Procedure I/Civil Proced… · Web viewGoodyear to Individuals: Unclear how it would apply, already have domicile and tag, maybe not at all, maybe can have multiple places of basically

Page 1

Capron (subject matter jurisdiction on appeal)

Pennoyer v. Neff (territorial jurisdiction, service of process)

International Shoe (territorial jurisdiction)

McGee, Hanson, World-Wide Volkswagen, and Kulko (purposeful availment)

Helicopteros, Milliken, and Goodyear (general jurisdiction)

Burger King (fair play)

Asahi (fair play; stream of commerce)

McIntyre (stream of commerce)

Burnham (tag jurisdiction)

Rule 4(k) (federal long arm—should know subsections)

Shaffer (quasi in rem jurisdiction)

Mullane (constitutional notice)

Rule 4 (service of process)

Carnival Cruise Lines (forum selection clause)

Insurance Corp. of Ireland (special appearance)

§ 1391 (venue)Dee-K (venue,

forum non conveniens)§ 1404, § 1406

(transfer)

Van Dusen and Ferens (transfer and choice of law)

Piper Aircraft (forum non conveniens)

Article III (subject matter jurisdiction)

§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction)

Mottley (well-pleaded complaint)

Smith, Merrell Dow (federal law by reference)

§ 1332 (diversity jurisdiction)

Strawbridge (complete diversity)

Mas (diversity)§ 1367

(supplemental jurisdiction—should know first-level subsections)

Exxon (supplemental jurisdiction)

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (pendent jurisdiction)

Owen Equipment v. Kroger (ancillary jurisdiction)

§§ 1441, 1446, 1447 (removal and remand)

Caterpillar v. Lewis (removal and jurisdiction)

Caterpillar v. Williams (removal and preemption)

Rule 18 (additional claims)

Rule 13 (counterclaims, cross-claims)

Plant (compulsory counterclaims)

Rule 42 (consolidation and severance)

Rule 20, Moseley (permissive joinder of parties)

Rule 14, Price, Watergate (impleader, third-party practice)

Rule 19 (necessary and indispensable parties)

Temple, Helzberg’s (application of Rule 19)

Rule 24 (intervention)

NRDC (intervention, public law litigation)

Atlantis (intervention)

Martin (intervention, consent decrees)

§ 1335, Rule 22, and Cohen (interpleader)

Rule 23 (should know subsections), Ortiz (class actions)

Gomez (burden of pleading)

Rule 8 (complaint)Conley, Iqbal

(sufficiency of pleading)Jones v. Clinton

(pleading)Rule 9(b), Stradford

(heightened pleading)Rule 12 (motion to

dismiss – should know all subsections of 12(b))

Rule 15 (amendments)

Page 2

Aquaslide (prejudice)

Moore and Bonerb (relation back)

Civil Procedure: Long Outline

Capron: No jurisdiction: no subject matter jurisdiction, so thrown out (even for P)

Personal Jurisdiction Beginnings: courts authority over defendant1. Requirements: Constitutional (14th due process) and Statutory2. Types

a. In Personam : over individualb. In Rem : jurisdiction over property (general interest in it)c. Quasi in rem :

i. type 1: over property but between specific ppl: (could use constructive service);

ii. Type 2: property not involved, for personal (limit recovery to property; now absorbed?)

3. Pennoyer v. Neff: need service in state or consenta. Quasi In rem: can have constructive but also attach property before

suitb. Constructive service : not good for in personam jurisdiction bc violates

due process (enacted after but implicated). Can be good for quasi in rem type II but then need constructive service likely to notify D

c. Presence : required for in personam: eliminated by Int’l Shoe4. Full Faith and Credit : each state respect valid judgment of other state5. Due process (14th Amendment): courts have power over D’s present,

resident, found in state: This evolving in Following Cases (minimum contacts changed)

Minimum Contacts: Reasonableness test

Territorial Jurisdiciton6. International Shoe minimum Contacts : Salesman in Washington served, had

samples and rented space but no contracts in state, stocks, deliveries within state

a. Minimum Contacts : (No present D): have certain minimum contacts to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial Justice

b. Corporations : can’t be present, so balancei. Judge minimum contacts to satify fair play and substantial

justicec. General Jurisdiction: Continuous (often) and Systematic

(connected+planned) Contacts : so substantial you get jurisdiction even if unrelated suit

Page 3

1. Continuous alone may be insufficient if unrelatedii. Specific Jurisdiction: Casual Presence/isolated contacts: only

if suit related to suit enough for jurisdictiond. Shift from power (presence/consent) test to reasonableness Test

7. General Jurisdiction: contacts so continuous and systematic, sued over anything

8. Specific Jurisdiction: contacts related to law suit: see if enough for jurisdiction

Purposeful Availment: Specific Stuff1. McGee: Life insurance company contacting McGee in state, received payment

from there: a. so have Specific Jurisdiction: bc related to suit

2. Hanson unilateral not enough: PA resident moved to florida, trust in delaware, only receiving communication from florida, unilateral activity (on wrong side):

a. Unilateral: No specific Jurisdiction: would offend fair play+S.J.3. World Wide Volkswagen: purposeful availment/other interests: crash in OK

after bought car in in NYa. Holding: foreseeability car there; not foreseeable in court there (not

minimum contact)b. Purposeful Availament : D must purposefully avail self to privilege of

conducting activities in forum statec. Minimum contacts AND Fair Play and substantial justice considered

1. D’s Protection2. State’s interest in adjudicating dispute: (Brennen

Descent)3. P’s interest in convenience4. Efficiency of court system5. Shared interest in furthering social policies

4. Kulko: Purposeful Availment to Individuals: Seperated father buys ticket for daughter, had gotten married in Cali (said no weight)

a. Holding: Kulko did not purposefully avail self to benefits of Calib. Compare Contacts of Domicile vs. Contacts of Domicile?

5. Burger King: Minimum Contacts Then Fair Play+SJ (Balance justice concerns): BK suing franchise (MI) in FL, Contacts: oversight, contracts, purchasing+Forum Selection Clause

a. Holding: first establish minimum contacts, then fair play+SJi. Minimum Contacts: Contracts of Oversight

ii. Fairness: given Florida’s interest (despite bargaining power/wealth)

b. Fairness could outway the minimum contacts (D’s interests; P’s interests; Forum State interests; Judicial System interest)

Stream of Commerce: linked to above

Page 4

1. Isahi: Stream of Commerce Not Good, violates Fair play/SJ: parts sold to Japanese company from Taiwan sold in jurisdiction

a. Split court on stream of commercei. Conservatives: Mere knowledge it’s sold in forum not enough

ii. Liberals: Stream of Commerce is sufficient: predictable so subject

b. Holding: Maybe had min contacts: but No Fairness: outweighs (P and D’s interest, courts interest, state’s interest): but no real holding on stream of commerce, just unfair

2. MacIntyre: Stream of Commerce not enough: Made machines in England, US distributer who sells it: injury in NJ

a. Holding: foreseeability not enough (ends up you can just use intermediary): no jurisdiction

b. Targeting (advertising/customizing): would be enough: Purposeful Availment = fairness

i. Remarries issues3. Intentional Tort Exception: Hustler Magazine: Jurisdiction if intentional Tort

across state lines a. Liberals: just saying example of don’t need purposeful availment

General Jurisdiction: 1. Perkins: Suit in Ohio where business run from during WWII, but about mine

in phillipeans (no related contacts)a. Holding: General Jurisdiction in 3 ways

i. Continuous and systematic activitiesii. Ohio temporarily home of company

iii. Jurisdiction by necessity2. Helicoptoros: Helicopter crash in Peru, deal in Texas, payment, bought stuff

in Texas, training in texas: conceded no specific jurisdiction (lawyer wanted more related contacts to get more weight, less related less)

a. Elements of CoA : what is related (for specific): was conceded b. Holding: (split general/specific clearly of International Shoe for

first time) not continuous and systematic contacts: no jurisdiction3. Milikin: individual Domicile=General jurisdiction regardless of presence:

Domiciled there, have jurisdiction4. Goodyear: domicile for corporation: at home:

a. Render at Home : Contacts so continuous and systematic to render D essentially at home

i. Tests for home : Doesn’t say Exhaustive (could be rendered at home in multiple places bc of so many contacts, but only one domicile/principle place of business/incorporation)

1. Principle Place of Business (Nerve Headquarters)2. Place of Incorporation (Often DE)3. Domicile (for individuals

Page 5

b. Single Enterprise Theory : NOT APPLIED: aggregate related entities for jurisdiction

5. Coastal: trying to get indemnity in copyright: selling product≠specific jurisdiction bc sales not related to the copywright

a. Look for cause of action related (Helicopteros), granted discovery to see volume of sales (probably not good under Goodyear standard)

Presence: Tag Jurisdiction1. Burnham: Tag Jurisdicition: Week ties to Cali but was tagged there

a. Holding: Still good Conservatives: tradition; Liberals: Fair Play+Substantial Justice

2. Goodyear to Individuals: Unclear how it would apply, already have domicile and tag, maybe not at all, maybe can have multiple places of basically at home

Quasi In Rem3. Harris: dude walking through, owed money to 3rd party who owed money to

P: Jurisdiction was good bc attached for value of D’s owed Money (rejected by Schaffer)

4. Schaffer: Eliminates Quasi in Rem II: quasi in rem jurisdiction over shareholder by sequestration of stock (DE statute can do, overturned)

a. Holding: International Shoe applies to in Rem: minimum contact would violate fair play and substantial justice: jurisdiction would violate fair play

b. Left open if real property : still may be presence of real property (not intangible) can support jurisdiction (Powell) (Brennen: expanded to all quasi in rem II, but had P.J. (constitutional) as DE Co. Execs)

Statutory Personal Jurisdiction 1. Jurisdiction must be authorized by statute and Constitutional2. States : sometimes limiting (long arm), others constitutional maximum3. 4(K): Federal Long Arm Territorial Limits of effective Service : )

a. 4(K)1. In General: serving summons/filling waiver establishes P.J. over D:

i. A. State Rule: D subject to jurisdiction of state court where district court located

ii. B. 100 Mile Bulge: D Party joined (rule 14/19) and served within district or within 100 miles where summons issued

iii. C. Federal Rule: when allowed by Federal statuteiv. ok if ok in state+100 mile bulge (for bringing in third parties

b. 4(K)2. Outside State-Court Jurisdiction: for federal law claim: (so not just diversity): summons/waiver establishes PJ over D if

i. A. D not under PJ of any state court andii. B. establishing jurisdiction consistent with US

constitution/laws

Page 6

iii.Aggregation of national contacts for foreign Ds

Consent1. Carnival Cruise Line: Fairness of Forum Clause: On ticket said forum

selection (FL), slipped, suit in WAa. Holding: Forum selection if fundamentally Fare enforceable (not fair

if to make inconvenient)i. Had Notice; obvious choice (where headquarters); benefit to

corp passed to passengers; disputes of all P’s in same place2. Insurance Company of Ireland: special appearance=consent to find

jurisdiction: discovery to find if personal jurisdiction, D refused bc not in jurisdicition

a. Holding: Special appearance=consent to jurisdiction for purpose of determining jurisdiction

3. Gibbons v. Brown: Failure of statutory and constitutional contacts: suit about car crash, Brown only related to Florida by bringing that suit: Fl Rule (substantial and not isolated contacts)

a. Holding: did not satisfy Florida statuteb. Constitutional: Specific: Cause of Action not related to suit in florida,

not related, no jurisdiction i. Had it been counterclaim, probably good

Notice: constitutional and statutory1. Mulllane: Constitutional Notice: reasonably calculated to apprise parties:

trust expiring, Mullane guardian of Trust Manager, arguing that letter saying notice would be in this paper not constitutional

a. Due Process being deprived (right to sue)b. Notice Required : Due Process: Notice of Binding Agreement:

i. “reasonably calculated ii. under circumstances

iii. to apprise interested parties of pendency of actioniv. and afford them opportunity to present objections”

c. Meaning: don’t necessarily have to be informed: statute can say what’s acceptable (mail, whatever) (must still be constitutional):

i. Reasonably calculated to Reach most ppl1. Not ppl with future/conjectural interest (impossible)2. Not missing/unnamed parties

ii. Have addresses: send a letter2. Constitutional:

a. Reasonable : if know wont give notice, not reasonableb. Apprise interested parties : if only 1 party, more of a duty to find

3. Statutory Notice a. 3: A civil action is commenced complaint filed b. 4: Federal Service of Process

i. 4(a): summons contents

Page 7

1. (1) Contents: summons musta. name court+partiesb. be directed at Dc. state name+address of P’s attorney (or if

unrepresented, P)d. time which D must appear+defende. notify failure to appear+defend=default

judgment for relief demanded in complaintf. be signed by clerkg. bear court’s seal

2. (2): amendments: court may permit amendmentsii. 4(b): Issuance: clerk signs+seals, issues for service to each D

1. after/on filing complaint, P may present summons to clerk for signature/seal.

2. If proper: clerk signs/seals/issues it to P for service on D

3. Summons/copy addressed to multiple D’s: issued to each D served

iii. 4(c) Service service: P responsibility, w/ summons+complaint); by anybody not party+19 or May marshell/opointment

1. (1) In general: a. summons must be served w/ copy of complaintb. P responsibe for service (of

sommons/complaint) within time allowed by 4(m)

c. Must furnish copies to person making service2. (2) by: any person (18 and not party) may serve3. (3): by Marshell or someone specially appointed: at P’s

requesta. court may order service by US marshal or

specially appointment. b. Court must appoint: if P authorized to proceed

in forma pauperis OR as seamaniv. 4(d): Waiving Service

1. (1): requesting waiver: D subject to service under rule 4(e),(f),(h): has duty to avoid unnecessary expenses in serving summons. P may notify D that action has commenced and request D waive service: Request must…

a. (A): be in writing and be addressedi. to individual D

ii. (if D under 4(h): to officer, managing/general agent, or agent

Page 8

(authorized by appointment or law) to receive service of process

b. (B): name court where complaint filedc. (C): include: copy of complaint, 2 waiver forms,

prepaid means for returning formd. (D)L inform D (text in form 5), consequences of

waiving and not waiving servicee. (E): state date when request sentf. (F): give D reasonable time to return waiver

i. (30 days: in US; 60 outside)g. (G): sent by 1st class mail or other reliable means

2. (2): Failure to waive: failure to waive=expensesa. In US : fails to sign/return waiver (without good

cause) requested by P in US, court may impose…i. (A) expenses incurred by service and

ii. (B): reasonable expenses (including attorney fees) of any motion required to collect service expenses

3. (3): Time to answer Waiver: 60/90 days to answera. D (Before being served) timely returns waiver…

i. has 60 days after request sent to answer complaint

ii. if outside US : 90 days4. (4): Result of Filing waiver: file waiver=like moment of

summons/complaint serveda. P files waiver, proof of service not required

i. These rules apply as if summons+complaint had been served at time of filing waiver

5. (5): Jurisdiction and Venue not Waived: don’t waive objection to PJ/venue

a. waiving service of summons does not waive objection to PJ or Venue

v. 4(e): Serving individual within US: means of service: state law/personal deliver, cohabitor, agent: Unless federal law provided otherwise, an individual (not minor/incompetent/waiver filed) may be served in a judicial district in US by

1. (1) Following state law for general jurisdiction court (state court): in…

a. state where district court located ORb. where service is made

2. (2) Doing any of the following: to D, to cohabitor at dwelling, with agent

Page 9

a. (A): delivering summons/complaint to individual personally

b. (B): leaving copy at individuals dwelling/place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there

c. (C) delivering summons/complaint to agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service

vi. 4(f): serving individual in Foreign Country: By international agreement or basically US standards/court mail with signed receipt: Unless federal law provided otherwise, an individual (not minor / incompetent / waiver filed) may be served in a judicial district outside US

1. (1) by international agreement means (Hague)2. (2) if no international agreement/agreement allows but

does not specify other means: by method reasonably calculated to give notice

a. (A): as prescribed by foreign country’s law (for general jurisdiction courts)

b. (B): as foregin authority directs in response to letter Or

c. (C): unless prohibited by that country’s lawi. personal delivery (copy+summons)

ii. mail: clerk addresses and sends + requires signed receipt

3. (3): other means not prohibited, as court ordersvii. 4(k) Federal Long arm

1. 4(K)1. In General: serving summons/filling waiver establishes P.J. over D if:

a. A. State Rule: D subject to jurisdiction of state court where district court located

b. B. 100 Mile Bulge: D Party joined (rule 14/19) and served within district or within 100 miles where summons issued

c. C. Federal Rule: when allowed by Federal statuted. ok if ok in state+100 mile bulge (for bringing in

third parties2. 4(K)2. Outside State-Court Jurisdiction: for federal law

claim: (so not just diversity): summons/waiver establishes PJ over D if

a. A. D not under PJ of any state court andb. B. establishing jurisdiction consistent with US

constitution/laws c. Aggregation of national contacts for foreign Ds

Page 10

viii.4(m): service must be made within 120 days of filing, but extensions

are available for good causePower and Notice Until Now

Statutory constitutionalPower Either

State long armo May be specific

Federal long armo Rule 4(k) itselfo Also refers back to long

armo 100 mile bulgeo international

(aggregate)

Int’l Shoe: minimum contacts development to

BK: minimum contacts then fair play

McIntyre: personal Availment=fair play

notice State (4e1) = proceduresFed: rest of rule 4

Mulane: notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances

Venue1. § 1391 Venue

a. (a) Applicability of Section: except otherwisei. (1): civil action in district court

ii. (2): doesn’t matter local/transitoryb. (b) In General: brought in…

i. (1): If all D’s reside in same state; any district one residesii. (2): substantial part of events/omissions giving rise to claim

occurred; or substantial part of property that is subject of action (for in rem)

iii. (3): if neither of above work: any judicial district in which D is subject to PJ for action

c. (c): Residency: for all venue purposesi. (1): natural person (citizen/lawful alien for perm. Residence)

reside in district that person domiciledii. (2): entity (can sue/be sued in common law, whether or not

incorporated) resides in…1. (if D): any district where subject to PJ of court for

action. Have PJ, you’re good (so any venue in state)2. (if P) : only in district of principle place of business

iii. (3): non resident of US: sued in any district; (still need PJ)1. (joinder of such D’s) disregarded in determining venue

with respect to other D’s (ignore them)d. (d) Residency of Corporations in States with multiple Jurisdictions

corporations reside in district where contacts to that district establish PJ, if none, most contacts

Page 11

i.(for venue under chapter):

ii. state with multiple districtsiii. D is under PJ at time action commentsiv. D resides: any district where contacts sufficient to subject it

to personal jurisdiction: if was separate state.1. If no such district: resides in district with most

significant contacts2. Applied: (in 1391b1): only district made available is if

have minimum contacts for PJ, or (if none) most substantial contacts

2. Dee-K: foreing defendents, both fallbacks (1391 and 4k) don’t have evidence yet

a. Venue: foreign defendant thrown out: 1391(c)(3): can be sued in any district

i. Special Venue: Clayton Act: Trumped by 1391(c)ii. Failback: 1391(b)(3) any jurisdiction

b. Jurisdiciton: 4(k)(1)(A): not going to jurisdiction in any state, so go to 4(k)(2): aggregate contacts: any district court good

Transfer1. Forum non Conviens: Federal: other forum must be abroad, it’s dismissal

when other forum availablea. Balance private interest factors (convenience: ease of access to proof,

attendance, cost, practicality) vs. b. Public (complications: local controversies decided locally, burden on

local courts with non-local controversies, choice of law (applying foreign law))

2. Piper Aircraft: airplane crash in Scotland, killed all scots, administratrix of estates files in Cali

a. Holding: court didn’t err in dismissingi. Change in substantive law not given substantial weight (maybe

unless no remedy)ii. Condition Waiver of statute of limitations defense proper

3. 1404 Transfera. (a) court may transfer to where might have been brought/consented

i. for convenience of parties/witnessesii. in interest of justice

iii. district court may transfer civil action to any other district/division where it might have been brought OR

iv. to any district/division which all parties have consented1. anyone could request, court could just do it

b. (b) mechanics: all parties agree: transfer divisions (if in rem, US party doesn’t have to agree)

i. upon motion/consent/stipulation of all parties

Page 12

ii.any action/suit/proceeding of civil nature or any hearing thereof

may be transferrediii. in the discretion of the courtiv. from the division in which pending to any other division in the

same district.v. Transfer of proceedings in rem brought by or on behalf of the

US may be transferred under this section w/o/ further consent of the US where all other parties request transfer

c. (c) a district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending

4. 1406: Cure/waiver of defectsa. (a) Wrong venue(or PJ)/division: dismiss, or for interest of justice;

transferi. district court: where case filed with wrong venue (or no PJ) of

division/district, court shall dismiss OR, if interest of justice: transfer such case to district/division which it could have been brought

b. (b) court still has full jurisdiction involving non-timely/insufficient objection to venue

i. Nothing in chapter impairs the jurisdiction of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to venue

c. (c): includes Guam etc: district is territorial jurisdiction5. Transfer D : Van Dusen: D induced transfer: apply transforring choice of law:

about a plane crash, transfer to bring suit together, but keep original choice of law

a. Holding: in Diversity case: Transfer initiated by D: apply transferring court choice of law

6. Transfer P Ferens: Transfer intiated by P, still apply transferring choice of law: filed in Mississippi bc of SoL, then wants to transfer back to PA (contract claim there)

a. Holding: even when P initiates transfer, transferor court’s choice of law rules

HALFWAY THERE!!!!!

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: need both statutory and constitutional 1. Constitutional Jurisdiction : Article III: “all cases, in law and equity, arising

under constitution, law of US, Treaties made, or which made under their authority”

a. Includes: i. ambassadors/public ministers/consuls

ii. controversies which US is a partyiii. Controversies between:

1. 2 or more states

Page 13

2. a state and citizen of another state3. citizens of different states4. citizens of same state: claiming lands under grant of

different states5. a state/citizen thereof, and foreign state/citizen/subject

Federal Question2. Statutory Jurisdiction : 1331: interpreted narrowly “District courts have

original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, treaties of the US”

a. Interpreted more narrowly than article III (Sup.C. saw Mottley under different Statute, same article III), statute: changeable

3. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule: Mottley: hypothetical “well-pleaded complaint” must raise federal issue. filed contract claim, explaining railroad would defend on the basis of federal statute

a. Holding: no federal ? jurisdiction: Fed. Claim only relevant as Di. For federal question jurisdiction: the hypothetical “well

pleaded complaint” (containing everything P must plead and nothing else) must raise federal issue

4. Declaration Relief : 2201 : seeking indemnity, P is hypo D and vice versaa. Skelly Oil v. Phillips: 2201 not way around well pleaded complaint, flip

to claim that hypothetical P (declaratory D) would make5. Implication: Smith: state claim based on federal law=federal question:

claiming violation of rights under state law (no investing in illegal securities) by investing in security that were illegal under Federal Law

a. Holding: apply well pleaded complaint, federal rule necessarily implicated

6. Exception to Implication: Merrel Dow: congress deciding not to create federal cause of action, no federal question: Negligence claim (state law,: negligent if violate federal law) so D liable if violates federal law, in well pleaded complaint

a. Holding: where congress decides not to create federal cause of action, no federal question jurisdiction

i. Exception to Well-pleaded complaint

Diversity 1. Statutory Diversity 1332: Diversity jurisdiction

a. (a) District courts have original jurisdiction in civil actions where matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 (excluding interest/costs) and is between

i. (1): citizens of different states1. complete diversity

ii. (2): citizens of a state(s?) and citizens/subjects of foreign statea. Clarity: only US citizens v. Foreign Ones, NOT US

citizen w/ foreigner v. Foreigner

Page 14

2. EXCEPTION: when foreigner lawfully admitted for permanent residence in US and domiciled in same state

a. Perminant Residence/legal/domiciled in same state as citizen=no diversity (but could have domicile in different state but still foreigner?)

iii. (3): citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties

1. start with (1) and then adding citizens of foreign statesa. don’t have to be diverse foreignersb. Doesn’t matter if domiciled/legal in same state

(exception of (2) doesn’t apply c. But need US on both sides

iv. (4) a foreign state (1603(a)) as P and citizens of a state/different states

b. (c): purpose of this and section 1441i. (1): Corporations citizenship: Corporation is citizen: where 1.

Incorporated 2. Principle place of business (nerve center: headquarters)

ii. (2) legal representative of an estate of decedent/infant/incompetent=citizen only of same state as decedent/infant/incompetent

2. Citizen of state: US citizen and domiciled there (last place intend to remain)a. UC citizen Domiciled Abroad : no diversity: not a citizen of

state/foreigner b. Unincorporated association : citizen of each of its members (law firm):

read restrictively (one member eliminates diversity)3. Diversity Determined : at time of complaint4. Pleading/Proof : On party invoking jurisdiction

a. Throw out improper/collusive joinder: just joined to get/lose diversity

b. Domestic Relations/Probate: NOT INCLUDED5. Legal Certainty of Amount: plausible claim

a. Calculation : injunction: cost of compliance/benefit to plaintiffb. Aggregation

i. Single P: unrelated Claims: can aggregate (1 must meet $75,000)

ii. Multiple P’s: Related Claim: can aggregate (1 must meet minimum)

6. Strawbridge: Complete diversity requirement P (MA) brought suit against D (VT), then other D (MA):

a. Holding: no diversity jurisdiction: need complete diversityb. Look out for this coming in under Impleader, can’t just wait for other

to sue then piggy back (even though same facts, would destroy diversity)

Page 15

7. Mas: application of exception (2) not applying in (3); domicile; aggregation of claims Spied on couple, he claims for $5,000, her for $15,000 (Min was $10,000): she was born in Mississippi, moved around, no intent to stay, he was same but starting in France

a. Minimum amount: can’t aggregate multiple Ps’ claims except if Not separate and distinct (same event/marriage doesn’t matter) but joint property ownership that was violated: so aggregate (maybe)

i. Legal Certainty Test : plausible claim man could collect over $10,000—so good (would also work under Exxon as supplementary jurisdiction)

ii. (Can aggregate all claims by same P against same D)b. Citizenship Issue:

i. her: domiciled in MI, no intent to stay in LO=diversityii. him: even if domiciled in LO, still diversity because exception

(in 2) doesn’t apply (in 3)

Supplementary Jurisdiction1. Old Terminology for Supplemental Subject Matter Jurisdiction

a. Pendent Claim jurisdiction : P sues D for 1 claim with independent subject matter (usually federal ?), and 2nd claim where isn’t

i. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs: Pendent claims are constitutional if arise out of common nucleolus of operative facts: 2 claims, one with subject matter, 2nd without; judge set aside federal and judged state claim

1. Holding: Constitutionality permissible if both claims “derive from common nucleus of operative facts” and claimant ordinarily would be expected to try together

a. Look at importance of common terms2. Common Law : judges have discretion to dismiss

a. Federal Claim dismissed pre-trial: dismiss stateb. Predomination of State Claims (in terms of

proof, scoop, remedy) (state claim) may be dismissed

c. Preemption: preemption of federal case, strong reason to keep case

ii. Pendent Party : against non original party, Krogerb. Ancillary : P sued D with original jurisdiction, D counters, D crosses, or

D third party (without subject matter jurisdiction but same transaction or occurance)

i. Owen Equipment v. Kroger: Kroger (iowa) files diversity against OPPD (Nebraska). ODDP files against Owen Equipment. Kroger joins Own Equipment: (Kroger to OPPD thrown out) Turns out they’re from Iowa as well, destroying diversity

Page 16

1. Holding: don’t allow claim to proceed, parties could just leave out party and wait for D to plead in to avoid diversity rule

2. Note: would be ancillary jurisdiction for D1 v. D2 even if D2 not diverse to D1: because not doing funny business

c. Pendent Party: Ancillary but third party not originally sued2. Modern Supplementary Jurisdiction 1367:

a. (a) allowed to maximum constitutional extent except belowi. (Except otherwise in (b)/(c)/Federal Statute): any civil action

where district courts have original jurisdiction: court has supplemental jurisdiction over other claims so related to claims (with (original) statutory subject matter jurisdiction) that they form part of same case/controversy under constitution (Us Mine Workers v. Gibbs Test common nucleus of operative facts)

b. (b) when original jurisdiction is diversity, no supplemental jurisdiction for nondiverse claims by P’s under 14, 19, 20, 24

i. when original jurisdiction only on 1332 (diversity), NO supplementary jurisdiction under subsection (a) for…

a. claim by P : against persons made parties under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 OR

b. claim by (proposed to be joined) as Ps: proposed under rule 19, or seeking intervene under 24

c. when inconsistent with 1332: supplemental jurisdiction would mean no diversity

c. (c) district court has discretion to not exercise supplemental if four circumstances (novel/compex state; predomination; dismissal of original jur. Claims; other reasons)

i. district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over claim under (a) if

1. the claim raises novel/complex issue of state law2. claim substantially predominates over claim/claims

with original jurisdiction3. district court has dismissed all claims with original

jurisdiction4. in exceptional circumstances, there are other

compelling reasons to decline jurisdictiond. (d) claims are tolled while pending for at least 30 days

i. SoL tolled while claim is pending and for period of 30 days after dismissed (unless state law provides longer period) for

1. Claims asserted under (a),2. and any other claim in same action voluntarily

dismissed at the same time or after the dismissal of claim under (a)

3. Attack Method to 1367 a. Is non-original claim one over which the court has original

jurisdiction? No: continue

Page 17

i.YES: Don’t need supplementary, already in

b. 1. At least one claim with original jurisdiction (1331, 1332, other statute): YES, continue

i. No: no jurisdictionc. Does the claim share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with

claim having original jurisdiction: YES: continuei. No: no supplementary

d. If answer to any of the following=no, have supplementali. Is only original jurisdiction 1332? Yes: continue

1. No: GOT IT!ii. Is the claim by a plaintiff/plaintiffs

(proposed/intervening/real): Yes: continue1. No: Got It!

iii. Is the claim against a party made a party under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24? Yes: continue

1. No: Got it!iv. If claim brought originally, would it be inconsistent with

diversity (shares citizenship (exxon)): Yes: Fucked1. No: Got it! (so would have to be diverse and over

amount in controversy: e. Shortcut (must meet 1+2)(presume not good on its own, then don’t

need supp): i. is there one Original good? yes

ii. Related: yes: iii. Is Original Fed Question:? Yes: GOOD

1. No to above continue: just no to any (plaintiff?; against 14, 19, 20, 24 party? Inconsistent with diversity (not amount, exxon)?

4. Exxon: Claim 1 (Fl, 100,000), Claim 2 (Fl, 50,000): D (DE) amount in controversy doesn’t contaminate diversity

a. Dicta: amount in controversy doesn’t contaminate diversityb. Holding: 1367 shows can have supplemental jurisdiction over other P

claims even if doesn’t meet (75,000) amount in controversy i. Had original jurisdiction: not contaiminated by meeting price

in controversyc. Dissent: Keep Zahn: must independently meet requisite jurisdiction

amount

Removal1. Removal Statutes2. 1441: all the D’s must agree (except in part C)

a. (a) Generally: D (but not P) can remove to federal court, in district in same area as state court if could have been filed there (have jurisdiction: original and sup count)

i. generally: except otherwise provided, any civil action brought in state court which district court have original jurisdiction, may be removed by D or Ds to district court of the US for the district/division embracing the place where such action is pending

Page 18

b. 1441(b) Diversity Exception D cannot remove if jurisdiction only based on (1332) diversity and D is citizen of the state in which the case is fixed

i. removal based on of diversity:1. in determining if removable under 1332 (divsersity):

citizenship of D’s sued under fictitious names removed2. civil action otherwise removable solely under 1332, can’t be

removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as D’s is a citizen of the state in in which such action is brought

c. 1441(c) Severed unremovable terms D’s with 1331 can remove even if unremovable claims in civil action: those claims are severed and remanded, only D’s with 1331 claims must assent

i. If civil action includes claim under 1331 Andii. A claim not within original or supplemental jurisdiction of the

district court/a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute, iii. the entire action may removed if could by without (ii)iv. Upon removal: court severs unremovable (ii (like unrelated,

1441b )) claims: remands to state courtv. Only D’s with 1331 claim must consent to removal

1. Stuff that gets supplementary jurisdiction just goes with it3. 1446: Rules for Removal

a. (a) To remove, D(s) file a notice of removal to federal court in district/devision action is pending

i. File Notice of removal in US district court for (state) district/division within which action is pending

ii. includes: signature; short plain statement for grounds for removal; copy of all process, pleading, and orders served upon Ds in action

b. 1446(b): Time to Removei. 1. D has 30 days to file for removal after get served copy of

initial pleading or 30 days after being served if initial pleading not necessary served (whichever is shorty)

ii. 2. 1. removal under 1441(a): all must consent2. 30 days: each D gets 30 days after receipt by or service

on D of initial pleading to file notice of removal3. D’s served different time: later files notice of removal,

others can consent (despite previous actions)iii. (3) Initially not removable : get 30 days after find out its removable

(get copy of amended complaint)c. 1446( c): requirement for removal on Diversity jurisdiction can’t remove

after 1 year if removing on diversity unless bad faithi. 1. can’t be removed under 1441(b)(3): (diversity) if a year after

commencement of action (unless P bad faith)ii. 2. If plan removal under 1332(a): sum demanded in good

faith=amount in controversy1. BUT notice of removal can assert amount if

a. Asking for non material benefit

Page 19

b. State practice to award damage in excess of amound demanded

2. District court will determine if amount above: exceeds amount in 1332

iii. 3. If only not removable bc amount in controversy: information relating to amount in controversy in record=go back to 1446(b)(3): can file new removal

1. if removal filed after 1 year, D may find deliberate failure to disclose and go back to 1446(c)(1)

d. 1446(d) notice served to parties+clerk of state court4. 1447: Remand

a. 1447 (a) District court takes over: Once Removed, D court may issue all shit it needs, whether served by process in state court or not

b. 1447 (b) may require copies/records c. 1447 (c) Motion to remand should: be filed within 30 days after notice of

removal. i. Must Remand: district court must remand the case at any time it

finds no subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether a motion to remand was filed.

d. (d) Not reviewable: order remanding case not appealable/reviewablee. (e) joinder destroying Sub Mat Jurisdiction: P wants to join D’s which would

destroy jurisdiction, court mayi. deny OR

ii. Peromit and remand5. Caterpillar v. Lewis mistaken diversity, still okay if at end=fine : district court

allowed removal even though there was not diversity, later became deverse with settlement

a. Hloding: Complete diversity measured at time of Removal BUT all that matters is diversity on judgment day

6. Caterpillar v. Williams: complete preemption doctrine: exception to well pleaded complaint: State claim, D thinks collective bargaining (Federal Law) preemptive

a. Compete Preemption Doctrine : Exception to well pleaded complaint: where b. federal law without any doubt preempts state claims

i. doesn’t apply herec. Holding: P is master of offer, just pleaded state claim

Joinder

Joinder of Claims1. Joinder of Claims: 18 can combine as many as you want, related

(supplemental jurisdiction) or not (won’t necessarily have jurisdiction)a. (a): party (asserting claim/counter/cross/third party) can combine

(as indi/alternative claims) as many claims as it has against an opposing party (need jurisdiction as well)

i. in original complaint, even unrelated 2. Counterclaims: 13

Page 20

a. 13(a) Compulsory counterclaims: must be brought (if have at time of service) or lost if: (A) same transaction/occurance and (B) doesn’t require adding party that court can’t have jurisdiction over

i. Pleading must state as counterclaim any claim that (at the time of its service) the pleader has against the opposing party if the claim

1. (A): Arises out of the transaction/occurrence that is subject of opposing party’s claim and

2. (B): does not require adding another party that court cannot acquire jurisdiction

ii. ** if compulsory: will be supplemental Jurisdiction iii. Exceptions : (don’t loose it) (A)when claim already pending

action or (B) pleader not under personal (in Quasi in Rem) jurisdiction+pleader doesn’t assert counterclaim

1. (A) When action commenced: claim was subject of another pending action

2. (B) opposing party sued on claim (by attachment/other process) that did not establish Personal Jurisdiction over pleader, and pleader doesn’t assert counterclaim under this rule

b. 13(b) Permissive counterclaims: anything not compulsory, may claim c. 13(c): Relief may exceed/be inferior/be different than relief sought by

original claim3. Plant: compulsory or permissive counterclaim determines Ancillary

jurisdiction/not: was compulsory: P: Fed. Truth and lending, D counters with state collection claim

a. Transaction/Occurrence will determine compulsory counterclaim and also ancillary jurisdiction (changed to 1367)

b. Same transaction Testsi. Issues raised the same?

ii. Res judica bar a subsequent suit on D’s claim?iii. Evidence (substantially same) be relevant to both?iv. Logical Relation between claim and counterclaim?

4. Transaction or Occurrence v. Common Nucleuis of Operative Fact a. Some courts: same thingb. Others: transaction/occurance is narrower, so necessarily part of

common nucleus i. Permissive counterclaim could be in supplemental jurisdiction

c. 13(f) Ommitted Counterclaims Counterclaims omitted through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires: may be added by amendment with leave of court

5. Crossclaim against coparty 13 g : seeking indemnity (full/partial of claim) from co-party if: out of same (A) transaction/occurance of original action/counterclaim or (B) Property subject of action

Page 21

a. 13 (g) Cross Claim: may be filed against co party if:i. arises “out of same transaction/occurrence” of original

action/counterclaim ORii. relates to property subject of action

iii. indemnity : can seek full/partial indemnity6. Rule 42: Consolidation and severance:

a. (a) Consolidate: court may order joint hearing/trial/consolidate actions/issue orders whenever actions have “common question of law or Fact”

i. court can join for hearing/trial all matters at issue in actionsii. consolidate the actions

iii. issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary delayb. (b) Separate Trials: For convenience/avoid prejeduce court can

separate trial of separate issues/ claims/ crossclaims/ counterclaims/ third party claims

Joinder of Parties (is NOT jurisdiction) 1. Permissive Joinder of Parties 20:

a. Permissive Joinder of Plaintiffs 20(a)(1) may join if right to relief out of same transaction/occurrence/series + some question of law/fact common to all plaintiffs will arrise

i. (A) P asserts right to relief jointly/severally/in the alternative with respect to/arising out of same transaction/occurance/series of them AND

ii. (B) Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action

b. Permissive Joinder Defendants(a)(2): may be joined if right to relief asserted against out of same transaction/occurance/series + some question of law/fact common to all plaintiffs will arrise

i. Persons (and property subject to admiralty in rem) may be joined in one action as defendant if

1. (A) Right to relief asserted against them jointly/severally/ in alternative with respect to/arising out of same transaction/occurance/series and

2. (B): Any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action

c. (3): relief: Neither P/D need interest in obtaining/defending against all relief. Court can grant for/against 1+ P/D

2. Moseley: Rule 20 loose, allow law/fact to come out in case: General policy of discrimination at GM, but hard to say what linked them (different parts of career/different discriminations/different reasons)

a. Holding: Allow joinder: will see some question of law/fact will come up that’s common to all of them

3. Misjoinder/non-joinder 21 just fix the problem, don’t dismiss

Page 22

a. Misjoinder of party is not ground for dismissal. On Motion or on own, (on just terms) court can add/drop a party orsever a claim

4. Third Party Practice: Impleader 14:a. (a) when defending Party may bring in a third party

i. 14: (1)Timing of summons and complaint: D (3rd party P) may serve summons/complaint to nonparty if they may be liable for all/part of claim against D: must be within 14 days (of serving answer) or with courts leave (Must be liable for the claim against D, not just saying it’s not my fault it’s his)

1. D, as 3rd party P, serve summons and complaint on a nonparty who is/may be liable to it for all/part of the claim against it BUT

2. 3rd party P must (by motion) obtain the court’s leave if it files the 3rd party complaint more than 14 days after serving its answer

ii. 14: (2) 3rd Party D’s claims+defenses1. 3rd party D: can raise defenses to D1 and P (that D1

could), normal counterclaim rules, may assert against P for stuff arising out of same transaction/occurrence that is subject of P’s complaint against D

a. (A) must assert any defense against the third party P’s claim under rule 12

b. (B) must assert any counterclaim against 3rd party P (“D1”) under 13(a); may under 13(b); may crossclaim against D1 under 13(g)

c. (C) May assert against P any defense that D1 has to P’s claim

d. (D) may also assert against P any claim arising out of transaction/occurrence that is subject matter of P’s claim against D1

iii. (3): P against D2 essentially treat parties as if D2 was D1, normal rules

1. P may assert against D2 any claim arising out of same transaction/occurrence that is subject matter of P’s claim against D1

2. Then D2 must assent to defenses under 12, counterclaim under 13(a/b), crossclaim under 13(g)

iv. (4) motion to strike/sever/try separately1. any party can move to strike/sever/try separate

v. (5): 3rd Party D’s claim against non party basically 3rd party D can become P3 (4th party P): start over

1. Third party D may proceed under this rule against nonparty who is or may be liable to 3rd party D for all/part of any claim against it

b. (b) P bringing in third party: P claimed against, can act as D

Page 23

i.When claim asserted against P, P may bring in third party if this

rule would allow D to 5. Price: There was implied indemnity in contract, so 3rd party D rightfully

brought in D brought claim against 3rd party D for bad nails after P’s coop fell apart, built by D, proper

a. Holding: Nail maker may be liable to chicken house maker (contractual indemnity): so good interplead

i. Not case if CoA was Tort and in comparative negligence jurisdiction probably

b. Hypo: if no indemnity on third party, wouldn’t be liable for all/part of claim, so couldn’t implied Can’t just say someone else’s fault!

6. Watergate: Can’t just blame, 3rd party D must maybe be liable for claim of P against D: P Hired realistate management (D) who hired engineers (D). Plans done. Then Watergate hired Contractor to execute. Realistate managers implead Contractor: improper

a. Holding: no good impleader bc just blaming someone else, no indemnity (impleaded party may be liable for P’s claim against D1)

7. Necessary Parties: 19: absence would prevent complete relief, impair rights of absent party “as a practical matter” or leave a risk of inconsistent obligations: remedy: join if able.

a. 19(a): Persons to be joined if feasiblei. (1) Required Party

1. Person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as party if

a. (A): in their absence, court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties OR

b. (B): that person claims interest in relating to the subject of action and is so situated that disposing of the action in persons absence may:

i. as a practical matter impair/impede the person’s ability to protect interest; or

ii. leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple/inconsistent obligations because of the interest

ii. (2): Joinder by court order1. if person has not been joined as required, the court

must order that person to be made a party: person who refuses to join as P may be made either a D, or, in proper case, an involuntary P

iii. (3) Venue1. if a joined party objects to venue and joinder would

make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party

Page 24

b. 19(b): When joinder is not feasible: Party not subject to service of process and/or territorial jurisdiction (venue/personal) or joinder would deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction: court makes determination below: can proceed “in equity and good conscience”

i. if person required to be joined if feasibly cannot be joined, court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among existing parties or should be dismissed

ii. Factors if Indispensible1. Extend judgment rendered in absence might prejudice

that person/existing party2. The extent any prejudice could be lessened or avoided

a. Protective provision included,b. Shaping the relief orc. Other means

3. Whether a judgment rendered in person’s absence would be adequate and

4. Whether the P would have adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder

iii. Indispensible party: 1. necessary, 2. cannot be joined, 3. court determines cannot proceed in equity and good conscience (factors: prejeduct to existing parties; if protective provisions in judgment can lessen/avoid prejudice; if judgment would be adequate; whether P would have alternative remedy)

8. Temple: P still can get relief, still ability to protect, no real double obligation by having two suits: so no necessary party: P has suit against a doctor and a manufacturer in different trials

a. Holding: No party required to be joined (failed tests): so finei. P: can get relief, just wants money

ii. doctor claiming interest but need more (practical matter impair/impede his ability to protect interests): can still just give his D

iii. Double obligations: patient get double recovery, but weak9. Helzberg seems like it would be clear application of 19b dismissal but

because D’s fault, not dismissed: sues Valley West, diverse, but Valley West wants to bring in Lord’s (no jurisdiction) because would influence their contract with them

a. Necessary party?: P’s relief (trying to stop Lord’s); Lord’s ability to protect interest (not law binding on them but as practical matter) and double obligations (Valley West has two obligations)

b. Equity and Good Conscious Test: Dismissal Evidence: (seems to say adequate other remedy, go to court in Iowa; and prejudice)

c. Holding: Court found no prejeduce: not clear it would happen + It was Valley West’s Fault, so not given break

10. Intervention 24: Getting in to case

Page 25

a. (a) Intervention of Right timely motion court MUST grant; by statute or because: (a) interest in property/transaction; (b) disposition of action may “as a practical matter impair or impede’s applicant’s ability to protect interest” and (c) applicant’s interest not represented

i. on timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who

1. (1): is given an unconditional right to intervene by federal statute

2. (2): a. Claims an interest relating to property or

transactionb. And is so situated that disposing of action may

(as a practical matter) impair or impede the mover’s ability to protect interest

c. UNLESS existing parties adequately represent that interest

b. 24(b) Permissive Intervention allowed when statute provides/there is a “question of law or fact in common” Court: Look if intervention will unduly delay or prejudice parties

i. (1): in general: on timely motion, court MAY permit anyone to intervene who:

1. (A): is given unconditional right to intervene by federal statute

2. (B): has a claim/defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact

ii. (3): delay/prejudice: in exercising discretion, court should consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties rights

c. 24(c): notice of pleading motion served/say grounds/pleading of claim/defense

i. motion to intervene must be served on parties as provided in rule 5. Must state grounds of intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out claim/defense for which intervention is sought

11. NRDC: indervention as right: adequate representative of interests not there, so must be allowed in Environmental group suit against regulatory agencies to stop licensing nuclear plants

a. Holding: (definitely interest: trying to get license; and settlement would impair ability to defend): proposed licensee allowed to intervene (despite licensee in suit) bc actual licensee could not be trusted to rep others interest

12. Atlantis: Intervention as Right: US v. company, intervene proper because 1 interest against US and 1 interest against company, plus if settled limits their ability and obvious interest: no friend in litigation

Page 26

a. Holding: although not binding on Atlantis, would need en banc/supreme court: so definitely effects interest: Intervention Good

i. Worried about stare decisis: interpreting bound: bound as practical matter

ii. Settling precedent=enough to intervene13. Martin: Non intervention: not bound by suit, can have second suit, shift

burden to rule 19: White FF sued for racial discrimination allegedly encompassed by consent decree

a. Holding: not bound by first suit, can have second suiti. Shift burdon to rule 19, not 24 to avoid more suits

b. Dissent: no grounds bc could have intervened i. Obligation: obligation on existing parties to join you if they

want you to be bound by the issue

Interpleader: possible duty to multiple ppl, settle inconsistent judgments 1. Statutory: 1335 Federal courts have jurisdiction over “any civil action of

interpleader or in the nature of interpleader’ where: i. Property worth $500 or more

ii. There is general diversity (minimum) (under 1332) among claiments

1. Minimum: 1 of claimants from different state as othersiii. Plaintiff deposits money/property/Bond into the court

2. Venue 1397: district with at least 1 claimant 3. Process: 2361: court may issue process for all claimants: restrains them from

proceedings affecting property (or whatever interpleder about)a. Process/order shall be returnable when judge/court directs:

addressed/served by US marshals in claimants districtsb. Such district shall hear and determine the case

i. May discharge P from liability, make injunction permanent 4. Statutory: good for ppl in different states, P is interpleding party but actually

paying you: claimants are Dsa. (a) District court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader or

in the nature of interpleader filed by any person, firm, corporation, association, society having in his custody or possession money or property of the value of $500: if…

i. (1) 2+ adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship (in a/d of 1332) are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such maney or property… and if

ii. (2) the Plaintiff has deposited such money/property or has paid the amount of/the loan/other value of such instrument or the amount due under such obligation into the registry of the court, there to abide the judgment of the court,

1. or has given bond payable to the clerk of the court in such amount and with such surety as the court/judge may deem proper, conditioned upon the compliance by the P with the future order of judgment of the court with respect to the subject matter of the controversy

Page 27

b. (b) such an action may be entertained although titles or claims of the conflicting claimants do not have a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another

5. Rule Interpleader 22 persons having claims against P may be joined as D’s and required to interplead when P is or may be exposed to multiple liability

a. (a) Grounds:i. by a plaintiff

ii. Persons with claims that may expose P to multiple liability may be joined as D’s and required to interplead. Proper even though…

1. Aa. Claims (of claiments)/titles which claims

depend, b. lack a common origin orc. are advers and independent rather than identical

OR2. B: P denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of

claimantsiii. 2: by D: defendant exposed to similar liabilities may seek

interpleader through a crossclaim(13g)/counterclaim(13a/c)b. Relation to other Statues

i. Supplements, not limits, joinder of parties allowed by rule 20.ii. In addition to 1335, 1397, 2361

6. Cohen: Can intervene into interpleader case: Cohen has paintings, 3 possible claimants (2) interpleaded,

a. Marcos: intervened under 24: worry about timeliness, court says it’s okay

Source §1335 R-22Subject matter jurisdiction $500 in controversy,

minimum diversity among claimants (pair of claimants from different states).

Other statute to get jurisdiciton-§1331/§1332$75,000 with complete diversity (no claimant has same residence as interpleading party) here we look at interpleader as plaintiff, and claimants as defendants

Personal jurisdiction Nationwide service of process that establishes personal jurisdiction (actually diferent statute number but use it when using §1334)

Ordinary personal jurisdiction rules

Venue Where any person resides Ordinary approach

Page 28

depositMoney/property must be deposited to court

No requirement

Class Action: Learn this shit!!1. Class Actions 23

a. (a) Prerequisites : 1+ members of class may sue/be sued as rep if…i. Class so numerous joinder of all members is impracticable

ii. Commo n questions of law/fact in classiii. Claims/defenses of Reps are typical of claims/d’s of class andiv. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

interest of classb. Types: Either 23B(1A/1B/2/3). Satisfy 23A and 1 of following

i. 23B(1): prosecuting separate actions create risk of… 1. Inconsistency : (A): inconsistent/varying adjudications

with respect to indi class members: establish incompatible standards of conduct for party opposing class

a. If lots of ppl, makes difficult 2. (b) Difficulty as practical Matter (Limited Fund) :

a. Dispositive/impair anility to protect interests: (B): adjudications for indis would be dispositive of interest of other members OR substantially impair/impede their ability to protect interest: limiting fund

b. Fund must be really limitedii. Injunction (not money maybe): 23B2: want final injunctive

relief/declaratory relief1. party opposing class has acted/refused to act on

grounds that apply generally to class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole

iii. Money Damages: 23B3: common questions predominate/superiority of C.A. v. factors

1. predomination : common questions of law/fact predominate over individual questions AND

2. superiority: class action is superior to other methods for fair/efficient adjudication

3. Factors a. Interest in individually controlling actionsb. Extent/ nature of litigation already commencedc. Desirability of concentrating litigation in this

forumd. Difficulties likely in managing class action

Page 29

c. Procedure 23Ci. Certification order 23C1 put order in early, define class, can

alter order1. Time of Issue: at early practicable time after

commencement of action brought by class: court determines by order if certify action as class action

2. Defining class : appoint council: order must define class and claims, issues, defenses, and appoint council

3. Altering/Amending the Order : order can be conditional and may be altered before final judgment

ii. Notice: 23C2 1. (A) B1(a and b)+b2 Classes: court may direct

appropriate notice2. (B): B3 classes: need best notice practicable: including

indi notice to IDed members through reasonable effort: clearly/concisely state that…

a. Court will exclude any member who so requestsiii. Particular Issues 23C4

1. When appropriate, action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues

iv. Subclasses 23C51. When appropriate, class subdivided and each treated as

classd. 23E Settlement

i. 1. Settlement needs to be approved by court to be fair, and reasonable

ii. 2. Class member can objectiii. 3. You can opt out

2. Ortiz: limited fund must be actually limited Notiations to pay 1.5 bil settlement with D liable only for 10 mil

a. Holding: no limited fund (fund not definitely limited, whole fund will be used, claiments treated fairly) none here

b. Not good 23b1bc. So failed to get courts approval

Pleading1. Gomez: D (burden) must show acted in good faith Police officer suing for

being dismissed without hearinga. Holding: Burden of Pleading is on D

i. Reasons1. Element is not listed in statute2. Court described as D3. Relevant evidence is out of control of D

ii. Burden on D to prove defense as well (qualified immunity)

Page 30

2. Rule 8: a. (a) Claims for Relief.

i. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:ii. (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

iii. (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

iv. (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

3. Conley: Only show ability to win: Cannot dismiss for lack of pleading unless no support for case

a. Pleading only had to show enough to show possibility of winning, this is notices function: not dismissed unless “beyond doubt that P can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle relief”

4. Iqbal: change test, (take out legal conclusions) and determine if complaint plausible: Afghani guy contained post 9/11, treated harsher “because of religion/national origin”

a. Said petitionars knew/condoned/agreed to it: if could prove true, certainly had a case

b. Here: filter out legal conclusionsi. Determine whether complaint is plausible using common

sense5. Jones v. Clinton: whole bunch of shit

a. 8b: defences in short/plain terms: explain what true and what notb. 8c: Affirmative Ds: list defences must be pleadc. failure to deny: 8d: alleged and not denied, taken as admittedd. RULE 12 STUFF MADE OUT OF ORDER: 12b6 bc qualified privelage as

prez6. Rule 9B: Pleading with particularity is required when fraud/mistake7. Stradford: particularity in pleading for fraud insurance company didn’t have

particularity of 9B needed, just said lied, not about what, then amended and it was find

Motion to Dismiss1. Rule 12: Motion to dismiss

a. (a) Time to serve responsive pleadingi. (1) in general: time for serving a responsive pleading is…

1. A: a D must serve an answera. Within 21 days after being surved with summons

and complaintb. If waived: (rule 4d): within 60 days after request

for waiver sent: (90 if international)

Page 31

2. B: a party must serve an answer to a counterclaim/crossclaim within 21 days of being served with pleading that states it

3. C: 21 days after served with order to reply, unless otherwise stated

ii. (4): effect of a motion: serving motion under this rule alters these periods as follows

1. A: court denies motion/postpones its disposition until trial: responsive pleading must be served within 14 days after notice of court’s

2. B: if court grants a motion for more definite statement, must respond in 14 days

b. (B): every D to claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. Following can do by motion

1. 1. Subject Matter2. 2. Personal Jurisdiction3. 3. Improper Venue4. 4. Insufficient Process5. 5. Insufficient service of process6. 6. Failure to state claim upon which relief can be

granted7. 7. Failure to join a party under rule 19

ii. motion asserting these d’s must be made before pleading if responsive pleading is allowed. (if claim of relief does not require responsive pleading, opposing party may assert at trial any D’s to that claim): no D’s waived by joining it with one or more other Ds/objections in responsive pleadings

c. (c): motion for judgment on the pleadingsi. after pleadings closed, but early enough not to delay trial, party

may move for judgment on pleadingsd. (d) result of presenting matters outside the pleadings

i. if, on motion under 12b6 or 12c: matters outside pleadings are presented or 12c: matters outside pleadings presented to court

1. (so try to say not good on pleadings, put in more)2. so reasonable time to present materials

e. (e): motion for more definite statement (if ordered, get 14 days, if don’t do it, stricken)

f. (f) motion to strike: i. court on own

ii. on motion, before responding within 21 days after served with pleading

g. (g) joining moionsi. 1. Right to join: motion here may be joined with any other

allowed

Page 32

ii.2. Except 2H2/3: making motion under this rule must not make

another motion under this rule that was available but omitted from earlier motion: onse make it, cant make again unless new info

iii. all motions available must be made at once,: except 12b6: (can be raised again as 12 c_and indispensable parties) under 12b7

FAILURE TO RAISE 12B(2-5) MOTION WITH ANOTHER 12B FORFEITS THE MOTION NOT FILED

h. (h): waiving and preserving D’si. (1): party waives 12b(2-5) by

1. omitting it from motion to dismiss2. failing to

a. make motion under this ruleb. include it in responsive pleading/amendment

allowed in 15(a)(1)ii. (2): failure to state claim which relief can be granted, to join a

person required by 19b: or state legal defense, may be raised:1. in any pleading allowed in rule 7a2. by motion under 12(c)3. at trial

iii. (3) anytime lack of subject matter: dismissi. Basically: do 12 B pre answer and then once pleading

2. Rule 15 Amendmentsa. Can amend 1s within 21 days, or 21 days after response under

12b/e/fb. Otherwise: need court/opposite party consentc. Respond to amendment pleading made in 14 days, or in time of

regual, whichever longerd. At trial: court can permit,

i. if tried, treated as raisede. relation back: back to date of original

i. if claim/d in originalii. amendment can be used for naming

iii. same “transaction/occurrence to relate back”f. supplemental pleedings, court may allow based on new shit

3. Aquaslide: P had suit, but then found aquaslide wasn’t manufacturer, made in good faith: now SoL gone bc relied on agreement

a. Amendment granted freely: if not bc in bad faithb. So can amend complaint saying no case

4. 15C: relation back=SOL (transaction/occurance)5. Moore: refuses to allow amendment where initial complaint alleged failure

for informed consent, change to malpractice

Page 33

a. Bc no relation back: judges care about notice as much as transaction6. Bonerb: slip and fall to bad counciling, but came out of being allowed on bad

bball court, so referred back

1. Conley, Iqbal (sufficiency of pleading)2. Jones v. Clinton (pleading)3. Rule 9(b), Stradford (heightened pleading)4. Rule 12 (motion to dismiss – should know all subsections of 12(b))5. Rule 15 (amendments)6. Aquaslide (prejudice)7. Moore and Bonerb (relation back)

Page 34