Source: http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~malavet/civpro/cpnotes.htm
Timestamp: 2014-08-22 03:55:47
Document Index: 507403031

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1920', '§ 1391', '§ 1332', '§ 2', '§1331', '§ 1367', '§ 1367']

Professor Pedro A. Malavet: Civil Procedure Assignments & Notes
Civil Procedure Assignments & Notes
Quicklinks by Week
Week One: January 12-13
Topic/Pages Session 1-A
General Recommendations on how to use these notes and answers to "big" questions, such as: Are study aids the work of the devil?
Chapter I. Choosing a System of Procedure, pp. 1-3
Handling a litigatory monster: Dupont Handout
Chapter I: The Adversary System: Band's Refuse , 3-18
Chapter I: Kothe v. Smith , 18-26
Week Two: January 20
Monday, January 19, is the Rev. Martin Luther King holiday and we will not meet on that date; additionally, I will NOT teach on Friday, January 23, which is a legislative Monday Session
Topic/Pages Session 3-A
January 20 Chapter II: The Costs and Rewards of Litigation—Remedies and Related Issues
Prejudgment Seizure: Fuentes v. Shevin, US Const. Am. 14, 27-42
Prejudgment Seizure: Mitchell v. WT Grant, North Georgia v. Di-Chem, 42-50
Friday, January 23, is a "legislative Monday" to make up the sessions that would have been taught on the Reverend Martin Luther King Holiday. I will not teach on this date. I will make up these two hours with a review session at the end of the semester.
Week Three: January 26-27
Topic/Pages Session 4-A
Prejudgment Seizure: Conn. v. Doehr, 50-67
Postjudgment Remedies: Damages, Carey v. Piphus, FRCP 65, 67-84
January 27 Postjudgment Remedies: Equity, Smith v. Western Electric, 84-98
The Cost of Litigation: "Costs" & Attorneys Fees, Venegas v. Mitchell, FRCP 54, 28 USC § 1920, 98-108
Week Four: February 2-3 Session
Topic/Pages Session 6-A
February 2 Chapter III: Pleading
Introduction: Gillispie v. Goodyear, FRCP 1, 2, 8(a), 12(b), US Const. Am. 14, 121-131
Please note that my graphic on pleading is posted at the start of this notes file.
Specificity, US v. Bd. of Harbor Commissioners, consistency and honesty: McCormick v. Kopmann, FRCP 7(a), 8(a), 12(b), 12(c), 12(e), 12(f), 42, 131-142 (The cases are very short)
Sanctions: FRCP 11, Zuk v EPPI, Note that Zuk v. Psychiatric Institute, is a new case, FRCP 11(a), 11(b) ("Safe Harbor"), 11(b)(3), 11(c), 54(d)(1), 143-156
Legal Sufficiency of Claims, Mitchell v. Archibald & Kendall, Inc., FRCP 12(b)(6), 12(b), final sentence, 15(a), 56, review Conley v. Gibson, FRCP 11, 8, 156-162
Week Five: February 9-10
Topic/Pages Session 8-A
Chapter III. Pleading Continued
Heightened Requirement of Specificity
Ross v. AH Robbins, FRCP 9(b)[1] & [2], 8(a), 8(a)(2), 163-173
The Overruling of Conley?,
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, NA, pages 177-181 (Skip the notes at pages 181-189, they are superseded by the notes following Bell Atlantic in the Appendix, starting at page 1217).
The Overruling of Conley? continued: Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, now Appendix pages 1205-1224 replace pages 173-177 and the notes at pages 181-189 in the updated 4th edition.
SO WHAT?: Erickson (now discussed starting at page 1219)
[Click here to download the handout] (You are welcome to download the old handout, but please note that the new material is in the Appendix of the Updated Fourth Edition at pages 1205-1224).
Swierkiewicz, Bell Atlantic and Erickson are likely to require discussion during this session and the first hour of the Tuesday session.
C. Defendant's Response:
1. Pre-Answer Motions, Rule 12 Exercises, FRCP 7(a), 12(a), 12(b), 12(g), 12(h), 15(a), 189-191
(short reading assignment, but you must work through the exercises!!).
Week Six: February 16-17 Session
Topic/Pages Session 10-A
February 16 Chapter III. Pleading Continued.
2. Failure to Answer: Default, Shepard Claims v. William Darrah & Associates, FRCP 4(e), 12(a)(1)(A), 55, 191-199
Session 10-B
3. The Answer: In General: David v. Crompton Knowles I, FRCP 8, 10(b), 11, 11(b)(4), Affirmative Defenses: Gomez v. Toledo, (Gómez has been reduced to notes), 199-207
A NEW NOTE: THE CURIOUS CASE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Session 11-A
Counterclaims & Voluntary Dismissal [Focus mostly on Wigglesworth], 207-214
Counterclaims: Wigglesworth v. Teamsters, FRCP 12(b), 13, 15(c)(2), 20, Voluntary Dismissal: DC Electronics v. Nartron (Nartron has been reduced to notes at p. 213).
WE MAY START DAVID v. CROMPTON KNOWLES II during the first hour.
Session 11-B
E. Amendments to the Pleadings, 214-227:
Permission to Amend, David v. Crompton Knowles II, FRCP 12(c), 15, 15(a), 15(c), 215
Relation Back: Swartz v. Gold Dust Casino, FRCP 12(c), 56, 15, 15(c), 218
Week Seven: February 23-24 Session
Topic/Pages Session 12-A
Chapter IV: Joinder of Claims and Party
Background Notes, 228-234, Parties: [You should skim this re-edited material, but I will focus on the Joinder readings in class].
1. [Notes] Real Party in Interest:Virginia Electric v. Westinghouse, FRCP 17(a), 19, 228-230 [You should skim this material, but I will focus on the Joinder readings in class]
2. Fictitious Names: SMU Association of Women Law Students v. Wynne and Jaffe, FRCP 10(a).
Focus: Joinder of Claims (Rule 18) and Parties (Rule 20), 234-242
Permissive Joinder of Claims, FRCP 18(a), Permissive Joinder of Parties, FRCP 20(a), Kedra v. City of Philadelphia, Insolia v. Phillip Morris, Inc., which supersedes Cohen.
Session 12-B
Compulsory Joinder of Parties, FRCP 19, Janney Montgomery Scott v. Sheppard Niles, 242-260
Session 13-A
Impleader, FRCP 14(a), Clark v. Associates Commercial, 260-265
Session 13-B
Counterclaims & Crossclaims, + Impleader exercises, FRCP 13, 13(a), 13(b), 13(g), 13(h), 14, 14(a), 18, 20, 265-267
EXERCISE DAY! Again, we will spend the entire class doing exercises, which means that you must look at the rules with great care.
Week Eight: March 2-3 Session
Topic/Pages Session 14-A
Discovery Generally: Policies and cost, In Re Convergent Technologies, FRCP 26, 332-342
Session 14-B
Discovery Devices, FRCP 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 45, 342-57
REMEMBER: THE QUESTION WILL BE HOW TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY USING SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN JONES v. CLINTON.
[Click here to view the Jones v. Clinton complaint]
We will also discuss initial disclosure. The old materials have been superseded becauseRule 26(a) was amended in 2000 to make it kinder and gentler. Mandatory Disclosure, the old regime: Scheetz v. Bridgestone/Firestone, FRCP 26(a).
Session 15-A
Scope and Burden, Davis v. Ross, 357-361, Kozlowski v. Sears, FRCP 26(b), 357-368
Session 15-B
McPeek v. Ashcroft (NEW CASE), FRCP 26(b), 368-380
These are new materials on the discovery of electronic materials and other challenges of the age of technology.
Week Nine: March 16-17 Session
Topic/Pages Session 16-A
Work-Product Doctrine: Hickman v. Taylor, 26(b)(1), 26(b)(3), 30(a), 30(c), 30(d)(1), 380-391
Session 16-B
Attorney-Client Privilege: UpJohn v. US, 391-401
Session 17-A
March 17 Experts: In Re Shell Oil Refinery, FRCP 26(b)(4), 26(d), 26(e)(1), 26(f), 26(g)(1), 37(c)(1), 401-412
Session 17-B
March 17 Fact-Gathering Without Judicial Assistance, Corley v. Rosewood, 412-414 [Lecture only, we will spend most of our time on sanctions].
Sanctions: Cine Forty-Second Street v. Allied Artists Pictures, FRCP 26(a), 26(b), 26(c), 37(a), 37(c), 37(d), 415-423.
Week Ten: March 23-24
Topic/Pages Session 18-A
VI. Summary Judgment
Moving for Summary Judgment, FRCP 56
Adickes v. SH Kress & Co. , 424-435
Session 18-B
Moving for Summar Judgment, continued
Celotex v. Catrett , 435-449
Session 19-A
Opposing Summary Judgment:
Burden of Production: Arnstein v. Porter, 449-452, Notes at 455-464
Session 19-B
Burden of Production: Dyer v. MacDougall, 452-455, Notes at 455-464
Chapter VIII. Trial Phases, 521-529
[I will lecture on trial phases; I want to use this material to further explain the concepts of Burdern of Persuasion and Burden of Production. If you have questions, this will be the time to address them].
Week Eleven: March 30-31 Session
Topic/Pages Session 20-A
IX. Geographical Location
Personal Jurisdiction: (a) History, p. 690
(b) Minimum contacts, International Shoe, 710-717
(c) Problems, Note 3 at pages 716-717
Pay particular attention to the problems in note 3 at pages 716-717
Session 20-B
(a) Contract(s) or contact(s)? McGee v. Int'l Life, 717-723
(b) Long-Arm Statutes, Gray v. American Standard, 723-727
(Gray has been reduced to multiple notes. Please identify important terms and phrases, such as "stream of commerce" and "effects test")
(c) Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Court, FRCP 4, 727-729
Session 21-A
Personal Jurisdiction: Refining Minimum Contacts, Worldwide Volkswagen, 729-752
[I will lecture on Calder, Hustler]
Personal Jurisdiction: Burger King , 752-765
Contract(s) of contact(s) once again.
Is BK a contract case or a standard minimum contacts situation?
DISTINGUISH: Choice of LAW vs. Choice of FORUM Clauses,
Burger King (Choice of Law) vs. Carnival Cruise Lines (Choice of Forum)
Week Twelve: April 6-7
Topic/Pages Session 22-A
IX. Geographical Location, cont.
Personal Jurisdiction: Asahi , 765-776
Session 22-B
Personal Jurisdiction in the Internet Age: Old case: Millennium,
NEW CASE: Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 776-790.
Session 23-A
Personal Service Within the Jurisdiction: Burnham v. Superior Court , 809-821
Session 23-B
Venue: Bates v. C & S Adjusters, 28 USC § 1391, 840-847
Week Thirteen: April 13-14
Topic/Pages Session 24-A
X. State vs. Federal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Diversity Jurisdiction: Mas v. Perry, 28 USC § 1332, US Const. Art. III, § 2, Cl. 1, 860-871
Session 24-B
Federal Question Jurisdiction: Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley, 28 USC §1331, 871-877
Session 25-A
Supplemental Jurisdiction, 28 USC § 1367, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (S.Ct. 2005), 890-892, Appendix pp. 1224-1243.
The casebook materials at pages 892-911 have been superseded by a new case which is in the Appendix.
[Click here for Updated Notes]
[Click here for the old handout (now superseded by the Appendix]
OLD MATERIALS for Reference only: Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, Finley v. U.S., 28 USC § 1367, Palmer v. Hospital Authority, 889-904.
Session 25-B
Will be covered in the review session
I will cover the problems from last year at the review session
Joinder and Jurisdiction Problems
Problems Handout for 2008
Answers to the Problems Handout for 2007 I have not changed the facts of the 2007 problem in the 2008 handout other than to account for the 2007 Practical Project, which I did not assign this year. Please note that the last problems handout that I had designed in 2004 predated the 2005 decision in Exxon Mobil, which gives us new guidance on the proper reading of 1367(b). In 2007, I also added a note about the growing consensus about how the 1988 language at the end of 1332(a), referring to resident aliens, should be read.
Additionally, here is a link to how I have done before. The old notes will provide a lot of useful information for our discussion.
Please pay special attention to sections 1331, 1332, 1367 and 1391 in Title 28, and to FRCP 13, 14, 18 & 20.
Week Fourteen: April 20-21
Topic/Pages Session 26-A
XI. Choice of Law in Federal Courts: The Necessary Evil that is Procedure
Swift v. Tyson, Erie RR v. Tompkins, 919-930
Session 26-B
Hanna v. Plummer , 949-965
By way of background, you should skim the notes for: Guarantee Trust , 930-943, and Byrd v. Blue Ridge , 943-949
Session 27-A
For this session, I will go over Asahi, Burham, and over the Subject-Matter jurisdiction problems as a way to review Mas, Mottley and Exxon Mobil.
I will not cover the rest of the Erie doctrine cases, although I will lecture about them on April 20th.
Professor Mashburn has given me the text of her slides for Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. [Click Here]
Answers to the Problems Handout for 2007
Burlington Northern v. Woods & Walker v. ARMCO , 965-975
Session 27-B
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 975-991
Just when we thought Erie was not that important the Supremes surprise us ...
2:15 to 5:00 p.m.
Review Session, probably on Thursday, April 23, in Room 180
You will find old exams and feedback memos for all of them posted to the web site. You will also find a general guide to exam-taking posted in the "Student Resources" page of the web site.
Please take note that changes in statutory interpretation by the Supreme Court may have changed the answers to certain old exam questions. For example, and most notably, Exxon Mobil changes how we treat parties joined under Rule 20 for purposes of computing the jurisdictional amount by combining 1332 and 1367 subject matter jurisdiction.
EXAM, please check with the Office of Student Affairs for updated information on your examination.