You are on page 1of 3

Civil Procedure Checklist Personal Jurisdiction

Threshold Questions: (1) Has state statute authorized ct. to exert pers. jx over ? See statutory language if available. (2) Is the exercise of pers. jx over constitutional in this instance? Apply PA or GJ test. Functional concerns of pers. jx(i) sovereign interest, (ii) burden to , and (iii) notice to . Intl Shoe. Purposeful availment test (specific jurisdiction) Prong 1 either: Purposely availed himself of the forum state by establishing min. contacts therein. BK. Purposely directed an (i) intentional act (ii) aimed at forum, (iii) harm therein. Calder. Prong 2Exercise of pers. jx not inconsistent with fair play and substantial justice. Asahi. General jurisdiction tests contacts continuous and systematic, allow pers. jx over non transactionally related claims. Helicopteros.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Threshold Question: Will the federal court be applying state law? If yes, it must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant to the same extent as if it were sitting as a state court in the forum. Diversity jurisdiction Congressional grant(i) amt. in cont. > $75k and (ii) citizens of diff. states or state and alien. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Complete diversityno div. jx if any from the same state as any . Curtiss. State citizenship of personcitizen of state when (i) citizen of United States and (ii) domiciliary of state, i.e., state is true home to which intend to return whenever absent. Mas. State citizenship of corp.both (i) where incorporated and (ii) where nerve-center, i.e., locus of corporate decision making, usually HQ. Hertz. Federal question jurisdictionCongressional authority to grant is very broad, Art. III, 2; Osborn, but actual Congressional grant is much more narrow, 28 U.S.C. 1331; Mottley: Prong 1: Holmes creation testif COA created by Congress, there is FQ jx. T.B. Harms. Prong 2: federal interest testif not, a substantial federal interest in adj. may permit. Smith. Prong 3: sound division of labor vetoeven if substantial, docket overflow may veto. Grable. Supplemental jurisdictiona claim w/o fed. subj. jx may be appended to a claim with fed. subj. jx when, 28 U.S.C. 1367; Gibbs: Transactionally related, i.e., they would normally be tried in one judicial proceeding, At least so long as the state claim does not substantially dominate. NOTE: Properly appended claim need not be above minimum amount in controversy. Exxon.

Choice of Law
Step 1: the Erie doctrinestate law in fed. court, apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Step 2: distinguish procedural from substantive law: Prong 1: brightline preemptionif Federal Rule, trumps state law unless unconstitutional exercise of Congl Art. III Fed. Ct. Power (test: arguably procedural). Hanna (back-half). Prong 2: twin aims testif federal judge-made norm, apply twin aims test: (i) discourage forum shopping and (ii) avoid inequity. Hanna (front-half). Prong 3: balancing testif the judge-made norm is animated by a Conl right, maybe balance: (i) importance of state rule and (ii) importance of federal policy. Byrd; Gasperini.

Complaint and 12(b)(6)

Notice standardshort and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8(a). Plausibility standarda complaint must allege enough factual matter to make the legal conclusions plausible, Twombly; Iqbal: Prong 1distinguish facts from legal conclusions: (i) track elements and (ii) highly general Prong 2accept facts as true and test if they make the legal conclusions plausible Prong 3consider expected costs of discovery in deciding whether plausibility hurdle met

General scope of discovery In general, parties may discover, Rule 26(b)(1): Matters relevant to any partys claim or defense,, and Matters relevant to the subject matter involved in the action on showing of good cause. Relevance testrelevant if it tends to make a disputed fact more or less probable. F. R. Evid. Proportionality principlebenefit of discovery must outweigh burden given: (i) needs of case, (ii) amt. in cont., (iii) parties resources, (iv) importance of issues, (v) avail. from other source Privilegea party can claim privilege (e.g., attorney-client, doctor patient) under Rule 26(b)(5). Work-product doctrinedocuments and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation not discoverable unless: (i) otherwise w/in scope of disc. and (ii) subs. need, cannot obtain by other means. Rule 26(b)(3). Protection ordera 26(c) protection order is the catch-all motion for other objectionable discovery requests that do not implicate privilege or work product. Rule 26(c).

SJ and JML
Summary judgment standardmovant must show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Rule 56(a), and must, Celotex: If movant bears trial burden, movant must support motion with evidence entitling it to JML. If nonmovant bears trial burden, movant must (i) attach affidavit evidence or (ii) point to lack of evidence in record to demonstrate that it is entitled to JML. Judgment as a matter of law standarda reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, Rule 50(a)(1), when the record is viewed as such, Reeves: Prong 1ignore all evidence that does not favor the nonmovant, Prong 2except that which is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least if unconflicted, and Prong 3make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant.

Claim preclusion (res judicata), Rush; Morris: Who is precludednormally claims by different s or against different s are not precluded. What is precludedclaims that Transactional testarise out of the same transaction or occurrence, taking into account: Relation of facts in time, space, origin, and motive, Whether they form a convenient trial unit, Whether it would conform to business understanding and usage, and Whether they relate to the same nucleus of operative facts. Were (i) finally adjudicated, (ii) on the merits, with (iii) valid exercise of jurisdiction. Defense preclusionif the claim could have been raised as a counterclaim or defense in a prior suit arising out the same transaction or occurrence, party will be barred. Rule 13(a); Mitchell. Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) Requirements(i) litigation was of sufficient quality, (ii) issue was actually litigated, Cromwell, (iii) issue was necessarily decided, Rios, and (iv) issue is identical to the issue in instant case, Moser. Nonmutual collateral estoppelwhen one party was not a party to the suit: Defensiveattempting to estopp the plaintiff from contesting or asserting an issue: Against a not bound never. Blonder-Tongue. Against a bound permissible. Bernhard. Offensiveattempting to estopp the defendant from contesting or asserting an issue: Against a not bound never. Blonder-Tongue.

Against a bound permissible if (i) could not have easily joined prior suit and (ii) not unfair to the party against whom CE asserted. Parklane Hosiery.