Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IV. Res
I. Jurisdiction II. Erie III. Joinder
Judicata
1. Subject Matter 1.
Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims
Permissive Joinder of 1. Res Judicata
Parties (Claim Preclusion)
2. Personal Compulsory Joinder of
Jurisdiction Parties
2. Collateral
3. Due Process Estoppel
2.
Counterclaim (Issue Preclusion)
4. Service of Crossclaim
Process (Notice) 3rd Party Claims
3. Parties
Who is subject to
5. Venue claim or issue
3. preclusion?
Intervention
Interpleader (Not on
6. Removal Final)
Class Action
7. Waiver
413298742.doc -1-
I. Jurisdiction Checklist
1
Is There
Subject Matter
Jurisdiction?
United States Constitution, Article III: Federal Courts Are Courts of Limited
1 2 3 4 5
Federal Diversity Alienage Admiralty Disputes Between
Question 28 U.S.C. §1332 28 U.S.C. §1333 28 U.S.C. §1333 States, Counsels, and
28 U.S.C. §1331 Ambassadors
Yes Does the π’s well pleaded complaint allege an express or implied No
federal cause of action?
Does the π’s well pleaded complaint allege a state law cause of action
Yes in which federal law is an essential element?
Don’t rely too much on this. I derived this rule from Smith
Yes v. Kansas City Title and Merrell Dow v. Thompson.
Aronovsky says the COA are still split and the SC has not There is
There is FQJ ruled. So, in some circuits this would work but don’t treat NO FQJ.
413298742.doc it as a hard and fast rule. -2-
IS THERE
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION?
United States Constitution, Article III: Federal Courts Are Courts of Limited
Jurisdiction:
1 2 3 4 5
Federal Question Diversity Alienage Admiralty Disputes Between
18 U.S.C. §1331 18 U.S.C. §1332 18 U.S.C. §1333 18 U.S.C. §1333 States, Counsels, and
Ambassadors
1 2 2a 3 4 5
Federal Diversity Supplemental Alienage Admiralty Disputes Between
Question 18 U.S.C. (Pendant & 18 U.S.C. 18 U.S.C. States, Counsels, and
18 U.S.C. §1332 Ancillary) §1333 §1333 Ambassadors
§1331 18 U.S.C. §1367
413298742.doc -4-
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Flowchart
18 U.S.C. §1367
No This is a basic
Same case or No SMJ
controversy? requirement of
§1367(a).
Yes
Diversity
Only
§1367(b) limitation
Claim by π or ?
does not apply to
SM
claims brought by .
J
20(π), 23
413298742.doc -5-
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
S U F F I C I E N T M IN I M U M C O N TAC TS F AI R P L AY AN DS U B S TAN TI AL J U S TI C E
(CAPFI) (BLIM FEW)
1. Cause of Action: Where did the cause of action 1. Burden on the Parties: Economic, time, relative
arise? burdens.
2. Activities: Scrutinize these activities in the 2. Law: What forum’s law?
forum state: 3. Interest of the State: in providing a forum for &
a. Systematic & Continuous = General protecting its citizens.
Jurisdiction 4. Multiplicity of Suits: Will they all be resolved?
b. Sporadic = Specific Jurisdiction
c. Direct vs. Indirect 5. Forum: Alternative forum available? Fair &
d. Dangerous activity? convenient?
3. Purposeful Availement: Has purposefully 6. Evidence: Where is the bulk of the evidence?
availed itself of the benefits & protections of
7. Witnesses: Where are the witnesses?
forum’s laws? Hanson v. Denkla.
413298742.doc -6-
VENUE:
Underlying Policies: Judicial Efficiency; Limit Forum Shopping;
Venue Rules: 28 U.S.C. §1391 Transfer of Venue: 28 U.S.C. Forum Non Conveniens
Common Nucleus of
Yes Does the π’s well pleaded complaint N
allege an express or implied federal o
cause of action? Meets Supplemental
Jurisdiction
Does the π’s well pleaded complaint Requirements under
Yes allege a state law cause of action in §1367?
which federal law is an essential
element? Yes No
Does the federal law that is an
element authorize a private right of No §1441(a) Not Part of Same
action?
Court May Constitutional
Exercise or Decline Case
Yes Per Authority
Granted under Separate &
There Independent
There is NO Claim?
is FQJ FQJ.
413298742.doc -8-
§1441(c)
§1441(a) Court May Keep
Court Must Or
Hear Court May
Remand
413298742.doc -9-
Waiver
Consolidation of
What May NEVER Be Waived? What May Be Waived? Defenses
Rules 12(g) and 12(h)
413298742.doc - 10 -
Erie Doctrine Flowchart
The discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable
administration of the laws
Fed. Outcome
Countervailing determinative
Interests (for fed test (for state
law) law)
(always have If outcome would
uniformity, but be different
weak on its own. depending on which
Byrd was judge/jury law applies (i.e.
relationship which statute of
outweighed limitations is very
outcome determinative if its
determinacy) run in state and not
fed)
413298742.doc - 11 -
III. Joinder
Joinder of Claims
3 Sentences at most on exam:
1. In federal practice a π can join any claims he or
she has against the .
2. In a state following the FRCP, a π can join any
claims he or she has against the because
those are the Federal Rules.
3. If state X follows the more traditional rule of
413298742.doc - 12 -
Joinder- Big Picture
Must satisfy both FRCP and SM Jx.
Counterclaims
1. Compulsory: Rule 13(a); use it or lose it. Underlying policy concerns: efficiency and economy. A counter
claim is compulsory if it “arises out of the same transaction or occurrence” that is the subject matter of the ’s
claim (counterclaim must be pleaded)
2. 4 Part Transaction & Occurrence Test to define when a claim or counterclaim arises from the same
transaction: (from Plant v. Blazer Financial Services) State Courts will usually respect Rule 13(a); but it is
not guaranteed. I.e., if you fail to pursue your compulsory counterclaim in federal Court, state Court will
probably not allow a new suit on the same facts.
a. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
b. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on ’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
c. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute ’s claim as well as ’s counterclaim?
d. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?
3. Permissive: Rule 13(b); everything else.
4. Exam Tip: Rule 13 pretty much allows a to counterclaim against a π for anything he wants. Remember
Pugsley said the title “plaintiff” doesn’t mean squat in Tort law; it just means you filed first.
5. Diversity Actions: If your compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) is could not be plead alone (<$75k or no
diversity), invoke §1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction and be sure to use the buzzwords:
a. Common Nucleus of Facts
Cross-Claims
Rule 13(g) ( vs. )
1. Always Permissive
2. Can invoke §1367 if claim won’t stand alone.
3. Exam Tip: When in doubt, examine Transaction & Occurrence; it’s pretty much the basis of everything in
CivPro, so if you’re blanking out, start writing about T&O.
Negligence or
Tort
Negligence or Permissive
Tort Counterclaim
for
Compulsory Negligence or
Counterclaim Tort
for
413298742.doc - 15 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS
Negligence or
Tort Negligence or
(3rd Party
Negligence or Tort )
Crossclaim
Tort
Joinder of
Additional Parties
(Not In Original 3rd Party
Action)
In this example, an
original crossclaims
against another
original AND joins a
3rd party as well. 3rd Party
(Newly Joined)
413298742.doc - 16 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS
Rule 14(a) S6 – TPD Can Assert Claim Rule 14(a) S7 – Can Assert Claim
Against Against TPD
Negligence or Tort (3rd Party ) Negligence or Tort (3rd Party )
m
m
Clai
ai
mnity
cl
Inde
ss
on or
ro
ributi
C
Requires same Transaction Cont
or Occurrence as ’s claim Counterclaim
against 3rd Party
3rd Party 3rd Party
413298742.doc - 17 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS
Negligence or
Negligence or
(3rd Party Tort
Tort )
Breach of
Contract
Contribution
or Indemnity
Claim
3rd Party
Contribution
or Indemnity
Claim
3rd Party
413298742.doc - 18 -
JOINDER OF PARTIES DIAGRAMS
Rule 20(a) S1 Joinder of Parties - ’s Rule 20(a) S2 Joinder of Parties – ’s
Negligence or Negligence or
Tort Tort
Negligence or Negligence or
Co -
Tort Tort Co-
Permissive Joinder of Parties: 2 Prong Test Permissive Joinder of Parties: 2 Prong Test
1 ¶ at most on exam. 1 ¶ at most on exam.
TO + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder TO + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder
Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction; Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction;
AND AND
There is a common question of law or fact binding There is a common question of law or fact binding
the parties. the parties.
413298742.doc - 19 -
Interpleader Rule 22, 28 U.S.C. §1335
Interpleader Basics
Defined: Interpleader is an equity device designed to protect persons in possession of property (stakeholders) the
ownership of which is or may be claimed by more than one party. It is a device to resolve at one time the claims of
many persons to one piece of property or sum of money, such as a bank account claimed by more than one person.
Policy Objective: So that the stakeholder will not have to pay the same claim twice.
Practical Application: Interpleader is a ’s tool to join all claimants at once; but may be employed by a through
use of cross-claim [Rule 13(g)], compulsory counterclaim [Rule 13(a)], or permissive counterclaim [Rule 13(b)].
413298742.doc - 21 -
Intervention Flowchart
Step 1:
STATUTORY ANALYSIS
MAY Grant
Does a Federal Statute grant Yes This is Rule 24(b)
conditional right of Court will consider delay or
intervention? prejudice to original
parties.
Step 2:
CAN’T SOMEONE ELSE DO IT?
Step 3:
CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND PUBLIC POLICY.
413298742.doc - 23 -
Must present common questions of action would sue individually. But as a class
law or fact. (Predominance of Could be only effective method of it would make sense and Ralph’s
PET M NIL
common question) deterring
IV: RESbehavior
JUDICATAof some ’s would have to react.
Same P rimary
bearsrights
cost of notice to all class (many small violations). Issue Necessary to the
involved?members. first action?
Same E Notice must inform members “Go
vidence? mayAway, Leave Me Alone, I Don’t Want Identical Issues?
opt-out. To Talk About It Anymore!”
Same Transaction or
Yes
12(b)(6)
Default judgment or Consent decree
Summary judgment & Directed Verdict
(JMOL)
Yes
Was it valid?
Proper court with subject matter and personal
jurisdiction? No
§1738 “Full Faith & Credit” valid state court
decisions are binding in federal court unless state
court lacked competency.
413298742.doc - 26 -