#11571 - Brief And Detailed Tables Of Contents - Civil Procedure

1. Civil Procedure & The Common Law 7

2. Bringing an Action (π) – The Complaint 8

3. Pleadings by Defendant 12

4. Joinder 15

5. Discovery 23

6. Discovery Exemptions (Privilege, Work Product, Experts) and Sanctions 27

7. Pre-Trial Conference & Encouraging Settlement 30

8. Summary Judgment before Trial 35

9. Trial 39

10. Personal Jurisdiction 43

11. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 62

12. Erie And Choice of Law in Diversity Cases 72

1. Civil Procedure & The Common Law 7

a. Forms of Action (12th Century): Each writ embodies an action. Must plead specifically, and pleadings get increasing complex. 7

b. Code Pleading (1848, “Field Code”): One form of action (abolish law/equity division). Plead the “ultimate facts.” (similar to 9(b) heightened pleadings; still exists in some places). 7

c. F.R.C.P (1937): Notice pleading. 7

a. FRCP 01: Rules for all civil actions, to secure just, speedy and inexpensive determinations. 7

b. FRCP 02: “There is one form of action – the civil action” 7

c. FRCP 03: “The civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” 7

a. FRCP 1-2: Scope of the FRCP 7

b. FRCP 3-6: Commencement of Suits 7

c. FRCP 7-16: Pleadings & Motions 7

d. FRCP 17-25: Parties 8

e. FRCP 26-37: Discovery 8

f. FRCP 38-53: Trial 8

g. FRCP 54-63: Judgment 8

h. FRCP 64-71: Provisional and Final Remedies 8

i. FRCP 71a-76: Special Proceedings 8

2. Bringing an Action (π) – The Complaint 8

1. Relevant Rules 8

2. Specificity 8

a. In General – Rule 8(a) 8

b. Conley, Twombly and Iqbal – Specificity under 8(a) 9

c. Special Cases with Heightened Specificity – 9(b) 9

d. Alternative/Inconsistent Pleadings – 8(d)(2) & (3) 10

3. Rule 11 Sanctions 10

b. History of Amendments 10

c. Requirements of 11(b). 10

d. Limitations (11)(c)(5) 10

e. Other sources of sanctions (Outside of FRCP 11): 10

f. Application (Zuk) 11

3. Pleadings by Defendant 12

Responses to Complaint: 12

1. Pre-Answer Motions to Dismiss - Rule 12 12

ii. Disfavored defenses 12

iii. Favored defenses 12

iv. Most favored defense 12

2. FRCP 55: Failure to Answer: Default 13

b. Defendant's response to default: Rule 55(c) for entry of default or 60(b) for default judgment 13

3. FRCP 08: Defendant's Answer 14

4. Note: Voluntary Dismissal 14

4. Joinder 15

1. Compulsory v. Permissive Counterclaims 15

a. 13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim: 15

b. 13(b) Permissive Counterclaim: 15

2. Cross-claims - Rule 13 15

3. FRCP 18 – Joinder of Claims 16

4. FRCP 20 – Permissive Joinder of Parties 16

5. Joinder Hypo: 17

6. FRCP 19: Compulsory Joinder of Parties 17

a. Rule 19(a) - Joinder if feasible 17

b. 19(b) (“Indispensable Party Test”) – 18

7. FRCP 14: Third-Party Complaints (Impleader) 18

8. FRCP 24: Intervention (Voluntary Joinder) 19

a. 24(a) Intervention of Right 19

b. 24(b) Permissive Intervention 20

9. FRCP 23: Class Actions 21

a. 23(a) Four requirements to constitute a “Class”: 21

b. Once 23(a) is achieved, there are two types of class actions: 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) 21

5. Discovery 23

1. Relevant Rules 23

2. Historical Evolution of Discovery (1938 – 1980) 23

3. Discovery Devices 24

a. Mandatory Initial Disclosure – FRCP 26(a)(1) [added 1993] 24

b. Interrogatories – FRCP 33 24

c. Request for Admission – FRCP 36 25

d. Document Inspection – FRCP 34 25

e. Depositions 25

f. Physical/Mental Examinations – Rule 35 26

4. Other Tidbits about Discovery 26

6. Discovery Exemptions (Privilege, Work Product, Experts) and Sanctions 27

1. Relevant Rules 27

2. In General 27

3. Work Product Protection – FRCP 26(b)(3) 27

a. FRCP 26(b)(3) 27

b. Hickman v. Taylor 27

c. Underlying Policy Considerations 28

4. Privilege between company lawyer and non-management employees 28

a. Old Rule: “Control Group” 28

b. New Rule: Broadens privilege and work-product protections; include every company employee. 28

c. Upjohn v. US 28

d. Notes: 28

e. Policy/Practical Questions 29

5. Discovery & the use of Experts – FRCP 26(b)(4). 29

a. Three Types of Experts 29

b. History of Expert Testimony 29

c. In Re Shell Oil Refinery 29

d. Notes 29

6. Discovery Sanctions – 37(c) 30

a. Rule 30

b. Application 30

c. Cine Forty-Second Street Theater Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp. 30

7. Pre-Trial Conference & Encouraging Settlement 30

1. Relevant Rules 30

2. Limits of Judicial Control to Encourage Settlement – Kothe v. Smith 30

3. Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) 31

a. Arbitration 31

b. Mediation 31

c. Settlement 31

d. ADR Pros/Cons 31

4. Pretrial Conference – FRCP 16 32

a. History/Evolution/Purpose 32

b. Can court order litigants to appear at pretrial conference? Can court issue sanctions if the party doesn’t appear? 32

c. Application Notes: 33

7. Fee Shifting – FRCP 68 34

a. Rule: 68(d) 34

b. Do “costs” include attorney’s fees? 34

c. Marek v. Chesny 34

d. Applications 35

8. Summary Judgment before Trial 35

2. FRCP 56 – Summary Judgment: 37

3. Burden of Production (burden to introduce evidence to establish the prima facie case; i.e. to get to jury land). 38

9. Trial 39

1. The Seventh Amendment Right to Trial by Jury 39

2. The Phases of a Trial 39

a. FRCP 47: Jury selection 39

b. Opening statements 39

c. Presentation of evidence 40

d. Closing arguments 40

e. Jury instructions – Rules 47-49, 51. 40

f. Jury deliberation 41

g. Post-Trial Motions and Judgment 41

3. Rule 50: Judgment as a Matter of Law 41

10. Personal Jurisdiction 43

1. Types of Jurisdiction 43

2. Types of In Personam Jurisdiction: 43

3. Personal Jurisdiction 43

4. Precursors to Minimum Contacts 44

a. “Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” 45

b. State Long-Arm Statutes as a response to Int'l Shoe. 46

c. Single or isolated activities DO support specific jurisdiction where state has a strong interest 47

d. Purposeful Availment Doctrine - D subject to SJ in state when it invokes benefits and protections of state (under minimum contacts) 47

e. Calder Effects Test – Specific Jurisdiction at focus of harm (effects) because D should anticipate being haled into court there 51

f. Jurisdiction based on Presence of Defendant’s Property (quasi in rem usually not enough) 53

g. Exceptions to Minimum Contacts: 54

a. X Helicopteros v. Hall (US 1084) p.811 - replaced by Goodyear in reading 56

b. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (US 1952) p. 801 fn. 1 56

i. Philippine Mining Co. subject to general jurisdiction in OH because operated there during WWII 56

c. X Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (US 2011) Supp Handout 3 56

i. Goodyear (OH corp.) and its subsidiaries in Turkey, France and Luxembourg all sued in NC by NC Plaintiffs over an accident in 56

i. Paris caused by a defective tire manufactured by a Goodyear subsidiary in Turkey. No specific or general jurisdiction in NC because no ties to accident, but NC Court of Appeals said the stream of commerce test gave general jurisdiction over foreign subsidiaries. 57

ii. SCOTUS reverses - no continuous and systematic contacts by foreign subsidiaries with NC that would give general jurisdiction. Ginsberg uses Int'l Shoe standards of general and specific jurisdiction and contacts. Measured against Helicopteros and Perkins GJ standard, Ds in Goodyear are not at home in NC. 57

a. Constitutional Analysis - Reasonably Calculated Test - "Process which is a mere gesture is not due process" 57

b. RULE: FRCP 4 - SERVICE 57

a. Two ways to do Choice of Law analysis p.797 58

b. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (US 1981) p798 59

11. Statutory Venue and Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine 59

a. 28 U.S.C. § 1390(a) - Venue is the geographic location of proper court 59

b. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 - Federal venue statute 59

c. 28 U.S.C. § 1404 - change of venue for convenience (analogous to common law forum non conveniens doctrine, but more discretion to transfer under statute than dismiss under doctrine) 60

d. 28 U.S.C. § 1406 - cure or waiver of defects – change improper venue 60

e. 28 U.S.C. § 1631 - court may transfer to cure want of jurisdiction 60

11. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 62

4. Relevant Rules 62

5. Constitution Article III §2: “9-item Menu” For Federal SM JD 62

b. Diversity: Is Washington, DC a “State”? 62

c. Complete Diversity Rule 63

d. Diversity: Foreign Nationals & §1332 63

e. Diversity: Domicile 63

f. Diversity: Amount in Controversy 64

7. Federal Question SM JD 65

b. Fed Q.: Well-pleaded complaint rule 65

c. Fed Q.: Federal Creations/Officers 66

d. Fed Q.: State Law Claim with Federal Ingredients (§1331) 66

e. Fed Q.: Amount in Controversy 68

8. Removal (28 U.S.C. §§1331-2; 1441, 1446-8) 68

9. Supplemental Jurisdiction: Mixing State & Federal Claims in Fed Q. Cases (Parties are non-diverse) 68

12. Erie And Choice of Law in Diversity Cases 72

1. Relevant Rules 72

2. Before Erie: Swift v. Tyson (U.S. 1842, Justice Story, CB 924) 72

3. A summary 72

4. Erie v. Tompkins (US 1938, Brandeis, CB 925) 74

5. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. (US 1941, CB 970) 75

6. Guaranty Trust Co v. York (SC 1945, Frankfurter, CB 935) 75

7. Sidenote: Erie and Conflict of Laws 75

8. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SC 1958, Brennan, CB 947) 76

9. Hanna v. Plumer (US 1965, CJ Warren, CB 953) 76

10. John H. Ely: The Irrepressible Myth of Erie (H.L. Rev. 1974, CB 962) 77