Rule Description Summary

Rule 1 Scope and purpose

Rule 2 Relates to Civil actions
Rule 3 Commenced by filing a complaint

Rule 4 Service
Rule 6 Time
Rule 7 Form of Pleadings Types pleadings, types of motions
Rule 8 Form of Pleadings Examples of defenses
Rule 9 Form of Pleadings
Rule 10 Form of Pleadings
Rule 11 Sanctions

Rule 12 When Defenses can be raised Generally 21 days to file an Answer.

1) lack of SMJ, 2) lack of PJ, 3) Improper Venue, 4) Insufficient Process, 5) Insufficient Service, 6) Failure to
(b) Available defenses by Motion state claim, 7) Failure to join necessary parties (i.e., Rule 19)

(g) Motions Cannot make any further motion raising defense or objection
After answer,* ) b2-5 are waived, *) 1 is never waived, and *) 6 & 7 can still be raised by pleading, 12(c)
(h) Waiving and Preserving Defenses motion for judgment on pleadings, or at trial

Rule 13 Counterclaims
Claim arises out of STO and involves parties w/i same jurisdiction, EXCEPT if claims is already subject
(a) Compulsory Counterclaims matter of another pending action, or if opposing party didn't establish personal jurisdiction

(b) Permissive Counterclaims Any claim that is not compulsory

(g) Crossclaims Claim arises out of STO or property that is the subject matter of original action
W/i 14 days or w/ ct. permission, must assert 13(a) or may assert any other claims including against non-
Rule 14 Impleader (3rd Party Defendants) party

Rule 15 Amending Pleadings 21 days from

Rule 18 Joinder of Claims May join as independent or in alternative as many claims that are present
PRIMARILY a DEFENSE, but does provide for joinder mechanism. Necessary if impairs ability to protect
Rule 19 Necessary Parties interest OR leaves party to multiple inconsistent obligations

Rule 20 Basic Joinder of Parties Claim is Joint, Several, or in the Alternative – (Joining at original filing of complaint)
Common question of law OR fact
Same Transaction or Occurrence (STO) [either logical relationship or same evidence]
Rule 21 Courts' role in Joinders

Rule 22 Interpleader An existing party who may suffer multiple liability may join outside parties

Rule 24 Intervention Allows outside parties to join existing claim:

1) interest relating to property or transaction, 2) impair ability to protect interest, and 3) not adequately
(a) Intervention of Right represented

(b) Permissive Intervention *) has conditional right by Fed Stat., or *) claim or defense that shares common question of law or fact

Rule 42 Consolidation/Separation of Trials

Res
Judicata Collateral estoppel: Bars relitigation of the same issue already decided as a necessary part of judgment on an earlier CoA

Claim Preclusion Bars a second suit on same CoA

§1331 Federal Question SMJ

§1332 Diversity SMJ
§1335 Interpleader
§1338 Patents
No etc. arebyFed
jurisdiction SMJ or
collusion
§1359 improper
§1367 Supplemental
Accidents Jurisdiction
w/ many fatalities Fed
§1369 SMJ
§1391 Venue
§1392 Venue when relating to property
§1397 Interpleader – Venue
§1404-07 Transfer of Venue
§1441 Removal
§1445 Actions which cannot be removed
§1446 Procedure for removal
§1447 Procedure
Transfer after
date removal
uses filing date (ie
§1631 SoL)
§1652 Rules of Decision Act (RODA)
§2072 Rules Enabling Act (REA)
§2074 Sets dates for REA rules
§2361 Interpleader – Personal Jurisdiction
 Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue
Whether a particular state can hear the case /p must comply
Whether State or Federal court will hear the case Whether particular court hearing case is convenient
with right to due process
Jurisdiction founded
Jurisdiction not solely
Fed. Ques §1331 Diversity §1332 In Personam // In Rem // Pure In Rem // Quasi In Rem only on Diversity
on diversity §1391(b)
§1391(a)
District courts shall w/i judicial district where w/i judicial district where
(a) exceeds $75,000 Specific General
have original jurisdiction Domicile any ! resides, if all Residence any ! resides, if all
(may aggregate), AND Jurisdiction Jurisdiction
of all civil actions arising reside in same state reside in same state
under the Constitution, Does not w/i judicial district where w/i judicial district where
laws, or treaties of the Arises out Substantial
arise form substantial portions of substantial portions of
United States. (1) citizens of diff states, of contacts Portion
contacts events/omissions events/omissions
(2) Citizen of state and
citizen of foreign state, If no other district, then If no other district, then
§1338: Patents, etc., Subj to
(3) citizens of diff states Minimum contacts Test where Personal where Personal
§1369: Fatalities Pers Jurs
& citizens of foreign Jurisdiction exists Jurisdiction exists
states are addl parties,
(4) foreign state as "
Contacts show §1391(c) corps:deemed to reside in any dist. for which it is
purposeful availment of subject to pers. juris., using “contacts” to determine which
forum state (incl. district w/i the state (inc. would apply to all districts w/i state),
Supplemental Jurisdiction §1367 Service w/i state and §1392 when relating to property, may occur in any district in
(Make sure claim couldn't already get in on its own, incorporation) that state
remember aggregation)
(a) Federal court will have supplemental jurisdiction over all
Fair play & substantial justice
related claims (joinder and intervention of addl parties) Transfer of venue §1404, also §1406, §1407
(Due Process Considerations)
COMMON NUCLEUS
(b) EXCEPT: when SMJ is Diversity, if •. " against persons 1. Burden on defendant,
made parties under rule 14, 19, 20, 24 or • persons joined as 2. Interest of the state,
" under 19 or • intervene as " under 24. 3. Interest of the
(c) Dist. Ct may decline if (1) novel or complex state law, (2) plaintiff, 4. Efficient
claim substantially predominates over the first claim, (3) resolution, 5. Social
claims w/ orig. juris. already dismissed, (4) other compelling policies
reasons
Erie Doctrine
transfer under §1631
§1652
Removal §1441, also §1445 lists actions which cannot be
Other issues: Stream of Commerce, Internet cases, Service
removed, §1446 accomplished by filing “Notice” of removal,
of Process (See FRCP 4)
§1447when multiple !s, they must ALL be removed
 Is there a conflict between state and federal law?
Is the case being heard in federal court out of
Diversity Subject Matter Jurisdiction?
Rules of Decision Act §1652: Laws of several states
shall be regarded as rules of decision, except if
otherwise controlled by Constitution, treatises, or acts
of Congress.
Delegated Inherent
Federal Rule federal rule Federal Statute
Authority stems from innate ability to function as a Limited only by
Rules Enabling Act §2072
court Constitution
Is it facially
1. Is is facially procedural? 1. Is it likely to lead to forum-shopping?
procedural?
2. Does it ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, or MODIFY an
2. Is it forum-shopping for a different outcome?
underlying substantive right?
(Stewart v. Ricoh:
whether §1404 is
Note: SoL pose difficult cases, while it doesn't Byrd Exception within
prevent recovery when parties play by Federal Rules, Congressional
it does shorten window of time recovery is possible 1. Outcome Determinative? power)
2. Strong Federal Interest?
Note2: a Rule may still abridge, enlarge, or modify, a 3. Integral part of State right?
procedural right (just not a substantive right). See
Shady Grove v. Allstate
Interpleader
§1335 allows for Statutory Interpleader
BOTH involve forcing all claimants with a stake in a single
Rule 22 allows for Rule Interpleader
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Rule Statutory
Standard rules of
excess of $75,000 Minimal diversity and
and complete at or above $500
diversity
Personal Jurisdiction
Supreme court has ruled that cannot use in rem
jurisdiction
Rule Statutory
Defendant must Any District court
have minimal automatically has
contacts with Forum jurisdiction, as §2361
State explicitly grants
Venue
Rule Statutory
Standard rules apply, §1397 can be
can be brought in a brought in a district
district where one or where one or more
more ! resides CLAIMANT resides
 Asahi v. Superior Ct. Rule 10a) Must contain Caption
Mere Awareness Specific Acts Quantity of product etc United States District Court
Yes (4) No (4) No (1) for the
Brennan O'Connor Stevens _____ District of _____
A B, Plaintiff )
Suggests need to “tip” the court with either large quantity or show some purposeful availment v ) Civil Action No. 1234
C D, Defendant )
Court also focused on the Fairness factors. )
Rule 8a1-3) Must contain Jurisdiction, claim, and relief sought
Burnam v. Superior Ct. 1) See Form 7 – Statement of Jurisdiction
2 & 3) See Forms 10-21 – examples of Complaint
Yes (4) Yes (4) Yes (1) Rule 11a) Must be SIGNED
Scalia Brennan Stevens
Date xSIGNATURE
Printed Name
Tradition accepted(Pennoyer) service by
Address
person in forum state, changes in travel Presence in the forum state for service is
and communication may extend sufficient for “minimal contact” – slightly E-mail
jurisdiction(Intl Shoe), but will not restrict it odd b/c makes service a “super contact” Easy case, service does create jurisdiction Telephone