Download Civil Procedure 1L: Jurisdiction, Pleadings, Discovery, and Interpleader Rules and more Exams Nursing in PDF only on Docsity!
Due Process - fair treatment through normal judicial system, process and not the substance Ct v. Doehr Due Process Findings - - 3 step analysis (Matthews test)
- prejudgment atttachment w/out prior notice and opportunity for hearing violates DP in 14th Mathew's Test (DP) - 1. private interests that will be affected
- risk of erroneous deprivation
- government's interest District Courts - - trial courts
- 94
- larger populous states have more
- fed district courts have limited jurisdiction Circuit Courts - - Appeals
- 13 in total, historically bound
Civil Law Suit Timeline - Considerations before filing -> P files complain -> D responds -> discovery -> summary judgment motion -> trial -> judgment -> appeal -> preclusion Burdens of Proof in Pleading/ PF case - - no burden of proof in pleading; P carries all burdens
- don't need plading req to plead something you might never have to prove - don't need more detail (McDonnell)
- PF case is evidence before trial is enough to prove case unless theres substantial contradictory evidence presented in trial Pleading Rule and Requirements - 8(a)(2) Don't need specific facts to establish case; only short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief (Sorema) Heightened Pleading Rule and Standard - 9(b) Fraud or mistake Must specify each statement and state with particularity (SNESL -> at pleading stage, although it was about fraud, there is no need to include evidence/papers showing fraud. those can be ignored/thrown out and the
- Is claim plausible on its face when you assume remaining nonconclusory allegations are true? Can't go fishing if it's not plausible there's fish in the pond Conclusory Statements - no backing, provides legal conclusion, naked assertions ex. His accusation harmed my reputation Nonconclusory Statements - offers information for interpretation, gives more information about the potential issue, no legal conclusions Ex. I didn't plagiarize, Plagiarism is a very serious charge in academia Twiqbal - if there's factual insufficiency then must show plausibility What must be required with rule 12 motion? - 12b motion to dismiss BUT if you choose an answer instead, don't need to include 12b motion What 12b motions are waivable and why:? - 2-
12h1 shows that if you don't bring them at your first opportunity or you fail to make it by motion or in an amended pleading, then you can't bring it later Which 12b motions can you raise durable and under what rule? - 12b6 and 12b by 12h2 in any pleading, motion, or trial Wee Care and 12b6 - Use this one when there isn't enough info to make a claim; failure to state claim to relief that is PLAUSIBLE on its face. Can't make naked assertions Legal insufficiency v. factual insufficiency - Legal: look at law; ex: due process Factual: look at Twiqbal; requires plausibility; ex: discrimination 12h - Waive 12b2-5 if not asserted in initial motion because you should have known these before you (D) chose to answer/move to dismiss When is the latest you can bring a 12b6? - any time before jury is asked to deliberate
Don't have to relate back if it is within the statute of limitations Doesn't allow relating back when there is lack of knowledge of proper party (can't substitute parties by new ones when you find out later who the real D is) --> but can relate back if you made a MISTAKE in misspelling the parties' names Rule 11 Sanctions - don't apply to discovery but applies to everything else Safe Harbor Provision - Rule 11 Sanctions Motion served on offending counsel 21 days before filing it with court -> gives them opportunity to withdraw offending party to avoid sanctions Can't make motion to dismiss and impose sanctions in one motion Only sanction lawyer, not the represented party When is the latest you can file rule 11 sanctions? - at least 21 days before conclusion of case or judicial rejection of offending contention Can't wait to file after Summary Judgment must occur before final judgment/judicial rejection of offending contention (Ridder)
Claim Joinder under 18 + 13 - 18: state every claim (counterclaim) you have, even if unrelated 13g: can bring cross claim that is in same transaction/subject matter Cross Claims v. Counter Claims - Cross claims HAVE TO BE RELATED TO same transaction/occurrence Counterclaims DO NOT HAVE TO BE RELATED Are you required to bring cross claims? - No, never required to bring claims against co-parties Rule 18 - Raise all your claims (counterclaims) Claimant has at least one other claim in action that is proper jurisdictionally and under joinder rules Rule 13b - When someone comes at you, bring anything and everything you've got back against them (counterclaims)
Hulsey Test determining if counterclaim is compulsory - 1. Arise from same transaction/occurrence as P's claim
- Seek relief of same kind/nature as P
- Seek amount not in excess of P's claim (Berrey) Party Joinder rule - 20 same for Ps and Ds TO JOIN:
- claims come from same transaction/occurrence as other claim in action
- Claims share at least one common Q of law/fact with existing claim Who can voluntarily join a claim? - 20a2: voluntary for Ps to choose to file together Not voluntary on Ds to be thrown into 1 suit Impleading Rule - 14 not compulsory, allows party who is defending to force non-party into action (3rd Party D and the original D becomes the 3rd party P).
Impleading Requirements - To join non-party: must or may be liable to proposed 3rd party P for all or part of the claim THROUGH DERIVATIVE/PASS-THROUGH LIABILITY Liability cannot be secondary/passive 3 Derivative Liability situations to allow impleading - 1. Indemnification: insurance will indemnify you for your loss
- Subrogation: A owns land B uses and C sues A. A then brings in B to pay for the misuse
- Contribution: STATE MUST HAVE LAW ABOUT THIS; torts cases (contributory/comp negligence) Joinder of Required Parties Rule - 19 Without this person, the suit is defective. Joinder must occur unless its not feasible
Interpleader Rule - 19a2, 22 P puts all people with claim on property on one side and doesn't care how the case turns out, just wants the court to tell P who gets the claim All parties cross claim each other and hash out who is wrong (Metro Life) 19a2: can interplead as a counterclaim Intervention Rule - 24 Parties can intervene according to 4 reqs Donnelly Reqs to intervene under 24a2 - Timely move to intervene Have significant protectable interest (legally protected AND sufficiently connected) Disposition of action would impair ability to protect interest if not intervening
Interest is not adequately represented by existing parties 3 reqs to determine representation adequacy for intervention - 1. whether interest of present party will make all proposed intervenor's arguments
- whether present party can and will make such arguments
- whether proposed intervenor would offer necessary elements to proceeding that other parties neglect how interests compare (Arakaki -> met all Donnelly reqs BUT had no reason to intervene because it would be adequately represented by the current parties) Class Action rule and reqs - 23 Numerosity: more people than conventional in normal joinder? Commonality: share factual and legal claims that are the same? Typicality: are reps' claims typical of entire class claims?
based on D having large quantity of contacts to consider D 'present' Specific (PJ) Jurisdiction reqs - must have certain min contacts and issue must arise from those contacts more relatedness with claim instead of continuous/consistent activity Personal Jurisdiction Reqs - what power the court has to make a decision regarding the party being sued must have certain min contacts and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (must have enough presence in the area to be gaining from the judicial protections and system) must be PJ over every D where you can bring a case
How can D challenge PJ? - enter 'special appearance' but then if the court finds there is PJ, D is stuck to defend the merits Refuse to appear, enter default judgment, and D can challenge that by arguing there was no PJ International Shoe Test - PJ must be min contacts:
- continuous and consistent contacts
- relatedness of contact to claims
- privilege of conducting business in the state
- estimate of inconveniences
- check first if there is a long-arm statute* cannot violate due process to bring in person Rule for General jurisdiction (PJ) over corporation - BNSF Railway Co affiliations with state must be continuous and systematic to make the corp basically at home in the forum state (at home, you can be sued over anything)
Federal Question for SMJ - FQ must appear on face of a well-pleaded complaint under the Mottley rule - cannot be raised by D Claim comes from fed law, including statutes and constitutions Doesn't count if appears in defense Diversity for SMJ (2 components) - controversy in excess of $75K no one on 1 side of v can have same citizenship as anyone on the other side of v Amount in controversy for diversity req - P can win less than $75k but must have legit basis in pleading for over $75k in damages State citizenship for diversity req - citizenship is the domicile (true, fixed and permanent abode with intent to remain) corporate domicile: state of incorporation AND principal place of business
General Scope of Discovery Rule - 26b Nonprivileged Relevant (does not have to be what you rest your case on, doesn't have to be admissible but would lead to admissible evidence, only what you would use and not the other party) Proportional (cost-benefit analysis, not duplicative and no alternative is less inconvenient) What is an option for judges to mitigate damages to either party under 26D for sensitive discovery? - require P to complete other, nonsensitive discovery first to eliminate potentially frivolous case (Marrese) Work Product Doctrine - 26b protects work of lawyers from discovery different from attorney-client privilege immediately say on doc if something is privileged and then put it in the privilege log
