California Civil Procedure Outline

Schwartz_CalCivPro_Fall2010.docx
Introduction
· Three level of courts
o CA Superior court
§ No opinions published @ trial level
o Court of Appeal
§ Opinions published according to consideration of several factors, esp. whether opinion establishes a new rule of law, elaborates on a rule of law, lays out the history of the development of the law, or involves an issue of public interest (CRC §8.1105(c))
· No citing to unpublished CA Ct of App opinions or Appellate Div. opinions – may cite to unpublished decisions from fed courts and courts of other states
· Schmier v. Supreme Court of CA – Δ may not cite to unpublished Ct. App. Decision in memorandum, and court may not rely on citation in issuing opinion.
o Supreme Court
§ Opinions all officially published
· CRC Rule 2.30 – Sanctions may be imposed for a party/witness/atty, etc. for failure to comply w/ rules
o Jelinek – atty Jelinek engages in disruptive behavior at trial – CJC has separate rule for disciplining attys who disrupt – CA Ct. App. rules that CJC can’t exceed statutory rules for sanctions, has to use existing rules – limited to holding people in contempt and issuing sanctions
Jurisdiction, Venue and Conflict of Laws
· SMJ – power of a trial court to hear a cause of action
· 1) Look at amount in controversy
o Classifications
§ Unlimited Civil Cases – CCP §88 – amount in controversy exceeds $25,000 (equitable relief also available)
§ Limited Civil Cases – CCP §86 – amount in controversy = $25,000 or less
§ Small claims cases – amount in controversy ≠ exceed $7,500
o Incorrect classification
§ There can be cost consequences for incorrectly classifying a case – if π files as unlimited, but recovers amount that would be w/in limited jx range, court may deny award of costs of π
o Amount in controversy – CCP §85(a) – amount sought excluding interest, atty fees and costs
§ Amt in controversy generally in the prayer of the complaint – party may waive portion of claim in excess of $25,000 in order to keep case classified as limited civil case (faster, less costly process)
· A party or court can move to reclassify an action if it is wrongly classified – requires notice and opportunity to be heard – CCP 403.040
· A matter may be reclassified if π files amended complaint that alters amount in controversy or type of relief sought – CCP 403.020
o Stern v. Superior Court – Multiple πs sued acct who falsely represented that he was CPA – unlimited civil cplt w/ prayer for $36,000 – in arbitration, $18k award for π. Π filed request for trial de novo and Δ filed motion to reclassify case as limited – RULE court will reclassify only if verdict will necessarily. In determining this, ct may consider prayer, CMC statements and arbitration results.
o Aggregation of claims
§ Single π vs. single Δ on properly joined separate causes of action – claims are aggregated
§ Π vs. multiple Δs alleging independent claims against each, thus requiring diff. recovery against each, jx is determined by maximum amount of the separate recovery possible vs ea Δ
§ Multiple πs vs single Δ, claim of less than $25,000 – if separate causes of action arise out of same transaction, ea cause of action is a separate case, and if ea demand is $25k or less, it is limited civil case – NO AGGREGATION
§ Where several πs join separate coas arising out of same transaction, only one coa must exceed $25k to qualify as unlimited civil case – the LARGER claim determines classification.
· EXCEPTION: multiple πs w/ joint claim (like married couples, jt tenants, bus partners, etc.) vs single Δ – if ea individual claim is $25k or less, but joint claims = more than $25k, the claims can be aggregated to qualify as unlimited civil case
· EXCEPTION: class action vs. single Δ – the aggregate of the claims may allow case to be unlimited if claims exceed $25k
· 2) Then look @ Personal Jx – CA’s long-arm statute permits exercise of personal jx on any “basis not inconsistent with the California constitution or the Constitution of the United States.” CCP §410.10
o CA exercises personal jx in the following situations:
§ Δ is domiciled in CA
§ Δ os served while physically present in CA, even if presence is transient
§ Δ has consented to jx
§ Δ has made a general appearance in a CA such that they are participating in an action in a way that acknowledges the court’s authority (See CCP §1014 for actions constituting general appearances)
o To be subject to personal jx, person must have “minimum contacts” with the state – two categories fit minimum contacts requirement:
§ General jx – applies if Δ’s in-state activities are sufficiently extensive, continuous and systematic. If general jx,
§ Specific jx – if you don’t meet criteria for general jx, look for specific jx – applies when Δ has engaged in less pervasive activities in CA
· Δ must have purposefully availed himself of forum benefits
· Must be a nexus x Δ’s activities in the forum and the coa
· Assertion of jx must comport w/ “fair play + substantial justice” (balance x convenience to parties and interests of state
§ Internet activities can be a possible basis of personal jurisdiction if activity is sufficient to meet minimum contacts test – operation of a website where Δ knowingly makes repeated contact with CA residents is suffic