Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Oregon School of Law
Reynolds, Jennifer W.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil Procedure
 
Professor Reynolds / Fall 2014
 
 
 
I.                   INTRODUCTION
What Makes for Good Procedure?
Avista Management, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co.
·         Discovery dispute
·         “rock, paper, scissors”
Overview: Judicial Authority and Pleading
Capron v. Van Noorden, pp. 28
·         No subject matter jurisdiction
o   No diversity
§  Needs claim > $75,000, and
§  Parties from different states
o   No federal question
§  No jurisdiction on “trespass on the case”
·         Federal court must have both subject matter and personal jurisdiction to hear a case.
Tickle v. Barton, pp. 30
·         Service of process dispute
o   Tricked ∆ to enter state for purposes of service
o   Football banquet
·         No personal jurisdiction
o   Rule 8
·         Demurrer = motion to dismiss
Case v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., pp. 35
·         Failure to state a claim
o   Court cannot create a claim for π
Values of Civil Procedure – EARED
·         Efficiency
·         Accuracy
·         Rationality
·         Equality
·         Dignity
Thinking of suing?
·         Where to sue?   Court needs both SMJ and PJ to hear case.
o   SMJ
o   PJ
o   Venue
·         Whom to sue?
·         What claim/relief?
Pleading
Overview: Joinder, Discovery, and Summary Judgment
Joinder
·         Joinder rules define the scope of the case
o   Tells us how many claims
o   Tells us how many parties
·         Always think about subject matter jurisdiction when dealing with joinder issues
Claim Joinder by the π
·         Rule 18(a) – the π can join any claim she has with no limit
·         Asses subject matter jurisdiction
o   Federal question OR
o   Diversity
§  Remember if you have one π and one ∆, you can aggregate the π’s claims against the ∆ for amount in controversy
Claim Joinder by the ∆
·         ∆ is going to assert a claim
o   Counterclaim (Rule 13(a) and (b)) – asserting a claim against an opposing party that has already sued you
§  Mandatory (Rule 13(a)(1)) – arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the π’s claim; the only compulsory claim in the world
§  Permissive (Rule 13(b)) – does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying case; do not have to assert at this time
o   Crossclaim (Rule 13(g)) – asserting a claim against a co-party and must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying case
Proper Parties
·         Two types of joinder rules
o   Permissive (Rule 20(a))– who may be joined in a case
§  Permissive joinder of πs (Rule 20(a)(1))
·         If claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence
·         If claims raise at least one common question
§  Permissive joinder of ∆s (Rule 20(a)(2))
·         If claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence
·         If claims raise at least one common question
o   Mandatory (Rule 19) – who must be joined in a case
§  Three steps to Rule 19
·         Is the nonparty necessary?
o   Yes, if meets any of the three tests in Rule 19(a)(1)
§  Test 1 in (a)(1)(A): Without the nonparty, the court cannot accord complete relief
§  Test 2 in (a)(1)(B)(i): Nonparty’s interest may be harmed if she is not joined
§  Test 3 in (a)(1)(B)(ii): The nonparty’s interest subjects the ∆ to multiple of inconsistent obligations
·         Is joinder of nonparty feasible?
o   It is feasible if there is personal jurisdiction over nonparty and bringing her in will not affect diversity of the case
·         When joinder is not feasible (Rule 19(b))
o   Proceed without nonparty OR
o   Dismiss the case
·         Four factors the court should consider
o   Fourth factor allows dismissal only if there is some other court where everyone can be joined
o   If the case is dismissed after applying the four factors, the nonparty is referred to as indispensable (Rule 12(b)(7))
Impleader (Rule 14) – third party claims
·         ∆ joining a nonparty who may be liable to him for all or part of the π’s claim against him
o   Requires the joinder of both a claim and a party
o   This is not a crossclaim!
o   The new party is called t

exceed $75K
§  “Arising under”
·         Never encounter unless reading insurance cases
Temple v. Synthes Corp., pp. 38
·         Mandatory joinder
o   Rule 19
·         Diversity jurisdiction
·         Defective spinal implant
DiMichel v. South Buffalo Ry. Co., pp.40
·         Discovery dispute
·         ∆ must disclose film that will be used at trial
o   Films should be turned over after π is deposed
Alderman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., pp. 44
·         Summary judgment dispute
o   Appropriate when:
§  No disagreement of the facts, and
§  One parties’ complaint/defense fails to establish a genuine issue
                
 
Summary Judgment
·         Rule 56
·         Make a motion for summary judgment because the case does not need to go to trial
·         When there is no dispute of material fact
o   So there is no fact-finder necessary and the case can be settled as a matter of law
 
 
II.               PERSONAL JURISDICTION – can the π sue the ∆ in this state?
The Court Must Have Power Over Something
·         ∆ herself (in personum), or
·         ∆’s property (in rem)
How Do We Know if the Court has Power?
·         State statute that allows for personal jurisdiction AND
·         Falls within the circle of Due Process (meaning it is constitutional)
The Traditional Bases, Expanding the Bases, and a New Theory
Personal Jurisdiction (Parties)
·         Can be waived
·         Deals with state sovereignty and Due Process (14th Amendment)
o   Ex: Proper service of process required (Tickle v. Barton)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
·         Cannot be waived
·         Comes from Article III
Traditional bases for personal jurisdiction