY anchor?
Courts do not have supplemental
jurisdiction π’s claims against rule 14,
19, 20 Δs (need own SMJ); Δ can add
nondiverse parties (TP)
EXCEPTION: Exxon Rule (1 π with
sufficient AIC, other π can join with
deficient AIC so long as 1 Δ
1367(c): Court’s discretion to decline
supp. claim (novel/complex state issue,
fed. anchor dismissed, supp. claim
predominates)
REMOVAL:
1. 1441: any case brought where fed
court has original jrusidcition can be
removed by defendant (30 day limit to
remove after amend)
2. 1441b2: no removable by def if its filed
where they reside
3. 1446a: notice of removal
4. 1446b: removal limit is 30 days after
complaint
5. 1447: a plaintiff can remand action
back to state court for SMJ or
procedural (30 day limit on
procedural)
JOINDER: FIND JOINDER FOR EACH CLAIM
AND PARTY
1. FRCP 18(a): once a π establishes PJ and
SMJ, they can file unrelated claims
against that same Δ
2. FRCP 13(a): Compulsory
Counterclaims must be same T/O as
opposing party’s claim (may be
precluded from later suits if not
claimed)
3. FRCP 13(b): Permissive counter
claim unrelated; cannot be
supplemental (need own SMJ); isn’t
precluded from later litigation
4. FRCP 13(g): cross claims need to arise
out of same T/O of the SMJ of
ORIGINAL complaint
Lasa: same T/O is liberally interpreted
5. RULE 14: Impleader: Δ can serve
summons to nonparty for indemnity or
contribution
6. RULE 19: Required parties to suit
7. RULE 20: Permissive Joinder: parties
to be joined so long as the claims
against them or claims they raise arise
out of same T/O
Hohlbein: T/O interpreted liberally
same basic ingredient
APPELLATE REVIEW
1. 1292: Interloctutory Appeals: appeals
on interlocutory orders: injunctions,
grants, denial
2. 1292(b): Discretionary Appeal: judge
admits there’s substantial ground for
different opinion on question of law
3. FINAL JUDGMENT: disposing of all
issues including liability and remedies
4. RULE 54: FINAL JUDGMENT: final
judgment on a subset of issues that can
be appealed
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. When motioned, viewing the disputed
facts in light most favorable to the
nonmovant and drawing all reasonable
inferences forable to nonmovant, could
a jury find for non-movant
IF reasonable minds could find or
differ: deny SJ
IF reasonable minds could not find or
differ: grant SJ
2. BURDEN OF PROOF falls on plaintiff
but shifts
3. Evidentiary standard
JMOL
1. RULE 50a-b Must be raised twice
(JMOL; renewed JMOL)
2. Judge decides there is not enough to
raise a genuine fact of dispute
3. Same standard as SJ (favorable light..)
but evaluates it on admitted evidence
4. FRCP 59: new trial based on
miscarriage: harmless error doctrine
PRECLUSION
1. RES JUDICATA- CLAIM PRECLUSION
• Valid final judgment on the merits
• Same adverse parties (or in privity)
• Same claim
• Wrong but valid judgments still have
res judiciata
2. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL – ISSUE
• Valid and final judgment
• Same issue (merit/procedure)
• Issue was litigated
• Issue was necessarily decided
• Party against whom issue preclusion is
asserted is same party or in privity
(doesn’t have to be exactly the same
person)
• Offensive collateral estoppel: 5
factors above + parklane fairness
factors