Civil Procedure
Spring 2015
Page
OVERVIEW
Aims of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Efficiency
Fairness
Rightness (getting to the right result)
Jurisdiction, Venue, and Service of Pleading
Where can suit be brought?
Personal Jurisdiction
US Const. Art. III
A court in the US cannot exercise power over a defendant if doing so would “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
A court cannot exercise power unless the state in which that court sits has some to him or with the incident giving rise to the claim
Page: “Personal jurisdiction is the right of the Court to decide the rights of the D”
Focuses on the who is being taken to court against his will
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
US Const. Art. III sets boundaries
Congress decides what subject matter goes within the boundaries
Page: “Subject-matter jurisdiction is whether the Court can adjudicate the type of claim”
Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc. à accident with a tractor and Creal dies. Representative of Creal sued farm. Filed in Fed. Court and D claims no SMJ. Supposed to come up under diversity jurisdiction (from 2 different states) but D says no diversity. At time of death, Creal citizen of Kansas same as D so no SMJ. Dismissed by federal ct.
Complete Diversity all parties must have diversity
Citizenship of π at time of death
Look to “domicile”
Intent to remain + Physical presence
Service of Process
First draft a complaint
Notify the of the suit
Inexpensive:
Expensive:
Pleading: FRCP 7-15
Stating the Case
Lawyer’s Responsibility
Complaint à asks the formal legal system to use governmental power to grant P relief
Bridges v. Diesel Service, Inc. à brought action because π claimed ∆ dismissed him b/c of disability. Attorney did not exhaust all administrative remedies first. Court dismissed res judicata (without prejudice) but D wanted sanctions. Court said not warranted here
Rule 11 (b) à sanctions have to be reasonable
Reserved for unmeritorious or frivolous lawyer conduct
Rules Enabling Act
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure via the Rules Enabling Act: unlike statutes these Rules can ONLY deal with “practice and procedure”
Shall not abridge, modify, or enlarge any substantive right
The Complaint
Bell v. Novick Transfer Co. à child injured in accident hit by a driver. Suing driver and employer in Fed Court under diversity jurisdiction. D files motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Court said complaint only needs to be a short plain statement and not specific facts of negligence.
Rule 8 – Short plain statement
Rule 12(e) – more definite statement
Rule 33 – interrogatories
In Federal Court
Use State substantive law
Use Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
The Response—Motions and Answers
∆ must respond to a claim once they have received proper notice
Generally takes two forms:
Motion
Answer (responsive pleading)
Pre-Answer Motions
Reasons, having nothing to do with the claim, why action should not proceed
Even if everything right in complaint, has no right to relief
Common Law demurer
Now
Rule 12 (b)(6)
Responds to the allegations in the complaint
Can deny the truth of one or more allegations
Can assert additional matters that will wholly or partially defeat ’s claim
Amendments
Rule 15
The court shall freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires
Joinder: FRCP 18-24
Parties to the Lawsuit
Generally
Rule 20 governs permissive joinder
If claiming diversity jurisdiction in federal court, there must be COMPLETE diversity meaning all parties to suit must be diverse
Larson v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. à Larson has attorney pursue a claim against their insurance company. Attorney did not pursue the claim and was fired. Larson seeks to add as an additional ∆ in the case. Rule 20(a)(2)(A) provides that all persons may be joined in one action as ∆s if there is asserted against them “any right to relief… arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Joinder permitted.
USC 1447(e) – If joinder destroys diversity the court can deny or permit it
Discovery: FRCP 26-37, 45
Generally
Assumes pleadings have occurred
Initial Disclosures à Rule 26 (a)(1) w/o being requested, a party must reveal to opposing party certain basic information supporting claims
à Rule 33 written questions of parties to the suit
Production of Records à Rule 34 and 45 (a)(1)(A)(iii)
Rule 45 à Subpoenas for non-parties
à Rule 30 and 45 asking oral questions under oath
Mental/Physical Exams à Rule 35 (i.e. auto accident)
Restrictions
May only discover evidence that is relevant to a claim or defense in case
If information relevant, requested info may be protected if privileged
Relevant, unprivileged info may be undiscoverable if party can convince court “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” outweigh value
Butler v. Rigby à D Rigby, in litigation rising out of an automobile accident, made discovery requests from doctors that provided medical treatment to the Ps in the accident. Medical groups sought a protective order ruling that the information was not discoverable. Matter requested was discoverable but time and expense involved in producing it convinced the court to order the D pay one-half the cost of producing the information.
The information in order to be discoverable, if the information sought appears “reasonably calculated” to lead to the discovery of admissible e
te courts scrutinize in two ways:
Findings of should be affirmed unless “clearly erroneous” Deferential
Rulings of should be reversed if wrong in any aspect, if there’s reason to believe error affected outcome of lawsuit Stricter
PERSONAL JURISDICTION (On Exam)
Constitutional Limits in Litigation
Jurisdiction
The power to declare law
Judicial Jurisdiction the power of a court to render a judgment that other courts and government agencies will recognize and enforce
Jurisdiction and the Constitution
Personal Jurisdiction à a state court’s power to render a judgment binding a party who may have never set foot in that state
Subject Matter Jurisdiction à power of federal (as opposed to state) courts to decide certain kinds of cases
No single government, state or federal, has plenary power
“Full Faith and Credit” Clause à one state has to recognize and enforce judgments of another state; BUT ONLY if the judgment was rendered by a court who had jurisdiction to do so
Pennoyer v. Neff à Pennoyer appealed. Neff trying to get land back from Pennoyer b/c Neff claims he has federal grant to land and Pennoyer says he has sheriff’s deed to land. Neff didn’t have land, lost suit (which was going to take assets to satisfy judgment), THEN took land and sold to Pennoyer. SCOTUS said court did not have personal jurisdiction over Neff in “personam” (over person) or in “rem” (over land).
No in personam because Neff was not a resident of the state and wasn’t served process in the state Served by “” however court found to be insufficient.
No “quasi-in rem” because Neff didn’t have the land at the time of the judgment so couldn’t be “” to Neff
RULE: Asserting power by service in state or by seizing property then serving
Domiciliary of state means the state can expect of the citizen
General
Jurisdictional defenses may be raised in the ∆’s answer or in a pre-answer motion
Must raise personal jurisdiction defense the first time pleading or moving
Collateral Attack – a victim of a void judgment may attack it in a second law suit to show no personal jurisdiction over the victim
Collateral attack is risky because jurisdiction is the only defense and may be denied by the second court
Special Appearance: appearing in the forum to raise defense of lack of personal jurisdiction w/o the appearance waiving jurisdiction (safeguard against being served notice while in state)
