Civ Pro Final Exam

State courts have general jurisdiction (all types of cases); federal courts have limited jurisdiction (only cases Congress permits by statute)

Original jurisdiction means the court is the first to hear a case; appellate jurisdiction means the court hears the case on appeal.

Exclusive jurisdiction means the case can only be heard in one system (State OR Federal); concurrent jurisdiction means the case can be heard in either system.

Parties from different states.

A legal document explaining the legal wrongs the plaintiff suffered or alleges to have suffered.

An allegation made within a complaint.

A legal document with the defendant's response to a complaint that does not entitle them to a remedy.

A claim included in a defendant’s answer that acts as a rebuttal against the plaintiff.

The Federal Constitution, Federal Treaties, and Federal Statutes (including their interpretations).

Money or an injunction.

A court declaration of rights or liabilities without awarding money or an injunction.

At least one party on one side must have citizenship in a different U.S. state from at least one party on the opposite side.

The claim must satisfy 1331, 1332, or 1367 SMJ.

There is SMJ over a claim if it arises under federal law; federal defenses alone are insufficient.

State courts can hear all types of cases as the default system.

Federal courts can only hear cases Congress permits by statute.

When it is the first court to hear the case (trial court).

When it hears a case on appeal after a judgment by another court.

When a case can only be heard in one system, typically in federal court.

When a case can be heard in either state or federal court, but the federal court must hear it if the plaintiff chooses federal jurisdiction.

Any pleading with a claim (claims, counterclaims...but NOT defenses)

(1) Identify the claim and its elements; (2) Determine the alleged facts; (3) Find the Federal issue alleged; (4) See if the Federal issue matches an element of the claim.

The Federal Law must be central to the claim, not the anticipated Federal defense.

When it satisfies both WPC and centrality requirements.

Yes, unless the case is exclusive to Federal Courts.

A DJ claim has 1331 SMJ if the potential coercive relief claim involves a Federal question.

Any one party has citizenship in a different U.S. state from a party on the opposite side.

All plaintiffs must have different state citizenships from all defendants at the time of filing.

A corporation's citizenship is its state of incorporation and its principal place of business (PPB).

The Nerve Center Test.

Unincorporated entities take the citizenships of all their individual members.

They assume the citizenship of the person they represent.

They are not 1332 citizens and cannot sue or be sued under 1332 SMJ.

If a permanent resident is domiciled in the same state as a citizen on the opposite side, 1332 SMJ is barred.

The AIC is met if damages exceed $75,000, unless it is legally certain that the amount cannot be recovered.

A plaintiff's claims against one defendant can be aggregated to meet the AIC, even if unrelated. Aggregation is possible with more than one plaintiff when there is more than one plaintiff and only one defendant in a case.

If there is a Federal anchor claim with a common nucleus of fact (CNOF) and no 1367(b) or Exxon bar applies.

It prevents supplemental SMJ in diversity cases for claims by the original plaintiff against added defendants lacking diversity or AIC.

It applies in diversity cases when a co-plaintiff's claim fails complete diversity but meets AIC.

Injunctions, where the court orders the defendant to stop certain actions.

When there is at least one 1331 claim in the case.

Supplemental SMJ for co-plaintiff claims lacking complete diversity in diversity-only cases.

A defendant may remove a case if there is Federal SMJ over claims in the complaint (or if there is 1331 and State SMJ) and removal is procedurally proper (PP).

Only the defendant can remove a case to Federal Court, since the plaintiff chose the original court to file in and had the option to file in Federal Court.

The defendant must also give written notice to all adverse parties and file a copy of the notice in State Court.

A Notice of Removal must be filed within 30 days after receiving the document that makes the case removabl, such as the addition of a claim with Federal SMJ.

No, the Notice of Removal is not a motion; it is simply a notification to the court and adverse parties. No court action is needed.

The case may be remanded back to State Court, and the lawyer who signed the Notice of Removal may face sanctions.

Removal is procedurally proper if it is timely, the case is moved to the correct court, all defendants consented to removal, there is no In-State Defendant Bar, and there is no One-Year Bar (applicable only to 1332 claims).

Documents such as amended complaints, motions, orders, or other papers can make a case removable.

A case must be removed to the Federal Court geographically encompassing the State Court where the complaint was filed.

All properly joined and served defendants must consent to removal.

The In-State Defendant Bar applies if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state in cases solely based on 1332 claims.

The One-Year Bar prevents removal of cases based solely on 1332 SMJ if more than one year has passed since the case was filed unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.

Plaintiffs can prevent removal by filing only state law claims or by avoiding 1332 SMJ through non-diverse defendants or claims below the AIC threshold.

A Motion to Remand is procedurally proper if filed within 30 days of the Notice of Removal for procedural defects, or any time before final judgment for lack of SMJ.

If a removed case lacks Federal SMJ, it must be remanded back to State Court rather than dismissed.

Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to make a final judgment over the parties.

To provide the plaintiff a forum where they have PJ for all their claims, even if the defendant's contacts with the state are unrelated to the claim.

In their state of domicile or where they have such systematic and continuous contacts that they are deemed "at home."

It allows the defendant to be sued for anything where they have General PJ.

It exists in states where the corporation has systematic and continuous contacts, such as its state of incorporation or principal place of business (PPB).

Through express consent, such as a contract clause, or impliedly by failing to challenge PJ in a timely manner.

A clause allowing parties to select the forum for future litigation, operating as express consent to PJ in that court.

A clause allowing parties to select the substantive law applied to disputes but does not consent to PJ.

It applies when a defendant is served in the forum state, provided they were not fraudulently lured there or present solely for a legal proceeding.

It does not apply to corporations or to individuals attending a legal proceeding or present as a witness.

PJ that exists if the defendant falls under the forum state’s long-arm statute, and exercising PJ is constitutional.

The defendant must fit under the forum state’s long-arm statute and meet constitutional standards.

The International Shoe case.

It allows a forum state to exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.

Enumerated statutes list specific scenarios for PJ, while non-enumerated statutes go to the constitutional maximum.

A forum state can exercise PJ if the defendant has minimum contacts related to the claim and it does not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice (FPSJ).

Contacts where the defendant purposefully avails themselves of the forum state, relating to the claim, such that they can foresee being hauled into court there.

The defendant must foresee that their actions in the forum state could result in a legal claim there.

When the defendant intentionally targets the forum state, establishing contacts related to the claim.

A standard assessing if indirect contacts (e.g., via a distributor) establish minimum contacts through purposeful availment.

Whether exercising PJ over the defendant is fair, focusing on the burden on the defendant, the plaintiff's interest, and the forum's interest.

Distance, lack of legal representation, language barriers, or foreign legal systems may create an undue burden.

The plaintiff's residence, the location of evidence and witnesses, and where the injury occurred.

The state’s interest in protecting its citizens, applying its laws, or addressing injuries occurring within its boundaries.

Asahi, due to undue burden on the Japanese defendant, limited plaintiff interest, and lack of forum interest in resolving the case.

Systematic and continuous contacts in the forum state satisfied minimum contacts, making PJ constitutional.

Case.

Venue determines which district court the plaintiff can file in.

The case can be dismissed, or the court can transfer the case to a proper venue.

No, venue is not required by the Constitution.

A defined area within a state that hosts at least one district court.

Then it is proper in all divisions within that district.

If all defendants reside in the same state, venue is proper in any district where at least one defendant resides.

Venue is proper wherever the permanent resident alien is domiciled.

Illegal aliens are not considered to reside in the U.S. for venue purposes.

Venue is proper in a district where substantial acts related to the claim occurred, like where a product was made or an accident happened.

If no venue exists under residency or substantial acts provisions, venue is proper in any district with personal jurisdiction over defendants.

Yes, but there must be SMJ and PJ.

The court can either transfer the case to a proper venue or dismiss it.

To ensure the defendant is properly notified of a lawsuit.

A non-party over the age of 18.

Personal service, abode service, agent service, or any method authorized by relevant state law.

The process server physically hands the complaint and summons to the defendant anywhere in the U.S.

Serving a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s dwelling or usual place of abode.

An authorized agent of the individual or entity.

Plaintiff sends a request including the complaint, waiver form, and pre-paid return method via reliable means.

More time to respond to the complaint, specifically 60 days instead of 20 days.

No, even if notice is constitutional, it must still comply with Rule 4 for proper service.

1) The method is reasonably certain to inform relevant parties, or 2) It is not substantially less likely to provide notice than customary alternatives.

The bank published notice in a local newspaper, including for beneficiaries whose addresses were known.

Notice by publication is constitutional for unknown beneficiaries but not for those whose names and addresses are known.

It is reasonably certain to inform, as long as it is not returned to sender.

It is constitutional because the recipient must sign for it, ensuring receipt.

It is constitutional if it meets the second option for due process, being the best feasible alternative for unknown parties.

It is a pleading that includes a claim, always requires a response, and is addressed to the opposing party or co-counsel.

A pleading that responds to or defends against a claim.

A request for a court order, filed in writing, stating the relief sought and its basis, which can be made for anything.

Giving the document to the court for an official record of the case.

Providing a copy of the complaint to all relevant parties.

A lawsuit is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.

Pleadings and motions, specifying that motions need a memo explaining the law, while pleadings do not.

Complaints and answers.

Complaints, answers to complaints, answers to counterclaims, answers to crossclaims, third-party complaints, and answers to third-party complaints.

No, unless the court orders a reply to the answer.

Motions ask the court to issue an order and are not pleadings, while pleadings state claims or defenses.

A motion must be in writing unless made during a hearing or trial, state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order, and specify the relief sought.

A short and plain statement of jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief, and a demand for the relief sought.

1) No claim recognized by law, 2) Pleaded facts preclude recovery, 3) Missing an essential element of the claim.

A complaint must have sufficient concrete facts to show a reasonable inference that the plaintiff may recover.

The defendant will be in default, and a judgment can be entered against them.

(1) Lack of SMJ (never waived), (2) lack of PJ, (3) improper venue, (4) insufficient process, (5) insufficient service of process, (6) failure to state a claim, and (7) failure to join a necessary (Rule 19) party.

If omitted in a pre-answer motion or not included in the answer or amended answer as a matter of course.

Decide based on the pleadings whether any party is entitled to judgment without further pleadings.

A request to make a vague or ambiguous pleading more specific.

To remove insufficient defenses, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading.

A caption with the court's name, case title, file number, and the type of pleading designation.

They must sign pleadings and motions, include contact information, and certify that filings are not for improper purposes and are factually and legally supported.

The court may impose sanctions, which can include monetary penalties or other corrective measures.

A defending party must serve an answer within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint.

Sanctions may include monetary penalties or non-monetary penalties, imposed if violations are not corrected after notice.

A Rule 12 MTD must be filed within 21 days after being served, but before a timely answer.

It is waived and cannot be raised again.

In a pre-answer motion, in a responsive pleading, or at trial.

If a defense is waived, it cannot be raised again, even if it is valid.

14 days to respond to the amended pleadings.

1) As a matter of course, 2) With the consent of other parties, 3) With permission from the court.

21 days after the pleading is filed.

Yes, even if it was available but not made in the original answer.

A party can amend a pleading 21 days after the service of their responsive pleading or 21 days after the service of a Rule 12 motion, whichever is earlier.

They need permission from the court or consent from other parties.

Futility, undue prejudice, undue delay, and bad faith.

If it lacks a rule basis, lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the statute of limitations has expired, or it is implausible or precluded.

If it is waived or substantively inadequate.

Futility; if an amendment is futile, the court will deny the MTA.

It allows a new claim or defense to be treated as if it was filed on the date of the original pleading.

It must arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading.

When the amendment arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, and the newly named defendant had actual notice and knew or should have known the lawsuit was meant for them.

The non-movant does not have adequate time to prepare for trial.

The movant will be unable to bring the claim in a subsequent litigation.

When a movant fails to assert a claim when it reasonably became available or intentionally delays close to trial.

When the movant seeks to amend to intimidate the non-movant, delay the case, or increase litigation costs to force settlement.

It allows a party to use the time the case was originally filed to relate back to the original pleading.

Original pleadings or discovery.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ).

Personal Jurisdiction (PJ).

Check if rules allow or require the claim or party to join the lawsuit.

Check if the Federal Court can hear the case.

Any party with a claim permitted under another rule to add as many claims as it has.

No.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ).

Claim joinder by defendants.

A claim against an opposing party at the time the claim is asserted.

A claim against a co-party who is not currently an opposing party.

Logically connected facts and consideration of judicial economy and fairness.

It is waived and cannot be brought in subsequent suits.

A claim unrelated to the same transaction or occurrence as the existing claims.

No, it is not waived if not brought.

A claim against a co-party arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim or counterclaim.

No, it is permissive.

Permissive joinder of parties based on the same transaction or occurrence and common questions of law or fact.

Impleader of a non-party who may be liable to the original defendant.

Within 14 days of serving the original answer, unless the court grants permission.

Required joinder of parties to avoid prejudice.

The court decides whether to dismiss the case or proceed without the party.

Intervention in a lawsuit.

Intervention of rights and permissive intervention.

A proposed pleading or motion to intervene.

A defense that bars a claim if it was previously asserted with the same parties, the same configuration, and had a final valid judgment on the merits in the prior suit.

When the claim is the same as in a prior suit, involves the same parties or privity, and had a final valid judgment on the merits.

Claims are the "same" if they arise from the same transaction or occurrence (T/O) regardless of legal theory or relief sought.

It evaluates whether claims are factually and logically related, thus arising from the same transaction or occurrence.

All breaches of a contract that occur before a breach claim is filed arise from the same T/O for claim preclusion purposes.

The same parties or individuals in privity in the same configuration must be involved.

A legal relationship where one party in the first suit adequately represented the legal interests of another in the second suit.

A successor to a property interest or an agent representing a person.

Marriage or merely being in the same situation.

The court must have subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ) and personal jurisdiction (PJ) over the defendant.

When the case has concluded and only actions like collecting money or appealing remain.

A judgment based on substantive issues, not procedural flaws like lack of jurisdiction or venue.

Claim preclusion bars reasserting claims; compulsory counterclaims bar asserting unasserted claims arising from the same T/O in Federal Courts.

It bars relitigation of an issue that was previously litigated, decided, and essential to a valid, final judgment.

If the issue is the same as a prior suit, was litigated, decided, essential to the judgment, and involves the same parties or those in privity.

To determine whether a plaintiff can use offensive non-mutual issue preclusion against a prior defendant.

Prior inconsistent judgments, inadequate incentive to litigate previously, "wait and see" tactics, and dramatically different procedures.

It is always allowed if a new defendant uses it in the second suit against a party from the first suit.

The issue was contested in court and decided by a judge or jury.

Yes, summary judgment is considered actual litigation.

No, settling does not count as actual litigation.

It means the judge or jury made a resolution on the issue during the prior suit.

If deciding the issue differently would have changed the outcome of the prior judgment.

If a court provides multiple independent reasons for a decision, none of them are considered essential for issue preclusion.

Information is discoverable if it is relevant to any claim or defense, proportional to the needs of the case, and regarding non-privileged matters.

No, it does not need to be admissible in court to be within the scope of discovery.

The court may limit discovery to prevent undue burden, annoyance, embarrassment, harassment, or oppression, and may prohibit inquiry into certain matters or limit the use of devices or disclosures.

Information must relate to any party’s claims or defenses to be considered relevant.

The importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, relative access to information, importance in resolving issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the benefit.

Non-privileged information can be disclosed in discovery because it is not protected by rules encouraging candid communication between certain parties.

To resolve potential disputes, determine discovery needs, and create a discovery plan for the judge to issue a scheduling order.

A written report within 14 days after the conference.

It regulates conduct through certification, preventing excessive discovery requests or evasive responses, and reminding lawyers of their professional obligations.

Names and contact information, documents, computations of damages, and insurance agreements.

To narrow disputes by asking the opposing party to admit certain facts as true.

The matter is deemed admitted.

A party may send up to 25 interrogatories, including subparts, to another party.

Answer in writing under oath, or produce documents containing the requested information.

Documents, electronic information, access to property, or other tangible things within the scope of discovery.

The requested documents must be produced or identified in a written and signed response within 30 days.

To obtain oral testimony under oath from parties or non-parties.

Each side is limited to 10 depositions unless otherwise agreed or ordered by the court.

Court permission is required, and the requesting party must file a motion for good cause.

To protect parties from discovery causing annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

That they tried in good faith to resolve the issue with the opposing party.

A request for the court to order the disclosure or discovery of information when the opposing party has failed to comply.

The court can impose sanctions, including entering a default judgment against the non-compliant party.

Information is privileged if it is a confidential communication of a protected relationship or a protected work product.

To encourage communication within special relationships without fear of discovery.

Attorney-Client, Doctor-Patient, Priest-Penitent, and Spousal.

To address mistakenly disclosed privileged or work product information by notifying the receiving party, who must destroy or sequester it.

An attorney-client relationship, a communication kept confidential, and the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.

It applies if the communication was needed for legal advice, within the employee's duties, and treated as confidential.

A client is someone who reasonably believes an attorney-client relationship exists, even without a formal agreement.

Someone authorized to practice law or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized.

Both oral and written communications, but not underlying facts, pre-existing documents, or objects.

When reasonable precautions are taken to prevent others from overhearing, even if eavesdroppers are present.

To receive or provide legal advice, whether for litigation or non-litigation purposes.

A document or tangible thing prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for a party or its representative.

Opinions, mental impressions, or legal theories of a party's representative, which are absolutely immune from discovery.

Tangible things other than opinion work product, prepared for litigation, discoverable only with substantial need and no alternative means.

The information must be otherwise discoverable, with substantial need shown, and no substantial equivalent available without undue hardship.

A deposition or alternative source that provides similar information without violating privilege.

The party who files a Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), which can be any party or the judge on their own.

It represents how convincing a party needs to be at trial, with higher burdens requiring more proof.

A motion asking the court to deliver a judgment without a trial.

Yes, it can be a dispositive motion, but it does not always end the case.

A Summary Judgment motion can be filed by either party or the court and is granted if there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Yes, a party can seek summary judgment on one claim, part of a claim, or part of a defense.

Near the end of the discovery stage, within 30 days of discovery ending unless state statutes set a different timeline.

Only admissible evidence such as transcripts, affidavits, depositions, contracts, or admissions—not pleadings like complaints or answers.

The movant must show there is no genuine dispute of any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.

When evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find for either the plaintiff or the defendant.

The case must go to a jury, as they decide credibility and weigh evidence.

They can file a brief in opposition, presenting contradictory evidence to show a genuine dispute of material fact.

Summary judgment shall be granted if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

An MSJ can be filed at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery, unless modified by the court.

The court considers material in the record, such as discovery materials, affidavits, or stipulations, but not pleadings.

They must be based on personal knowledge, set out admissible facts, and show the affiant is competent to testify.

A judge can grant summary judgment on their own, provided the parties are given a reasonable amount of time to respond.

It answers whether a Federal Court should apply Federal or relevant State Law, typically in diversity cases.

The decision of whether to apply Federal or State Law in a case.

The decision of which State's law to apply in a case.

It authorizes the Supreme Court to create the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).

It instructs Federal Courts to use State Law in diversity cases.

Only when in Federal Court and there is an arguable conflict between State and Federal Law.

Determine if there is an arguable conflict between State and Federal Law.

Identify both relevant laws and check if applying State Law would lead to a different outcome than Federal Law.

A Federal Statute trumps State Law if Congress acted constitutionally.

It must have been validly enacted by Congress within constitutional limits and arguably procedural.

The rule must be arguably procedural, valid, and not abridge substantive rights more than incidentally.

No, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have always been presumed valid.

It considers whether Federal Practice, not written in the Constitution or statute, promotes forum shopping or inequitable administration of laws.

To prevent forum shopping from State to Federal Courts and avoid inequitable administration of laws.

The Federal Court must apply State Law.