Checklist: Serving an Individual

1) PJ 1. Personal Service
Statutory 2. Substituted Service
Constitutional a) Dwelling/usual place of abode
2) Notice (service) : Rule4 b) Suitable Age/Discretion, resides there
3) SMJ - §1331, 1332, 1367, 1441/46/47?? 3. Serve ∆’s agent
4) Venue - §1391, 1404/06 Serving a Corporation
5) Erie Doctrine 1. Officer or managing or general agent
6) Pleadings – 8,11,12,15 Ct. can srve however/wherever state ct. can
Complaint, Response Waiver of Service
Amendments 1. Π can request ∆ waive service
7) Joinder: 13,14,18,19,20,22,24 2. ∆ must have good reason to not waive or else pays cost
8) Pre-Trial: 41,12,56 3. If waived = 60d to respond to complaint rather than 21d, 90d if
Voluntary/involuntary Dismissal, 12(b)(6), Summary Judgment outside US
Preclusion Doctrines Notice must be reasonably calculated to inform ∆ - newspaper=last
resort (Mullane)
ASSESS SMJ ON EVERY CLAIM FILED IN FED. CT.
Forum Selection: PJ + Notice + SMJ + Venue SMJ
Assess for every claim filed in fed ct.
Personal Jurisdiction Diversity Jurisdiction - §1332
General 1. Minimum Contacts
1. ∆ has continuous and systematic contracts with the forum (“ at a) Purposeful Availment
home”) (GY, Daimler) i. Reached out to forum in some way; invoked benefit/protection
Specific of laws
a) Served with process in forum b) Claim arose from contacts in foro
b) ∆’s agent is served with process in forum c) Need more than Stream of Commerce
c) ∆ is domiciled w/in state i. Seek to serve (i.e ads, designing products) (Asahi: SOC+)
d) Consent to PJ – express, implied, waived 2. Diversity of Citizenship
Statutory Test a) Individual: US citizen and where domiciled (physical presence
1. Is there a long-arm statute? in state + intent to remain
2. BULGE: if w/in 100m of ct. if joined under 14 or 19 b) Corp: dual citizenship – PPB (nerve center) + state of
3. Statute for PJ over tortious act? incorporation
a) Where mfr’d, v. where injured 3. Amount in Controversy >$75k
Constitutional Test a) Cannot aggregate if multiple parties unless joint claims
1. Tag “transient” jurisd. (Burnham) Fed. Question Jurisdiction - §1331
a) Traditional basis of presence (Pennoyer) is enough for PJ 1. Case arises under Federal Law
b) Traditional AND Int’l Shoe is necessary (O’Connor) 2. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule
Int’l Shoe Standard a) Is the Cause of Action st. or fd.?
1. Minimum Contacts i. If fed. =FQJ, st. go to (b)
a) Purposeful Availment b) State CoA inc. fed. Ingredient?
i. Reached out to forum in some way; invoked benefit/protection i. No, no FQJ, yes, yes FQJ
of laws c) Matter of fed. Concern?
b) Claim arose from contacts in foro i. Actually dispute/substantial?
c) Need more than Stream of Commerce ii. Affect balance b/t fed & st.?
i. Seek to serve (i.e ads, designing products) (Asahi: SOC+) Supplemental Jurisdiction - §1367
d) # of contacts v. quality of contacts 1. Does §1367(a) grant SJ?
i.Cannot be based only on purchases and sales; need physical a) YES if claim arises from same case/controversy; or, “fed
presence hook”
2. Fair Play and Substantial Justice b) Unless (b)
a) Forseeable: reasonably anticipate to be haled into ct. 2. §1367(b) takes away SJ = NO SJ (only in diversity cases)
b) Burden on ∆ to show inconvenience a) Π claim against party joined by R:14, 19, 24 (Allapattah – 20,
c) ∆ burden, state interest, legal sys. interest, shared substantive 23
policies b) Claims by R:19 compulsory πs
Electronic (Website) c) Claims by R:24 intervener πs
1. Active, conducts business = PJ Removal §1441, 1446, 1447
2. Passively in market, only info ≠PJ 1. All ∆s must agree
In-Rem / QIR 1&2 2. ∆ cannot remove if it’s a diversity claim in state of citizenship
Attach as PJ basis – must do at beginning (need SMJ)
QIR2: DNE, attach must relate to property 3. ∆ 30 days to remove, runs when served
Notice – RULE 4 4. Lawsuit is removed to embracing Fed. Ct.
Served by person non-party at least 18
Must be served wi/in 90d w/ process: summons + complaint
 VENUE Amended Pleadings – Rule 15
Venue in Div/non-Div cases - §1391 1. Π can amend once before ∆ response
1. Where any ∆ lives if all ∆ in same state 2. ∆ can amend once w/in 21d of answer
2. Where substantial part of event occurred 3. If no right to amend, ct. may freely give
3. FALLBACK: where any ∆ is subj. to PJ (div); or where any ∆ can 4. Relation back: amend after SOL run, “Same T/O” test, proper ∆
be found (non) should have known (Krupski v. Costa Crociere)
4. “residency”
a) Individual: domicile Joinder
b) Corporation: wherever subj. to PJ Assess SMJ for every claim filed in fed ct!
Transfer – where there is PJ over ∆ Proper Parties
§1404 – initial venue is proper Permissive – Rule 20(a) – IPJ/SMJ/V?
1. Take transferor (ct. #1) ct.’s laws, choice of law travels w/ proper 1. Parties joined as πs/∆s if
(Van Dusen) 2. Assert right to relief that arises from same T/O or series of T/O
2. Discretionary: convenience of parties, witnesses, and interest of 3. At least one common Q of law/fact
justice a) NOTE: misjoinder ≠ dismissal – ct. should sever R21
§1406 – venue is improper / no PJ Compulsory/Necessary – Rule 19
1. Take transferee (ct. 32 ct.’s laws Necessary/indispensable required party?
2. Only transfer where PJ/app. Venue 1. No complete relief w/o absentees
3. Ct. can dismiss/transfer to proper 2. Absentee interest would be impaired
Forum no conveniens 3. Absentee interest would be subj. to multiple/inconsistent
1. Properly filed but the ct. dismiss b/c more appropriate venue obligations
(convenience) a) NOTE: joint tortfeasors not necessary
a) State to other state, US to foreign Joinder feasible?
Erie Doctrine 1. IPJ ok? Retain SMJ? (check DivJ)
Fed. Ct. should apply st. substantive law a) YES: party must be joined
1. See flow chart 2. NO: does court dismiss/proceed?
a) Prejudicial? Adequate judgment? Most im’t: will π have
PLEADINGS remedy?
Complaint – Rule 8 3. If party determined indispensable and can’t be joined, then court
1. Grounds for SMJ dismiss (rare)
2. Short/Plain statement of the claim 3p Practice
a) Twiqbal: π must plead facts (allege) supporting a Impleader – Rule 14 – SJ or SMJ
plausible claim; 1. 3P∆ may be liable for all/part orig. π’s claim against orig. ∆, file
b) Factual allegations as true; fraud or mistake allegations complaint
needs more facts 2. Timing: w/in 14d, or need ct.’s permission
c) Judge uses judicial xp, common sense 3. SJ governs for 3P∆ to 3pπ (orig ∆)
3. Demand for relief sought 4. Π against 3P∆, NO SJ (R14 not ok!), needs SMJ (“same T/O” as
Response – Rule 12 orig. claim)
Within 21d, unless waived = 60d; 90d (R4) Intervention – Rule 24
Methods of Response 1. Party assert or defend claim (check SMJ)
1. Motion to Dismiss (Rule 12(b) 2. Motion must be timely = not disruptive
a) Defenses 3. Right: absentee legal interest impaired if not joined; adequate
b) 12(b)(1): Lack of SMJ – never waived rep?
c) (b)(2) Lack of PJ 4. Permissive: absentee claim/defense has at least 1 common Q of
d) (b)(3) Improper Venue law/fact
e) (b)(4) insufficient process – prob w/ doc
f) (b)(5) Insufficient service of process – not properly Π Plaintiff Claim Joinder
served Permissive Claim Joinder – Rule 18
g) (b)(6) failure to state a claim Π can join all the claims (SMJ)
h) (b)(7) Failure to join party under Rule 19
i. Note 2-5 must be in first response or waived; 1,6-7 ∆ Defendant Claim Joinder
anytime Counter-Claim – Rule 13(a),(b) – SJ?
2. Answer 1. Compulsory – 13(a)
a) Must respond to claims a) Against opposing party, no new party
i. Admit, deny (explicitly stated) b) Sam T/O as π’s claim
ii. Lack of knowledge = denial c) Must assert or waive
iii. Failure to deny = admission 2. Permissive – 13(b) – IPJ/SMJ/SJ?
b) Affirmative Defenses (Rule 8): raise new matter or a) State any claim against opposing party
inject new fact (SOL, RJ/CE) b) R18 only works for party once they successfully add
i. Must plead or waived claim via R13(a)/(b)
SLIME – Rule 11: sanctions; signed pleadings (attorney screws up: Cross-Claim – Rule 13(G) - permissive
stupidity, laziness, ignorance, malice, evasion) 1. Against co-party (same side of “v.”
 2. Same T/O as underlying dispute. 4. Essential to judgment: beware alt. holdings
5. Party to be bound: was in Suite #1
Class Action – Rule 23 6. Mutual v. Nonmutual?
Pre-Reqs for certification: Mutuality (Minority): party asserting CE must have been in Sit #1
1. Numerosity Defensive: new ∆ v. old π(S1: π sues ∆1, π loses. S2: π sues ∆2,
2. Commonality ∆2 pleads CE as shield/bar); OK if π had full chance to lit.
3. Typicality Offensive: new π v. old ∆ (S1: π1 sues ∆, ∆ loses. S2: π2 sues ∆,
4. Adequacy π2 invokes CE as sword)
Types (need at least one) 1. Could new π have joined S1?
1. Prejudice: mandatory, NO notice, NO opt-out; incompatible 2. Unfair to ∆?
standards for ∆, limited funds (small pool of $) a) Stakes, inconsistent determinations of issues,
2. Injunction; mandatory, NO notice, NO opt-out; decl. relief procedural constraints
benefits all π
3. Damages: notice, opt-out; common Q predominate individual
questions; class is superior method to resolve suit
a) Notice: class rep must give notice to all members
reasonably ID-able
b) SMJ – look @ rep for AIC, citizenship

Pre-Trial Adjudication
Voluntary Dismissal – Rule 41(A)
1. Dismissal Signed by all parties
2. Ct. order (discretionary)
3. Π dismiss w/o prejudice once by notice of dismissal before ∆
respond (answer, MSJ)
Involuntary Dismissal – Rule 14(B)
w/ prejudice if ct. decides; “on the merits” unless lack IPJ/SMJ,
improve V, failed to join necessary party (R19) -> happens if π fails to
move forward/prosecute, ∆ can MTD
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal
Ct. does not look at evidence, only face
Claim where ct. might grant relief?
Legally sufficient claim?
Summary Judgment – Rule 56
1. Ct. looks at evidence
2. Moving party must show:
a) No dispute of material issue of facts
b) And entitled to JMOL
3. Evidence provided by parties
a) Evidence acquired under oath
b) Not including pleadings
4. Timing: any time except 30d after close of discovery

Preclusion Doctrines
(RJ) Claim Preclusion
One case to vindicate claim
1. Valid and final judgment?
a) Majority: final even if appeal pending or time has not
expired
b) Minority: appeal has passed
2. “on the merits?”
a) Can refile if dismissed on procedural (lack IPJ/SMJ,
improver V, failed to join necessary party (R19))
3. Same claim (Transactional Test)
a) Minority: primary rights = diff. claim per right invidaed,
“2-Disease” Rule
4. Same parties: same claimant v. same ∆/privity, same
configuration
(CE) Issue Preclusion (often loser as shield)
1. Valid & Final Judgment?
2. Identical Issue: exactly the same issue
3. Actually litigated/decided