Civil Procedure I Outline

I.         RULE 15(c): Relation Back of Amendments- We need this if only the Statute of Limitations has passed. We pretend that something happened earlier in the litigation if:
A.                   Permitted by the law provided for the statute of limitations
B.                   The claim in the amendment arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence
C.                   The amendment changes the party (very rare)
Joinder
II.        Joinder with respect to parties (Rules 20, 19, 14, 13(h))- Multiple Plaintiffs & Defendants
A.       Rule 20- Permissive Joinder of Parties
a.        RULE= Persons who may join or be joined- Plaintiffs/Defendants may join/be joined in one action if the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as each other and there is some question of law or fact common to all parties in the action
                                                                         1.      CASE= Apache County v. Superior Court
1.       Holding= AZ’s indigent population doesn’t constitute the same transaction or series of transactions as required by Rule 20(a). There is no “common thread”, such as a common question of law or fact, running b/t each of the claims which is necessary for joinder.
                                                                         2.      CASE= Alexander v. Fulton County
1.       Holding= The court found a “logical relationship” between these claims. . The claims all center on systemic pattern of discrimination against white officers.
b.       Separate Trial- A court may order separate trails to prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by the in inclusion of a party
 
B.       Rule 13-  in relation to Claims – Counterclaim and Crossclaim
a.        (a)Compulsory Counterclaim- related claim. Arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s original claim (If you don’t bring up the claim now, you can’t bring it up later). A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that at the time of its service the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:
                                                                         1.      Arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; and
1.       CASE= “Simmons v. Simmons” the counterclaim; 1. Wife may sue husband for damages caused by personal injuries caused by husband as part of divorce proceedings. 2. The efficient admin of dissolution cases requires that their insulation from the peculiarities of matters at law. 
a.        HOLDING= No separate claim for assault & battery allowed after dissolution of marriage claim, since under Rule 13 and Uniform Marriage & Dissolution Act requires the resolution of all disputes arising out of a marriage to be resolved in a single proceeding . (Note- combing marriage dissolution w/ tort claims would require the court to address extraneous issues)
                                                                         2.      Does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
                                                                         3.      Exceptions:The pleader need not state the claim if:
1.       (A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or
2.       (B) the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim under this rule.
b.        Rule 13(b) Permissive Counterclaim- unrelated claim. Something completely unrelated to the litigation (you can bring the claim up down the road)
                                                                         1.      A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory
1.       no transactional relatedness required
2.       At party’s discretion
c.        Rule 13(g) Crossclaim- claim against a co-party arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or of a counterclaim.
                                                                         1.      RULE: A pleading may state as a cross claim any claim by one party against a co -party if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim
1.       CASE= Rainbow Management v. Atlantis Submarines
a.        HOLDING= A co-party becomes an opposing party when an initial cross-claim is filed against it by another co-party,but only for substantive claims (that is not just a claim for contribution or indemnity).
b.       POLICY= It is consistent w/ goal of judicial economy and reducing unnecessary litigation b/c encourages parties to plead all claims arising out of a single incident.
C.       Rule 14- Impleader: Third-Party Practice (Parties)
a.        14(a)(1) defending party may join a non-‐party who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim. Can arise through implication or through contract.
                                                                         1.      CASE= Lopez De Robinson v. United States (VAMC)
1.       HOLDING= District of Puerto Rico held that VA cannot implead San Pablo b/c the two are not joint tortfeasors. (i.e the negligence claims are unrelated)
                                                                         2.      Under this rule, Third Party Plaintiff is effectively saying that if he is liable to the original plaintiff, the third party defendant is liable to third party plaintiff
b.       A Defendant does not need permission if he files the third party complaint within 10 days of filing the answer
c.        Third Party Defendant can make all defenses under Rule 12, a counterclaim/Crossclaim under Rule 13
d.       Under this rule, Third Party Plaintiff is effectively saying that if he is liable to the original plaintiff, the third party defendant is liable to third party plaintiff
e.       A plaintiff cannot a claim (counterclaim) to the third party defendant under Supplemental Jurisidction
 
 
 
D.   Rule 18- Joinder of Claims (i.e. Multiple Claims)
A.       A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third -­‐party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.
                                                                                                               i.      P (claim 1 personal injury) + (claim 2 property damage) v. D
1.       The two claims can be unrelated -­‐ Rule 18 allows for “all claims”
a.        FRCP 42(b) gives court discretion to sever unrelated claims
2.       There must be SMJ over all of the claims
                                                                                                              ii.      Offensive party may assert any and all claims regardless if they are factually relevant
                                                                                                            iii.      Although a pleading rule allows the claim to be joined, a subject matter jurisdiction analysis must be done of the claim
b.       Mc. Coy v. Like – ROL: Dr. Like as an individual was properly joined as a D under 20(A), thus enabling the plaintiffs to assert against him any and all claims they have under 18(A) as a matter of right.
 
E.   Res Judicata-(claim preclusion) – court created doctrine. A affirmative defense baring the same parties from litigating a second lawsuit on a claim that could have been, but was not brought in the first law suit.
A. Huffey v. Lea:
                     i . Issue- Does the doctrine of claim preclusion prevent an action for tortuous interference with a bequest when the action is not brought with the underlying will contest?
ii. Holding- No
iii. ROL:  The court did not believe that the same evidence supports the will contest and the action for intentional interference with bequest.
B. The general rule is that a plaintiff who prosecuted an action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is not able to initiate another action vs. the same defendant where:
▪                      the claim is based on the same transaction that was at issue in the first action;
▪                      the plaintiff seeks a different remedy, or further remedy, than what was obtained in the first action;
             the claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action.
–          Claim preclusion only applies to the same parties, if different parties are involved it does not apply. You are never prevented from suing a party that you did not in the first action.
 
 
 
 
FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICITON
Three Statutes give jurisdiction to federal court: §1331, §1332, §1367
§1331- Federal Question: Districts courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the US.
                                                                         1.      First the case must turn on an issue of federal law.
                                                                         2.      Second the issue of federal law must appear in the Plaintiff’s complaint.
I.                     Well Pleaded Complaint Rule-  On the face of the complaint, the core issue must be a “federal question” i.e. stem from a federal statute, a constitutional issue, or a treaty,
a.        A. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley: (well–‐pleaded complaint rule) –‐ to qualify for federal question jurisdiction the federal question must appear in the plaintiff’s presentation of its case –‐
i. FQJ only in plaintiff’s affirmative statement of their claim
ii. No FQJ when the federal question only appears as a defense
iii. No FQJ when allegations of the complaint anticipate a potential federal question as defense only.
iv. Counter claims, cross-claims, and third party claims will not be considered in determining federal question jurisdiction.
v. FQJ is possible when a state claim involves a federal question – A state claim may be a federal question also if it has been completely preempted by federal law. (Supremacy Clause).
 
§1332- Diversity Jurisdiction- District courts have jurisdiction of civil actions of an amount in controversy of $75,000 or more and parties of different states
I.                     Amount in Controversy
a.        Plaintiff can add together all claims against one defendant even if they are unrelated and none individually are over 75k.
b.       If two or more plaintiffs have claims against one defendant, they cannot aggregate their claims unless: one P’s claim is over 75k alone and they are factually related, or they share a common undivided interest in property worth over 75k. (not partnership funds they are undivided)
II.                    Complete Diversity
a.        Bright-line Rule: no one in one side can be of the same citizenship as someone in the other side
b.       Corporatio