SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION:
Federal question jurisdiction- 28 U.S.C § 1331: -
-The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions “arising under”
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
“Arising under” means that the federal question comes from the nature of the cause of
action raised in the complaint (Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule)
-A plaintiff must allege a cause of action based upon those laws or the Constitution
-The court looks ONLY to the plaintiff’s claim in determining whether a case arises
under federal law.
Motley Rule: (Holmes test) The analysis must focus on the allegations in the
plaintiff’s complaint, not potential defenses the defendant might assert in the
answer.
(LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO. V. MOTTLEY)
To determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists over a state law claim that
raises a federal issue-Grable case applies the Smith exception with guidelines (State Law Claim raising
federal issue)
Federal jurisdiction over claim if
(1) necessarily raised a federal issue
(2) actually disputed
(3) substantial
(4) and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal state
balance approved by Congress
Diversity Jurisdiction- 28 U.S.C §1332: the statute by which congress authorizes the federal
district courts to hear diversity cases
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and
is in between—
(1) Citizens of different states
(2) Citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the
district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action
between citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for
permanent residence in the united states and are domiciled in the same state;
(3) Citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are
additional parties; and
(4) A foreign state as plaintiff and citizens of a state or of different states
Complete Diversity Rule- Strawbridge v. Curtiss—"Complete diversity of parties is required in
order that diversity jurisdiction obtain; that is, no party on one side may be a citizen of the
same State as any party on the other side.”
-Citizenship (for purposes of diversity) counts at the time the action is commenced (Gordon v.
Steele)
-Diversity cases with multiple P’s or D’s must still have complete diversity (Mas v. Perry)
Amount-in-Controversy Requirement
28 USC §1332 imposes an amount-in-controversy requirement of more than $75,000
Diefenthal v. C.A.B. (1982)- U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
- Although the damage amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith will generally control
in a diversity jurisdiction assessment, the amount in controversy requirement will not
be satisfied by an unsupported claim for damages.
- Aggregation of claims—
Even if claims are related, when there are multiple parties with several and distinct
claims, the claims may not be aggregated to satisfy the requirement for the jurisdictional
amount.
Two Exceptions
1. A single plaintiff is allowed to aggregate the amount if he or she has two or more claims
against a single defendant, whether the claims are related or unrelated.
2. Where there are two or more plaintiffs who have a common or undivided interest.
(ex. D hit both P’s with car in same wreck and both want $)
Domicile Test- Gordon v. Steele:
o Test for state citizenship:
(1) Residence
(2) With intent to remain indefinitely
(3) A person does not lose domicile until acquires a new one with an intent to
stay indefinitely
-not met if goes to state temporarily aka to visit
-intends to make the new state home and that the person has no present intention
of going elsewhere to live
o Rule: the parties must be diverse on the day the complaint is filed
State Citizenship of Corporations- 28 U.S.C. §1332 (c) (1) : A corporation shall be deemed a
citizen of every state and foreign state by which it has been incorporated; and the state or
foreign state where it has its principal place of business
Test for Principal Place of Business- Hertz v. Friend:
o The principal place of business is the “nerve center” or where a corporation’s officers
direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities
o Nerve center is usually the headquarters, provided that the headquarters is the actual
center of ^ (direction, control, coordination) and not simply an office where the
corporations hold its board meetings
REMOVAL
Case Removal- 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) : The defendant may remove a case “of which the district
court has original jurisdiction.” Meaning that if the Plaintiff could have originally filed the suit
(as pleaded) in a federal court THEN the plaintiff can remove to a federal jurisdiction.
30- Day Rule-28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1): If a case is removable, the D. must remove it within 30
days of receiving the complaint, or waived (they waive their right to do so)
The In-State Defendant Rule- 28 U.S.C §1441 (b)(2): bars removal of a diversity case if any
Defendant is from the forum state.
Who can remove a case- 28 U.S.C. §1446 (b)(2)(A): only defendant, ALL D’s must consent to
removal
Removal Later in the Case- 28 U.S.C §1446(b)(3): : if complaint is amended to add a claim,
case becomes removable within another 30 days. (NOT removable if it was removable before the
amendment—that right is waived indefinitely
Motion to Transfer=Waiver of Personal Jurisdiction (If sued in a state that doesn’t have PJ
and you request transfer, you are now subject to PJ basically wherever)
PERSONAL JURISDICTION:
-Under the Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court UNLESS they:
1. Voluntarily appear in court
2. Is found within the state
3. Resides in the state
4. Has property in the state that the court has attached
(Rule from Pennoyer v. Neff)
-For a Defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to jurisdiction InPersonam, due process requires that the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the
forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington)
MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST:
Purposeful Availment: Defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the laws and
benefits of the forum state; defendant’s actions must be intentionally directed into the forum
state (Denckla)
Foreseeability: the defendant must have known or reasonably anticipated that his activities in
the forum made it foreseeable that he might be hauled into court there
-Foreseeability alone is not enough to satisfy minimum contacts
OTHER BASES FOR PERSONAL JURISDICTION:
a) A person is subject to personal jurisdiction where she is domiciled.
b) A defendant who would not otherwise be subject to personal jurisdiction
in a state may waive the objection, or consent to jurisdiction
-A state court cannot exercise PJ unless a specific long arm statute allows it.
Most States have statutes granting In-Personam Jurisdiction in the following
situations:
a) Where the defendant is present in the forum state and is personally
served with process
b) Where the defendant is domiciled in the forum state
c)
Where the defendant consents to jurisdiction
d) Where the defendant has committed acts bringing him within the
forum state’s long arm statute
Factors to consider in assessing whether personal jurisdiction is fair:
a)
Burden on defendant
b) Interests of the forum state
c)
Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief
d) Interstate judicial system’s interest in the most efficient
resolution of controversies
e) Shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental
substantive social policies
In Rem: Courts assertion of control over a D’s specific property, even if D is not subject to
personal jurisdiction in the state (can declare the true owner of a specific property relative to
everyone in the world)
-In rem jurisdiction is proper so long as the property is located in the forum state and was not
brought there by fraud or trick
-does not give jurisdiction over D personally but does subject their property to judgement
-Full faith and credit clause: Constitution requires state courts to recognize in personam
judgements of another state where the D has assets and enforce the judgements there
Quasi In Rem: Declares owner between two parties
Type 1: Power to determine whether or not the property — court to
determine who has ownership of property between two people — the property is the subject of
the dispute — determined only between limited group of individuals
Type 2: formal process of attaching the property to defendant, but property itself is not the
dispute, court is just exercising control over the property (Shaffer v. Heitner)
-a court may not constitutionally exercise either in personam jurisdiction or type II quasi in rem
jurisdiction if the defendant does not have minimum contacts with the forum state.
Property: if P uses an attachment procedure to try to compel D to enter a general
appearance or forfeit its property, jurisdiction depends on “minimum contacts”
analysis (Shaffer v Heitner, rejecting Pennoyer’s holding)
Transient Jurisdiction: Personal service upon a defendant that is physically present in the state
is sufficient for PJ (Burnham v. Supreme Court) IF served with process while in the state (NY
statutes do not allow for single transaction=purposeful availment)
Stream of Commerce
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California (1987)
-Under the Due Process Clause, a foreign business’s awareness that its products will reach
a state within the United States in the stream of commerce does not satisfy the minimum
contacts needed for the forum state to exercise personal jurisdiction over that business.
3 Stream Of Commerce Tests:
O’Connor – Stream of Commerce “Plus”- There must be some activity directed at the
state, such as advertising or sending of replacement parts, before a contact exists.
(ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS TO APPLY)
Brennan – Pure Stream of Commerce- When a defendant’s components are incorporated
into a final product, the defendant has a contact with any forum where the defendant
knows the final product is sold.
Stevens – Middle Ground- Should consider volume, value of sales, hazardousness of the
product in assessing whether PJ is appropriate.
-International companies usually have to target a specific state, not just the US in general
SERVICE OF PROCESS:
(FRCP RULE 4)
TWO OPTIONS:
1. 4(c)(2): Personal service upon the D by anyone over the age of 18 and not a party to
the action, can use a (4(c)(3))US Marshall, but not required; or
2. 4(d): Request that the D waive service
Methods of Service of Process: (FRCP RULE 4)
1. Leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the Ds usual place of abode with
someone of suitable age or discretion; or
2. Serving an agent authorized or appointed; or
3. According to the state law of the state where the court is located; or
4. Using special rules for service in a foreign country
Mullane: “Must be reasonably be calculated to reach the Defendant”
- For an amendment changing the identity of a defendant to relate back to the original
complaint’s filing date, the proposed new defendant must (1) receive sufficient notice of the
lawsuit such that it will not be materially hindered in defending itself on the merits; and (2)
know, or have reason to know, that it would have been named as the defendant in the original
complaint but for a mistake concerning its identity
-Publication alone not enough if something more can be done.
-Mail MAY be insufficient in some cases.
-If the D is personally served, D must have 20 days from day of service to file an answer
-Waiver: The P may request a waiver. This is done by sending the complaint, 2 copies of the
waiver form, and a prepaid means for returning the waiver to the D by 1st class mails or “other
reliable means.”
-If the D does not return the waiver within a “reasonable time” of at least 30 days, the D is
required to pay the cost of personal service.
-If the waiver is returned, the D has 60 days from the date of the request of the waiver to file the
complaint.
-Service must be made on D in 90 days after filing complaint or court must dismiss (Rule
4m)
WHAT ARE Special rules for serving a minor, an incompetent person, or corporation, or US
government
VENUE:
Federal Venue Statute- 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) Venue in general – a civil action may be brought in –
(1) A judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the
State in which the district is located;
(2) A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is
situated; or
(3) If there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in
this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action (If one D is subject to PJ in GA and the
other only in SC, assuming no other possibilities, both D’s can be sued in both states)
Meaning of Resident under Subsection 1
28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1) an individual shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which
that person is domiciled
28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) an entity resides in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal
place of business
28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) corporations in States with multiple districts reside in any district in that
State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction
CHOICE OF LAW:
Choice of Law: The laws of several states, except where the constitution or treatises of the U.S. or acts
of congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as the rules of decision in civil actions in
the courts of the US, in cases where they apply
Vertical Choice of Law: If there is no federal law
Horizontal Choice of Law : Reverts to the state law in the court which the federal court sits, usually has
ANOTHER statue saying which law to apply (tort occurrence, plaintiff home state etc.)
Erie Doctrine: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins: · federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state
substantive law and may only apply federal procedural law (can apply state procedural law if applying
the federal law would give one party an incentive to bring suit in federal court)
· Up until this case federal courts were not bound to follow the common law of the state
· Whether in state court or federal court if it is a state claim (substantive law matters: tort,
contracts) they will apply the state law of that particular state, but will apply federal
procedural matters in federal court
The Rules of Decision Act (RDA), 28 USC §1652, requires federal courts sitting in diversity to
apply state statutes and constitutions, but not state courts’ common law rulings.
(overruled/specified by Erie to also include common law rulings after Swift v. Tyson did RDA)
TODAY: A federal court is required to anticipate what the state’s highest court would do
and apply the law as if that court heard the issue today (New York hasn’t ruled on an issue
for 75 years and majority of states have overturned the rule, but judge can rule opposite of the
state’s last ruling if they think the state would do the same if presented the issue)..doesn’t matter
how long a court has followed a rule
-If using a different rule in federal court would lead to forum shopping or significantly different
litigation opportunity, apply state rule
-Unless some federal statute/rule applies directly (and applies to the situation better/more directly than
the state rule), federal court must apply the state substantive law
-regardless of conflicting state law, the federal courts are obligated to apply valid FRCP for
procedure (unless the federal rule gave a party advantage/incentive to bring their suit to fed court)
A federal district court applies federal substantive law where federal law ultimately creates the cause
of action or controls the parties’ rights and responsibilities. 28 U.S.C. § 1652
In the absence of controlling federal law, a federal district court applies the substantive law of the state
where it sits.
____________________________________
-Outcome determinativeness test (as modified by hanna v. Plumer) Would applying federal law change
the outcome? (assuming no conflict of federal interest or other issues) “The outcome of litigation in the
federal court should be substantially the same as if it were tried in state court.”
1. If federal judicial practice (not rule) conflicts with state law, the court should follow the federal
practice, unless that would:
a) encourage forum shopping, and/or
b) prevent equitable administration of the law
If a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure applies, the issue can be presumed to be procedural, unless the rule is
unconstitutional (and because the rules were created by the courts and approved by Congress, they never
are)
___________________________________
Twin Aims of Erie Rule: (1) Discourage forum shopping and (2) avoid inequitable administration of the
law
JOINDER/SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION:
Joinder of multiple claims under the federal rules:
Ways to join: intervention, interpleader, necessary parties, class actions
Proper Joinder Rule- Rule 18 (a): allows a plaintiff to assert any claims he has against the
opposing party whether related or unrelated “a party asserting a claim, counterclaim,
crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims
as it has against an opposing party” (Authorizes joining claims in single suit from P)
Joinder of the Parties to the Original Action for Plaintiffs- Rule 20(a)(1)
Persons may join in one action as the plaintiffs if:
(1) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative w/ respect to or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.
(2) Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arrive in the action.
-authorizes plaintiffs to sue together if they have claims arising from a single
transaction/occurrence AND there is common issues of law or fact (usually there are)
Joinder of the Parties to the Original Action for Defendants- Rule 20(a)(2)
-Allows plaintiffs to sue multiple defendants if they assert that “arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence” and if their claims involve any questions of law or fact common to
all defendants.
Improper Joinder Rule- Rule 21- allows the district court judge to sever the claims completely
or order separate trials of unrelated claims to avoid confusion or save time b/c she has
control over the course of the litigation
-- Rule 42(b) authorizes judge to order separate trials (for convenience, to avoid prejudice, to
expedite proceedings) for one or more separate issues/claims
Rule 19 (a) identifies persons who must be joined if feasible, but who have not yet been joined.
We’ll call these the required persons. Once identified, any required person must be joined as a
new party, whether voluntarily or involuntarily
Under Rule 19, Persons must be required if:
(A) In that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing
parties; or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated
that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or
otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
-If a required person can’t be joined for some reason, Rule 19(b) allows the court
either to dismiss the case or proceed without the required person if doing so would be
fair. (If dismissed, the party unable to join is considered “indispensable”)
----------------------------------Counter Claims- Rule 13
1. Compulsory: Must be brought in the present action or can never be brought
again. NOW OR NEVER. A claim is compulsory:
a.
If it arises out of the same occurrence or transaction, or series of occurrences or
transactions that is subject matter of the opposing party’s claims and
b.
does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
2. Permissive: may be litigated jointly but will likely be separated for another trial. A
claim is permissive if:
a.
b.
Unrelated to the opposing party claims
Do not arise out of the same facts
-Defendant can counterclaim an unrelated issue (permissive counterclaim) because the Rules
encourage litigating all claims between parties in one litigation.
-Defendant could bring permissive counterclaim in a separate trial (courts usually order separate
trial regardless)
-Failure to raise a compulsory claim=waiver
-Third party defendants can only bring counterclaims against the original Plaintiff that
arise out of the same transaction/occurrence the original lawsuit is based on.
Cross-Claims against Co-Parties- Rule 13(g):



Persons suing on the same side of the “v.”.
Ex: In Waters v. Cain and Daly, Daly would be suing Cain.
A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a co-party if the
claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
original action or of the counterclaim OR if the claim relates to any property that is
the subject matter of the original action
Impleader- Under Rule 14
P sues D(1) for product defect. D(1) sues D(2), the manufacturer. Now it is P v. D(1) AND D(1)
v. D(2). D1 is 3rd party plaintiff and D2 is 3rd party defendant
“I may be found liable to the plaintiff on her claim; if so, I
want to pass on all or part of that liability to you, the third party defendant”
A defending party may serve a summons and complaint upon a nonparty who is or may be
liable to it for all or part of the claim against it
Rule 14a1- impleader addresses the situation in which a plaintiff’s claim against the D
triggers a right of the D to be reimbursed by someone else if it plays for the plaintiff’s claim
(for part of it)
-To implead a third party the defendant must allege that the new party is or may be liable to
the D for all or party of any judgment the plaintiff recovers from the D
-It is a claim to pass on liability the defendant incurs
-Rule 14a is called a third party plaintiff; the party brought in is referred to as a third party
defendant and the impleader complaint is called a third party complaint
Consider the following when deciding if an impleader is fair (ERKINS v. Case Power &
Equipment Co.)
i.
Timeliness of the motion;
ii.
Potential for complication of issue at trial;
iii.
Probability of trial delay; AND
iv.
Whether the plaintiff may be prejudiced by the addition of the parties
(If a defendant impleads a nonparty through a third-party complaint, the nonparty’s citizenship
will not destroy any diversity that exists in the original lawsuit)
Interpleader
28 U.S.C. 1335 Statutory interpleader
a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader or in
the nature of interpleader filed by any person, firm, or corporation, association, or society
having in his or its custody or possession money or property of the value of $500 or more,
or having issued a note, bond, certificate, policy of insurance, or other instrument of value or
amount of $500 or more, or providing for the delivery or payment or the loan of money or
property of such amount or value.
(1)
Two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship as defined in subsection (a) or
(d) of section 1332 of this title, are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money
or property, or to any one or more of the benefits arising by virtue of any note, bond,
certificate, policy or other instrument, or arising by virtue of any such obligation; and if
(2) the plaintiff has deposited such money or property or has paid the amount of or the
loan or other value of such instrument or the amount due under such obligation into the
registry of the court, there to abide the judgment of the court, or has given bond payable
to the clerk of the court in such amount and with such surety as the court or judge may
deem proper, conditioned upon the compliance by the plaintiff with the future order or
judgment of the court with respect to the subject matter of the controversy.
(b)
Such an action may be entertained although the titles or claims of the
conflicting claimants do not have a common origin, or are not identical, but are
adverse to and independent of one another.
Rule Interpleader, FRCP Rule 22- HAS TO DO WITH UNIQUE PROPERTY OR OBJECT
(a)Grounds.
(1) By a Plaintiff. Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability
may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder for interpleader is proper
even though:
(A) the claims of the several claimants, or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a
common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical; or
(B) the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.
(2) By a Defendant. A defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through
a crossclaim or counterclaim.
(b) Relation to Other Rules and Statutes. This rule supplements—and does not limit—
the joinder of parties allowed by Rule 20. The remedy this rule provides is in addition
to—and does not supersede or limit—the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. §§1335, 1397,
and 2361. An action under those statutes must be conducted under these rules.
-If a defendant impleads a nonparty through a third-party complaint, the nonparty’s citizenship
will not destroy any diversity that exists in the original lawsuit
Intervention- Rule 24- defines two categories of intervenors—intervenors of right under Rule
24(a) and permissive intervenors under Rule 24(b)
(a) Intervention of right: on timely motion the court must permit anyone to intervene
who:
(1) Is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(2) Claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject
of the action, AND if so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movants ability to protect its interest, unless
existing parties adequately represent that interest
(b) Permissive intervention
(1) In general on timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
(A) Is given a conditional right to intervene by a fed. Statute; or
(B)Has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact
EXCEPTION: Even if the first 2 are met the applicant will not be allowed to intervene if her
interest is adequately protected by those who are already parties to the case
Supplemental Jurisdiction
28 USC § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute
(a) Provides that if a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a
case, it may also hear other claims in the action that “arises out of the
same nucleus of facts”
(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction
founded solely on section 1332 of this title (diversity statute), the
district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection
(a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14,
19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by
persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules,
or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when
exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be
inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.
EXCEPTIONS: 28 USC § 1367(c):
(c)The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim
under subsection (a) if—
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2 )the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district
court has original jurisdiction, (State Claim greater issue than fed. claim destroys
supplemental)
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction.
RES JUDICATA(Prevents litigants from harassing adversaries by suing again for events already litigated)
Claim Preclusion- bars a party who has sued a D once on a set of facts from doing so again;
a claim will be barred if all 4 elements are present:
1. Same Claim
2. Valid, final judgement on claim
3. On the merits
4. Parties are identical/in privy/in the same configuration
Valid- Court had proper jurisdiction
Final Judgement- final when trial court is done with the case (even if on appeal, still final)
On the merits- usually found if the party had an opportunity to present the substance of their
suit
Four test are invoked in determining whether claims arise from the same claim (same
transaction test):
a.
Are issues of fact and law raised in the claim and the counterclaim largely the same
b.
Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the party’s counterclaim, absent the
compulsory counterclaim rule
c.
Substantially the same evidence support or refute the claim as well as the counterclaim
d.
Is there a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim
Valid- Court had proper jurisdiction
Final Judgement- final when trial court is done with the case (even if on appeal, still final)
On the merits- usually found if the party had an opportunity to present the substance of their
suit
-Same evidence test — a second suit is barred if the evidence needed to sustain the
second suit would have sustained the first, or if the same facts were essential to
maintain both actions
-Transactional test --- provides that the assertion of different kinds of theories of relief
still constitutes a single cause of action if a single group of operative facts give rise
to the assertion of relief (more liberal approach than same evidence test)
Logical Relationship Test: Allows the joinder of claims when some factual relationship
between them will make it efficient to hear the claim together (Most broad test, not really used)
Issue Preclusion –“Collateral Estoppel” (Panniel v. Diaz) -The doctrine, also known as
collateral estoppel, that if an issue is actually litigated, decided, and essential to the decision,
the losing party may not relitigate such issue in a subsequent proceeding.
For the doctrine of Issue Preclusion to apply to foreclose the relitigation of an issue, the party
asserting the bar must show that:
i.
The issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding;
ii.
The issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding;
iii.
The court in the prior proceeding issued a final judgment on the merits;
iv.
The determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment; and
v.
The party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to or in privity with a
party to the earlier proceeding
-Applies only if the party opposing collateral estoppel participated in the first
lawsuit (cannot assert collateral estoppel over a party that wasn’t involved/in privity in
the case where issue was litigated)
Privity: relationship by blood, business, contract, or other lawful status
CLAIM V. ISSUE PRECLUSION
-Privity of parties looks at how similar the relationship is between the litigating parties from the
original action and the new action
-Common law did not apply claim preclusion to counterclaims
-The doctrine of issue preclusion precludes relitigation of issues — small pieces of lawsuits
than claims — often the findings required to establish some element of a
claim:
EXAMPLES OF ISSUES
-like ownership of property
-validity of an instrument
-family relationship
-sometimes broader elements of a claim or defense like a party’s negligence or contributory
negligence
Multiple choice Notes
 Filing counter claims to a complaint waives your right to rise personal jurisdiction.
 Eminent- domain actions are generally in rem proceedings. A court acting in rem jurisdiction
binds the entire world.
 Quasi in rem are only binding to the parties before the court.
 A case that is not properly venued claim can still be heard if it is arising out of the same common
nucleus of operative fact.

Forum selection clauses can enable a court to exercise jurisdiction even
without minimum contacts, and failure to raise personal jurisdiction defense is a
waiver of the defense
Forum non conveniens:
Situations where the plaintiff has technically filed her case in the appropriate venue but
there is clearly a better place for the case to be heard. In federal courts, this doctrine
tends to arise when the appropriate venue is in another country. Since courts cannot
force other countries to hear cases, their only option is to dismiss the case and have the
plaintiff refile in the correct venue. There must be an alternative forum available. That
forum does not have to be more favorable to P. (Piper Aircraft v Reyno
If venue was properly filed under 28 U.S.C. §1391, apply 28 U.S.C. §1404.
- For convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, courts
MAY transfer to any district where the action might have been originally brought
OR to a district where all parties consent. Forum non conveniens dismissal.
If venue was improperly filed under 28 U.S.C. §1391, apply 28 U.S.C. §1406.
- Courts shall dismiss OR in the interest of justice will transfer the case to the
district where it could have been brought.
“In the interest of justice” = situations where statute of limitations would run out by the
time the plaintiff refiled.
Non-mutual estoppel: a party not in the first lawsuit can sue the same D as in the first
lawsuit (for issue preclusion)
Hypo: A and B are in a car accident with C. A sues C and wins. Can B still sue C?
Yes, B should also be given the chance to sue C since B was not a party in the first
lawsuit. B is still allowed to sue C for negligence, even if C was not found negligent in A’s
lawsuit.