Civ Pro Case List_Case Summaries by Topic PDF

Preview

Summary

Important Civil Procedure Cases organized by Topic...

Description

PICKING A COURT Subject Matter Jurisdiction Diversity Jurisdiction Gordon v. Steel (PA, 1974): When determining domicile, a court must consider residency at the time the suit is filed, and intent to remain there indefinitely (not permanently) Hertz v. Friend (US, 2012): Principal place of business refers to a corporation’s “nerve center”—where high level officials control the corporation’s activities. Is usually the corporation’s headquarters. Diefenthal v. C.A.B. (5th Cir. 1982): The party invoking jurisdiction has the burden of establishing the factual basis of his claim by pleading or affidavit. Felipe v. Target (NY, 2008): Inclusion of a non-diverse party that a P cannot possibly state a claim against constitutes a Fraudulent Joinder and must be overlooked/will not defeat diversity. Federal Question Jurisdiction Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Mottley (US, 1908): To confer federal question jurisdiction, federal/constitutional laws must arise in the P’s cause of action (complaint) and does not include anticipated defenses. Personal Jurisdiction Contacts International Shoe Co. v. Washington (US, 1945): A state court may exercise PJ where D has sufficient contacts in the state such as to enjoy the benefits/protections of the state and doing so doesn’t offend notions of fair play and justice. World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (US, 1980): Contact exists where a D purposefully availed himself the forum, mere foreseeability on instate contact through the consumer’s movements is not enough. Calder v. Jones (US, 1984): Where one intends harm in a specific state that constitutes sufficient contacts for PJ. Burger King v. Rudzewicz (US, 1985): Parties to a K are not automatically subject to PJ in other party’s state—depends on terms of K, parties’ course of dealing, and prior negotiations/future consequences. Asahi Metal Industry Co v. Supreme Court of CA (US, 1987): A court must determine fair play and substantial justice when establishing PJ over a D. (See 3 different tests for “stream of commerce”) Rusinowski v. Village of Hillside (Ill, 2011): Where telephone/internet contact is intentionally directed to a state and intended to cause harm there, PJ is appropriate. Long Arm Statutes Ehrenfeld v. A Bin Mahfouz (NY, 2006): Where there is no PJ under a long arm statute, there is no PJ over D. Notice/Service of Process Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950): The chosen form of notification must be reasonable to inform those affected, if conditions do not reasonably permit notice, the chosen form of notice cannot be substantially less likely to create notice than other feasible and customary substitutes. Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku (NY, 2015): Where statutorily provided service methods are impracticable, service through social media may be allowed by a court where a P demonstrates it is reasonably likely to successfully notify the D of the summons. Venue Venue Transfer MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co. (DC, 2008): Transfer to another district is acceptable where P could have originally brought the suit in the transferee district AND public and private interests favor transfer. PLEADINGS Complaint Stating a Claim Twombly (2008): Complaint must allege sufficient facts that (if accepted as true) would state a claim for relief that is plausible (not merely possible) Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009): To survive a motion to dismiss, a complain must allege factual allegations (not conclusory statements of law) that plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. Default Judgment Virgin Records v. Lacey (AL, 2007): Default judgment is proper where a D fails to appear or otherwise defend after proper service as long as P’s complaint successfully states a claim. Motions to Strike Matos v. Nextran, Inc. (DVI, 2009): Motions to strike will only be granted if no evidence in support of the allegation would be admissible, or allegations are not substantive or superfluous. Answer Affirmative Defenses Reis Robotics v. Concept Industries (Ill, 2006): When asserting affirmative defenses, D must plead facts (not just list elements) (FRCP 12(f). Amending the Complaint Beek v. Aquaslide (8th Cir, 1977): Courts should freely give leave to parties to amend a pleading unless it would unduly prejudice the opposing party.

1

Hardin v. Manitowac-Forsythe Corp. (10th Cir, 1982): A court may allow amended pleadings during or after trial if parties expressly or impliedly consent and the amendment would not prejudice non-moving party. Attorney Pleading Certification Hays v. Sony Corp of America (7th Cir. 1988): An attorney who fails to make a reasonable inquiry into whether claims have a basis in law may be sanctioned under Rule 11. Joinder, Counterclaims, and Crossclaims King v. Blanton (NC, 2012): Failure to assert a compulsory counterclaim constitutes a waiver, and a party will be barred from later asserting the claim if she was aware of the claim and had the opportunity to file. DISCOVERY Cost-Shifting Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (NY, 2003): The cost of producing evidence should only be shifted if it places undue cost/burden based on consideration of the 7-factor test. Discovery Control/Abuse Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp (NY, 2003): 1. Where discovery violations are due to court mismanagement, severe sanctions are improper. 2. Severe sanctions are only proper as a last resort, and when imposing sanctions a court must analyze the needs of the case Stanley v. Creative Pipe (MD, 2010): Severe sanctions, such as default judgment and contempt of court, may be imposed where there is bad-faith spoliation. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Mattel v. MCA Records Inc. (CA, 1998): A court will grant summary judgment where the findings show no issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TRIAL Judgment as a Matter of Law PA Railroad Co v. Chamberlain (US, 1933): Where evidence overwhelmingly favors one side to the point where no reasonable jury could find for a party, JMOL is appropriate. Lane v. Hardee’s Food Systems Inc (7th Cir. 1999): JMOL is only proper where a party has been fully heard on an issue and has not offered sufficient evidence to possibly sustain a jury verdict in his favor. Controlling the Jury Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc (4th Cir. 1995): A jury instruction is adequate as long as it is accurate on the law and does not confuse or mislead the jury. Verdicts Turyna v. Martam Construction Co (7th Cir. 1996): When a jury returns an inconsistent verdict, FRCP 49 allows judges to enter a verdict consistent with answers to interrogatories, send back to a jury still in session, or order a new trial. APPELLATE REVIEW What to Appeal MacArthur v. University of TX Health Center at Tyler (7th Cir. 1995): For a claim to be reviewable on appeal a party must have raised it below and properly presented it to the court of appeals. When to Appeal In Re Recticel Foam Corp. (1st Cir. 1988): To be appealed, an issue must be an appeal from a final judgment or fall under an exception. RES JUDICATA/CLAIM PRECLUSION Taylor v Sturgell (US, 2008): “Virtual Representation” is not grounds for claim preclusion—same party claim preclusion must be decided based on the established categories. River Park v. City of Highland Park (Ill, 1998): Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all claims arising from the same “case or controversy” so failing to bring all such claims bars P from bringing such claims later. CLASS ACTIONS FRCP 23(a) In Re Teflon (Iowa, 2008): A class action lawsuit must meet the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of FRCP 23(a), membership must be ascertainable, and all class representatives must be members. Adam v. Wal-Mart: A well-defined class satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy factors of FRCP 23(a) FRCP 23(b) In Re Teflon (Iowa, 2008): A party seeking class certification must meet all the factors of FRCP 23(a) AND at least one condition of FRCP 23(b). CHOICE OF LAW Old Rule & its Problems Black & White Taxicab & Transfer co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (US, 1928): Federal courts sitting in diversity are bound to apply state statutory law but are not bound to apply state common law. Current Rule Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (US, 1938): Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state statutory and common law (unless federal law controls)

2...