Term
|
Definition
Which rule deals with Joinder of Claims? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which rule deals with Permissive Joinder of Parties? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which rule deals with Counterclaims and Cross-Claims? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A _______ is a claim asserted by one party against a co-party; that is, someone originally on the same side of the "v" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A ______ authorizes a defending party in a suit to assert claims back against a party who has claimed against him; that is, someone originally on the opposite side of the “v” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which sub-rule deals with Compulsory Counterclaims? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which sub-rule deals with Permissive Counterclaims? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If a counterclaim is from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim, it must be classified as a ___________ counterclaim |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If a counterclaim is from a different transaction or occurrence as the original claim, it must be classified as a ___________ counterclaim |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which sub-rule deals with cross-claims? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Are cross-claims compulsory or permissive? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which type of jurisdiction deals with cases "between citizens of different states" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Where does the statutory authority for diversity jurisdiction come from? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Where does the statutory authority for federal question jurisdiction come from? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Where does the statutory authority for supplemental jurisdiction come from? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Where does the Constitutional authority for federal subject-matter jurisdiction come from? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Section 1331 only applies if the ______ ________ requires proof of federal law |
|
|
Term
1) Diversity case... 2)...if joined by Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24... 3) Claim is made by plaintiff |
|
Definition
Three limits on Supplemental Jurisdiction (1367b) |
|
|
Term
1) The court has original jurisdiction over a claim 2) The claims are part of the same “case or controversy” under Article III |
|
Definition
Two requirements for Supplemental Jurisdiciton (1367a) |
|
|
Term
Supplemental jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Frequently, the rules will authorize joinder of claims over which there is no independent basis of subject-matter jurisdiction. This is known as _____________ |
|
|
Term
1) Pendent jurisdiction 2) Ancillary jurisdiciton |
|
Definition
Two historical predecessors to Section 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Historical type of jurisdiction in which plaintiff asserted a jurisdictionally proper claim against a nondiverse party and added on a related state law claim |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Historical type of jurisdiction in which related claims were asserted by defendants or other additional parties after initial complaint |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What type of jurisdiction can be described as cases “between citizens of different states”? |
|
|
Term
1) Defendant is diverse (from another state) 2) Claim is for more than $75,000 |
|
Definition
Two requirements for diversity jurisdiction: |
|
|
Term
1) One P can aggregate multiple claims against one D 2)If there is a single defendant – other parties can join as co-parties in a lawsuit, and claim less than $75,000 if the original claim is greater than $75,000 |
|
Definition
When can claims be aggregated (to get to $75,000) under diversity jurisdiction? (Hint: Two scenarios) |
|
|
Term
False; this figure relates to the size of the claim (the amount in controversy), not the actual size of the recovery |
|
Definition
True/False: The $ figure in regards to the diversity jurisdiction requirement relates to the $ amount awarded by the jury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When all Ps are from different states than all Ds, what is known to exist? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In diversity jurisdiction, can parties on the opposite side of the “v” be from the same state? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In diversity jurisdiction, can parties on the same side of the “v” be from the same state? |
|
|
Term
No; unless they are recognized as a “permanent resident” |
|
Definition
Do aliens domiciled in the U.S. do not count as citizens for diversity purposes? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Section 1331 (Federal question jurisdiction) only applies if the _________'s claim requires proof of _______ law |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What case is the landmark/important case re: federal question jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
This involves the well-pleaded complaint, which asks where the plaintiff would have to raise the federal issue in a complaint which includes the elements she needs to prove to establish her claim, and only these elements |
|
Definition
What is the Mottley test? |
|
|
Term
Plaintiffs could not prove a state law claim without establishing a proposition of federal law; Federal question jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Holding of Smith; and what type of jurisdiction does it relate to? |
|
|
Term
In a case in which Congress intended not to create a cause of action, no federal question jurisdiction exists, even if state law necessarily implicates federal law; Federal question jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Holding of Merrell Dow; and what type of jurisdiction does it relate to? |
|
|
Term
Which claims the phrase “arising under” federal law includes |
|
Definition
Key phrase/important thing for Supplemental Jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What rule deals with Intervention? |
|
|
Term
Intervention authorizes an absent party who learns of an action to become a party to the litigation; Rule 24 |
|
Definition
What is Intervention, and what Rule does it apply to? |
|
|
Term
1) Intervention as a right: Specific circumstances in which the absentee has a right to become a party to a case 2) Permissive intervention: Situations in which the court, may, in its discretion, allow an interested person to become a party |
|
Definition
Intervention can be broken down into what two parts? |
|
|
Term
1) Person claims an interest to the property or transaction that is the subject matter of the action 2) Interest may be impaired if person is not allowed to participate in the case 3) Absentee’s interest is not adequately represented by those already parties to the action |
|
Definition
Key factors for Intervention as a Right |
|
|
Term
No; motion to intervene still must be timely |
|
Definition
Does Rule 24(a)(2) create an automatic right to intervene? |
|
|
Term
1) Person intervening is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or 2) Person intervening has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. |
|
Definition
Key factors for Permissive Intervention: |
|
|
Term
Permissive intervention (24(b) |
|
Definition
What standard of intervention is broader? Intevention as a right (24a) or permissive intervention (24b)? |
|
|
Term
1) Request must be timely 2) Court has discretion not to allow it |
|
Definition
Two limitations to 24(b): |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which rule deals with Required Joinder of Parties? |
|
|
Term
Rule 19 (Required Joinder of Parties) and Rule 24 (Intervention) |
|
Definition
Two rules of joinder expand a lawsuit beyond the plaintiff's initial design. What are they? |
|
|
Term
1) Parties to be joined if feasible (Necessary Parties) 2) Parties who should be joined but can't be (Indispensable Parties) |
|
Definition
Two types of parties under Rule 19: |
|
|
Term
1) In that person's absence, can the court accord complete relief among existing parties? 2) Does the person’s absence, as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest? 3) Does the person’s absence leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations? |
|
Definition
Roadmap for Necessary Parties (Rule 19): |
|
|
Term
1) Case can go forward anyway, without the absentee 2) Case can be dismissed because it would be improper to proceed without the absentee 3) Case can go forward, but judgment can be crafted to provide appropriate relief to the parties before the court despite the inability to join the absentee |
|
Definition
There are three choices for what should happen if a party can’t be joined under Rule 19(a): |
|
|
Term
(1) The extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; (2) The extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: protective provisions in the judgment, shaping the relief; or other measures; (3) Whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and (4) Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder. |
|
Definition
Four factors to consider under Rule 19(b), if parties cannot be joined under Rule 19(a): |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which rule gives a defendant a limited right to implead (that is, to bring into the suit) new parties against whom she has claims related to the main action? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Under Rule 14, the (plaintiff/defendant) may bring in a person not yet a party to the suit who may be liable to the (plaintiff/defendant), for all or part of any recovery the plaintiff obtains on the main claim |
|
|
Term
No; under this rule, the defendant may bring in a person not yet a party to the suit who may be liable *only to the defendant* |
|
Definition
Is a situation in which the defendant contends that another person is liable directly to the plaintiff but not to her a proper application of Rule 14? |
|
|
Term
Yes; if A does not recover from B, B will have no right of contribution against C |
|
Definition
Under Rule 14(a)(1), does the third-party defendant’s liability depend on the outcome of the main claim? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Tue/False: The impleader claim is treated like an original suit for pleading, service, and other purposes |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Under Rule 14(a)(1), the defendant may implead a third party within how many days of answering the complaint? |
|
|
Term
No; impleading a third-party defendant does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the original claim |
|
Definition
Does impleading a third party under Rule 14 affect whether this is jurisdiction over the original claim? |
|
|
Term
False; there must still be a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the impleader claim |
|
Definition
True/false: There is no need for a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over an impleaded claim under Rule 14 |
|
|
Term
No; the third party is disregarded in determining whether venue is proper |
|
Definition
Does the third party (impleaded under Rule 14) matter in regards to the question of venue? |
|
|
Term
1) Numerosity 2) Commonality 3) Typicality 4) Adequacy of representation |
|
Definition
Four key/basic prerequisites for class action suits |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What rule deals with Class Action suits? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What subsection of the Class Action rule deals with limited fund class actions? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Class-certification prerequisites under Rule 23 must be rigorously analyzed by the courts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: In order to sustain a limited fund class action, the fund must be inadequate to satisfy all the liquidated claims |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
True/False: Rule 23 (Class Actions) require an opt-out procedure |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What rule deals with Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
True/False: According to Rule 21 - on motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party. |
|
|
Term
False; misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action |
|
Definition
True/False: Misjoinder of parties can be a ground for dismissing an action |
|
|
Term
Transfer (1404a): Provides for geographical transfer from one district court within the federal system to another in a different state or district
Removal (1441): Authorizes transfer from the state court system to the federal court system within the same state |
|
Definition
What is the difference between transfer and removal, and what statutes refer to them? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Provides for geographical transfer from one district court within the federal system to another in a different state or district |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Authorizes transfer from the state court system to the federal court system within the same state |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What statute is the main statute that deals with removal? |
|
|
Term
Yes; both transfer and removal can be used in the same suit |
|
Definition
Is it possible to use transfer and removal in the same suit? |
|
|
Term
Cases; if a defendant properly removes a suit to federal court, the defendant’s entire suit is removed (both the original claim and any related claims that a federal court has power to hear under supplemental jurisdiction) |
|
Definition
Does the general removal statute apply to claims, or whole cases? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
True/False: After removal, the case proceeds in federal court under the Federal Rules |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What statutes deal with the procedural for removal? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A notice for removal must be filed within _____ days of receiving the plaintiff’s pleading in the state suit? And with which statute is this relevant? |
|
|
Term
No; if the plaintiff contends that the case is not within the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction, or that the defendants has not properly followed the requirements of removal procedure, his recourse is to move in federal court to remand the case back to state court |
|
Definition
Is a removal decision irrevocable? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A remand for removal due to procedural issues must be made within how many days after removal? And with which statute is this relevant? |
|
|
Term
At any time prior to the final judgment of the case; Section 1447 |
|
Definition
A remand for removal due to questions of federal subject matter jurisdiction must be made within how many days after removal? And with which statute is this relevant? |
|
|
Term
No; if a defendant is sued in his home state, he may not remove it on the basis of diversity |
|
Definition
Section 1441: If a defendant is sued in his home state, can he remove it on the basis of diversity? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What rule deals with the consolidation and separation of trials? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Which rules deal with pleading? |
|
|
Term
A short and plain statement of a demand of relief |
|
Definition
Under Rule 8, a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain what? |
|
|
Term
1) The grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction rests; and 2) A statement of a claim, which true, would entitle the claimant to relief |
|
Definition
What are the two components of the "short and plain statement" in Rule 8? |
|
|
Term
The “short and plain statement of the claim” required under Rule 8 must include “sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim” |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
A party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake (Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.) In other words, this means you must put more details than you ordinarily would put in |
|
Definition
In Rule 9b, in alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state what? |
|
|
Term
Rule 22 (Constitutional source) and Section 1335 (Statutory source) |
|
Definition
What are the two sources of interpleader? |
|
|
Term
To make it easier to bring claims together by eliminating obstacles |
|
Definition
What is the goal of the interpleader statute (Section 1335)? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
True/False: The Interpleader Rule (Rule 22) assumes jurisdiction exists |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
___________ is used where a plaintiff has some holding that would expose the plaintiff to multiple liability from adverse claims |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What allows a plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute? |
|
|
Term
True; interpleader is only applicable where multiple claims demand the same thing or obligation – usually, a piece of property, prize, or most commonly, the proceeds of an insurance policy |
|
Definition
True/False: Interpleader is only applicable where multiple claims demand the same thing or obligation – usually, a piece of property, prize, or most commonly, the proceeds of an insurance policy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Key difference between Statutory and Rule Interpleader: (Statutory/Rule) interpleader has no effect on jurisdictional and/or venue requirements |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In (statutory/rule) interpleader, complete diversity is required, while in (statutory/rule) interpleader, partial diversity can suffice |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(Statutory/Rule) interpleader allows a person holding property or res, which may be or is claimed by two or more adverse claimants, to interplead all possible claimants |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(Statutory/Rule) interpleader allows the stakeholder may initiate the claim or invoke the rule interpleader by his own initiate, or by counterclaiming or cross-claiming against a claimant in an action that has already commenced against the stakeholder |
|
|
Term
1) Nationwide service of process is available for process for statutory interpleader where it is not for rule interpleader 2) The court has diversity jurisdiction, provided that there is minimal diversity between the adverse claimants and an amount in controversy over $500; and 3) Venue is established where any of the adverse claimants resides |
|
Definition
Benefits of using statutory interpleader over rule interpleader |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
_______ should be thought of like a jump ball |
|
|
Term
Pendant party jurisdiction |
|
Definition
This (old) type of jurisdiction refers to claims against additional parties |
|
|
Term
No; there is no category of federal jurisdiction for suits between a state and citizens of that same state |
|
Definition
Is there any category of federal jurisdiction for suits between a state and citizens of that same state? |
|
|
Term
A quasi in rem lawsuit binds only the interests of those who are parties to the suit |
|
Definition
A quasi in rem lawsuit binds whom? |
|
|
Term
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Failure to join a party under Rule 19 (Required Joinder of Parties) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Intervention and interpleader. (The lawsuit involved interpleader, and then Marcos intervened) |
|
Definition
Cohen v. The Republic of the Philippines illustrated the combination of which two joinder devices? |
|
|
Term
True; Federal law allows service of process to be left at the defendant's place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion |
|
Definition
True/False: Federal law allows service of process to be left at the defendant's place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion |
|
|
Term
False; Service following fraudalent enticement to a forum will generally not be permitted |
|
Definition
True/False: Service following fraudalent enticement to a forum is still permissible |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: There was no jurisdiction, because the federal issue would be relevant only as a defense. For federal question jurisdiction to exist, the hypothetical "well-pleaded complaint," which contains everything the plaintiff must plead and nothing else, must raise the federal issue |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Even though the federal claim was part of the well-pleaded complaint, jurisdiction would not be allowed, because Congress decided not to create a federal cause of action |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: No plaintiff can have the same citizenship as any defendant for jurisdiction under 1332 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Permanent residents count as citizens of the relevant states to defeat diversity, but not to expand it |
|
|
Term
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs |
|
Definition
Holding: Constitutional test: Pendent jurisdiction (was) constitutionally permissible if both claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact" and claimant ordinarily would be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: No ancillary jurisdiction here, because that would provide a way to evade the complete diversity rule |
|
|
Term
They would both be ruled the same;
Gibbs: Since 1367(b) doesn't apply and 1367(c) reinstates Gibbs factors
Owen Equipment v. Kroger: Because 1367(b) applies |
|
Definition
Would the results of Gibbs and Owen Equipment v. Kroger be different or the same if decided under 1367? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Diversity jurisdiction is proper even if only named class members have damages over $75,000 |
|
|
Term
Complete diversity requirement is measured at the time of removal; nonetheless, because problem was cured before trial and judgment, remand would be counterproductive |
|
Definition
Holding: Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis |
|
|
Term
Plaintiff is master of complaint and can forego a federal claim to prevent removal; complete preemption rule does not apply here |
|
Definition
Holding: Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams |
|
|
Term
If it is clear that a state law claim is really a federal law claim because state law is "completely preempted," then removal is proper |
|
Definition
What is the complete preemption rule? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Because the nail maker may be liable for the chicken house maker under a theory of implied contractual indemnity, impleader is proper |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Impleader by engineers of waterproofing company was improper, where the condo board's theory was that it was the engineering firm's work that was negligent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Party not interpleaded allowed to intervene |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: The plaintiffs were not bound by the consent decree because they had not been parties to the suit, even though they might have tried to intervene in the suit |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Intervention by another company claiming such rights proper, because that company was adverse to U.S. on one issue and adverse to the other company on another |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Limited fund class actions are likely to be permissible only where 1) Fund is definitely limited 2) The whole fund will be used 3) Claimants would be treated equitably among themselves. In this case, none of these requirements were met |
|
|
Term
Finds commonality, despite different range of different claims; parallel with Rule 20 |
|
Definition
Holding: Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Ath. Ass'n |
|
|
Term
1) Contract 2) Somebody appointed agent for service of process 3) General (voluntary) appearance 4) Special appearance (to challenge jurisdiction) |
|
Definition
Four ways you can consent to personal jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation even when the cause of action does not arise in the state or relate to any of the corporation's activities in the state if the corporation carries on continuous and systematic corporate activities in the state |
|
|
Term
Under Rule 4(e)(1), notice will be sufficient if it accords with the requirement of the laws of the state in which the district court sits and service was effected (assuming the other requirements of Rule 4 are met) |
|
Definition
Under Rule 4(e)(1), notice will be sufficient if...? |
|
|
Term
Only if the alternative forum is acceptable |
|
Definition
A federal court may only dismiss a case on forum non conviens grounds if? |
|
|
Term
1) Burden of defendant 2) State's intent on the claim 3) Protection of the plaintiff 4) Procedural interests in convenient resolutions 5) Substantive interests of several states |
|
Definition
Test for fairness (as in "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"): 5 things to consider |
|
|
Term
Physical presence; relationship of contacts |
|
Definition
In personam jurisdiction: Defendant has ______ or ______ with the forum states |
|
|
Term
False; Minimum contracts are not required for in rem jurisdiction |
|
Definition
True/false: Minimum contracts are required for in rem jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
You determine jurisdiction first, then venue |
|
Definition
What do you have to determine first - venue or jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: The failure to comply with jurisdictional-related discovery may constitute implied consent to jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
Quasi in-rem jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Refers to jurisdiction over property that is attached to satisfy judgment in the case |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Previously bringing suit in a forum state, even related to the current suit, does not necessarily subject one to jurisdiction in the state for the purpose of defending a suit in this case |
|
|
Term
Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute |
|
Definition
Forum-selection clauses are relevant to what case? |
|
|
Term
True; Unlike jurisdiction, venue can be waived |
|
Definition
True/False: Unlike jurisdiction; venue can be waived |
|
|
Term
A forum-selection clause must be consistent with the idea of "fundamental fairness" for it to be enforced |
|
Definition
This is required for a forum-selection clause to be enforced |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What case involves the 4/4 liberal/conservative split re: stream of commerce? |
|
|
Term
1) The forum would have jurisdiction if the suit was brought there 2) It is in fair meaning, done in good faith, and not discouraging litigation |
|
Definition
Forum-selection clauses are fair if: (two things) |
|
|
Term
Court must consider if defendant had minimum contracts that exercising jurisdiction doesn't violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice |
|
Definition
So if a forum-selection clause is not enforceable, what happens next? |
|
|
Term
No; minimum contracts are not required for quasi in-rem type 1 jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Are minimum contracts required for quasi in-rem type 1 jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This case separated the minimum contacts analysis from the fair play analysis |
|
|
Term
1) The place where the corporation is incorporated 2) The business's principle place of business (PPB) |
|
Definition
General jurisdiction exists for corporations in states(s) where: (two places) |
|
|
Term
Yes; A case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, even if neither of the parties objected to jurisdiction; Capron v. Van Norden |
|
Definition
Can a case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, even if neither of the parties objected to jurisdiction? And from which case is this part of the holding of? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This case references "tag jurisdiction" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Under precedents such as Coastal Video, _________ in a state is necessary for general jurisdiction to be acceptable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Minimum contracts were established by franchise contract; fairness existed because defendant was aware that he might be subject to forum state's jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
According to Rule 4(e), a defendant may still be served if notice is improper within 120 days of the commencement of the suit |
|
Definition
According to Rule 4(e), a defendant may still be served if notice is improper within how many days of the commencement of the suit? |
|
|
Term
Quasi in rem jurisdiction, Type 1 |
|
Definition
Type of in rem jurisdiction in which dispute is about property; lawsuit settles the specific interest between the parties over the property |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This case shifts from the notion of presence and consent to the notion of fairness |
|
|
Term
100-mile bulge (Juridical district must be <100 miles from the district court where the summons was issued) |
|
Definition
Third-party defendants attached to a lawsuit under Rules 14 and 19 may be subject to jurisdiction under which rule? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Type of personal jurisdiction referring to jurisdiction over the parties |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Just because property is in a state, does not mean it is Constitutional to have jurisdiction over the owner of that property (stock that resides in the state is not enough) |
|
|
Term
You can consent to jurisdiction by filing a general appearance |
|
Definition
You can consent to jurisdiction by filing a ___________? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Power is consistent with Due Process if the person has minimum contacts necessary not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice |
|
|
Term
No, a state cannot obtain personal jurisdiction over a party based on that party's ownership of property in the state; Shaffer v. Heitner |
|
Definition
Can a state obtain personal jurisdiction over a party based on that party's ownership of property in the state? (And what case is this a part of the holding of?) |
|
|
Term
False; The Court is split on whether placing an item in a stream of commerce with knowledge that it will eventually be sold in the forum state suffices for specific jurisdiction |
|
Definition
True/False: The Supreme Court has ruled that placing an item in a stream of commerce with knowledge that it will eventually be sold in the forum state suffices for specific jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Regardless of who initiates the transfer, 1404 allows the transfer of convenience and requiring the transferee forum to apply the law of the transferor court |
|
|
Term
General jurisdiction can be established if the defendant's contracts with the state are substantial enough to make it fair for the state to exercise jurisdiciton over claims unrelated to the contacts |
|
Definition
_________ can be established if the defendant's contracts with the state are substantial enough to make it fair for the state to exercise jurisdiction over claims unrelated to the contacts |
|
|
Term
1) Person resides within the state 2) Person has expressed the intent to remain there indefinitely |
|
Definition
A person is considered to be domiciled if: (two things) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This case divided the inquiry of determining issues of general jurisdiction separate from those of specific |
|
|
Term
McGee v. International Life Insurance |
|
Definition
Holding: Minimum contracts were sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction because the company purposefully availed itself of doing business in the state |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Notice reasonably certain to reach most of those interested in objecting to it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This case's holding cut back on quasi in rem jurisdiction, finding that relevant contacts must still satisfy the minimum contacts requirement of International Shoe |
|
|
Term
Quasi in rem, type 2 jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Type of in rem jurisdiction in which property is only used to gain jurisdiction over the person |
|
|
Term
Placing items in stream of commerce was not enough; must purposefully avail itself to the state by specific designing, advertisement, and seeking out customers in state |
|
Definition
Stream of commerce analysis in Asahi: Conservative |
|
|
Term
False; constant physical presence is not required to be considered continuous and systematic |
|
Definition
True/False: Constant physical presence is required to be considered continuous and systematic |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Due Process requires that notice be given in a manner ________ to inform a party of the action affecting them |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In what case was stream of commerce introduced? (It was in this case's dicta) |
|
|
Term
False; A plaintiff's contacts with a forum are relevant for determining jurisdiction |
|
Definition
True/False: A plaintiff's contacts with a forum are relevant for determining jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Refers to jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the action |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
According to McIntyre, ________ is an exception to the general rule that a defendant must "purposefully avail" oneself of the forum |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Unilateral movement of a buyer does not confer jurisdiction over the seller; the seller must purposefully avail themselves of doing business in the state |
|
|
Term
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank |
|
Definition
Holding: Notice given to out of state parties by publication in a newspaper - when the parties' address if known - is unconstitutional |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Picking a court merely to gain an advantage in the proceeding is known as |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: A foreign corporation is not subject to general personal jurisdiction solely due to entities placed in the forum state's stream of commerce of foreign subsidiaries |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: All the companies' contacts must be considered to see if general jurisdiction in the forum state exists. In this case, they were not continuous or systematic enough |
|
|
Term
Subject-matter jurisdiction |
|
Definition
The authority of the court to hear cases of a particular type or cases related to a specific subject matter |
|
|
Term
True; Doing business in a state meets due process requirements for a foreign corporation because they have substantial contacts in the state |
|
Definition
True/False: Doing business in a state meets due process requirements for a foreign corporation because they have substantial contacts in the state |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Refers to a court's authority over the parties in a lawsuit |
|
|
Term
Special appearance; does not; cannot |
|
Definition
If you want to challenge personal jurisdiction, you file a __________ in state court. This (does/does not) mean you consent to jurisdiction. You (can/cannot) be served |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In _________ (case about divorce and custody in CA), the defendant (did/did not) purposefully avail himself to the laws of the forum state |
|
|
Term
Jurisdiction: Considered separate for each defendant Venue: Considered together for defendants |
|
Definition
Jurisdiction is considered (separate/together) for each defendant, while venue is considered (separate/together) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Minimum contacts alone are not enough; must consider fairness and substantial justice as well |
|
|
Term
Continuous and systematic contacts are needed for general jurisdiction |
|
Definition
_____________ and ____________ contacts are needed for general jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This type of jurisdiction considers only related contacts, and subjects the person to jurisdiction only for the particular suit |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Under Rule 4(c), a person conducting the service must be at least _______ years old, and (can/can't) be a party to the case |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: To have in personam jurisdiction, one must either serve defendant within state boundaries, or have defendant's consent of jurisdiction by appearance in court |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Test for __________ is not foreseeability that there will be conduct with a state, but there must be a purposeful action to have a contact with a state |
|
|
Term
False; state must have a long-arm statute that authorizes the court to exercise that jurisdiction |
|
Definition
True/False: It is enough for an out-of-state defendant to have a correct with the state that is sufficient under the Due Process Clause for jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
Sufficient; purposely availed |
|
Definition
For specific jurisdiction, we must determine if related contact is _______ and then if the contact was _______ by the defendant |
|
|
Term
The summons and the complaint |
|
Definition
Under Rule 4(c), what two thing must be served together |
|
|
Term
"Substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim owned" |
|
Definition
Under 1391(a)(2), venue is also proper anywhere a... |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
"Reasonable expectation of being haled into court" is a requirement for ________ |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: A court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that has and purposely availed itself out doing business in the jurisdiction or placed goods in the stream of commerce in the expectation they be purchased in the jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Under __________ (case), foreseeability might make one amenable to jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This case relates to the idea of a Forum-selection clauses' "fundamental fairness" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If you serve a person in a particular forum, then the court has jurisdiction in that forum. This known as _________ |
|
|
Term
1) Permissible under the law of the forum state (statutory requirement) 2) In accordance with Constitutional requirements |
|
Definition
Under Rule 4(k)(1), jurisdiction is permissible if it fulfills what two requirements? |
|
|
Term
1) Courts lack jurisdiction over the parties; or 2) Venue is improper; or 3) Case should be transferred to a more appropriate district |
|
Definition
To avoid hearing a case for reasons other than lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must determine at least one of the following three things: |
|
|
Term
Assume the long-arm extends to the furthest possible extent |
|
Definition
What happens if there is no information about a state's long-arm statute available (in a test prompt)? |
|
|
Term
Private and public interest factors |
|
Definition
In a motion to dismiss for forum non conviniens, a court should consider both ______ and _______ |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The doctrine of _______ also applies in cases where the most convenient court is a court in a foreign country |
|
|
Term
1) Notice reasonably calculated... 2)...under all circumstances... 3)...to give notice to people |
|
Definition
Notice under Due Process Clause requires (three things): |
|
|
Term
False; Finding missing people is not required for notice under the Due Process clause |
|
Definition
True/False: Finding missing people is required for notice under the Due Process clause |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties. This is known as: |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Standard of minimum contacts that do not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice should apply to in rem jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Refers to a court's power over events and persons within the bounds of a particular geographic territory |
|
|
Term
Coastal Video v. Staywell |
|
Definition
Holding: Court does not have specific jurisdiction in case over disputed handbooks because there is no proof that non-resident company transacted specific business related to the cause of action in the forum state |
|
|
Term
Dee-K Enterprises v. Heveafil |
|
Definition
Holding: Plaintiffs must show that venue in a district is proper, or action cab be transferred to another district |
|
|
Term
Under 1391(a)(1), venue is proper in a district in which any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state |
|
Definition
Under 1391(a)(1), venue is proper in a district in which _______ defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: In this case's fairness analysis, court held that the burden on defendant was too great because they would have to come from Japan to CA (There was also not a large state interest for CA) |
|
|
Term
Yes; Any lawsuit be brought against a defendant if general jurisdiction exists in a forum state |
|
Definition
Can any lawsuit be brought against a defendant if general jurisdiction exists in a forum state? |
|
|
Term
No; judgments relating to in personam jurisdiction do not bind everyone in the whole world |
|
Definition
Do judgments relating to in personam jurisdiction bind everyone in the whole world? |
|
|
Term
Subject-matter jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Bankruptcy court having authority to hear bankruptcy cases is an example of _______ jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
Placing items in stream of commerce was enough for minimum contacts |
|
Definition
Minimum contact analysis in Asahi: Liberal |
|
|
Term
True; Courts since Pennoyer have been skeptical of publication, but only because in the ordinary course it seems unlikely to be effective |
|
Definition
True/False: Courts since Pennoyer have been skeptical of publication, but only because in the ordinary course it seems unlikely to be effective |
|
|
Term
The value of the attached property |
|
Definition
In quasi in rem type 2 jurisdiction, what is the value of a judgment limited to? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Long-arm statute requires substantial and not isolated activity within the state |
|
|
Term
1) Person's place of domicile 2) Where the individual has such substantial contacts that it wouldn't offend notions of fair play and substantial justice to establish jurisdiction |
|
Definition
General jurisdiction for individuals exists when: (two things) |
|
|
Term
True; The holding of Coastal Video defines contacts narrowly, to include only facts under which the lawsuit arose |
|
Definition
True/False: The holding of Coastal Video defines contacts narrowly, to include only facts under which the lawsuit arose |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This case refined the jurisdiction test into two parts: A test for minimum contacts, and a test for fairness and substantial justice |
|
|
Term
...Wherever they are subject to jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Under 1391(c), corporations are determined to reside for venue purpose... |
|
|
Term
Sufficient; purposefully availed |
|
Definition
For specific jurisdiction, we must determine if related contact is ______ and then if the contact was _______ by the defendant |
|
|
Term
Under 1404, Transfer may be appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses |
|
Definition
Under 1404, _______ may be appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses |
|
|
Term
Burnham v. Superior Court |
|
Definition
Holding: A state can gain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who was personally served with process while temporarily in that state, even if his purpose for being in the state is unrelated to the matter before the court |
|
|
Term
Continuous and systematic; home |
|
Definition
Goodyear requires (for general jurisdiction) contacts that are so ______ and _____ as to make a forum state a _________ |
|
|
Term
Yes; minimum contacts are required for Quasi-in-rem type 2 jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Are minimum contacts required for Quasi-in-rem type 2 jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
SPVPSCP: Some People Value Penn State Child Protection |
|
Definition
Mnemonic device for Rule 12(b) motions |
|
|
Term
12(b)(1): S(ubject matter jurisdiction does not exist 12(b)(2): P(ersonal jurisdiction)does not exist 12(b)(3): V(enue) is improper 12(b)(4): (P)rocess is insufficient (i.e. flawed paperwork) 12(b)(5): (S)ervice of process is insufficient (correct steps were not taken to serve) 12(b)(6): Failure to state a (C)laim 12(b)(7): F(ailure) to join a (P)arty under Rule 19 |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Section 1441 deals with what topic? |
|
|
Term
No; it doesn't matter what the citizenship of the parties are if the claim would claim under federal question jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Under removal (Rule 1441), does it matter what the citizenship of the parties are if the claim would claim under federal question jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
Federal question jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Section 1331 pertains to what type of jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Section 1332 pertains to what type of jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
Supplemental jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Section 1367 pertains to what type of jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
False; domicile requires both presence and an intent to remain |
|
Definition
True/False: You can be domiciled somewhere you intend to move to, but haven't done so yet |
|
|
Term
Diversity jurisdiction: Corporations |
|
Definition
1332(c) pertains to what? |
|
|
Term
Under 1332(c), corporations are dual citizens of their state of incorporation as well as the state of their PPB |
|
Definition
For diversity jurisdiction purposes, corporations are citizens where? |
|
|
Term
Wherever there is diversity jurisdiction for U.S. citizen, as long as the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied |
|
Definition
1332(a)(2): Where can have a court have diversity jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of a State and citizens/subjects of a foreign state? |
|
|
Term
No; an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence is deemed to be a citizen of the State in which he is domiciled |
|
Definition
Would there be diversity jurisdiction between a New York resident, and an Italian who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and is domiciled in New York? |
|
|
Term
False; A case does not arise under federal law (1331) if the plaintiff's complaint merely anticipates a defense or counterclaim that may be available to defendant under federal law |
|
Definition
True/False: A case may arise under federal law (1331) if the plaintiff's complaint merely anticipates a defense or counterclaim that may be available to defendant under federal law |
|
|
Term
No; the federal act in question did not provide an independent right of action in Merrell Dow |
|
Definition
In Merrell Dow, did the federal act in question (over a state claim of negligence) provide an independent right of action? |
|
|
Term
True; A source of subject matter jurisdiction must be established separately for each cause of action against every defendant |
|
Definition
True/False: A source of subject matter jurisdiction must be established separately for each cause of action against every defendant |
|
|
Term
No; supplemental jurisdiction is not available to supplemental claims pursued by plaintiffs against nondiverse parties who have been joined pursuant to Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 |
|
Definition
1367: If original jurisdiction is founded solely on diversity, is supplemental jurisdiction available to supplemental claims pursued by plaintiffs against nondiverse parties who have been joined pursuant to Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24? |
|
|
Term
Rule 14: Defendant Rule 20: Plaintiff |
|
Definition
While Rule 14 allows (plaintiffs/defendants) to bring a new party into a suit, Rule 20 allows (plaintiffs/defendants) to bring a new party into the suit (or join an existing party(s) into one suit) |
|
|
Term
1) Is there a claim under original jurisdiction? 2) Are the claims a part of the same common nucleus of operative fact (i.e. related)? 3) Is this a diversity case? 4) Were these claims made by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24? (or potential plaintiffs under 19 or 24?) 5) Was the final claim consistent with diversity jurisdiction? (Is the third-party diverse from the original plaintiff?) |
|
Definition
Five components of roadmap for Supplemental Jurisdiction? (1367) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What is an example of a case we read in which a court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over a supplemental claim pursued by plaintiffs against a diverse party, even though that claim failed to satisfy the amount in controversy? |
|
|
Term
1367(c) states that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
1) The claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law 2) The claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction 3) The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or 4) In exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction |
|
Definition
What are the four factors in which a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim? |
|
|
Term
State court to federal court |
|
Definition
Removal deals with removing a case from (federal/state) court to (federal/state) court |
|
|
Term
1) Are all D’s from the same state? 2) Acts or omissions in this district? 3) Does any D reside or can be found in this district? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
1441(b) prohibits removal on grounds of *diversity* (don't worry about Federal question jurisdiction) if any of the defendants is a citizen of the forum state. (Example: North Dakotan files suit in state court against Texan and Floridian. Case is not removable, if forum state was either Texas or Florida). |
|
Definition
Exception in 1441(b) re: removal |
|
|
Term
No; purposeful availment will not be found when the defendant's contact with the forum state is created by the plaintiff's unilateral activity (Hanson v. Denckla) |
|
Definition
Can purposeful availment be found when the defendant's contact with the forum state is created by the plaintiff's unilateral activity? |
|
|
Term
The more critical question in World-Wide Volkswagon was whether t was forseeable that the defendants would be haled into court in that forum (the court ruled that it was not) |
|
Definition
What was the more critical question in regards to World-Wide Volkswagon: Whether it was forseeable that the car would find its way to the forum state, or if it was forseeable that the defendants would be haled into court in that forum? |
|
|
Term
No; the 100-mile bulge cannot reach outside the territorial boundaries of the United States |
|
Definition
Can the 100-mile bulge reach outside the territorial boundaries of the United States? |
|
|
Term
Diversity at the time the suit is brought, rather than diversity at the time of the incident, is the critical factor in determining the validity of diversity jurisdiction |
|
Definition
For diversity jurisdiction, what is more important time-wise: Diversity at the time the suit is brought, or diversity at the time the suit is brought? |
|
|
Term
Yes; one can remove a case from a state court to a federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, even if the defendant is from the same state as the district court in which they reside (note that this is barred under claims related to diversity jurisdiction) |
|
Definition
Can one remove a case from a state court to a federal court based on federal question jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
Yes; the case may be removed because it is just as squarely founded on a claim under federal law when there is diversity as when there is not |
|
Definition
Can a case be removed to a district court in the same state in which a defendant resides, if the state claim can be classified as both a federal question and diversity claim? |
|
|
Term
No; removal is not meant to give the defendant a geographical choice of forum, only a choice to use the federal court system |
|
Definition
Is removal meant to give the defendant a geographical choice of forum? |
|
|
Term
Yes, removal can occur; to the federal district court in Kansas only (defendants can only remove the case to the district in which the state court where the plaintiff brought suit is located) |
|
Definition
Chester, from Iowa, sues Carson, a Colorado, and James, a Kansan, in Kansas state court on a federal civil rights claim. May the defendants remove, and, if so, to which court or courts? |
|
|
Term
Mosley shows that determination of whether there is one transaction sometimes requires a preview of the merits, e.g. to determine whether there was one underlying plan |
|
Definition
________ (case) shows that determination of whether there is one transaction sometimes requires a preview of the merits, e.g. to determine whether there was one underlying plan |
|
|
Term
12(b)(1): Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
|
Definition
Capron v. Van Norden is associated with what 12(b) motion? |
|
|
Term
12(b)(2): Personal jurisdiction 12(b)(3): Venue 12(b)(4): Process 12(b)(5): Service of process |
|
Definition
Which 12(b) motions are waived if not brought up right away? |
|
|
Term
Yes; 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) motions can be brought up later (after the pleadings have been closed) |
|
Definition
True/False: 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) motions can be brought up later (after the pleadings have been closed) |
|
|
Term
12(b)(4): Insufficiency of process |
|
Definition
Notice: 4(a) relates to what 12(b) motion(s)? |
|
|
Term
12(b)(5): Insufficiency of service of process |
|
Definition
Notice: 4(b) relates to what 12(b) motion(s)? |
|
|
Term
1) Claims b/w parties of different states; 2) Claims b/w U.S. citizens and citizens/subjects of a foreign state; 3)Claims b/w parties of different states and foreigners on either side; 4) Claims b/w parties of different states and foreigners on either side; 5) Claims b/w foreign state as P and citizen of state or of different states |
|
Definition
Diversity jurisdiction includes (1332): |
|
|
Term
Short and plain statement of the claim + Demand for the relief sought |
|
Definition
Rule 8 = ________ + __________ |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Section 1404 pertains to what? |
|
|
Term
Section 1441: When you can Remove Section 1446: Procedure for Removal |
|
Definition
Section _____ deals with when you can remove, and Section ______ deals with the procedure for removal |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Plaintiff can choose to file two different suits against two different classes of defendant. even if it might make sense to bring suits together |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Court found no prejudice, even though Valley West might be subject to inconsistent obligations, because it wasn't clear that would happen, and it was Valley West's fault anyway |
|
|
Term
Tell v. Trustees of Dartmouth |
|
Definition
Holding: Alumni Association was indispensable because there was no way to shape relief to avoid direct effect on it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts/Holding: P sued D on Truth-in-Lending Act claim, and D counterclaimed on note for unpaid balance. On appeal, P claims that D's counterclaim was permissive and thus not within ancillary jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams |
|
Definition
Holding: Plaintiff is master of complaint and can forego a federal claim to prevent removal. If it is clear that a state law claim really is a federal law claim because state law is "completely preempted," then removal is proper. But this doctrine doesn't apply here |
|
|
Term
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis |
|
Definition
Holding: Complete diversity requirement is measured at the time of removal. In this case, because problem was cured before trial and judgment, remand would be counterproductive |
|
|
Term
Helicopteros: First split analysis of General jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction Burger King: First split analysis of minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice |
|
Definition
General jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction analysis are first split in _________ (case), while minimum contacts and FP + SJ analysis are first split in _______ (case) |
|
|
Term
1404(a) when transferor is a proper venue 1406(a) applies when transferor is an improper venue |
|
Definition
_______ applies when transferor is a *proper* venue, while _______ applies when transferor is an *improper* venue |
|
|
Term
Section 1441: Removal Section 1447: Remand |
|
Definition
_______ deals with removal, while ______ deals with remand |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
I-Pod hypothetical deals with what concept? |
|
|
Term
Rule interpleader (Rule 22): P has claim Statutory interpleader (1335): P has no claim |
|
Definition
I-pod example: ______ interpleader means that P has a claim on I-pod, while _______ interpleader means that P has no claim on I-pod |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Statutory interpleader deals with which section? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
What concept does Cohen deal with? And is it the rule or statutory version of it? |
|
|
Term
Intervention: Rule 24 Impleader: Rule 14 Interpleader: Rule 22 |
|
Definition
Intervention is Rule _______; Impleader is Rule _________; Interpleader is Rule ___________ |
|
|
Term
Rule 18: Joinder of Claims Rule 19: (Required) Joinder of Parties Rule 20: (Permissive) Joinder of Parties |
|
Definition
Rule 18 is _________; Rule 19 is __________; Rule 20 is __________ |
|
|
Term
No; If you are a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, you cannot sue or be sued in diversity (Mas) |
|
Definition
If you are a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, can you sue or be sued in diversity? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Case that illustrates timing issues, as well as Rule 12 motions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This case illustrates the broad principles of determining citizenship re: Diversity jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Shows that determination of whether there is one transaction sometimes requires a preview of the merits, e.g. to determine whether there was one underlying plan |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Illustrates type of specificity required (e.g. dates when fraud occurred), yet allows amendment to overcome failure of complaint |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts/Holding: Police officer sues after dismissed without a hearing. Burden of pleading is on defendant |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: While leave "shall be freely given when justice so requires", in extreme cases (this case), parties may be unable to deny liability |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief |
|
|
Term
19(a): Necessary parties 19(b): Indispensable parties |
|
Definition
19(a) is for ________ parties and 19(b) is for _______ parties |
|
|
Term
1) Impossible for complete relief? 2) Does the person’s absence, as a practical matter, impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest? 3) Does the person’s absence leave an existing party to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations? |
|
Definition
Roadmap for 19(a): Necessary Parties |
|
|
Term
1) Extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; 2) The extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment, shaping the relief, or other measures 3) Whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and 4)Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder |
|
Definition
Roadmap for 19(b): Indispensable Parties |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Refuses to allow amendment where initial complaint alleged failure of informed consent and amendment would encompass malpractice, even though reverse may be permissible. Suggests that judges sometimes may care about notice as much about transaction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Holding: Allows amendment of slip-and-fall to include counseling malpractice |
|
|
Term
Whether an amendment relates back to original filing date matters for statute-of-limitations purposes |
|
Definition
Relevance of Rule 15 - "Relation Back" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
One free amendment within 21 days (or, if none is permitted, within 21 days of service) |
|
Definition
In Rule 15, you get what within how many days after responsive pleading |
|
|
Term
Party must seek leave of course or written consent of adverse parties. Leave "shall be freely given when justice so requires", but in extreme cases (Aquaslide) parties may be unable to deny liability |
|
Definition
What happens in Rule 15 after 21 day period ends, and you want to amend a pleading? |
|
|
Term
Rule 20: (Permissive) Joinder of parties by plaintiff Rule 14: Impleader (Joinder of parties by defendant) |
|
Definition
While Rule _________ deals with joinder by plaintiff, Rule ______ deals with joinder of parties by defendant |
|
|
Term
True; Under Rule 18, once you have somebody in court, you can join any claim against the defendant, no matter how related |
|
Definition
True/False: Under Rule 18, once you have somebody in court, you can join any claim against the defendant, no matter how related |
|
|
Term
Compulsory; Rule 13(a)(1) provides that a claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the main claim is compulsory |
|
Definition
Rule 13(a)(1) provides that a claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the main claim is (permissive/compulsory) |
|
|
Term
If a compulsory counter-claim is not asserted, claim brought later will be dismissed |
|
Definition
What happens if a compulsory counter-claim is not asserted, and that counter-claim is brought later? |
|
|
Term
Rule 18; because you can bring unrelated claims into both |
|
Definition
Permissive counterclaim is analogous to what rule of joinder, and why? |
|
|
Term
Rule 18; because you can bring unrelated claims into both |
|
Definition
Permissive counterclaim is analogous to what rule of joinder, and why? |
|
|
Term
No; all cross-claims are compulsory (Rule 13g) |
|
Definition
Can you make a compulsory cross-claim? If so, what rule is it? |
|
|
Term
No; cross-claims must be from the same transaction or occurrence |
|
Definition
Can cross-claims be unrelated? |
|
|
Term
No; never assume a party intervened, unless it says so |
|
Definition
If a plaintiff joins, can you assume parties intervened? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Contamination theory deals with what case? |
|
|
Term
No; the pleader need not state an otherwise compulsory counterclaim if "at the time the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action" |
|
Definition
Is a counterclaim compulsory if the claim was the subject of another pending action? (i.e. a state claim filed in response to an original federal claim?) |
|
|
Term
Only the interests of those who are parties to the suit (rather than all those with interest in the property) |
|
Definition
A quasi in rem lawsuit binds who? (interests) |
|
|
Term
1391(a): Diversity cases 1391(b): Federal question cases |
|
Definition
1391(a) deals with (federal question/diversity) cases, while 1391(b) deals with (federal question/diversity) cases |
|
|
Term
"Where any defendant can be found": Federal question "Where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction": Diversity |
|
Definition
Venue "where any defendant can be found" is (diversity/federal question), while venue "where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction" is (diversity/federal question) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Case most associated with transfer |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Case associated with aggregation of contacts for venue (foreign) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Did Kroger deal with ancillary jurisdiction or pendant/pendant party jurisdiction? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A pre-emptive judgment as related to class actions is known as a ________ judgment |
|
|
Term
1) We want to join b/c inconsistent judgments could occur b/c of limited fund (we want $ split amongst all of us) 2) Seeking injunction or declaratory relief 3) Seeking $$$ (we know you have plenty of $ to go around, we just want our money now) |
|
Definition
Classifications for Class Action suits |
|
|
Term
Yes; Under Rule 20, claims have to be related |
|
Definition
Under Rule 20, do claims have to be related? |
|
|
Term
No; Under Rule 18, claims do not have to be related |
|
Definition
Under Rule 18, do claims have to be related? |
|
|
Term
The court will split up claims and order them to be tried separately (Rule 42) |
|
Definition
What do you risk if you file a permissive counterclaim (Rule 13(b))? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Pleading under special circumstances (i.e. fraud) is known as what? |
|
|
Term
In rem: Binds everyone's interest in the property Quasi in rem: Binds only the interest of those who are parties |
|
Definition
________ (rem type jurisdiction) lawsuit binds everyone's interest in the property, while ________ (rem type jurisdiction) binds only the interest of those who are parties |
|
|
Term
Pendant party jurisdiction |
|
Definition
"Against additional parties" = (Pendant/Pendant party/ancillary) |
|
|
Term
- Prejudice to P+D - Massage? |
|
Definition
19(b): Indispensable Parties; two requirements: |
|
|
Term
What does the concept of "relate back" deal with, and what does it mean? |
|
Definition
Pleading; it centers on whether an amendment complaint can "relate back" to original pleading |
|
|