CivPro: Classes 1-12

FRCP governs civil procedure. The Rules are meant to secure the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of every action and proceding.

The civil action is the one form of action in a civil suit. Civil actions combine principles of both actions at law and suits in equity.

A civil actions is commenced by the filing of a complaint.

No person shall be deprived of property, life, or liberty from the government without Due Process of law.

5th Amendment, Due Process clause

Established that notice to a party of pendency of an action must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances, in accordance with Due Process.

Applied the Mullane standard to establish that because a reasonable calculation is enough to satisfy proper notice, it doesn't require best possible notification or actual notice. Here, an inmate did not recieve actual notice of his property forfeiture while he was in custody, but the government's attempts to deliver the notice satisfied the Mullane standard.

Established that a reasonable calculation to deliver notice must also take into account the information about the party that is known by the deliverer. Here, notice of tax sale of a home was mailed to the homeowner, but was returned to sender twice. Notice did not reflect an "actual desire to inform" because the commissioner was aware of failed delivery.

The government was unaware that Dusenbery did not receive actual notice of the property forfeiture, but the commissioner was made aware that the homewoner didn't receive actual notice and took no further steps to provide such notice.

A properly completed summons has to be certified by the court clerk first, then given to the plaintiff before they serve it on the defendant.

Because defendants have a duty to avoid unnecessary fees associated with service attempts, a plaintiff may request that they waive service.

If an evasive defendant fails to waive service without good cause, and excessive fees are incurred from service attempts, the court must impose those fees on the defendant. This includes any attorneys fees and motions that are made to collect the service fees.

Defendants who timely return their service waiver have 60 days after the waiver was sent to answer the complaint.

Waiving service doesn't waive a defendant's ability to object to personal jurisdiction or venue.

Complaint + summons

A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint.

Unless waived, proof of service must be filed. The server's affadavit is proof of service.

Defendant must be served within 90 days of the complaint's filing, otherwise the court must dismiss the action without prejudice, or order that service be made in a specific timeframe. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the service delay, the court must extend time for service.

Any person over the age of 18 who is not a party to the action may perform service of process.

Individuals (other than minors or incompetents) who haven't waived service may be served in accordance with state law for service where general jurisdiction is proper.

Individuals (other than minors or incompetents) who haven't waived service may be served by 1) personal delivery, 2) by leaving the summons and complaint at the individual's dwelling/abode with someone of suitable age who resides there, or 3) by delivery to an authorized agent.

These entities must be served either 1) according to the state law for serving individuals, or 2) by delivery to an officer, managingeneral agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law.

Were both the complaint and court-ceritfied summons served?
Was process served by someone authorized to perform service?
Was process served on someone authorized to accept service?
Was process served in an authorized manner? (mail or personal delivery, varies by state)
Was process served in a timely manner?

Demand for jury trial (if appropriate)
Jurisdiction and venue
Parties
Factual allegations
Causes of action
Prayer for relief

1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction (non-waivable)
2. Lack of personal jurisdiction (waivable - must be raised in pre-answer motion or pleading)
3. Improper venue (waivable - must be raised in pre-answer motion or pleading)
4. Insufficient process (waivable - must be raised in pre-answer motion or pleading)
5. Insufficient service of process (waivable - must be raised in pre-answer motion or pleading)
6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (waivable if not raised before trial - can be raised in pre-answer motion or pleading)
7. Failure to join a party under Rule 19 (waivable if not raised before trial - can be raised in pre-answer motion or pleading)

SMJ is not waivable. If at any time a court determines they don't have SMJ, they must dismiss the action.

District courts have original jurisdiction where the matter in controversy exceeds $75k, and where the action is between citizens of different states or citizens of a state and citizens/subjects of a foreign state

No party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as a party on the other side

US citizenship, residence in a state/US terriroty, and intention to remain domiciled there indefinitely

No, citizenship status for a civil action is preserved when the complaint is filed

True, and by extension, aggregation terms can also be changed by congress because they fall under diversity jurisdiction.

Corporations are citizens of every state or foreign state where they are incorporated and have their principal place of business.

Unincorporated business organizations are citizens of all states in which their individual members are citizens, not where they are formed and have their principle place of business.

Legal representative of decedents, minors, or incompetents have the same citizenship status as the person they represent.

If someone is a lawful permanent resident and domiciled in a state, there is no diversity if another party in the action is also a citizen in that state

No

There is no diversity jurisdiction where any party has been collusively or improperly joined to meet jurisdiction requirements.

Yes, but it must be made in good faith

No

No

Yes, but only if the plaintiff includes them in their prayer for relief

The claims of multiple plaintiffs cannot be combined to reach the $75k amount in controversy requirement, unless they share a common and undivided interest.

Established that mere residence in a state is not sufficient for determining state citizenship, and that instead, state citizenship is determined by domicile + intent to remain.

Established that a claim will be dismissed if it appears "to a legal certainty" that its value is truly less than the amount in controversy requirement. Allowing otherwise would "undermine the statutory limits of federal courts".

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representatives on behalf of all members only if 1) the class is so numerous that joinder is otherwise impracticable, 2) there are common questions of law, fact, and claims/defenses among the class, and 3) the representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Over $5 million

There needs to be diversity of citizenship between at least one plaintiff and at least one defendant (this is called minimal diversity).

A single plaintiff may combine two or more claims against a single defendant to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. Multiple plaintiffs can't aggregate claims unless they share a common and undivided interest.

By considering the value of relief to the plaintiff, or the cost such relief would impose on the plaintiff

True, unless the defendants are jointly-and-severally liable for the same obligation.

True, each plaintiff needs to individually meet the $75k+ requirement, unless they either share a common undivided interest (joint-and-several liability) or otherwise meet supplemental jurisdiction requirements.

An alternative theory of liability

No, because alternative theories are just different paths to the same recovery amount

True, as long as governing state law allows

False, a single plaintiff may stack unrelated claims (like negligence and breach of contract)

District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treatises of the US

For a case to meet federal question jurisdiction initially, federal law has to be presented in the plaintiff's complaint. It is not enough for a plaintiff to anticipate the defendant raises a federal defense, or for the defendant to raise the federal defense.

Note: A defendant can still attempt to remove the case to federal court, but removal process is separate.

Before the well-pleaded complaint rule was established, this case held that federal courts had authority to hear cases "arising under" federal law.

Federal question

Civil Rights Act, FMLA, FLSA

No, because temporary residences don't imply an intent to remain indefinitely.

True, you can't pick and choose which citizenships to apply just to get around the complete diversity requirement

False, while SMJ can be raised at any time, the amount in controversy is determined at time of filing and is not retroactive.

Established the well-pleaded complaint rule, in which it was not enough for a plaintiff to anticipate federal defense to their causes of action to meet federal question jurisdiction threshold.

One shouldn't attempt to avoid or create federal jurisdiction by manipulating their complaint.

No, because the plaintiff is the master of their own complaint

Suits arise under the law that creates the cause of action. However, the Grable standard provides an exception.

Even if a claim is made under state law, federal question may still exist if the state law claim actually hinges on a substantial federal issue

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not independently meet federal jurisdiction requirements, as long as they are part of the same case or controversy as the "anchor claim". Supplemental jurisdiction may also extend to parties joined by Rule 19 (necessary parties), 20 (permissive parties), or 24 (intervening parties).

Same case or controversy, establishing supplemental jurisdiction.

When seeking to join a case to an anchor claim.

1. See whether the additional claim meets federal question or diversity jurisdiction independently.
2. If it doesn't, see if the additional claim is part of the same case/controversy ("common nucleus of operative fact") as the anchor claim.

Same encounter, same contract, same series of events

Unlike defendants, plaintiffs can't use supplemental jurisdiction against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, 24 if doing so would destroy complete diversity.

District courts may deny supplemental jurisdiction if the claim raises a novel/complex issue of state law, the claim predominates over the original claims, the original claims have been dismissed, or some other compelling reason

True

Yes

Yes, because the federal law claim establishes federal question jurisdiction, the related state law claims arising from the same case/controversy can be heard under supplemental jurisdiction.

No, because the federal court would lose the supplemental jurisdiction it had over the state law claims that were joined to the federal law claims, so the case has to be remanded to state court.

True, but any state-law claims may eventually be severed remanded to state court either for lack of supplemental jurisdiction (unrelated to same case/controversy) or lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Established that a case may be removed to federal court, but the federal court must remand it if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the plaintiff was a previous criminal client of the defendant law firm, and filed a malpractice suit in state court. The defendant firm removed the case assuming the plaintiff's criminal status invoked federal question jurisdiction, but the case was remanded because malpractice is a state-law claim.

Defendants only

Complete diversity existed both at the time of filing and at the time of removal. While the original parties’ citizenship is fixed at filing, later-joined parties may destroy complete diversity, making removal improper.

Defendants removing a civil action from state to federal court shall file a signed notice of removal in the federal court, which should contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, along with all process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendants in the action

Promptly after filing the notice of removal, defendants shall give written notice to all adverse parties and also file a copy of the notice in state court. The state court can't proceed any further in the action until the case is remanded.

If the federal court finds at any time before final judgment that they lack SMJ, the case shall be remanded to state court

When a civil action is removed based on either diversity or federal question jurisdiction, all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action

Exception: CAFA does not require this

Defendants must file for removal within 30 days after service of the initial complaint if the case is initially removable. If the case becomes removable later by an amended complaint, the defendant has 30 days from receipt of that amended complaint.

A case that would be qualified for removal under diversity jurisdiction must be removed within one year of the commencement of the action, unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent the removal

An action based solely on diversity jurisdiction is not removable if any plaintiff is a citizen of the state where the defendant initiated the action

Serving a summons, or filing a waiver of service, establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant who would be subject to a state's long-arm statute

Serving someone who happens to be present in the forum-state at that time

True

Voluntary appearance without objecting to personal jurisdiction, or prior consent by contract.

Established modern personal jurisdiction, including the minimum contacts requirement for specific jurisdiction. A corporation with sales activities in WA but was incorporated in DW was made to contribute to WA's state unemployment tax fund because its sufficient contacts in the forum-state didn't offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice".

Enumerated long-arm statutes (these list specific triggering acts)
Full constitutional-limit long-arm statutes (general or specific jurisdiction)
Tag jurisdiction (serving a defendant physically present in the state)

Full constitutional-limit long-arm statute

Personal jurisdiction comes from either 1) the state's chosen long-arm statute (enumerated or full constitutional limit conferring general/specific jurisdiction, 2) the 100-mile bulge rule, or 3) a federal statute allowing nationwide service

A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a party joined under Rule 14 (impleader) or Rule 19 (necessary party) if that party is served within 100 miles of the federal courthouse, even if outside the forum state

Established that even if a state’s long-arm statute allows personal jurisdiction for out-of-state defendants, constitutional due process limits still apply. Here, specific personal jurisdiction wasn't established because the car manufacturers didn't purposefully avail themselves to the forum state where a car accident occured, so it wasn't reasonably forseeable that they could be sued in the forum.

False, due process is also meant to protect state sovereignty

The state's long-arm statute allows it, and the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with Due Process, and:

1. The defendant purposefully directed activities at the forum, or purposefully availed itself to the privilege of conducting activities in the forum (minimum contacts were constitutionally cognizable)
2. The claim either arise out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities
3. Personal jurisdiction would be reasonable considering "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"

False

Established that claims must arise out of forum-related contacts due to primary concern for the defendant and territorial limitations on the power of states. The non-CA residents couldn't join their claims with CA residents against a drug manufacturer because they weren't harmed by the drug or treated for their injuries in CA.

Emphasized the "or relate to" in the "arise out of or relate to" standard for specific personal jurisdiction. Here, Ford served a market for its product in the forum, even though the specific products sold to the plaintiffs were not purchased in the forum.

Established that "continuous and systematic" contacts between a foreign corporation and a US subsidiary or affiliate in the forum state is not sufficient for general personal jurisdiction. Here, Daimler's contacts with MBUSA in the forum state were not "so continuous and systematic" so as to render Daimler essentially "at home" in the forum.

Where the corporation is incorporated, maintains its principle place of business, and possibly elsewhere only in truly exceptional cases

Actions involving foreign plaintiffs, foreign defendants, and foreign events (ex: Daimler)

Consent either through a contract's forum-selection clause, or a state-registration statute.

A statute that requires corporations doing business in that state to formally resigter to do business in that state, sometimes by appointing an agent for service of process. However, not all state-registration statutes require an appointment of an agent for service of process. If they do, then jurisdiction over the corporation may be proper in that forum-state.

False,

Established the constitutionality of state-registration clauses. Here, PA required out-of-state corporations who had registered to do business in PA to appear in its forum for any cause of action.

A foreign defendant over whom no state court has personal jurisdiction may meet specific personal jurisdiction in federal court if 1) the claim arises under federal law, and 2) if they have sufficient minimum contacts with the US as a whole

A defendant may choose not to appear in an action, allow a default judgement to be entered, and then challenge that judgement for lack of personal jurisdiction. Without personal jurisdiction, the judgment would be void, not merely voidable.

No, because personal jurisdiction is a waivable defense. By a defendant failing to raise it, they consent to personal jurisdiction in the forum.

Venue is proper where 1) any defendant resides (if all in the same state), 2) a substantial part of the events/property are located, or 3) any defendant is subject to PJ if no other district qualifies

1) Individuals (including lawful permanent residents): where they are domiciled
2) Corporatenincorporated defendants: where subject to personal jurisdiction
3) Defendants not residing in the US: any district (and their own presence is disregarded for determining proper venue of other defendants)

In states with multiple federal districts, a corporation “resides” for venue purposes where its local contacts would allow personal jurisdiction as if that district were its own state. Otherwise, venue is proper where it has the most significant contacts.

No, it wouldn't make sense for a defendant to attempt a venue transfer when they've just chosen which district to file their removal in.

When venue is proper, a court may transfer an action to any district where the action might have otherwise been brought, or to a district in which all parties have consented, for the convenience of parties/witnesses and in the interest of justice,

False, a judge may transfer venue between districts sua sponte in the interest of justice or for the convenience of parties and witnesses

False, the judge would only be allowed to do so by motion, consent, or stipulation of the parties

When venue is proper, a court may transfer an action from one division or another in the same district, but only by motion, consent, or stipulation of all parties.

Only when venue is improper can a judge either dismiss or transfer the action to any district or division which it could have been brought, in the interest of justice.

True, if doing so is in the interest of justice.

True, if doing so is in the interest of justice.

No, because statutes determining venue are given more weight

The dismissal of an action brought in federal court after determining that no federal court is appropriate for the action.

True

An example case in which a multi-district state treated its districts as separate "states" for venue purposes. Here, venue was proper where substantial events giving rise to the claim occured.

True, but this is rare due to significant private and public interest factors

False, because FNC is a dismissal, not a direct transfer. Plaintiffs have to then file their case in a foreign forum.

Established that a plaintiff's preference for a US forum alone is not enough to avoid foreign non conveniens dismissal. Courts instead must consider 1) whether an adequate alternative forum exists, 2) the resididenteal party's choice of forum, 3) private interest factors, and 4) public interest factors.

1) whether an adequate alternative forum exists
2) the resididenteal party's choice of forum
3) private interest factors
4) public interest factors

Access to evidence and witnesses

Burden on courts/juries and avoiding unnecessary issues in conflict of laws or applications of foreign law

That there is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home

Abuse of discretion. An FNC decision will only be overturned if the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably.

False, forum non conveniens should take precedence over other pending motions

Yes, because the plaintiff should have access to an alternate forum where remedy is available.

An example forum non conveniens case in which an appeals court found an abuse of discretion because the lower court failed to weigh one factor, the US citizen plaintiff's choice of forum.

An example forum non conveniens case in which the public interest of litigation in India outweighed the private interest of the plaintiffs.