1 of 5 **NEVER MENTION SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION UNTIL YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IS NO DIVERSITY AND NO FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION**

NOTICE:
Notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Every case must satisfy PJ and venue; every claim in the case must satisfy SMJ.

IN PERSONAM PERSONAL JURISDICTION:

1) Is there a state statute that authorizes the court to exercise PJ under the circumstances of the case? If yes 2) Would it be constitutional under the due process clause to do so? a. Was the person served in the state? i. Cant stop here Burnham split; mention both and move on b. Is the person living in the state or domiciled in the state? c. Does the person have continuous and substantial business in the state? d. Did the person consent to suit in the state? e. If none of the above, conduct the minimum contacts test. i. Some contact, tie, or relation ii. Fair, just, and reasonable 1. Quantity and quality (casual presence to continuous and systematic) 2. Cause of action arises out of contacts 3. Benefits/burdens on parties (convenience) 4. Reciprocity (benefits, protection of state law) 5. Forseeability/Notice Unilateral Activity v. Purposeful Availment Stream of Commerce Zippo Test

SMJ: Three Possibilities

Every claim in federal court must have be there either through diversity, federal question, or supplemental jurisdiction. 1) Federal Question Jurisdiction 1331: Only applies if the plaintiffs claim necessarily requires proof of federal law. Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule: cant anticipate fed defense, cant just refer to fed law in complaint; must be necessary part of the claim If the statute doesnt provide for a cause of action, the claim can still arise under federal law if Ps state-law created cause of action implicates a substantial question of federal law. 2) Diversity Jurisdiction

2 of 5 1332: Complete diversity between the parties, and amount in controversy exceeding 75k Domicile: intent to remain indefinitely; or, for corporations, nerve center and/or place of incorporation Aggregation: Single plaintiff with 2 or more claims: amounts may be added to get to 75k. Multiple P: at least one party must exceed 75k. 3) Supplemental Jurisdiction In a case with more than one claim, if you see a claim that by itself could not get into federal court, ask: 1) Does 1367(a) grant supplemental jurisdiction? (Does it meet Gibbs?) 2) But, does 1367(b) take supplemental jurisdiction away? Applies only in diversity cases, if the original case got into fed ct thru diversity Only kills supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs Three categories of supplemental claims it kills: a. Claims by plaintiffs joined under 14, 19, 20, or 24 b. Claims by Rule 19 plaintiffs c. Claims by Rule 24 (intervening) plaintiffs

REMOVAL:
Only available to D in cases where P could have commenced in federal court. Removal is governed by 1441, 1446, and 1447. 1) its removable if the case meets federal SMJ. 2) You cannot remove a diversity case if any defendant is a citizen of the forum 3) All defendants must agree to remove. 4) You can only remove to the federal district that embraces the state court. 5) Must remove within 30 days of service.

VENUE
Basic Rules: Plaintiff is filing in federal court. Two basic choices (1391) 1) You may lay venue in any district where all defendants reside. Sub-rule: If all defendants reside in different districts of the same state, then we can sue them all where any of them resides. Residence: usually your domicile. A business resides in every district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction. 2) You may lay venue in any district where a substantial part of the claim arose. 3) Fallback: where any D may be found, if there is no other district where it may otherwise be brought May be waived, by failing to raise it when responding to complaint, or may be agreed upon in advance. Some special venue provisions exist (patent infringements, etc)

3 of 5

TRANSFER OF VENUE
1) May only transfer to another court in the same judicial system 2) Transferee (court transferred to) must be a proper venue and have PJ over D w/o waiver

ERIE
1) Hanna Test: Is there some federal directive on point on the issue? If yes, then that federal directive trumps state law, as long as its valid. Validity: REA if its an FRCP (cant modify some substantive law Shady Grove) If not 2) The federal judge must apply state law if its substantive. When is it substantive? 1) Outcome-determinative test (Guaranty Trust v. York) 2) Balancing interest federal interest in doing it differently? (Byrd) 3) Twin aims of Erie: If the federal judge ignores state law on this issue, will it cause parties to flock to federal court? (Forum shop/inequitable admin)

PLEADINGS
1) Complaint: What goes in it? a. SMJ b. Short/plain statement of the facts. After Iqbal/Twombly, three rules: - P must plead FACTS supporting a plausible, not just conceivable or possible, claim - A court wont take into account any conclusions of law, so if P has alleged conclusory statements, the court will ignore them and when it says if all the facts are true it wont take those into account in Ps favor. - Sometimes, you need more detail fraud, mistake. c. Demand for relief sought. 2) Ds response must either motion or answer Motions: 12(b) dismissal based on no SMJ, PJ, Venue, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim, failure to join absentee party 12(b)(2)-(5): put in first Rule 12 motion, or waive them 12(b)(6),(7): can be raised at any time 12(b)(1): SMJ; can never be waived, can be raised whenever Answer: Must respond by denying, admitting, or saying you lack sufficient info. FAILURE TO DENY = admission. Also affirmative defenses: 8(c)(1) plead in answer or waive

RULE 11 VIOLATIONS
21 day safe harbor for you to fix the problem after the motion. Four categories of Rule 11 violations: 1) improper purpose 2) not warranted by existing law, frivolous arguments

4 of 5 3) no evidentiary support for further investigation or discovery 4) denials or factual contentions are not warranted on the evidence, and not reasonably based on belief or lack of information

JOINDER
FOR EVERY EXTRA CLAIM: Can it be joined? Does it follow diversity/federal question? If not, supplemental? *SMJ for every claim* Remember: if the claim doesnt fulfill fed ? or diversity, try supplemental. If it starts with C its a claim against an existing party. If it starts with I you are bringing in someone new. A. Joinder by of claims by P: 18(a) do not need to be related or arise from same transaction. May add any additional claims he has against opposing party. B. Joinder by D: FRCP 13 Counterclaims. Compulsory (arise from same transaction; waive or lose it forever and never be able to sue on it separately) and permissive (does not arise from T/O, doesnt have to be asserted here; needs independent basis for SMJ). SMJ? Cross-claims: Against a co-party; must be from same T/O as underlying case C. Proper Parties: 20(a) available to plaintiffs 20(a)(1): join plaintiffs, if claims arise from same T/O and raise at least 1 common question of law or fact 20(a)(2): co-defendants; same test as (a)(1) SMJ?

DAMAGES
Compensatory damages: Turning back the clock so P was in the position he was in before. Punitive damages: BMW test 1) Reprehensibility of Ds conduct (on purpose? Did they try to fix it?) 2) Ratio of damages to harm inflicted on P (4/1 is pushing it) 3) Difference b/w award and civil/criminal penalties in comparable cases To obtain a prelim injunction, movant must demonstrate: 1) its case has some likelihood of success on the merits 2) no adequate remedy exists at law 3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. If those elements are found, the court then balances those factors against a) the irreparable harm the nonmoving party will suffer if PR is granted b) the irreparable harm that the moving party will suffer if relief is denied c) and the public interest in denying or granting the injunction.

DISCOVERY
May discover everything relevant to a claim, defense, or subject matter at trial; does not have to be admissible.

5 of 5 Privileges: must be asserted. Work product: Documents/tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation, can only be obtained in discovery if party demonstrates substantial need/hardship. Legal theories/mental impressions are never discoverable. For a FRCP 37 sanction, there must be an order compelling discovery, a willful violation of that order, and prejudice to the other party.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FRCP 56: Proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Title VII: Prima facie Legit non-discriminatory reason Showing that was a pretext

POST-TRIAL
Judgment as a Matter of Law: Is there legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for a party on an issue by a preponderance of the evidence? Must bring this before verdict in order to bring it again after verdict. Legally sufficient = scintilla of evidence or federal standard Motion for New Trial: Something was wrong; not a final judgment (interlocutory) usually for error, verdict against clear weight of evidence, remittitur, jury misconduct. FRCP 60(b): You cannot appeal until a trial court enters a final judgment, with exceptions.

ISSUE AND CLAIM PRECLUSION

Claim Preclusion (res judicata): A claim decided in a prior case may not be relitigated. 1) Must be a final judgment 2) On the merits 3) Claims must be the same in 1st and 2nd cases 4) Parties must be the same in 1st and 2nd cases (exception: privity) Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel): Party may not relitigate certain issues decided in prior litigation. Foreclose litigation of a particular issue in a new context. 1) Final judgment 2) Prior full and fair adjudication 3) Issue was actually litigated 4) Issue was necessary to the decision 5) Its fair to preclude relitigation on the issue 6) Issue is the same in first case as it is in the second (same T/O) Non-mutual Defensive Collateral Estoppel Non-mutual Offensive Collateral Estoppel: Did D have a full chance to litigate in Case #1? Could he foresee multiple suits, and therefore have an incentive to bring the best case possible? Could P have easily joined in the first case?