I.

Rule 11

INTRODUCTION TO CIV PRO

Bridges v. Diesel Service, Inc.: P violated Rule 11(b)(2) by failing to conduct competent legal research prior to filing a complaint. Nonetheless, the court exercised its discretion and declined to impose sanctions.

Rule 8 Bell v. Novick Transfer Co. Ps complaint sufficiently pled a cause of action in federal court because Rule 8 requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. D was NOT entitled to a more definite statement under rule 12e. D could obtain by interrogatories or other discovery the facts upon which P based its allegations.

II.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

A. The origins of personal jurisdiction

Pennoyer v. Neff: The Oregon state court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter an enforceable judgment against Neff because he was: 1) NOT personally served with process in the state (in personam) 2) his property NOT attached prior to the initiation of the lawsuit (in rem)

B. The Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power

1. Redefining Constitutional Power i. International Shoe Test:

Personal jurisdiction if.. 1) Activities of a non-resident are systematic and continuous for a substantial period of time 2) Defendant enjoys the benefits and protections of forum state can resort to forum states courts for enforcement of its rights. 3) Minimum contacts connected to action that gives rise to harm ensures fair and orderly administration of laws

4) Once minimum contacts are established, court looks to defendant/plaintiff and interest of adjudication to maintain fairness ii. Place of domicile defendants physical presence and manifested intent to remain establishes minimum contacts iii. McGee The due Process Clause did not preclude a California court from entering a binding judgment on a Texas insurance company because (1) the suit was based on a contract that had substantial connection with the state (2) California has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims (POLICY REASONS!) and (3) There was no contention that the defendant did not have adequate notice of the suit or sufficient time to defend itself. Hanson Although Mrs. Donner received trust income and carried on some trust administration in FL, the trust company itself had NO minimum contacts w/ FL. Rule: its essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.

iv.

2. Absorbing In Rem Jurisdiction

i. Shaffer v. Heitner The DE Courts exercise of (quasi) in rem jurisdiction violated due process because defendants did not have minimum contacts with the state. All assertions of state court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the International Shoe standard.

3. Specific Jurisdiction: The Modern Cases D is being sued on a claim that has sole connection with the forum i. World Wide Volkswagon v. Woodson An Oklahoma court could not exercise PJD over a dealer and regional distributor in NY bc Ds had no contacts, ties or relations w/ Oklahoma. RULE: PJD exists if 1) the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state or 2) delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state. Asahi Metal Burger King

ii. iii.

iv.

Pavlovich v. Superior Court: the exercise of pjd over d in california would violate due process bc his website was neither interactive nor specifically targeted toward the forum and he lacked knowledge that his activities would cause concrete harm within the state.

4. General Jurisdiction / Internetzzzz

RULE: You can sue someone in that forum on a claim that arose anywhere in the world. Look for continuous and systematic contact w/ that state. Corporations: place of incorporation + principle place of business Individuals: state of domicile i. Perkins: a mining company from the Philippines was subject to general jurisdiction in Ohio b/c the companys president, general manager and principal stockholder ran the business from Ohio during the war Helicopteros: a helicopter transport company from Colombia was NOT subject to general jurisdiction in Texas because its contacts with the state did not constitute the kind of continuous and systematic general business contacts that are sufficient to establish general jurisdiction.

ii.

iii.

Burnham v. Superior Court CA courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who was personally served with process while temporarily in the state. PART 2: 4 justices (Scalia, Renquist, Kennedy & White) BRIGHT LINE RULE: among the most firmly established principles of personal jurisdiction in American tradition (and one commonly accepted at the time the 14th amendment was adopted) is that the courts of a state have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the state. PART3: 3 justices scalia, renquist, kennedy criticize the subjectivity of jurstice brennans approach

Case by Case Inquiry: the due process clause generally permits a

state court to exercise jurisdiction over a d if he is served w/ process while
3

voluntarily present in the forum state. Nonetheless ,its necessary to undertake an independent inquiry into the FAIRNESS of the prevailing in-state service rule. The critical insight of Shaffer is that all the ruels of jurisdiction, even ancient ones, must satisfy contemporary notions of due process. Concurs in judgment b/c in this case, it is undisputed the petitioner was served with process while voluntarily being in Cali Justice stevens concurring. Tradition + fairness + common sense = easy case.

C. Consent as a Substitute for Power

1. Carnival Cruise Lines fundamental fairness did not preclude the enforcement of a forum-selection clause contained in tickets issued by a cruise line to its passengers when there was no bad faith, fraud or overreaching (ie. Florida was a sensible place to conduct the litigation) and plaintiffs essentially conceded that they had notice of the provision

D. The Constitutional Requirement of Notice

1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank a basic requirement of due process in any final proceeding is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afforded them an opportunity to present their objections.

E. The Latest Word, or Back to the Future?

1. J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro NJ courts said theres NO personal jurisdiction over an English manufacturer that did NOT market goods in NJ or ship goods to NJ. 2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires v. Brown the foreign subsidiaries of goodyear USA werent subject to general jurisdiction in NC b/c their attenuated connections to the state were not continuous and systematic general business contacts necessary to empower NC to entertain suit against them on claims unrelated to anything that connects them to the state.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction
1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley a suit arises under the constitution and laws of the US for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1331 only when the ps wellpleaded complaint is based on federal law. Here, there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction b/w issues of federal law would likely arise only asn affirmative defense and in addressing plaintiffs reply to that defense, not in plaintiffs original claim (which was for breach of contract under state law)

B. Diversity Jurisdiction
1. Redner v. Sanders the federal district court dismissed a case against New York ds for lack of subject matter jurisdiction bc there was no diversity of citizenship. The p was neither a citizen of france (which wouldve authorized diversity jurisdiction under 1332(a)(1) nor a citizen of CA (which wouldve established diversity jurisdiction under 1332(a)(2) NY Citizen living in france (P ) v. NY (D) = No! French citizen v. NY = Yes! 1332a(2) Cali v. NY = Yes! 1332(1) 2. Saadeh v. Farouki no diversity jurisdiction over citizen of Greece and citizen of Jordan who permanently resided in MD and became a US citizen while the case was pending. The court did NOT follow the plain meaning of amended 1332(a) an alient admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the state in which such alien is domiciled) bc it would be contrary to the amendments purpose of narrowing diversity jurisdiction (in cases b/w alien and resident of state in which she/he is residing) and would raise constitutional difficulties Greece v Jordan residing in MD, gets citizenship while case is pending= NO

C. Supplemental Jurisdiction and Removal to Federal Court

Supplemental jurisdiction test: for additional federal court claims, does the state law claim arise out of a common nucleus of facts? [the state claims would affect the federal claims and vice versa. Intertwined.] 1. Ameriquest Mortgage Co the district court DENIED ds motion to dismiss ps state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction bc the state and federal claims were connected by common and operative facts (they were, in fact, inextricably intertwined), and there was no compelling reason for the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 2. Szendry-Ramos the district court GRANTED ds motion to dismiss ps state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction bc the Puerto rico law claims predominated over ps federal claim under Title VII and there were novel and complex issues of PR law.

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT

3. Caterpillar, Inc. a district courts error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment in entered. Once a diversity case has been tried in federal court, with rules of decision supplied by law under the ERIE doctrine, considerations of finalty, efficiency and econonomy become overwhelming.

IV.

THE ERIE PROBLEM WHAT LAW APPLIES IN A DIVERSITY CASE?

A. Constitutionalizing the Issue 1. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins the constitution requires federal courts to apply state common law in diversity cases. B. Developing a Test After Erie 1. Interpreting Eries Constitutional Command i. Guaranty Trust v. York
6

Outcome determinative test: federal courts sitting in diversity should apply a state law that conflicts w/ federal practice when disregarding the state law would significantly affect the outcome of the litigation. The lower federal courts therefore erred by refusing to apply the state statute of limitations based on a contrary federal practice.
For rules that could conceivably be characterized as substantive and procedural. Should consider whether should state law would give a different outcome in federal court, then apply state laws to make sure the law matches up. The outcome should be the same. Substance -> law creating rights and obligations.

ii.

Byrd v. Blue Ridge the fed court was not required to follow a state supreme court decision holding that the trial court, rather than a jury, should determine whether the plaintiff was a statutory employee who was covered by the state workers compensation statute. The requirement appeared to be merely a form and mode of enforcing the immunity, and not a rule intended to be bound up with the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties, and the importance of the federal practice outweighed the likelihood of a different result in the state court.

2. De-Constitutionalizing Erie i. Hanna v. Plumer: service of process in a diversity case in federal court is governed by rule 4 of the federal rules of civil procedure.

V.

LITIGATION AS A MEANS OF RESOLVING DISPUTES AND SECURING REMEDIES

Sigma Chemical Co. v. Harris, p282 employee that violated non-competition agreement by going to work for competitor, used trade secrets Rule: Permanent injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy where the plaintiff is being threatened by some injury for which he has no adequate legal remedy Court believes that injunctive relief can only be applied where the hardship to the plaintiff if relief is denied is greater than the hardship to the defendant if relief is granted.

ITT Continental Alternative standards for a preliminary injunction: 1) A P is only entitled to a preliminary injunction if the court finds that a) the p will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted b) the p will probably prevail on the merits c) in balancing the equities, the d will not be harmed more than p is helped by the injunction and d) granting the injunction is in the public interest. 2) P must demonstrate either a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious qs are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. It is not necessary that the moving party be reasonably certain to succeed on the merits. If the harm that may occur to the p is sufficiently serious, its only necessary there be a fair chance of success on the merits.

VI.

BEGINNING THE LITIGATION PROCESS PLEADINGS A. Stating a claim

1. General principles Rule 8(a) Notice Pleading A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain: 1) A short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the courts jurisdiction depends 2) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and 3) A demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks Haddle v. Garrison: the district court erroneously dismissed ps complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because interference w/ at-will employment may give rise to a claim for damages under the civil rights act of 1871. 2. Requiring and forbidding specificity in pleading i. Twombly: Ps complaint did not state a claim for relief under section 1 of the Sherman act because stating such a claim requires a complaint w/ enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made (i.e. plausible factual allegations are required) ii. Ashcroft v. Iqbal: to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
8

Apparent Analytical Framework: 1. Disregard mere legal conclusions (we begin our analysis by identifying the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth.) 2. Assess whether remaining well pleaded factual allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief (we next consider the factual allegations in respondents complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief) a. Is it more likely than not that defendant is liable based on the well pleaded facts? OR. b. Is there a more plausible alternative explanation? 3. Stradford v. Zurich Insurance Co. ds counterclaim failed to plead the circumstances constituting fraud w/ sufficient particularity under rule 9(b) bc it didnt specifically identify ps alleged lies, but the district court granted leave to amend the pleading and concluded that ds subsequently satisfied the requirements of the rule. 4. Ethical limitations Walker v. Northwest Corp: Ps complaint violated Rule 11 bc it didnt allege that complete diversity of citizenship existed. Moreover, the district court didnt abuse its discretion by imposing monetary sanctions for this violating or denying os motion to amend the complaint. Christian v. Mattel, Inc:

B. Responding to the Complaint: Dispositive Motions and Answers

1. Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers

C. Amendments to the Pleadings

1. Beeck The district court didnt abuse its discretion by allowing the D to amend its answer to deny manufacturing the slide bc the d had a good reason for initially admitting that it manufactured the slide and the p would not be unduly prejudiced by the amendment.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering a separate trial on the issue of which corporation manufactured the slide bc a separate trial would advance the goals of efficiency and fairness. 2. Moore the district court didnt abuse its discretion by denying the ps motion to amend her complaint after the SoL had run on her negligence claim bc that claim did not arise out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as the claims in her original complaint. 3. Bonerb the amended complaint rose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as the original complaint and therefore related back to the filing of the original complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations bc the operational facts of the original complaint put d on notice of the claim that the p later sought to add

VII. DISCOVERY A. The Possibilities and Limits of Discovery: Relevance and Spoilation
1. Davis D was compelled to produce complaints of race discrimination that were recently filed by other employees in the same plant because this information was relevant, and ps requests were narrowly tailored to the specific claims in the case. 2. Steffan v. Cheney the district courts discovery order and dismissal of the case were based on an error of law bc judicial review of an administrative action is confined to the grounds upon which the record discloses that the action was based. Accordingly, the question of whether the p engaged in homosexual conduct would only be relevant if the navy dismissed him for that reason. 3. Silvestri v. GM Dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint as a sanction for the spoliation of evidence was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiff violated his duty to notify the existence of the evidence and the defendant suffered extraordinary prejudice as a result.

B. Surveying Discovery: Procedures and Methods

C. Limitations on Discovery in an Adversary System

10

1. Privilege and Trial Preparation Material i. Hickman v. Taylor (essentially Codified in Rule 26(b)(3) An attempt, without purported necessity or justification to secure written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse partys counsel in the court his legal duties falls outside the arena of discovery and goes against the public policy underlying the orderly prosecution and defense of legal claims. Categories of Information: underlying facts not protected from discovery Attorneys memos qualified privilege potentially overcome by necessity Mental impressions absolutely protected. 2. Expert Information and Privacy Concerns i. Thompson there were exceptional circumstances justifying the disclosure of a non-testifying psychologists observations because plaintiffs mentaland emotional state ten days after her termination was highly probative to an essential element of her case and the defendant could not obtain the information contained in the report by any other means ii. Chiquita international ltd. There were no exceptional circumstances warranting discovery of the observations of plaiintiffs nontestifying expert witness because the defendant was not precluded from sending its own expert to the scene by forces beyond its control.

iii.

Stalnaker

VIII. RESOLUTION WITHOUT TIRAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. Celotex 2. Bias v. Advantage Intl

11

IX. THE DIVISION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN JUDGES AND JURIES

A. Divided Authority in Civil Litigation 1. Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad

B. Judges Controlling Juries, Juries Trumping Judges

1. Judgment as a matter of law Pennsylvania railroad v. chamberlain 2. New trials and limits on jury impeachment

X.

RESPECT FOR JUDGMENTS

A. Claim Preclusion (1) Traditional approach one suit precludes a second where the parties and the cause of action are identical. (2) Restatement of judgments all claims arising from a single trasnsaction must be litigated in a single, initial lawsuit, or be barred from being raised in subsequent litigation.
1. Frier Majority: Frier should have asserted his constitutional claim against the city in the initial lawsuits bc both actions involved the same common nucleus of operative facts and the same transaction. Concurrence: rejects the application of res judicata based on illinois continued adherence to the traditional approach, but would affirm the district courts judgment on the merits. 2. Martino common law principles of res judicata barred ps claim bc (a) the prior consent judgment was an adjudication on the merits, (b) if ps antitrust theory had merit, it would have been a defense to the prior lawsuit and (c) precedent and policy require that res judicata bar a counterclaim when its prosecution would nullify rights establishe by the prior action.

12

3. Searle Brothers a partnership was not precluded from litigating its alleged ownership interest in property based on prior litigation bc it was neither a party to the prior action nor in privity with a party Crockett, J dissenting: these Ps, sons of the parties to the divorce action were sufficiently involved and interested therein that they should properly be regarded as parties in privity thereto.

4. Gargallo A prior state court judgment doesnt bar a subsequent federal lawsuit based on the same cause of action when the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim

B. Issue Preclusion
1. Parks P was not barred from relitigating his alleged contributory negligence bc defendant failed to meet its burden of showing that the issue was actually litigated and decided in prior litigation b/w the parties. Alternative grounds for decision: *District court decision: The first restatement of judgments took the position that when alternative ground for decision existed, both should be precluded in subsequent litigation. The restatement second of judgments comment I opines that neither determination should be binding in subsequent litigation. *Decision of Court of Appeals: comment o describes the preclusive effects of alternative grounds for decision when there is an appeal and essentially provides that issues that are affirmed on appeal have a preclusive effect, while those that are not addressed by the appellate court do not even when the district courts judgment is affirmed.

2. Parklane Hoisery Co. the preferable approach for dealing w/ the potential problems of offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel in the federal courts is not to preclude the use of the doctrine but to grant tiral courts broad discretion to determine when it should be applied. Factors: (1) Could p have easily joined the prior action? (2) Were the stakes in the first lawsuit sufficiently high?
13

(3) Would the second lawsuit provide additional procedural safeguards? (4) Are there already inconsistent judgments on the issue? (5) Are there other reasons to question the reliability of the prior judgment? See (second) of Judgments 29

XI. COMPLEX LITIGATION : ADDITIONAL CLAIMS AND PARTIES

***RULE 14, 20-21, 42 [p. 42-44,55-56,113-114***] A. Joinder of Claims
1. Plant v. Blazer Financial Services The creditors action to recover an unpaid debit is compulsory counterclaim (subject to supplemental jurisdiction in federal court) in a lawsuit brought to enforce the Truth in Lending Act bc both claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

Rule 18: once theres a lawsuit b/w 2 parties, the P can assert additional claims. P v. D1, D2 v. 3PD D2 v. P = counterclaim D2 v. D1 = crossclaim D2 v. 3PD = 3rd party claim B. Joinder of Parties
1. Mosley 2. Price v. CTB, Inc.

14