Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/92636552/Online-Civil-Procedure-Flowchart
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 13:46:34
Document Index: 294994740

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1333', '§1332', '§1331', '§1333', '§1367', '§1367', '§1367', '§1331', '§1367', '§1332', '§1367', '§1333', '§1367', '§1332', '§1367', '§1333', '§1367', '§1367', '§1367', 'art 18', '§1367', '§1367', '§1367', '§1367', '§1', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§1404', '§1391', '§1404', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§1441', '§1367', '§1367', '§1331', '§1441', '§1332', '§1367', '§1332', '§1367', '§1331', '§1367', '§1367', '§1367', '§1367', '§2283', '§1335', '§2361', '§1335', '§1738', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'arts3']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreCivil Procedure ReviewI. Jurisdiction 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 2. Personal Jurisdiction 3. Due Process 4. Service of Process (Notice) 5. Venue 6. Removal 7. Waiver
95906394.doc
Does the federal law that is an element authorize a private right of action? Yes There is FQJ 95906394.doc Don’t rely too much on this. I derived this rule from Smith v. Kansas City Title and Merrell Dow v. Thompson. Aronovsky says the COA are still split and the SC has not ruled. So, in some circuits this would work but don’t treat it as a hard and fast rule.
g. Two tests for principle place of business: (1) Nerve Center Test – place where corporate decisions are made. and Ambassadors
1) COMPLETENESS: Diversity must be complete.doc -3-
. §1333
4 Admiralty 18 U..C. Counsels. iii) If person has multiple homes in different states. All π’s must be different from all ∆’s..S. c) UNINCORPORATED Associations (e. partnerships): Cumulate domiciliary state of each member.C. a national labor union like the Teamsters could never pass the federal diversity test because it has members in all 50 states.place where the corporation does most of its manufacturing or service providing.S. 4) AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: must be over $75. 2) DATE: Diversity is calculated as of the date the action was instituted. §1332
3 Alienage 18 U.000. and ii) You have the intention of remaining in the new state for the indefinite future. exclusive of interest and costs but inclusive of punitive damages.Is There Subject Matter Jurisdiction? United States Constitution. 3) CITIZENSHIP (Domicile) a) PERSONS: Where you were born and continues through your life unless: i) You physically change your state. d) PARTIES IN REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS (e. probate. labor unions.g.C. So. §1331
2 Diversity 18 U. look of that person’s center of gravity by looking at: (1) Where does the person live? (2) Where is the family? (3) Where does the person pay taxes? (4) Where does that person work? (5) Where are the cars licensed? (6) Where does the person vote? b) CORPORATIONS:: Every corporation has two domiciles: i) state of incorporation.S. or (2) Muscle (Plurality) Test . §1333
5 Disputes Between States. 5) AGGREGATION RULES: 95906394.C. or derivative actions or class action suits: i) Classical Rule for Derivative Actions & Class Actions: diversity is based on the citizenship of the representative. ii) Modern Rule for Probate and All Others: diversity is based on the citizenship of the represented party. and ii) its principle place of business (usually where the corporate headquarters is located. Article III: Federal Courts Are Courts of Limited Jurisdiction:
1 Federal Question 18 U.S. There cannot be anyone on the left of the “v” and the right. representative of a child.
b) §1367(b): Codifies Kroger but rejects Finley.doc
.S.C. 2) §1367: After some restrictions in Owens and Finley. This ruling. cross-claims.S. a) Ancillary claims doctrine allowed π’s to bring a case and allowed ∆’s to assert jurisdictionally insufficient compulsory counter-claims.Is There Subject Matter Jurisdiction? Supplemental Jurisdiction Created by Judicial Interpretation and Codified in 28 U. and 3rd party claims. Gibbs – state tort claim added to federal employment question. Counsels. a) §1367(a): Matters originating from a common nucleus of operative facts are now considered part of the same case or controversy for Article III purposes. §1331
2 Diversity 18 U. (2) Rule 19 (Compulsory Joinder of Parties) (3) Rule 20 (Permissive Joinder of Parties) (4) Rule 24 (Intervention) c) §1367(c) — gives Ct discretion to hear cases (like Gibbs — but not clear whether list is illustrative or exhaustive) i) Says that the Ct may decline to exercise j if: (1) Claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law (2) The claim substantially predominates over the claim(s) over which the dc has original jurisdiction (3) The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction (4) In exceptional circumstances – other reasons
95906394. §1332
2a Supplemental (Pendant & Ancillary) 18 U.C. Congress codified Gibbs in §1367.S. §1333
4 Admiralty 18 U.C.S. §1367
3 Alienage 18 U.C. limits reach of jurisdiction only in diversity only cases — exercise of jurisdiction must be consistent w/§1332 (diversityRemember. §1367(b) applies statute) i) No supplemental jurisdiction. §1333
5 Disputes Between States.S. and Ambassadors
1) Pendant & Ancillary Jurisdiction: United Mine Workers v. called the pendant doctrine. must have independent jurisdiction for claims by Π against persons made parties by: ONLY if diversity is the sole (1) Rule 14 (Impleader) basis for being in federal court.C. Supreme Court ruled that federal court could assume jurisdiction over state claim because they all emanated from the same set of facts. expanded the definition of case and controversy under Article III.S.C. §1367
1 Federal Question 18 U.
But the legislative history indicates that Congress wants the claim to stay out. 23 The literal language of §1367 lets the claim in. The Courts of Appeal are split.
95906394. Justice O’Connor 14 19 20 (∆) 24 This is the §1367(b) limitation.doc
. Ques.C.Supplemental Jurisdiction Flowchart 18 U.S.
§1367(b) limitation does not apply to Fed Ques. §1367 Same case or controversy? Yes Federal Question or Diversity? Fed.
Diversity Only Claim by π or ∆? ∆ SM J §1367(b) limitation does not apply to claims brought by ∆. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2000. SM J No No SMJ This is a basic requirement of §1367(a).
relative burdens. Purposeful Availement: Has ∆ purposefully availed itself of the benefits & protections of forum’s laws? Hanson v.
International Shoe Co. v. Cause of Action: Where did the cause of action arise? 2. Systematic & Continuous = General Jurisdiction b. 2. time.doc
1. Pawloski Waiver: Insurance Corp of Ireland Contract / Agent Appointment / Shows up to Litigate
Domicile Gordon v. Denkla. Sporadic = Specific Jurisdiction c. §1: FULL FAITH & CREDIT CLAUSE Full Faith and Credit Will Be Given in Each State
Consent Express: Carnival Cruise Lines Implied: Hess v. Central Hanover Bank
ARTICLE IV.PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Rule 4 (a-e. Interest of the State: in providing a forum for & protecting its citizens. 4. Witnesses: Where are the witnesses? -6-
1. Activities: Scrutinize these activities in the forum state: a. Dangerous activity? 3. Steele: Kid at College Milliken: WY Domicile Served in CO
Physical Presence in State Tag Jurisdiction Lives! Burnham v. 95906394. Multiplicity of Suits: Will they all be resolved? 5. Evidence: Where is the bulk of the evidence? 7. Indirect d. h. Direct vs. n) Reasonably Calculated Under the Circumstances to Give Notice Mullane v. Forum: Alternative forum available? Fair & convenient? 6. Burden on the Parties: Economic. Superior Court
∆ must have sufficient minimum contacts within the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Law: What forum’s law? 3.
Any dist. is subject to PJ. Local interest in having disputes resolved locally 2. 3.VENUE: Underlying Policies:  Judicial Efficiency.S. Any alien. Venue in all other cases.S. alien corps. Any dist. even if the transferring Court doesn’t:. 2. Piper. where any ∆ resides. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 2. Anywhere corp.” Therefore. § 1391(d). 1. Where any ∆ can be found only if Venue of corporate ∆’s § 1391(c). but could be relevant if the law in the alternative forum were completely inadequate. Convenience to voluntary witnesses 4.S. Use FNC in such case. Where a substantial part of the controverted events occurred or where the disputed property is located. Choice of Law: Diversity Cases Only Laws of the transferring state apply unless venue was improper. 2. Same as in diversity cases. Venue
Forum Non Conveniens Public vs. in which Venue Exam Tricks Transferring Court can only send a case to a court where the “action could have been commenced or initiated. There is an alternative forum. 1. §1404 Balancing Test Convenience of parties & witnesses + Interests of justice must substantially outweigh π’s interest in choice of forum. Courts know this and won’t grant FNC unless: 1. Difference in substantive law that will be applied in new forum is not decisive in dismissing on grounds of FNC. Use FNC in such case. Access to sources of proof 2. Juris. incl. Public Interest Factors 1. §1391 Venue in diversity cases. Court congestion General Rule FNC is tough on π’s. above. §1404 Federal Courts NEVER transfer to State Courts. Analyze as if fed gov’t is separate state. can 95906394. the receiving Court must have all 3. Personal Jurisdiction 3.doc
Transfer of Venue: 28 U. 1. Ability to compel attendance of witnesses 3. Same as in diversity cases.. especially in light of statutes of limitation and Pers. ∆ waives statute of limitations defense. if all ∆’s reside in the same state. 1. 1.  Limit Forum Shopping.C.  Possible Exam Questions
Venue Rules: 28 U. § 1391(b).C. Private Factors Balancing Test Private Interest Factors 1. Can have venue in multiple locations. § 1391(a). Venue for aliens 28 U. above. 2. State Courts NEVER transfer to federal Courts or to different States.C. 2. -7-
§1441 STATE Court 4. ORIGINAL ∆’s only. §1367 Same Case or Common Nucleus of Meets Supplemental Jurisdiction Requirements under §1367? Yes No
Does the federal law that is an element authorize a private right of action? Yes There is FQJ 95906394. 5. 3.
.S. ALL ∆’s must consent.doc
There is NO FQJ. no counterclaim ∆’s No Removal for In-State Defendants in Diversity-Only Cases Federal Question Claims Pass Through Federal Question Filter 28 U.S. §1331 Federal Question Flow Chart Does the π’s well pleaded complaint allege an express or implied federal cause of action? N o FEDERAL Court 1. 6. State to Federal ONLY.C. Non.S. Completely Discretionary 2.Removal: 28 U. Must have been qualified to grant original jurisdiction.Federal Question Claims Pass Through Supplemental Jurisdiction Filter 28 U.C. May grant supplemental jurisdiction as long as at least one separate and independent federal claim eligible for removal.C.
§1441(a) Court Must Hear
95906394.10 -
Forum Shopping? 2. BALANCE Do BOTH
Hanna Dicta Analyze in light of twin aims of Erie. 1. Possibly/N o (Grey Area) Byrd Test Is state rule bound up with (implementing of) state created rights& obligations? Does it regulate primary behavior? Y State law N Rule of form & mode. of the laws? Y State law N Fed law
Fed. Byrd was judge/jury relationship which outweighed outcome determinacy)
Outcome determinative test (for state law) If outcome would be different depending on which law applies (i. statute of limitations is very determinative if its run in state and not fed)
95906394.11 -
.e.doc
. Inequitable admin. but weak on its own. Countervailing Interests (for fed law) (always have uniformity.Erie Doctrine Flowchart The discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws Is state law substantive / black letter law? N O Fed Rule on Point? (look at twin aims of Erie before deciding) YES YES Hanna Holding Apply Fed Rule if it’s valid.
12(b)(7) dismissal for failure to join and 95906394. 3. Joint tortfeasors are NOT compulsory. 2.doc . In federal practice a π can join any claims he or she has against the ∆. If state X follows the more traditional rule of Permissive Joinder of Parties: 2 Prong Test 1 ¶ at most on exam. Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction.III. Will outsiders be prejudiced by result? Exam Tip: Probably only situation in which outsider is not compulsory is tort action. 3. T&O + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder 1. 2. Can you join the outsider? If not. what do I do now? a. why not? Exam Tip: look out! Reason could be SMJ and/or PJ. AND 2. In a state following the FRCP. Joinder
Joinder of Claims 3 Sentences at most on exam: 1. There is a common question of law or fact Compulsory Joinder of Parties Rule 19(a) 1. π may only want or need to sue the rich ∆. If so. Will parties be injured by failure to join outsider? b. be ready to perform the entire analysis. I can’t join this guy.12 -
. a π can join any claims he or she has against the ∆ because those are the Federal Rules. Who is necessary and should be joined if possible? a.
the prejudice can be lessened or avoided. or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party. third. by the shaping of relief. and may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent delay or prejudice. one who has a substantial interest.
Parties 14. of incurring double.(2) hereof person interest. (g) Cross-claim Against Co-Party. (see Permissive Counterclaims.
14(a) When Defendant May Bring in Third Party.01 minimum & COMPLETE Diversity
Amount claimed in good faith is relevant. it is an independent cause of action. A pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein or relating to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. 14(b) When Plaintiff May Complaint Rule. from being embarrassed. not amount the court awards.13 3rd Part y
95906394. The court fact common to all may make such these persons will orders as will arise in the party prevent a action. Original claims: claims by Π’s against ∆’s.A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim it has against any opposing party. 4) Other compelling reasons. if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. g) (a) Compulsory Counterclaims . occurrence. when congress the person's absence may : has determined that (i) as a practical matter there should be no impair or impede the private.Joinder. b.000 not actual award. But … (b) exception). fourth. to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties. 3) Dc has dismissed claims under DC’s original Jx. cannot be made a party. appear on the face of a subject to service of process well pleaded complaint. as a third-party plaintiff.Diversity and $ Amount $75. may join. occurrence. second. 19. UNLESS to a legal certainty Π cannot recover $75k.District courts shall have original Jx arising under the Constitution etc. or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the 19(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible. Claim must exceed 75. It is against a plaintiff. or third-party claim. as many claims as the party has against an opposing party. or series of transactions or occurrences and if any Separate 20(b) common question of law or Trials. A person who is defendant to do so. 20. to join a 3rd party. counterclaim. At any time after commencement of the action a defending party. the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.Big Picture
Must satisfy both FRCP and SM Jx.when controversy. Jx over all other claims that are related to the original claim when they are part of the same claim or EXCEPT. If aclaimed as described in subdivision (a)(1) . whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate. multiple. they shall have supp. third-party plaintiff. whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder. Issue that the D complete relief cannot be raises in the answer or accorded among those that the plaintiff already parties. may cause a summons and “Arising Under” In complaint to be served upon order to invoke federal a person not a party to the court jurisdiction the action who is or may be federal issue must be a liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the sufficient or central part plaintiff's claim against the of theWell Pleaded dispute. Note: this is not exclusive JX
Joinder by20(a) Permissive Π
AClaims 18 (a) party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim.000. Cross-claims: claims between coparties. federal. Original Claim Counter Claim Cross Claim 3rd party Claim Claim by 3rd P
. A pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.For a Bring in Third Party.
§1332. 19
Diversity must exist at the time the complaint is filed with the clerk.Federal Questions
§1367Supplemental Jx Where DC has original Jx.
Or Claims 13 (a.doc
. or 24. the extent to which. the necessary both that the plaintiff may cause a third case “arise under” the party to be brought in under constitution or some circumstances which under other aspect of federal 19(a) Persons to be Joined if this rule would entitle a law and that this fact Feasible. The factors to be considered by the court include: first. cross-claim. by protective provisions in the judgment. When a litigant to invoke federal counterclaim is asserted question jur. they original claim arises SOLELY under §1332 the DC WILL NOT have Jx over claims made by Π’s against persons under RULE 14. see §1367(b) The DC may also
decline supp. complaint alleging a subject of the action and is violation of a federal so situated that the statute in a state cause disposition of the action in of action. Joinder. 3rd Party claims: claim by ∆ acting as 3rd Party Π. the court shall determine whether the action should proceed among the parties before it. or should be dismissed. Jx if: 1) A novel or complex state law issue 2) Claim dominates the claim which original Jx was based. and whose joinder will not If a substantial issue is deprive the court of not raised as a legitimate jurisdiction over the subject part of the plaintiffs own matter of the action shall be claim for relief there is joined as a party in the no federal question action if jurisdiction under the (1) in the person's absence statute. cause of person's ability to protect action for the violation that interest or does not state a claim (ii) leave any of the “arising under” the persons already parties Constitution or Laws of subject to a substantial risk the United States. delayed. 3rd Parties: a party brought into the action by a current ∆. or series of transactions or occurrences and if any common question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action. All persons may join20 one Parties in (a) action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief … arising out of the same transaction. or anticipates are irrelevant (2) the person claims an for jurisdictional Merrell Dow-A interest relating to the purposes. or other measures. It need not exist at the time of trial or when the cause of action arose A plaintiff can often cure the lack of diversity problem by dismissing nondiverse parties.
FRCP Subject Matter Jx §1331. Counterclaims: made by ∆’s against Π’s. All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them any right to relief … arising out of the same transaction.
3. 4 Part Transaction & Occurrence Test to define when a claim or counterclaim arises from the same transaction: (from Plant v. to each-and-every supplier involved along the way.. 3rd Party Claims (Impleader) Rule 14 1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same? b. Diversity Actions: If your compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) is could not be plead alone (<$75k or no diversity). from retailer to manufacturer. A counter claim is compulsory if it “arises out of the same transaction or occurrence” that is the subject matter of the π’s claim (counterclaim must be pleaded) 2. I. but it is not guaranteed. Exam Tip: Rule 13 pretty much allows a ∆ to counterclaim against a π for anything he wants. Always Permissive 2. 5.e. Permissive: Rule 13(b). Big exam points here. 6. if you fail to pursue your compulsory counterclaim in federal Court. Exam Tip: When in doubt. 95906394. state Court will probably not allow a new suit on the same facts. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute π’s claim as well as ∆’s counterclaim? d. Rule 14(a) Amendment: original π may amend complaint to directly assert claim against newly impleaded 3rd party ∆. invoke §1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction and be sure to use the buzzwords: a. and 3rd Party Claims (Impleader) Counterclaims 1. start writing about T&O. 4. so if you’re blanking out. everything else. Common Nucleus of Facts Cross-Claims Rule 13(g) (∆ vs. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on ∆’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? c. 3. examine Transaction & Occurrence. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? 3. Rule 19 & 20 (Basic Joinder Rules). It does NOT say anything about Rule 13 (counterclaim and cross-claim). Can invoke §1367 if claim won’t stand alone. ∆) 1. a. Crossclaims. 4. 2. Underlying policy concerns: efficiency and economy.Counterclaims. Compulsory: Rule 13(a).doc . an infinite number of parties may be added to the action.14 -
. Blazer Financial Services) State Courts will usually respect Rule 13(a). it’s pretty much the basis of everything in CivPro. and Rule 24 (Intervention). 5. Adding New Parties: Theoretically. Kroger Rule: Original π cannot assert supplemental §1367 claim against parties brought under Rule 14 (third party practice). 3rd party ∆’s counterclaiming back will probably be compulsory because permissive counterclaims are usually transactionally related and therefore NOT subject to supplemental jurisdiction. Can invoke §1367 if claim won’t stand alone. Exam Tip: Remember that every party added means you must establish personal jurisdiction over all these parties. Remember Pugsley said the title “plaintiff” doesn’t mean squat in Tort law. it just means you filed first. use it or lose it.
. Blazer Financial Services) 1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same? 2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on ∆’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? 3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute π’s claim as well as ∆’s counterclaim? 4) Is there any logical relation between the Rule 13(g) Crossclaims π Negligence or Tort Negligence or Tort Crossclaim for Product Liability Existing Co-∆ (Party to Original Action) ∆
95906394.JOINDER DIAGRAMS
A counter claim is compulsory if it “arises out of the same transaction or occurrence” that is the subject matter of the π’s claim (counterclaim must be pleaded) 4 Part Test to define when a claim or counterclaim arises from the same transaction: (from Plant v.doc
Rule 13(h) Joinder of Additional Parties to Crossclaims or Counterclaims S1 – Adding Third Party Defendant Rule 14(a) π Negligence or Tort Negligence or Tort Crossclaim ∆ π Negligence or Tort ∆ (3rd Party π)
In this example. an original ∆ crossclaims against another original ∆ AND joins a 3rd party ∆ as well.
95906394.16 -
Rule 14(a) S6 – TPD Can Assert Claim Against π π ∆ (3 Party π)
Rule 14(a) S7 – π Can Assert Claim Against TPD ∆ (3 Party π)
Requires same Transaction or Occurrence as π’s claim against 3rd Party π
Counterclaim 3rd Party ∆ Requires same Transaction or Occurrence as π’s claim against 3rd Party π 3rd Party ∆
95906394.
Rule 14(a) S9 – TPD Joining Another Third Party Defendant
∆ (3rd Party π)
Rule 20(a) S1 Joinder of Parties .π
Permissive Joinder of Parties: 2 Prong Test 1 ¶ at most on exam.doc
. AND There is a common question of law or fact binding the parties.π’s
Rule 20(a) S2 Joinder of Parties – ∆’s
Permissive Joinder of Parties: 2 Prong Test 1 ¶ at most on exam.
95906394. TO + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction. TO + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction. AND There is a common question of law or fact binding the parties.
It is a device to resolve at one time the claims of many persons to one piece of property or sum of money. district where dispute arose. determined between claimants. 28 U. .20 -
. district where any claimant found if no other basis for venue Only basis is provision in 28 USC §2283 for stay “where necessary in aid of . .Diversity .Amount Personal Jurisdiction and Service of process Venue
28 U. but may be employed by a ∆ through use of cross-claim [Rule 13(g)]. §1335 Minimal diversity.C.
Statutory authority for injunctions (28 USC §2361) Post a bond with the Court to cover value of controverted property. district where property is. Practical Application: Interpleader is a π’s tool to join all claimants at once.000+ Need personal Jurisdiction.Interpleader Rule 22. service under Rule 4 Residence of any claimants (if all from one state). §1335 “You all figure out who I need to pay if I am liable (which I may not be)” Interpleader Basics Defined: Interpleader is an equity device designed to protect persons in possession of property (stakeholders) the ownership of which is or may be claimed by more than one party. Policy Objective: So that the stakeholder will not have to pay the same claim twice.S.C.doc
. (At least 2 claimants diverse) $500 in controversy Nationwide service of process Residence of one or more claimants
Rule 22 Complete diversity.S.
Issue Subject Matter Jurisdiction . jurisdiction” Deposit controverted property with the Court. stakeholder on one side and claimants on the other $75. or permissive counterclaim [Rule 13(b)].
95906394. such as a bank account claimed by more than one person. compulsory counterclaim [Rule 13(a)].
no existing party can adequately represent his interest Rule 24(b): Permissive Intervention At discretion of Court if: 1.21 -
. Example: Environmental Lawyers intervene to contest Oil Co. Common Question of Law or Fact. OR 2. Conditional Right Granted by Statute. uncontestable right if: 1. OR 2. OR 3. such as contesting scope of protective orders and confidentiality agreements. you am coming anyway” “I wasn’t invited. Applicant has interest in transaction or property + disposition will impair his interest . settlement agreement ordering destruction of discovery documents which may show broader pattern of abuse 95906394. but I need PJ over all the claimants in order for Rule 22 interpleader to work! Rule 24(a): Intervention of Right Automatic.doc .Intervention Rule 24 Remember. Limited Purpose Intervention: Courts my grant intervention for limited purposes. Unconditional Right Granted by Federal Statute.
Is there: A common question of law or fact? 95906394.22 -
. suppression of which arguably would be contrary to public policy. Limited Purpose Intervention: Courts my grant intervention for limited purposes.
MUST Grant This is Rule 24(a).Rule 24(b¹): Limited Purpose Intervention Intervention Flowchart Judicial Expansion of Rule 24(b): 1. Yes Does a Federal Statute grant MUST Grant unconditional right of This is Rule 24(a). such as contesting scope of protective orders and confidentiality agreements.doc .or A limited purpose that would serve public policy?
Step 3: CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND PUBLIC POLICY. Step 1: STATUTORY ANALYSIS 2. settlement agreement ordering destruction of discovery documents which may show broader pattern of abuse. intervention?
MAY Grant This is Rule 24(b) Court will consider delay or prejudice to original parties. Example: Environmental lawyers intervene to contest Oil Co.
.95906394.
7. Just make sure you pick a π from another state. 6. VW test.  Amount in Controversy cannot be aggregated.  If it’s classified as a 23(b)(2) injunctive claim.  Diversity is based on the representative. 3. 2. Not required for 23(b)(1) or (2) cases. ECONOMY: Judicial Economy is Served. COMMON LEGAL THEORY: Claims have a Common legal
theory or arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Denkla. requires:  Adequate representative  Notice Right to opt out.
Adequately represent the class. Personal Jurisdiction: Not the Shoe. For 23(b)(3) damages case. B RULE 23(B): Action must fall within one of three categories of Fed Rule 23(b)  Identifiable Class  Named πs (or ∆s) are members of the class  Numerosity  Commonality
95906394.Class Actions Rule 23:
.  But in a 23(b)(3) case you’d have a big problem if your individual claims were not each over the $75k requirement. you would value the injunction and that could get you over the $75k  Or you could file it in state court.24 -
class. NUMEROUS: Potential π’s too numerous for joinder.
5. Focuses mostly on notice.
CLASS: is roughly definable and π is a member.
Federal Question: Normal Rule Applies Diversity: Class action is a representative action.
claims are specific to the π. etc. arises from majority position is to focus the claim  π transaction or occurrence. Necessarily Decided (This is important. Remember the Policy Rationale: Courts will interpret claims broadly in order to encourage joinder and discourage multiple litigation (judicial efficiency). Leave Me Alone. CE is a scalpel. On the exam. severing only the issues previously adjudicated. breach.doc . if suits or issue  Mass version of Rule 19 joinder. B is NOT barred by res judicata because even though his claim arises from the same transaction & occurrence. she’s probably got half a  dozen theories of recovery under tort and contract law (strict liability. (Predominanceboth ways  Could be only effective method of the right-wrong test. But as action  Must present common So. Example: In-other-words. Class  Class members may NOT opt out Action protects other π’s. sues B for negligence. a. But all those actions Notice must inform members may opt-out. first π takes it all. Relief  No $ damages Res Judicata Basics  Class members may NOT opt out 1. don’t worry about comparative negligence claims. Collateral Estoppel Basics 1. This is because A actually litigated and necessarily determined that B was the negligent driver in the accident. Exam Tip: Be sure to let the professor know you defined the cause-of-action so that he knows you understand its central importance to the concept of res judicata. lopping off the entire claim. But the of remedy a wrong? Courts have held and a minority of jurisdictions still use would have common question) on the transaction. 5. But B will be estopped from asserting a claim of negligence against A.  Limited to Injunctive or Declaratory Protect rights where large numbers of (2) persons are affected. if π bought a toaster that exploded and killed her pet iguana. 2.
. I Don’t Want To Talk About It Anymore!”
Collateral Objective Mutuality of Estoppel Class Defined Policy Practical Application Res Judicata Estoppelinconsistent decisions (Who or which parties are subject to claim brought 23(b) Avoid or In a limited fund case. covered by violations). 23(b) Class action for everyone who was  & Bar: The controverted matter (causeJudicial efficiency a poker chip. Claim for Relief is The Key: questions of it would make sense and Ralph’s law or fact. Merger$ Monetary Damages (3) overcharged  You can’tsuperior to other available now and part later. If to react. There are 3 requirements for CE: a.25 b. 95906394. absentees. If RJ is a meat cleaver. focus of some ∆’s deterring behavior on transaction & occurrence. so B never counterclaimed against A. But Courts will interpret claims narrowly if they are concerned about the harshness of preclusion and the burden on the π. it’s the same bears cost of notice to all classprobably(many small RJ. Definition: RJ means you cannot re-litigate a matter that you previously litigated or could have litigated. you only get two choices: bet it or don’t  of action) is like 2.). members. a. been plead but tuna they bought at Ralph’s. Actually Litigated c. The issue may previously have been decided but was not necessary to resolution of that case. 23(b) Civil rights cases. For purposes of the exam. and wins. Avoid harm to ∆’s and and are BOUND by the holding. members. No one methods could not economically pursue weren’t are merged into the first judgment and further litigation is barred by RJ. Example: Driver A hits Driver B. would sue individually.PET M
“Go Away. Additional theories that could have10 cents on every can of Must be break it in half and play part  Allows relief where individual π’s bet it. warranty. what’s the claim for relief (cause of action)? Is it litigation to preserve a right or to a class 3. Now Driver B wants to sue Driver A for his injuries. (Claim Preclusion) (Issue Preclusion) of interests of class preclusion? (1) impairment individually. arise from the same occurrence – the toaster explosion. Assume that there was no compulsory counterclaim rule. Definition: CE means you cannot re-litigate an issue that you previously litigated or could have litigated. Most Courts would rule this a single cause-of-action for RJ purposes. 4. so that single accident gave rise to valid claims for both A and B. Same Issue b.
Yes 12(b)(6) Default judgment or Consent decree Summary judgment & Directed Verdict (JMOL) Yes Was it valid? Proper court with subject matter and personal jurisdiction? §1738 “Full Faith & Credit” valid state court decisions Yes are binding in federal court unless state court lacked competency. No
Was there a final judgment in the previous case? (Final means all steps in the adjudication except execution & appeal. including matters that were or should have been litigated.doc CLAIM PRECLUSION Entire claim is precluded.26 RJ won’t apply if the matter hasn’t been finally and validly decided by a proper Court!
. Does 2nd Action Involve Same Parties or Those In Privity? (Privity requires a legal relationship between the parties) 95906394.
Online Civil Procedure Flowchart by jmskinner796 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedCiv Pro Flowcharts From Internetby Andy GordonProperty Flowchart 1by Ryen SchimermanCiv Pro Diagramsby Hanaiya GholsonFlowchart Tort of Negligenceby Yogita HauradhunFlorentino Reviewerby Fym Gem AlbertoTorts Short Sheet-Henderson-SMUby betasteveCIR vs Primetownby Rhett Mark EblahanReal.property Flowchartby Helim Kathleen ChunCir v Primetownby Alyssa Clarizze MalaluanProperty Cardsby bifergusonCRIM Law Flowchartby cnred65Contract Flowchart Coloredby lawschooldownloadCivil Procedure Flowchartby Travis DunsmoorService Tax (Publication Names) Rules 2008by Ninjal TullyContracts Flowchart - Considerationby Lee CoatsLampasas v. Bell, 180 U.S. 276 (1901)by Scribd Government DocsBlack Letter Law Grid - Criminal Law Study Guide - Quick Reference Law School Guideby JJ850Untitledby eurolexConstitutional Law Flowchartby sxalesRepublic Act No. 22by ulonggwapoCriminal law Outlineby drjf3Untitledby eurolexRule Outlineby learninghandCity Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. McGowan, 323 U.S. 594 (1945)by Scribd Government DocsCivil Procedure Summary and Chartsby mesomedes3:09-cv-05456 Doc#319by Equality Case FilesCivpro Flowchartby Dawn J. OwensHadden v. Merritt, 115 U.S. 25 (1885)by Scribd Government DocsSimilar to Online Civil Procedure FlowchartCiv Pro Flowcharts From InternetProperty Flowchart 1Civ Pro DiagramsFlowchart Tort of NegligenceFlorentino ReviewerTorts Short Sheet-Henderson-SMUCIR vs PrimetownReal.property FlowchartCir v PrimetownProperty CardsCRIM Law FlowchartContract Flowchart ColoredCivil Procedure FlowchartService Tax (Publication Names) Rules 2008Contracts Flowchart - ConsiderationLampasas v. Bell, 180 U.S. 276 (1901)Black Letter Law Grid - Criminal Law Study Guide - Quick Reference Law School GuideUntitledConstitutional Law FlowchartRepublic Act No. 22Criminal law OutlineUntitledRule OutlineCity Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. McGowan, 323 U.S. 594 (1945)Civil Procedure Summary and Charts3:09-cv-05456 Doc#319Civpro FlowchartHadden v. Merritt, 115 U.S. 25 (1885)Civil Procedure CheatsheetNorth Camarines Lumber vs CIR.docx