Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A. Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction If Either B or C Is Met. Start With Constitutional Basis For B. Diversity Jurisdiction (1332)
A. Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction If Either B or C Is Met. Start With Constitutional Basis For B. Diversity Jurisdiction (1332)
D. Removal
i. IF-THEN-IF
1. IF:
a. A civil action is brought in a state court, AND
b. The claim could’ve been brought in federal court because the
federal court had original jurisdiction of the claim
2. THEN:
a. Removal by defendants is proper
3. IF:
a. A civil action is brought in a state court, AND
b. #2 above is met
c. The defendant is not a citizen of the state where the claim was
brought
i. ‘in-state [Forum]defendant rule’- not likely to be
treated unfairly by his own state; ex: Jane (NH) sues
Scott (TX) in TX state court cant be removed.
ii. Based on initial pleading only (Avitts)
iii. Any federal question can be established only in initial complaint, not thereafter.
(Great Northern v. Alexander)
iv. Notes:
1. Only defendant can file for removal (master of the complaint)
2. Federal courts decide if removal is improper, not state courts.
3. Removing to federal court does not automatically waive right to object
to personal jdx
4. Court is obligated to determine if the court lacks SMJ
Defined as court’s power over a person (in personam) or property (in rem). Can be specific
(based on contacts in forum) or general (domiciliary basis). Can be consented to.
Always start analysis with consent, waiver, and tagged basis for jurisdiction
Consent and waiver- 4k1a
A. Evolution:
i. Pennoyer: Established that courts have the authority to exert physical power
over a defendant within the territory of the state where the court sat.
1. Burnham: upheld that personal presence in the forum will result in
personal jurisdiction
2. The rest of it was overturned; only established due process based on
the constitution and allowed the full extent of it.
3. Most states have adopted a long arm statute limiting this power
ii. International shoe: Overturned most of Pennoyer.
1. ‘Minimum contacts so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice’
a. Basically, if a defendant has such sufficient contacts in a forum
that result in them benefitting from the laws and protections in
said forum, they are liable for suit there
B. Specific jurisdiction elements:
Defendant must have contacts in the forum. Reasonableness applied after establishing
that, as in Asahi, claim arises from contacts.
ii. Corporations
1. (c)
a. An entity with the capacity to sue and be sued shall be deemed
to reside, if a defendant, in any jurisdiction with respect to the
civil action in question.
2. (d)
a. In a state with more than one federal district, a defendant
corporation is that is subject to personal jurisdiction in one of
those districts, is considered to reside in any district in that state
if its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to PJ if that
district were its own state.
C. Transferring 1404
i. Proper Venue: The defendant asks to transfer the court considers all the
following, none of which is determinative necessarily:
1. Plaintiff’s choice of forum
2. Def choice of forum
3. Whether the claim arose else where
4. Convenience of parties
5. Convenience of witnesses
6. Ease of access to sources of proof
7. Interest of jusitice:
a. Whether the transferee court is familiar with the governing law
b. Congestion
c. Local interest
ii. Proper Venue: Defendant moves to dismiss
1. 1406
a. Courts will dismiss or transfer to proper venue
i. Lawyers wants dismissal, judges want transference
V. Pleadings
Considered the ‘gate keeper’ of filing claims. The goal is to make it through this gate to get to
discovery, or conversely to make sure unwarranted claims don’t make it through.
A. Rule 7
i. (a) Allowed pleadings
1. Complaint
a. First pleading
2. Answer to a complaint
a. Defendant’s first pleading
3. Answer to DESIGNATED counterclaim
4. Answer to crossclaim
5. Third party complaint
6. Answer to 3rd party complaint
7. A reply to an answer
a. Usually by order
ii. (b) covers motions and other papers; A court order must be requested by
motion. A motion must:
1. Be in writing unless made during hearing or trial
2. State with particularity the grounds
a. Particularity means be specific
3. State the relief sought
B. Rule 8
i. (a) General rules of pleading (this guards the gate)
1. Elements
a. Short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction
i. Specifically, SMJ
ii. Include factual allegations that support jurisdiction
b. Short and plain statement of claim
i. Must meet these two things:
1. Legally sufficient
a. Facts alleged, if true, must constitute a
legally recognized cause of action
b. This means that the facts should
support the elements of a recognized
tort-type claim
2. Factually Sufficient
a. The allegations put the defendant on
notice of what the claim is and plausibly
support the conclusion that the
defendant engaged in the alleged
conduct
b. Twombly-Igbal Test
Igbal:
1. Ignore allegations that are merely recitations of the elements of the cause of action, or that
simply restate the cause of action itself
2. Consider the remaining allegations and determine
a. whether the defendant was put on notice of the cause of action
b. whether the allegations are plausible, not merely conceivable or possible
i. possible v plausible- [Igbal set the line, hotly contested] facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged
a.
E. Responding to interrogatories
i. Cant be boilerplate
ii. Options
1. Privileged information requested
2. Not relevant to case
3. Not proportional
4. Disclosure of work product material
F. Timing example in NOTES
G. Flow chart
i. Filing->Service->26f conference->26a1 required disclosures and 26f discovery
plan due->16b scheduling conference and order
ii. 3 delay buttons
1. P agrees
2. Court orders
3. Raising objection within discovery plan
H. Spoliation
i. Since people lie and shit, discovery must be controlled. Mostly accomplished by
26g
ii. Elements
1. Obligation to preserve at time ir was destroyed
2. Culpable state of mind when destroying
3. Relevant
a. Destroyed evidence relevant to claim
b. In bad faith
c. Negligence in destruction would require further proof
XII. Choice of Law
A. History
i. 1789 judiciary act (Rules of Decision Act) Essentially upheld American values
that state law should applied in cases brought in the federal court. 28 usc 1652
codified this act into civil procedure
ii. [Swift v Tyson]
1. 1842
a. SCOTUS said federal courts follow state statutory law but not
bound by state common law decisions
iii. [Black & white v Brown & Yellow]
1. Upheld swift v Tyson
a. Expanded it to include ability to rule exactly opposite of state
courts
2. This resulted in federal body of common law
B. Enter the Eerie Doctrine ONLY APPLIES TO DIVERSITY CASES
i. A federal court hearing a state law claim, whether in diversity or federal
question cases, must apply the law of the relevant state to the state law claim,
not make general common law.
ii. Early post-erie decisions forced federal judges to apply prior state precedent, no
matter how the court may decide the case today
iii. Now, however, the courts are to decide the case by predicting how the stat
supreme court may rule today. (‘Court predictive approach)
C. Outcome determinative test (rests its laurels on procedure)
i. [York]
1. Apply state law to procedural issues like SOL
2. Upheld that if disallowing a state procedural rule would change the
outcome then apply the state law
3. ‘Results in federal court should be substantially the same, regarding
legal rules, as if the case were in state court’
4. Courts should look prospectively not retrospectively
a. Prospectively-would a lawyer act differently with knowledge of
conflict we no know
b. Retrospectively- did the rule actually make a difference? Then
yes it is outcome determinative (usually found on appeal)
ii. [Byrd]
1. Basically, this case gives a caveat to [York]. Now, if a federal procedure
is at odds with a state procedure, and the federal procedure is weightier
(i.e. public policy would be negatively impacted by not following this
federal procedure) go with the federal procedure.
2. Allows for balancing the outcome determinative test
3. Questions at issue must be of ‘mode and form’
iii. Here comes [Hanna]
1. Fractured the analysis between state and federal practice into two parts
a. Part 1: Conflict between state law and federal judicial practices
i. Federal judicial practices are those practices not
codified by statute or in the Rules (‘relatively unguided’)
ii. Goal is to further the Erie doctrine, and applying
uniformity of application of state law.
iii. Doesn’t change much from Byrd; essentially reaffirms
adding specificity for federal judicial practices which are
not prescribed by the FROCP
iv. Consider if applying the rule will result in inequitable
administration of the laws (as applied to diversity vs
non-diverse claimants from the same state) or if it
would lead to forum shopping
v. Applied prospectively
1. Ask ‘Would the litigant have significantly more
opportunity in federal court vice state court
vi. Part 1 is dicta
b. Part 2:
i. Complex analysis
ii. Underlying Basis
1. REA was authorized by Congress so the issue for
challenging a REA rule is whether Congress had
the power to enact the rule. FROCP come from
power delegated to Supreme Court for REA. If
Congress had the power to write the rule and
the power to delegate that to the Court then
the rule is valid and will trump state procedure.
2. Leans on the Necessary and Proper clause for
augmentation of reasoning
iii. Applies only when state law conflicts with FROCP
iv. Two part test tied into 2072
1. Did the Court have the power to make the rule?
2. Is the rule broadly procedural, and does is alter
any substantive rights?
a. Should be a yes then no answer here
v. THIS PART OF HANNA IS NOT OUTCOME
DETERMINATIVE
2. 2072
a. SCOTUS has power to prescribe general rules of practice and
procedure and rules of evidence in federal courts
b. Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive
rights
c. Such rules can define when a ruling is final with no chance of
appeal
XIII. Summary judgement
A. Rule 56
i. Must show no genuine dispute to any material fact
1. Genuine dispute=needs to be decided by a fact finder; a reasonable fact
finder could find wither way
2. Material fact= a fact that actually matters to the case
ii. Availble up to 30 days following close of discovery
iii. Procedure-Party stating fact validity must:
1. Can only cite to materials in the record (must be admissible per rules of
evidence)
2. Must show that the cited materials prove your assertion (absence of
proof doctrine)
3. Objections to admissibility of evidence is allowed
4. Court only HAS to considered cited materials
5. Rules of the affidavit are covered here
iv. Options if movant lacks evidence
v. Options for missing facts
vi. Allows judge flexibility to grant without regard to motion (sua sponte)
vii. Failure to grant stuff
viii. Bad faith clause
B. Steps for analyzing
i. Identify substantive law
ii. Identify material facts
iii. Analyze the record for material facts presented by moving party for a genuine
dispute and decide if moving party warrants summary judgement
iv. Perform previous step from perspective of non moving party, not withstanding
analysis for moving party
v. Decide whether or not to granny Sum Judge
C. Allegation in complaint alone are insufficient [Salven]