Civil Procedure Outline Fall 2008
I) Overview of Procedure
· Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(1) 28 U.S.C. 1332 – Diversity
(a) District courts have original jurisdiction where >$75k and between
(1) citizens of different states;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens of foreign state;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States
(2) Hawkins v. Masters Farms – P, estate rep, sues D from KY in fed ct alleging that his negligent driving caused the death of Mr. Creal. D files motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1), claiming there is not complete diversity.
(a) Held – Dismissed. Estate of Mr. Creal has KY citizenship b/c deceased and his wife were domiciled there w/ intention to stay. No diversity per §1332.
· Venue
(1) 28 U.S.C. 1391 – Venue Generally
· Drafting the Complaint
(1) FRCP 11 – Signing pleadings, rep to court, sanctions
(2) Bridges v. Diesel Service – P’s atty files suit, alleging violation of ADA. D moves for FRCP 11 sanctions for failure to conduct diligent legal research, b/c should have filed a complaint w/ the EEOC first.
(a) Held – Plaintiff’s complaint still dismissed w/o prejudice b/c goal of Rule 11 is deterrence of improper conduct, not a way to collect atty’s fees or court costs. Plaintiff recognized mistake and the Court expects he learned his lesson. Obligation under Rule 11 is to stop, think, investigate, and research before bringing suit.
(3) FRCP 8 – Gen. rules of pleading
(4) FRCP 12(e) – Motion for More Definite Statement
(5) Bell v. Novick Transfer – P files complaint alleging D acted negligently causing a car accident in which P was injured. D moves to dismiss complaint because it fails to allege the specific acts of negligence (FRCP 12(e)).
(a) Held – FRCP 8 requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” D should use discovery to find more info rather than FRCP 12(e).
· Parties to Suit
(1) FRCP 20 – Permissive Joinder of Parties
(2) Larson v. American Family Mutual – P has bad faith claim in fed. ct. against D for failing to settle house fire claim. Some months later P amends claim to add former atty for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and conspiracy, which destroys diversity and forces remand to state ct. D argues that amendment was not timely and claim doesn’t arise out of same transaction.
(a) Held – Amendment was timely b/c P did not have the evidence to establish additional claims (conspiracy) until after discovery occurred, and since conspiracy was between atty and D, claim is clearly out of same transaction (FRCP 20(a)(2)(A)). No point in bringing a somewhat duplicate case to fed. and state court and wasting resources.
· Discovery
(1) FRCP 26 – Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
(2) Butler v. Rigsby – Ds have moved under FRCP 26 to compel third party medical groups to produce info about patients w/ rel to lawyers in suit and list of all patients.
(a) Held – Med grps should produce info about patients referred to them by lawyers but list of all patients is privileged and should not be req’d pursuant to FRCP 26(b). Party requesting info should pay ½ of all costs.
· Pretrial Summary Judgment
(1) FRCP 56 – Summary Judgment
(2) Houchens v. American Home – P sues D for breach of K b/c they refuse to pay out on life insurance for her h
R Neff for unpaid legal fees in OR court; there was only questionable constructive service and a default judgment was entered for Mitchell. Sheriff attached land bought after judgment and sold it to Pennoyer. Neff then launched collateral attack on original judgment, arguing there was no personal jurisdiction.
(a) Held – Courts have jurisdiction over matters where non-residents who own property in the state have a dispute with a resident. If case is in personam, constructive service is insufficient, must be made in person or person must have consented to jurisdiction. If case is in rem then constructive service is sufficient; but land must be attached at outset of suit. Exceptions for family law and corporations being forced to consent. Based on Due Process and Full Faith and Credit Clauses.
· Modern Framework
(1) International Shoe v. Washington – Int’l Shoe incorporated in DE with HQ in MO. WA wants unemployment tax for Int’l Shoe salesmen in state. Int’l Shoe says they are just independent contractors.
(a) Held – Due process requires only that D have certain minimum contacts with the forum State such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. A D is deemed to have a “presence” in a state for jurisdictional purposes where its in-state activities have been continuous and systematic, and D has received benefits and protections of State.
