Select Page

Civil Procedure I
St. Johns University School of Law
Sovern, Jeffery

1Tell him what you are assuming.
Tell him what effect the assumption makes.
Tell him what the effect will be if it is not true.
Mootness: an issue that is moot is not judiciable. Forbidden by Article III. 
§         Parties would not argue as hard if the issue is moot.
§         exceptions: where the CT has to act in the interests of people who are injured and do not sue
o        where the D is capable of repeating illegal acts and evading justice.
Standing: P must have sufficient personal stake in the outcome
§         Must assert his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties
Article III: party invoking CT’s authority to show personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the D
§         AND that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action
§         AND is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. 
§         “Case and controversy” clause of Art. III (Article III requirement cannot be lifted.)
Prudential considerations: 
1)      P must assert his own legal rights;
2)      no abstract Q of wide public significance better answered by the leg.;
3)      it must fall w/in a zone of interest protected or required.
Statutory standing: if the prudential considerations are not satisfied, are they satisfied by statute?
§         Judicial Exception to standing: (Griswold v. Conn.- contraceptives case) assertion of patients right of privacy b/c he could be made an accessory to their ‘crime.’
Advisory opinion: CTs cannot issue advisory opinions – all decisions must arise from disputes.
Ripeness: a case is not yet ready for adjudication (founded on Article III and the prudential considerations.)
§         Usually considered first when an action is brought.
§         SMJ is over the case
o        Fed CTs have limited SMJ; they can only hear cases:
§         federal Q
§         diversity of citizenship
o        Encouraged interstate commerce
o        Parties might feel like they would not get a fair shake in a foreign state
o        Gives access to CT that voter had hand in “fixing”
o        P can bring a diversity case in FED CT or state CT
§         If P brings a diversity case to st CT, D can usually remove case to Fed CT.
o        state CTs can hear almost any case
Diversity Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1332
§         requires complete diversity
·         you cannot have same state on both sides of the V (Strawbridge)
§         when party is impleaded under FRCP 14(a) you look at citizenship of D1 and D2, diversity between D2 and P doesn’t matter. Must have diversity bet. D1 and D2.
§         Class actions – Rule 23 – diversity is only tested among named parties
·         Can work your named parties to your advantage to create diversity, no problem
·         Diversity tested at time that suit

incorporated Associationsà citizen of every state where members are citizens
§         Representative of Estate of Decedent (Infant/Incompetent) à citizen of same state as person representing (child is a citizen of the State where her parents are citizens)
§         x1332(a) Amount of controversy EXCEEDS $75,000à ($75,000.01)
o        P can claim any amt, unless it is clear to a legal certainty that she cannot recover more than $75,000
o        Ps ultimate recovery is irrelevant to jurisdiction à look at § 1332(b)
o        Aggregation – adding multiple claims to get over $75,000
§         You can aggregate if one P vs. one D à single P can aggregate two $40K to meet $75+K
§         2 separate Ps have claims for $40K each cannot aggregate. 
§         P w/ a $30K claim can aggregate w/ a P w/ an $80K claim. 1 P must meet $75 b4 adding on
·         P may have as many claims as she wants to satisfy the controversy amount
Aggregation okay?
1P v. 1D
$40K + $40K (whether legally/factually related or not)
1P v. multi Ds (separate liabilities)
$30K + $50K
1P v. joint (related) liability Ds
$30K + $50K