Download Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction & Venue Guide and more Exams Nursing in PDF only on Docsity!
CA Bar Essay Slapdowns - Civil Procedure
questions with complete solutions
Traditional PJ correct answer: In personam personal jurisdiction (IPJ) refers to the court's ability to exercise power over a particular defendant. Traditionally, IPJ is based upon where the party is domiciled, presence in the state when served, and consent. Long-Arm PJ correct answer: Since no traditional basis exists, the plaintiff must look to see if the state has a long arm statute that would allow IPJ over the defendant. A long arm statue gives the court personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant. Constitutional Limits on PJ and Long Arm Statutes correct answer: Even if a state statute arguably grants the state court IPJ over the defendant, such exercise must still be constitutional. To be constitutional, there must be sufficient contacts with the forum state so as to not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Minimum Contacts correct answer: Minimum Contacts requires a showing of purposeful availment and foreseeability. The courts must find that defendant purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Additionally the defendant must have foreseen that she would be haled into court in the forum state
Relatedness of Claim to Contacts correct answer: The claim must arise form the defendant's contacts with the forum. This requires a showing of either specific or general jurisdiction. Specific PJ (Claim Related to D's Contacts) correct answer: The claim must be related to the defendant's contacts with the forum General PJ (Systematic and Continuous Activity) correct answer: The court will look to see if the defendant had systematic and continuous activity in the forum state such that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum. Fairness correct answer: The court, in determining whether exercising IPJ over the defendant is fair will look at the convenience to the defendant, the state's interest and other factors. Fairness - Convenience to D correct answer: A forum is constitutionally acceptable unless it is so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the defendant is put at a severe disadvantage Fairness - State's Interest correct answer: The forum state may have a legitimate interest in providing redress for its residents. Fairness- Other Factors correct answer: Other factors include the plaintiff's interest, judicial system's interest and the shared interests of the states. SMJ correct answer: Subject Matter jurisdiction refers to the court's ability to hear a type of case. The lack of SMJ is not waived by failing to raise it at trial; it may be raised for the first
which is the place from which the corporation's high level officers direct and control the corporation's activities. AIC correct answer: The AIC is determined by the plaintiff's good faith claim stated in the complaint. A single plaintiff may aggregate all of his claims against a single defendant; multiple plaintiffs may aggregate their claims against a single defendant only when they are seeking to enforce a common undivided interest Removal - Procedural Matters correct answer: A case must be removed within 30 days of the date that the defendant discovers the case is removable and all defendants must join in the removal. For cases based on diversity removal may not be had more than one year after the case was filed unless there was bad faith by the plaintiff to prevent removal. Supplemental Jurisdiction correct answer: If a court does not have original jurisdiction over a claim, it may be able to hear the claim under its supplemental jurisdiction. IN a DJ case, claims that do not meet the amount in controversy requirement may invoke supplemental jurisdiction if they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact (which includes the concept of the 'same transaction or occurrence') as a claim that invoked DJ. Where Venue is Proper correct answer: In Federal court, a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which (i) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (ii) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property that is subject to the action situated or (iii) any defendant is subject to
person jurisdiction with respect to the action, but only if there is no judicial district that satisfies (i) or (ii). Change of Venue correct answer: To have venue transferred, the defendant must show either that venue is improper in the plaintiff's chosen venue or that venue should be transferred, in the interests of justice, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. When venue is proper, the transfer may be made to another district in which the action might have been brought or to which all the parties have consented. When venue is improper, transfer is to a venue in which the case could have been brought. Change of Venue - Inconvenience to Parties or Witnesses correct answer: Even if venue is proper, transfer is permitted when the parties or witnesses would be greatly inconvenienced by the trial in the original forum Venue for Corporations correct answer: For venue purposes, a corporation resides in any judicial district in which it is subject to PJ with respect to the civil action in question. IN a state that has more than one judicial district, the corporation is deemed to reside in any district in that state within which the corporation's contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a state. Discovery correct answer: A party may seek to obtain any non- privileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense including any documentary evidence. Sally must show that the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on a claim or defense in the
the subject matter of the lawsuit that his absence will, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or leave the other parties at substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations. Counterclaims - Compulsory or Permissive correct answer: In determining whether a counter claim falls under the court's supplemental jurisdiction, the court will determine whether it is a compulsory counterclaim (which by definition falls under the court's supplemental jurisdiction if it fails to meet the AIC requirement for DJ) or a permissive counterclaim (which generally must have an independent basis for federal subject matter to be heard in federal court). In order for the federal court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction over a claim there must be one claim in federal court that properly invokes either diversity of citizenship jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction Compulsory Counterclaim correct answer: A compulsory counterclaim is one that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as one of the plaintiff's claims and it must be pleaded in the current litigation or lost. The complete diversity requirement should not be an issue when dealing with counterclaims—if there is complete diversity in a claim asserted by P against D, there must be complete diversity in a counter claim asserted by D against P. If the compulsory counterclaim meets the amount in controversy requirement it will fall under the court's diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, and if not, it will by definition meet the "same transaction or occurrence" requirement for supplemental jurisdiction
Permissive Counterclaim correct answer: A permissive counterclaim -one that does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim—must meet the AIC requirement for DJ Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion) correct answer: In most states, res judicata (claim preclusion) bars a litigant in a prior action from bringing the same cause of action again. For res judicata to apply, it must be shown that: (i) the earlier judgment is a valid, final judgment on the merits (and in the same position); (ii) the cases are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant, (iii) the same cause of action or claim is involved in the later lawsuit; and (iv) the cause of action was actually litigated or could have been litigated in the prior action. Primary Rights Doctrine (California) correct answer: Under this doctrine, a cause of action is defined as an invasion of a single primary right. A cause of action may not be split into separate lawsuits if the cause of action arises from invasion of a single primary right Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion) correct answer: Collateral estoppel, which estops a party in a prior case from relitigating an issue that was resolved in that case, requires that: (i) the first case ends in a valid, final judgment on the merits (ii) the issue be actually litigated and determined in the prior case and (iii) the issue was essential to the prior litigation. The issues must also be identical in each action. When a party in a second case is seeking to take advantage of a decided issue from a prior case in which she was not a party, the court will also look to see
route would be followed, and the petitioner must show a beneficial interest in the outcome of the writ proceeding. Interlocutory Appeals Act correct answer: Review could be sought under the interlocutory appeals act, which allows appeal when (i) the trial judge certifies that the interlocutory (nonfinal) order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation; and (ii) the court of appeals agrees to allow the appeal.
