CHECKLIST NOTICE – RULE 4 Transfer – where there is PJ over ∆

1) Personal Jurisdiction Served by person non-party at least 18 §1404 – initial venue is proper
a. Statutory Must be served w/in 90d w/ process: 1) Take transferor (ct. #1) ct.’s laws, choice
b. Constitutional summons + complaint of law travels w/ proper (Van Dusen)
2) Notice (Service) – 4 Serving an Individual 2) Discretionary: convenience of parties,
3) SMJ – §1331, 1332, 1367, 1441/46/47 1) Personal Service witnesses, and interest of justice
a. DivJ, FQJ, Supplemental, Removal 2) Substituted Service §1406 –initial venue is improper/no PJ
4) Venue – §1391, 1404/06 a. Dwelling/usual place of abode 1) Take transferee (ct. #2) ct.’s laws
5) Erie Doctrine b. Suitable age/discretion, resides there 2) Only transfer where PJ/app. venue
6) Pleadings – 8, 11, 12, 15 3) Serve ∆’s agent 3) Ct. can dismiss/transfer to proper
a. Complaint, Response Serving a Corporation Forum Non Conveniens
b. Amendments 1) Officer or managing or general agent 1) Properly filed but the ct. dismiss b/c
7) Joinder – 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24 Ct. can serve however/wherever state ct. can more appropriate venue (convenience)
a. Permissive Claim J, Counter-, Cross- Waiver of service a. State to other state, US to foreign
Claim, Permissive Party J, 1) π can request ∆ waive service
Compulsory, Impleader, Intervention, 2) ∆ must have good reason to not waive or ERIE DOCTRINE
Interpleader, Class Action else pays cost Fed. ct. should apply st. substantive law
8) Pre-Trial Adjudication –41, 12, 56 3) If waived = 60d to respond to complaint 1) Conflict between st. and fed. law?
a. Voluntary/Involuntary Dismissal, instead of 21d, 90d if outside US 2) Valid fed. rule on point? (Hanna 2, REA)
12(b)(6) Dismissal, Summary Notice must be reasonably calculated to a. YES: use fed. procedural law
Judgment inform D – newspaper = last resort (Mullane) 3) If NO: state v. fed. interest? No counter-
9) Preclusion Doctrines vailing fed, apply state (Hanna 1, RDA)
SMJ a. Twin Aims: forum shopping &
Assess SMJ on every claim filed in fed. ct. (assess for every claim filed in fed ct!) inequity b/c of citizenship (Erie)
Forum Selection = PJ + Notice + SMJ + Venue Diversity Jurisdiction (DivJ) – §1332 b. State law is bound up w/ rights
1) Complete Diversity Rule: π ≠ ∆, all πs obligations of parties = substantive
PERSONAL JURISDICTION citizens of diff. states than ∆s c. Constitutional interest? (Byrd)
General 2) Diversity of Citizenship
1) ∆ has continuous and systematic contacts a. Individual: US citizen and where PLEADINGS
with the forum (“at home”) (GY, Daimler) domiciled (physical presence in state + Complaint – RULE 8
Specific Intent to remain) 1) Grounds for SMJ
1) Served with process in forum b. Corp: dual citizenship – PPB (nerve 2) Short/Plain statement of the claim
2) ∆’s agent is served w/ process in forum center) + state of incorporation a. Twiqbal: π must plead facts (allege)
3) ∆ is domiciled within the state 3) Amount in Controversy >$75K supporting a plausible claim;
4) Consent to PJ - express, implied, waived a. Cannot aggregate if multiple parties b. Factual allegations as true; fraud or
Statutory Test unless joint claims mistake allegations needs more facts
1) Is there a Long-Arm Statute? Fed. Question Jurisdiction (FQJ) – §1331 c. Judge uses judicial xp, common sense
a. BULGE: if w/in 100m of ct. if joined 1) Case arises from under fed law 3) Demand for relief sought
under 14 or 19 2) Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule Response – RULE 12
2) Statute for PJ over tortious act? a. Is the Cause of Action st. or fed.? Within 21d, unless waived = 60d; 90d (R4)
a. Where mfr’d v. where injured i. If fed. = FQJ, If st. = go to (b) Methods of Response
Constitutional Test b. State CoA incl. fed. ingredient? 1) Motion to Dismiss (RULE 12(B))
1) Tag “Transient” Jurisdiction (Burnham) i. No = no FQJ, Yes = FQJ a. Defenses
a. traditional basis of presence c. Matter of fed. concern? 12(b)(1) Lack of SMJ - never waived
(Pennoyer) is enough for PJ i. Actually disputed/substantial? (b)(2) Lack of PJ
b. Traditional AND International Shoe is ii. Affect balance b/w fed. & st.? (b)(3) Improper Venue
necessary (O’Connor) Supplemental Jurisdiction (SJ) – §1367 (b)(4) Insufficient process - prob w/ doc
International Shoe Standard 1) Does §1367(a) grant SJ? (b)(5) Insufficient service of process-not
1) Minimum Contacts a. YES if claim arises from same properly served
a. Purposeful Availment case/controversy; or, “fed hook” (b)(6) Failure to state a claim
i. Reached out to forum in some way; b. Unless (b) â (b)(7) Failure to join party under RULE 19
invoked benefit/protection of laws 2) §1367(b) takes away SJ = NO SJ (only à NOTE: 2-5 must be infirst response or
b. Claim arose from contact in forum in diversity cases): waived; 1, 6-7 anytime
c. Need more than Stream of Commerce a. π claim against party joined by R:14, b. Answer
i. Seek to serve (i.e., ads, designing 19, 24 (StarKist/Allapattah – 20, 23) i. Must respond to claim
product) (Asahi: SOC+) b. Claims by R:19 compulsory πs 1. Admit, deny (explicitly stated)
d. # of contacts vs. quality of contacts c. Claims by R:24 intervener πs 2. Lack of knowledge = denial
i. Cannot be based only on purchases Removal – §1441, 1446, 1447 3. Failure to deny = admission
and sales; physical presence 1) All ∆s must agree ii. Affirmative defenses (RULE 8): raise
2) Fair Play and Substantial Justice 2) ∆ cannot remove if it's a diversity claim new matter or inject new fact (SOL,
a. Foreseeable: reasonably anticipate to in state of citizenship (needs SMJ) RJ/CE)
be haled into ct. 3) ∆ 30 days to remove, runs when served 1. Must plead or waived
b. Burden on ∆ to show inconvenience 4) Lawsuit is removed to embracing fed. ct. SLIME – Rule 11: sanctions; signed
c. ∆ burden, state interest, legal sys. VENUE pleadings (attorney screws up: stupidity,
interest, shared substantive policies Venue in Div/non-Div cases – §1391 laziness, ignorance, malice, evasion)
Electronic (Website) 1) where any ∆ lives if all ∆ in same state Amended Pleadings – RULE 15
1) Active, conducts business = PJ 2) where substantial part of event occurred 1) π can amend once before ∆ response
2) Passively in market, only info ≠ PJ 3) FALLBACK: where any ∆ is subj. to PJ 2) ∆ can amend once w/in 21d of answer
In-Rem/QIR(1&2) (div); or where any ∆ can be found (non) 3) If no right to amend, ct. may freely give
Attach as PJ basis must do at beginning; 4) “residency” 4) Relation Back: amend after SOL run,
QIR2 DNE, attach must relate to property a. individual: domicile “same T/O” test, proper ∆ should have
b. corporation: wherever subj. to ct. PJ known (Krupski v. Costa Crociere)
 JOINDER Types (need at least one):
(assess SMJ for every claim filed in fed ct!) 1) Prejudice: mandatory, NO notice, CASE LIST
Proper Parties NO opt-out; incompatible standards for • Band’s Refuse: judge=neutral arbiter, pre-trial
∆, limited funds (small pool of $) hearings, joinder, pleading amendmts
Permissive – RULE 20(A) – IPJ/SMJ/V?
2) Injunction: mandatory, NO notice, IPJ - see PJ chart p. 5-6!
1) Parties joined as πs/∆s if
NO opt-out; decl. relief benefits all πs Notice (Service) – 4
2) Assert right to relief that arises from
3) Damages: notice, opt-out; common Q • Mullane: reasonably calculated to inform
same T/O or series of T/O SMJ – §1331, 1332
3) At least one common Q of law/fact predominate individual questions; class
is superior method to resolve suit FQJ
à NOTE: misjoinder ≠ dismissal; • Mottley: FQJ must “arise under” fed law
ct. should sever (R21) a. Notice: class rep must give notice to
• Osborn: fed ct. can hear if fed element/issue
Compulsory/Necessary – RULE 19 all members reasonably ID-able
• Skelly Oil: need fed law dispute b/w π and ∆
Necessary/indispensable/required party? b. SMJ: look @ rep for AIC, citizenship
• Vornado: no plead fed counterclaim
1) No complete relief w/o absentee • Merrell Dow: state law w/ fed issue, mere
2) Absentee interest would be impaired PRE-TRIAL ADJUDICATION presence of fed issue does not confer SMJ
3) Absentee interest would be subj. to Voluntary Dismissal – RULE 41(A) • Grable: IRS notice, 4-pt test upheld SMJ
multiple/inconsistent obligations 1) Dismissal signed by all parties DivJ
à NOTE: joint tortfeasors not necessary! 2) Ct. order (discretionary) • Strawbridge: complete diversity for 1332(a)
Joinder feasible? 3) π dismiss w/o prejudice once by notice of SJ – §1367
1) IPJ ok? Retain SMJ? (check DivJ) dismiss before ∆ respond (answer, MSJ) • Gibbs: “common nucleus”, same case/contro
a. YES: party must be joined Involuntary Dismissal – RULE 41(B) • Owen: R14 need complete diversity
2) NO: does court dismiss/proceed? w/ prejudice if ct. decides; “on the merits” • Alla/StarKist: SJ over add’l πs who fail to
unless lack IPJ/SMJ, improper V, failed to satisfy AIC ok if still diverse, named π AIC >
a. Prejudicial? Adequate judgment? Most
join necessary party (R19) à happens if π $75k, add’l claims if same case/contro
imp’t: will π have remedy?
Removal – §1441/46/47
3) If party determined indispensable and fails to move forward/prosecute; ∆ can MTD
Venue – §1391, 1404/06
can’t be joined, then court dismiss (rare) RULE 12(B)(6) Dismissal
• Atlantic Marine: transfer to enforce forum
3P Practice 1) Ct. does not look at evidence, only face
selection clause (FSC), uphold K validity
a. Claim where ct. might grant relief?
Impleader – RULE 14 – SJ or SMJ • Ricoh: fed 1404 trumps state ban on FSC
b. Legally sufficient claim? • Reyno: forum non conveniens test
1) 3P∆ may be liable for all/part orig. π’s
Summary Judgment – RULE 56 Erie Doctrine - see Erie chart p. 27!
claim against orig. ∆, file complaint
1) Ct. looks at evidence Pleadings – 8, 11, 12, 15
2) Timing: w/in 14d, or need ct.’s permit
2) Moving party must show: Complaint
3) SJ governs for 3P∆ to 3pπ (orig ∆)
a. No dispute of material issue of facts • Conley: notice plead, “no set of facts”
4) π against 3P∆? NO SJ (R14 not ok!),
b. and entitled to JMOL • Swierkiewicz: “short & plain” statement
needs SMJ (“same T/O” as orig. claim)
3) Evidence provided by parties • Twombly: plausibility pleading
Intervention – RULE 24
a. Evidence acquired under oath • Iqbal: no legal conclusions, no fact detail
1) Party assert or defend claim (check SMJ)
b. Not include pleadings • Kopmann: alt. plead ok, honesty in pleading
2) Motion must be timely = not disruptive
4) Timing: any time except 30d after close • Tellabs: PSLRA specificity/heightened pleading
3) Right: absentee legal interest impaired if • Zuk v. EPPI: sanction, inquiry into fact/law
of discovery
not joined; adequate rep? Response
4) Permissive: absentee claim/defense has • Darrah: default set aside for “good cause”
at least 1 common Q of law/fact PRECLUSION DOCTRINES
• Crompton: ineffective denial = admission
(RJ) Claim Preclusion
π Plaintiff Claim Joinder Amendment
One case to vindicate claim • Krupski: relate back, new ∆ should’ve known
Permissive Claim Joinder – RULE 18
1) Valid & final judgment? • Crompton: no amend, π would be prejudiced
1) π can join all the claims (SMJ)
a. Majority: final even if appeal pending Joinder – 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24
∆ Defendant Claim Joinder or time has not expired Proper Parties
Counter-Claim – RULE 13(A), (B) – SJ? b. Minority: appeal has passed • Kedra: police brutality, allow party joinder
1) Compulsory – 13(a) 2) “on the merits”? • Insolia: smokers, no joinder, not same T/O
a. Against opposing party, no new party a. can refile if dismissed on procedural 3P Practice
b. Same T/O as π’s claim (lack IPJ/SMJ, improper V, failed to • Clark: 3P complaint proper for indemnity
c. Must assert or waive join necessary party (R19) • Augenti: 3P & orig. suit need causal connect
2) Permissive – 13(b) – IPJ/SMJ/SJ? 3) Same claim (Transactional Test) • Grutter: aff. action, intervention of right
a. state any claim against opposing party a. Minority: primary rights = diff. claim Claims
b. R18 only works for party once they per right invaded; “2-Disease” Rule • Wigglesworth: labor union, permissive CC
successfully add claim via R13(a)/(b) 4) Same parties: same claimant v. same needs independent jdx’l grounds
Cross-claim – RULE 13(G) - permissive ∆/privity, same configuration Interpleader
1) Against co-party (same side of “v.”) (CE) Issue Preclusion (often loser as shield) • SF v. Tashire: inappropriate, injunction to
2) Same T/O as underlying dispute stake only, all suits need judgment
1) Valid & final judgment?
Class Action
Interpleader – RULE 22, §1335 2) Identical issue: exactly the same issue
• Hansberry: RJ no apply to absent class member
Stakeholder force all potential claimants into 3) Actually litigated/decided if inadequate rep. in class action
single case, party may file defensive if sued 4) Essential to judgment: beware alt. holds • Walmart: need commonality
first (through R13 counter-claim) 5) Party to be Bound: was in Suit #1 • Reno: aliens, appropriate injunction class
1) Rule (narrow): complete div, no deposit, 6) Mutual v. Nonmutual? • Castano: state law differ, mass torts disfavor
status quo IPJ/SMJ/V, rare injunction Mutuality (Minority): party asserting CE Preclusion Doctrines
2) §1335 (broad): minimal div, need deposit must have been in Suit #1 • Moitie: RJ bars re-lit unappealed final jdgmt
stake; AIC>$500, §1397 for V, §2361 Defensive: new ∆ v. old π (S1: π sues ∆1, π • Manego: “same claim” precluded (T/O test)
SOP, IPJ, and injunction possible loses. S2: π sues ∆2, ∆2 pleads CE as • Lil’ Blue Goose: est. CE materiality grounds
Class Action – RULE 23 shield/bar); OK if π had full chance to lit. • Blonder Tongue: DCE ok (shield)
Offensive: new π v. old ∆ (S1: π1 sues ∆, ∆ • Parklane: offense OCE (sword) 2-pt test
Pre-reqs for certification: • Kremer: §1738 fed look at state preclusion law
loses. S2: π2 sues ∆. π2 invokes CE as sword)
1) Numerosity • Marrese: “implied repeal” 1738 only if in fed §
1) Could new π have joined S1?
2) Commonality • Semtek: R41(b) re: preclusion gets a new
2) Unfair to ∆?
3) Typicality meaning: “w/ prejudice” FQJ=on merits,
a. Stakes, inconsistent determinations of
4) Adequacy DivJ=depends on state law
issue, procedural constraints