SMJ (over the case, not waivable) [courts] Federal question J arises under federal law, well pleaded

ed complaint (Mottley) -Holmes test: suit arises under law that creates the cause of action (Grable) must resolve substantial issue of fed law in order to decide state law (Grable) Diversity J (rule: must be perfect at beg of case; suits: can perfect before judgment G p.71) 75K (unless statute or legal certainty cannot recover) (Diffenthal) - can only aggregate if 1 v 1, unless joint suit complete diversity (no is citizen of the same state as any ) (corps= Hertz) (Strawbridge) - unless over property, then ok if two claimants are diverse (p89) alien diversity (cruchtime p. 51) (still need 75k) - no diversity if both sides aliens, no diversity if resident alien PJ (over parties, waivable expressly or by failure to raise issue) [states] long arm statute grants PJ over traditional basis served w/ process in forum state s agent served w/ process in forum state domiciled in state consents to J general J (sued for anything) served w/ process in forum state - not ok for corporations, ok for partnerships has continuous and systematic contacts being at home specific J (suit arises from in-state contacts) [internet: zippo test] has minimum contacts (international shoe, burger king) purposeful availment foreseeability

 fair and reasonable (burger king) burden on interests of forum state s interest in obtaining relief interstate judicial systems interest in efficient controversy resolution interest of several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies IN REM J (only status of thing adjudicated, ie title) QUASI IN REM J (things used as a means to ensure payment of poss. judgment) likely no res judicata value still need minimum contacts (Shaffer) (otherwise violates DPC) VENUE (individual = same as PJ, business/non-corp entity = dist contacts sufficient to confer personal J if dist was a sep state, if none, dist w/ most significant contacts) [districts] diversity suits where any resides if resides in same state where substantial part of events or omissions occurred where any is subject to PJ at time action commenced non diversity suits where any resides if resides in same state where substantial part of events or omissions occurred where any can be found alien may be sued in any district SUPPLEMENTAL J ( 1367) common nucleus of operative fact same as fed claim fed claim predominates fed ct claims must not be dismissed, must be litigated if only in fed ct b/c of diversity J, no SJ if is bringing in ppl under 14 (impleader), 19 (required joinder of parties), 20 (permissive joinder), 24 (intervention) other party is seeks to add themselves under 19 or be a under 24 and diversity jurisdiction is lacking

 may decline if: novel or complex issue of state law - b/c have to use state law to resolve state claim; cant make state law state claim substantially predominates over fed claim fed ct dismissed fed claims - unless already substantially litigated or prepared for (efficiency) exceptional circumstances

NOTICE (required by DPC) reasonably calculated under all circumstances to give notice (mullane) SERVICE (in some states, SOL can run out while waiting on service) w/in 120 days of filing complaint must: Name of court and parties Be directed to State name and address of s attorney Time for to respond Notify of consequences of failure to appear Be signed by clerk Bear the courts seal can request waiver of service, has duty to avoid costs by 18+, not a party in person dwelling or usual abode, w/ someone of suitable age and discretion on agent (corporations: officer, managing or general agent, or agent authorized by statute) other methods as prescribed by state law (in ct state or state of service) 3rd party or required joinder w/in 100 miles from where summons was issued - special situations in outline (minors, incompetent, US, governments) PROOF OF SERVICE (see outline for foreign) affidavit required unless waiver or US marshall service -failure to prove service doesnt affect validity of judgment, ct may permit proof to be amended

REMOVAL (to fed dist that encompasses state ct where it was filed) at least one claim meets SMJ, state claim doesnt predominate no is citizen of forum state (in state rule) w/in 30 days of service of doc that made removable (no more than 1 year) all s agree to remove file clear and plain statement of grounds + copy of all process, pleadings, orders REMAND (automatic if no SMJ) w/in 30 days of removal TRANSFER ( or can move for transfer) new court must have be a proper venue must have PJ over ( cannot consent to PJ in new court) Considerations: 1) convenience for parties 2) fairness and justice Public policy concerns transferees familiarity with the governing laws relative congestion of both courts local interest in deciding Rrivate interest concerns ps choice of forum ds choice of forum where the claim arose convenience of the parties convenience of witnesses ease of access to sources of proof DISMISSAL (forum non conveniens) [not waivable, no time limit on when can move for FNC] better court available, but this ct cannot transfer there moving party must show alt forum is in fact available - ct can condition dismissal on willingness to waive objections (ie SOL) same analysis as transfer -if alt venue will provide clearly inadequate remedy or no remedy, great weight -if foreign parties, weight, all foreign parties, great weight

-need to apply foreign law, points toward dismissal

PLEADING (only complaint and answer) [rule 7 has list] statement of SMJ short and plain statement of claim (twiqbal plausible on its face) plead w/ particularity for fraud/mistake [time+place+how] special damages must be plead w/ particularity court will ignore conclusions of law must plead facts that support a plausible claim ct uses its own experience and common sense to determine plausibility demand for judgment signed [certifies no improper purpose, legal and factual contentions/denials warranted] supplemental pleadings can be added for conduct that occurred after initial pleading (motion) RESPONDING (Rule 8(b)) short and plain statement of defenses 12(b)2-5 defenses are waivable if not acted on in 1st pleading [motion/ answer] -can amend to include if allowed admit/deny/lack sufficient info allegations failure to deny = admission includes [compulsory] counterclaims and crossclaims w/in 21 days [60 days if service waived, 90 if service outside US] AMENDING (Rule 15) can amend once w/in 21 days of service w/o permission of court considerations of court: reason for amendment moving partys diligence number of prior amendments by same party preparation prejudice to opposing party (key factor) party opposing motion must prove futility of amendment stage of litigation

 reason for amendment viability of the amended claim or defense reason not included in orig pleading (new legal theory v bad faith) DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Rule 55) enter a default then enter a default judgment may set aside for good cause or under 60(b) [relief from judgment]

JOINDER OF CLAIMS (SMJ still needed, poss. provided by SuppJ, still need PJ) once parties are properly joined as adversaries they can add unrelated claims (18) compulsory counterclaim: same transaction or occurrence Are the issues of fact and law raised in the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the partys counterclaim, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? Will substantially the same evidence support or refute the claim as well as the counterclaim? Is there a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim? [based on underlying events, not legal theories] JOINDER OF PARTIES REQUIRED JOINDER ct cannot accord complete relief w/o that party person will be unable to protect interest; risk multiple/inconsistent judgments must still consider SMJ, PJ, Venue; dismiss if cannot feasibly join, factors: If judgment might prejudice that person or other parties Extent prejudice could be lessened by -Proactive provisions in judgment / Shaping relief /Other measures If judgment would be adequate w/o person If would have adequate remedy PERMISSIVE JOINDER Arising out of same transaction, occurrence, or series of T and Os Common question of law or fact IMPLEADER (no requirement that parties be liable under the same theories of liability) s can bring in parties that may be liable to them on the claim, pass on liability still need SMJ and PJ impleaded must assert defenses and compulsory counterclaims against impleaded may assert claims against , or crossclaims against s (same T/O)

and may assert defenses to defeat main claim

considerations: - timeliness of motion - potential for complication of issues at trial - probability of trial delay - whether the may be prejudiced by addition of parties INTERPLEADER see table in outline STATUTORY 1335 (confers SMJ) minimal diversity (two claimants from diff states) $500 venue: where one of more claimants reside confers PJ deposit w/ court RULE 22 interpleader faces conflicting claims to same property or fund need PJ, SMJ, Venue 75k complete diversity (no state on both sides of v (ie claimants from same state)) INTERVENTION Rule 24 [need service on all parties, rule 5] INTERVENTION OF RIGHT [on timely motion] [by govt officer in outline] right by statute claims and interest that will not be represented if claim dismissed -must have interest relating to the property or transaction at issue -must be a risk that their ability to protect that interest will be impaired if the case is decided w/o their participation -even if first two requirements are met, not allowed to intervene if her interest is adequately protected by those already parties to the case PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION [on timely motion] conditional right by statute

 claim or defense common question of law w/ main action SUBSTITUTION (rule 25) 90 days after death must substitute or must dismiss (continues if others still involved)

CLASS ACTIONS (Rule 23) (in mass actions, all s are treated separately, no representative) meets prerequisites numerosity (joinder impracticable) commonality (common Qs of law or fact) typicality (claims or defenses of class typical those of representative) fair and adequate representation (reps will rep class interests) can be put in class: prejudice class (incompatible standards of conduct or impairs others conduct (ie limited fund)) injunctive relief class (injunction is primary relief sought + cohesiveness] damages class (individual notice of: nature of action, definition of class; claims defenses and issues) [can request exclusion] predominance same proof from each class member mutual interest in resolving common questions more than it is divided by individual interests resolution of an issue common to the class would significantly advance the litigation one or more common issues constitute significant parts of each class members individual case common questions are central to all the members claims same theory of liability is asserted by or against all class members, and all defendants raise the same basic defenses superiority (non-exclusive factors) interest of members of class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions extent and nature of litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of class desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum difficulties likely to be encountered in management of CA -other options: test case; joinder of s under rule 20; individual claims can be consolidated via multidistrict litigation (for pretrial proceedings); complain to govt agency certification by ct, can have sub-classes -can appeal denial of class certification w/in 14 days settlement (must send notice, all classes) must be fair and reasonable -strength of s case (most important according to Synfuel case)

-risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation -risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial -amount offered -extent of discovery completed and stage of proceedings -experience and views of counsel -presence of a governmental participant -reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement CAFA (see outline) DISCOVERY

JURY TRIAL AND ALTERNATIVES inviolable right to jury trial