Civil Procedure Outline
Professor Ted Shaw
University of North Carolina School of Law
Fall 2015
Introduction to Civil Procedure
Overview: Civil Procedure Defined
i. Definitions
How the procedural aspects of the civil-justice system operate; (2) Non-criminal litigation; (3) Remedies typically include monetary compensation or an order (i.e. injunction) directing the defendant to do or refrain from doing something
ii. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction refers to the power of a tribunal over a case. To enter a valid and enforceable judgment, a court must have the authority of:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: (1) Power of a court to adjudicate cases dealing with the same subject matter that it presides over; (2) Courts’ power authorized by Constitution or statutes
Personal Jurisdiction: (1) Power of a court to adjudicate cases over the person (i.e. ∆), or property, to bind him to judgment, as selected by the π; (2) Requires that ∆ resides in the state where court is located, or has engaged in conduct with sufficient connection to that state
In addition to satisfying these two requirements, a case can only be heard if the ∆ is personally served with adequate notice of the action.
iii. Rules
Civil Procedure is governed by various rules and doctrines, and some of the major ones come from:
Code of Federal Regulations (“Federal Code”): Created by the Supreme Court
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP): (1) Purpose is to establish and provide for a fair process for achieving the just, efficient, and economical resolution of civil disputes
Court made doctrines may predate FRCP, interpret them, or interpret other legislative norms to make the procedural rules
General Description of Court Systems
The vast majority of civil suits are settled before trial. Each state and the District of Columbia have a judicial system of its own, while each major U.S. territory comprises the federal-court system. State and federal judicial systems usually consist of a trial court, an initial appellate review court, and a “court of last resort.” At the apex of the federal-court system is the Supreme Court of the United States. It is composed of nine justices, all of whom participate in each decision of the Court. Cases that reach the U.S. Supreme Court are often on discretionary writs of certiorari from the federal appellate courts or the highest state court that refers them.
Main Stages of Civil Litigation
There are three main stages of civil litigation: (1) Pre-trial; (2) Trial; and (3) Finality and Preclusion.
Although most cases are settled before even reaching trial, the basic framework for a lawsuit remains a main concept of civil litigation. The essential pre-trial stages usually follow as such:
Step 1: Client arrives to a law office with a problem concerning another’s behavior
Step 2: Attorney decides whether law provides a prayer for relief to the situation
FRCP, Rule 12(b)(6)
Considers whether there are multiple factual theories in a cause of action
Step 3: Once cognizable cause of action is found, attorney and client discuss fees
Might take alternate route by contacting insurance company or opponent’s attorney to decide fee amounts
Step 4: In order to turn the claim into a lawsuit, attorney must decide whether it satisfies PJ (jurisdiction over person) or SMJ (jurisdiction over the claim)
For SMJ, federal courts must have either federal-question or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction
Step 5: Resort to forum shopping to decide on whether to sue in state or federal court (i.e. venue)
If state court, which county court should decide case?
Step 6: Draft a complaint in accordance with the state’s pleading rules
Step 7: ∆ must be properly served with a copy of the complaint and notified of the commencement of suit
Step 8: Verify the statute of limitations for the “statutorily prescribed time” that a complaint must be filed by
Step 9: Client decides whether she wants to demand a jury trial
Determined by constitutional rights and trial strategy
Step 10: Consideration of joinder of claims or joinder of parties
Step 11: Issuance of any sanctions for a party’s violation of mandatory disclosures under the discovery doctrine, or failure to comply with a court order
FRCP, Rule 11
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Overview
i. Definition
Subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ) refers to whether the court can preside over a particular dispute. Questions of SMJ are usually determined in reference to state or federal constitutional provisions, or to statutes.
ii. Requirements
In order to qualify for SMJ, the dispute must satisfy either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Additionally, most courts adjudicate controversies that must meet a stated monetary amount if diversity jurisdiction is satisfied. The π has the burden of showing whether a federal court has SMJ over the claim.
State-Subject Matter Jurisdiction
State courts have general SMJ, meaning that most of them hear all types of cases. There are few exceptions of states courts that specialize.
Federal-Subject Matter Jurisdiction
i. General Overview
Federal courts have limited SMJ.
Jurisdictional power strictly limited by statutes and Article III of the Constitution
Concurrent SMJ: Matters that fall under federal SMJ can be heard in either federal or state courts
Exceptions include federal courts that exercise exclusive jurisdiction, in which only they (not state courts) can assert jurisdiction over a certain case (i.e. patent, copyright, or bankruptcy).
Federal-SMJ cannot be waived and cannot be conferred by parties’ consent
Defects in SMJ can be raised anytime during trial (including during appeal) and courts must point them out if the parties do not.
Federal-SMJ is exercised in the following types of suits:
U.S. is a party
Admiralty and marine cases
Actions between at least two states
ii. Federal-Question Jurisdiction
Claims must arise from federal laws to satisfy federal question jurisdiction.
Federal court system should have the power to interpret and apply federal law to a dispute
General federal-question jurisdiction requires:
Case concerns an action that arises under the Constitution or some other aspect of federal law
The fact appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint at the outset of litigation
Federal issue raised by complaint must be a substantial one
Claims that are frivolous or lacking merit are dismissed, often on grounds of failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted [(12)(b)(6)]
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (1908): (1) π sued RR Company-∆ in a personal injury suit in a federal district court in Kentucky when π was injured aboard a train; (2) both parties were citizens of
suit was filed
Issue: Does the court have diversity jurisdiction over the case when the ∆ was domicile in the same state a π’s state of citizenship (i.e. Louisiana), but later re-located?
Holding: No. There were insufficient facts to establish ∆’s permanent residency in Texas, and he loses motion for removal to Federal court.
Take-away: Federal court must have complete diversity between parties to have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In determining domicile, court looks to the following:
Actual residence when suit was filed
Person’s intent to permanently stay in the state; determined by where he:
exercises political rights;
pays taxes;
owns real estate;
registers his driver’s license;
owns bank accounts; and
participates in civic organizations
Removal Jurisdiction
Sometimes, a case filed in state court falls within the scope of federal-SMJ. In such circumstances, the ∆ can “remove” the case to federal court.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
i. Definitions
Encompasses claims that fall outside the scope of federal question and diversity jurisdiction categories, but that still connect to claims already entertained by the court; (2) “Stretch jurisdiction”
ii. Pendent Jurisdiction
(1) Permits federal court to entertain a related state law claim against a party already answering a federal claim; (2) State law claim must arise from the same facts as the federal claim (“common nucleus of operative facts”); (3) Such facts must be such that π would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding; (4) Discretionary jurisdiction over claims by court, not the π’s right to decide jurisdiction
When deciding whether to grant pendent jurisdiction, court will consider:
Judicial economy
Convenience
Fairness to litigants
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (1966): (1) UMW and Southern Labor Union fight over workers’ representation in the coal fields; (2) Respondent Gibbs was hired to open a new mine in Tennessee, but when new mine couldn’t function, he lost business and lost his job; (3) Gibbs sued UMW on state law claims, thinking that their rivalry was a conspiracy against him and that they were the cause of his losses
Issue: Can state claims be heard in federal court along with federal claims that arise under federal statutes?
Holding: Yes, Gibbs was awarded damages for both state and federal claims.
Take-away: (1) Federal courts can hear state law claims that do not fall into either federal-question or diversity categories (i.e. pendent jurisdiction); (2) State and federal claims must derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact”; (3) Court will consider judicial economy, fairness to litigants, and convenience in determining whether there should be jurisdiction over state claims
