Page 1
Civ Pro Outline Long
• Personal Jurisdiction
• Court can consider sua sponte if considering default judgment, otherwise generally won’t
• 1. Statutory Step
• Rule 4 Statutory Options for Personal Jdx in Federal Court
• (a) Look to the state law used by courts of general subject matter jurisdiction in the
forum state. If there is PJ under the state law, the statutory step is satisfied here
• Tested under the constitutional step against the 14th amendment due process clause
• (b) If the defendant is a defendant to a third-party complaint, under Rule 14, or is a
required defendant under Rule 19, use federal power to grab defendants who are within
100 miles of the federal courthouse, as the crow flies, and so long as still within the
United States. 4(k)(1)(B).
• Tested under the constitutional step against the 5th amendment due process clause
• (c) If a federal statute associated with the claim provides for a federal assertion of
personal jurisdiction, you may use that, according to whatever terms and limitations it
provides. 4(k)(1)(C).
• Tested under the constitutional step against the 5th amendment due process clause
• Personal Jdx in State Court
• State rules of forum state:
• Enumerated statutes; coextensive statutes; hybrid statutes
• Test against 14th amendment
• 2. Constitutional Step
• In personam / quasi in rem #1 / quasi in rem #2
• General PJ: PJ comports with due process with the defendant is “at home” in the forum
state. Defendant can be sued for any claim.
• Individuals are at home where they are domiciled
• Corporations are at home where:
• Incorporated
• Principal place of business
• Possibly some other state where their contacts are so systematic, continuous, and
substantial as to fairly be called at home. (This probably doesn’t exist)
• No Asahi-factors (reasonableness) analysis
• Tag/Transient Jurisdiction-PJ comports with due process when an individual defendant
is personally served while in the forum state. Defendant can be sued for any claim. No
asahi-factors analysis. Voluntarily and knowingly in state.
• Consent-PJ comports with due process when a defendant consents, either expressly or
impliedly, to PJ in the forum state. Scope of that consent and the context determine which
claims are covered (ie, not necessarily consenting to be sued for any and all claims)
• No Asahi-factors analysis
• During the lawsuit: a defendant can consent to PJ or waive a right to object to lack of
PJ
• Consent by estoppel: refusing to give information related to PJ
Page 2
• During the lawsuit: a plaintiff involuntarily consents to PJ in the forum state on any
counterclaims brought against them
• In advance of lawsuit: forum-selection clauses are presumptively valid, unless
fundamentally unfair
• Forum selection is a procedural issue governed by federal law
• Transfer or dismissal, if no transfer option
• In advance of lawsuit: actual, voluntary appointment of an agent to accept service of
process in the forum state
• In advance of lawsuit: involuntary appointment of an agent to accept service of process
in the forum state. (Viability unclear)
• Specific Personal Jurisdiction: International Shoe Contacts Analysis
• If none of the above venues work, try this
• 3-step sufficient contacts analysis:
• (1) Non-resident defendant must purposefully direct their activities or consummate
some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or purposefully avails himself of
the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, invoking benefits and protection of
its laws
• “but-for” test for contacts
• K claims: purposefully availed
• defendant can “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there”
• Tort claims: purposefully directed
• Availed/directed applies to:
• Under state power: forum state
• Under federal statute: U.S. as a whole
• Under 100 mile bulge rule: courts are split
• (2) The claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forumrelated activities and
• can “arise out of” or “relate to”
• (3) The exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice
(reasonable). The factors:
• Burden on the defendant;
• Forum state’s interest in the dispute;
• Importance of the chosen forum to the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief;
• Most efficient forum for judicial resolution of the dispute;
• Shared interest of the several States inn furthering fundamental substantive social
policies.
Plaintiff
has burden of proving first two prongs, defendant has burden of showing
•
exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.
• In rem:
• PJ comports with due process as long as property is in forum state
• Or apply International Shoe contacts analysis
• After reasonable attempts at in personam have failed?
Page 3
• Cybersquatting: If plaintiff cannot get PJ over person holding domain name, they can
exercise in rem over location of domain name in forum state
• Subject Matter Jurisdiction
• Diversity Jurisdiction: Amount in controversy >$75k; all parties on opposite sides v. are
diverse
• Domicile: Where you are from and have an intent to return to. Only changes when have an
intention to remain somewhere for indefinite period of time (Corp: Place of incorporation
and PPB (nerve center: high level execs); Unincorporated entities: treated as group of
individuals)
• When removing a case with LLCs, defendant bears the burden of showing where each
member is from
• Diversity cannot be changed post-filing, but parties can be dismissed
• $75k = compensatory damages + punitive damages + attorney’s fees (if statute or K)
• costs or interest don’t count
• Claim aggregation: party (not multiple parties) can aggregate claims to reach $75k
• Also w/in joint ownerships; or suing multiple defendants for joint & several liability
• Class Action Fairness Act: aggregate 100 class over 5 million
• Federal Question Jurisdiction: Any federal statute with cause of action
• Well-pleaded complaint rule: “Artful pleading” is not allowed to get federal SMJ (no
predicting defendant’s defenses based in federal law)
• Limited to plaintiff’s presentation of the case; plaintiff is master of complaint, can choose
to rely on only state law
• Counterclaims by defendant invoking federal law do not give federal jdx. to plaintiff’s
claims
A
• state law claim implicating a “substantial” federal issue may get FQJ
• Supplemental Jurisdiction: Ability to piggyback a non-qualifying claim on a claim w/
Federal SMJ
• 1367(a): Supp. jdx. for all claims related to same case or controversy (CNOV)
• 1367(b): Takes away supp. jdx. from claims piggybacking on diversity claims by:
• Full-time plaintiffs against persons made parties under rule 14, 19, 20
• against third party defendants, required joined parties, permissive joinder parties
• Or by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under rule 19
• 1367(c): Discretionary denial of supp. jdx. by the court can occur when:
• additional claims feature novel or complex issue of state law
• additional claims substantially predominate over claims which court has original
jurisdiction over
• all claims w/ original jurisdiction have been dismissed
• exceptional circumstances w/ compelling reasons
• SoL on supp. claims is paused + 30 extra days on SoL if claim is dismissed
• Pendent: piggybacking claims against same party
• Pendent party: piggybacking claims against different defendants
• Ancillary: piggybacking counterclaims on plaintiff claim
Page 4
• Removal Jurisdiction: When defendant wants to remove: (1) Must be SMJ (2) Procedural
requirements
• (1) SMJ still determined by looking at only plaintiff’s claims
• Defendant can cure diversity issues only by dismissal
• Any claims w/o SMJ or supp. are severed and remanded to state court
• (2) Generally only full-time defendants can remove (must be unanimous w/in defendants)
• 30 days after receipt of service or changes making removal possible
• Defendant waives right by proceeding in state court
• 1 year limit on removing diversity cases
• Plaintiff can contest w/ motion to remand w/in 30 days
• Forum state defendant rule: no removal in a suit based solely on diversity jdx. when
defendant is from forum state
• Venue
• 1391 Venues where actions may be brought:
• Any district where a defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the same state
• P.J. analysis for entities specific to district
• District where events/omissions/property in suit is located
• If no other options: district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction
• P.J. analysis for entities specific to state
• Residency rules:
• Residency = domiciled
• Entities reside in any judicial district with personal jurisdiction
• P.J. contacts analysis for states with multiple districts
• Non-residents of U.S. can be sued anywhere
• Incorporations are treated like corporations
• Removal venue is that of original action
• Venue objections are waived if not in initial response
• Pendent venue applies if CNOV
• Non-plaintiff claims don’t require venue evaluation
• 1404 Changing Venue
• For convenience (including forum selection clauses), court can change venue to anywhere
plaintiff could have brought
• or anywhere all parties consent to
• If court transfers (not for forum selection or improper venue), original state CoL applies in
new venue
• Forum non conveniens (federal common law)
• Difference in remedy is not grounds for denying a request to transfer, unless it would
completely deny the plaintiff recovery
• Can only move to dismiss on this ground when alternate forum is in another country
• Public and private interest factors
• Erie Doctrine
• Q1: Is it a state law or federal law claim: Erie is inapplicable to claims under Federal Law
• (A) If clash between state and federal law (that’s not common law):
Page 5
• (1) Does FRCP cover the procedural issue in question?
• If yes, apply FRCP and ignore state law (assuming FR is w/in REA and Constitutional)
• Essentially confirm that FRCP is not affecting substantive rights
• (2) Does Federal Statute cover the issue in question?
• Federal law trumps state law under Supremacy Clause as long as statute is rationally
classifiable as procedural
• (3) Does the Constitution apply to the issue?
• (B) If no federal law or no clash, court is required to apply state law only if it’s substantive:
• Go down this path if federal law is common law
• (1) State law is substantive if:
• It creates rights or obligations (ie: elements of a claim or affirmative defense)
• It’s bound up in state rights or obligations (SoL, horizontal CoL, burdens, standards)
• Laws determining commencement of action for SoL do not conflict with FRCP 3
Ragan
• (2) State law is procedural if:
• It defines a form or mode of enforcing right or obligation
• Consider: “outcome determination test”: would result be significantly different in state
court
• Consider: important countervailing federal interests/policies rationalizing these
potentially different outcomes
• Sibbach Test: Procedure is the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized
by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for disregard or
infraction of them.
• (C) Additional factors: Would failing to apply state law:
• Encourage plaintiffs to forum shop
• Lead to inequitable administration of the laws
• If not, ignore state state law.
• If yes, also consider countervailing federal interests, such as 7th amendment right to jury
trial.
• Pleading and Responses
• Complaint (FRCP 8)
• Short and plain statement of facts; grounds for court’s jdx.; demand for relief
• Courts accept all factual allegations as true
• Short and plain statement of facts ≠ evidentiary standard for trial
• Twiqbal: When will court dismiss a claim for “failure to state claim”
• Lacks legal support (dismissal w/ prejudice bc amending can’t fix this)
• (1) The claim is not recognized by law
• Court has not recognized this cause of action, and is not going to
• (2) The claim lacks factual support (usually dismissal w/ leave to amend)
• Complaint pleads insufficient facts to provide fair notice of the claim
• ie mere recitation of the elements of negligence
• Complaint pleads insufficient facts to support the claim
• Complaint pleads facts falling short of:
Page 6
• Quantitative requirement of particularity (ie FRCP 9)
• Qualitative threshold (Twiqbal)
• Courts can reject outright ridiculous averments of fact
• Filter out conclusory allegations (legal inferences)
• Also filter: Pure statements of law
• Conclusory statements on ultimate issues
• Patently absurd facts (that can never be proven at trial)
• Remaining facts (well-pleaded facts under Rule 8) must raise a claim that is
plausible (conceivable < plausible < probable)
• This qualitative threshold is partially quantitative (“enough” facts)
• Ask: are inferences drawn from facts plausible?
• Which of the explanations is more likely?
• Based on judge’s “judicial experience and common sense”
• Service of Process
• Basic requirements, but for good reasons court can allow any method (ie emailing a
difficult party) as long as it comports with due process clause
• “Actual notice” does not satisfy service of process, is not threshold for constitutionality
• One must attempt notice “reasonably calculated to apprise party of the action”
• Use this to evaluate constitutionality of state statutes
• If you have address, newspaper, etc. are invalid under due process
• Defendant denying waiver of service does not extend 90 day period
• but doing so w/o good cause may incur expenses
• Normally defendants have 21 days after service to respond
• Returning waiver of service gives 60 (39 additional) days after the request was sent
• Does not waive objection to PJ or venue
• Serving an individual: Can follow state law of judicial district or where person is served
• Responding to the complaint
• Defendant can file answer -or- a motion raising a defense related to complaint
• 12(b) Defenses and Objections
• (1) Lack of SMJ: Can be “facial” or “factual” challenge (can be raised at trial)
• (2) Lack of PJ: Can be “facial” or “factual” challenge (must be in responsive pleading)
• (3) Improper venue
• (4) Insufficient process
• (5) Insufficient service of process
• (6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
• Insufficient facts; doesn’t attach liability to defendant; doesn’t satisfy Twiqbal
(Plausible entitlement to relief)
• (7) Failure to join a party under Rule 19
• (2)-(5) are waived if not raised before/or in answer (essentially any of these must be in
first papers filed with court)
• All waivable defenses must be raised at one time
• Answer
• Denials and admissions of all factual allegations
Page 7
•
•
•
•
• Defenses
• Unknown if Twiqbal applies to affirmative defenses
• Failure to plead results in waiving defense, if plaintiff is harmed by defendant’s delay
• Claims against plaintiff or other parties
• Motion for judgment on the pleadings:
• After pleadings have closed
• If party wants to add exhibit, must be treated as motion for summary judgment
Dispositive Motion: gets rid of all or part of a complaint
Amending Pleadings
• First time: w/in 21 days of service or responsive pleading
• Additional times: w/ permission of court or other parties
• Party opposing court granting permission must show that it was prejudiced against them
• ie SoL issue
• Response to amended pleadings: w/in 14 days
• Supplemental Pleadings: adding events that occurred after filing
• Motion to strike: dismissing legally insufficient claims/defenses
• Relating Back:
• Amendment relates back if:
• (1) Law that provides applicable SoL allows it; -OR• (2) Amendment asserts claim or defense related to CNOV in original pleading; -OR• (3) Amendment adds/changes a party (related to CNOV) that had actual notice w/in 90
days of filing and would’ve known about lawsuit but for a mistake (does not include
not knowing the identity of a party)
Truthful Allegations
• Rule 11: Anything written must be signed. When you present a writing to the court, you are
certifying that *after a reasonable inquiry* it is not:
• (1) Improper purpose (harass, delay, increase cost of litigation)
• (2) Soundness of legal arguments (non-frivolous)
• (3) Basis for factual allegations
• (4) Basis for denials
• Sanctions
• Discretion of court (law firms are held jointly liable)
• Sua sponte sanctions are usually only for contempt of court
• Party can serve motion (separate from all others), not filed w/ court unless paper is not
withdrawn w/in 21 days
Joinder of Claims
• FRCP 18 Claim Joinder
• Party can join as many claims against same party as it wants
• SMJ is evaluated indecently for each claim
• FRCP 13 Crossclaims and Counterclaims
• (1) Complusory Counterclaims (automatically have have supp. jdx.)
• Responsive pleading must include counterclaim if:
• Arises out of same CNOV
Page 8
• Does not require adding a party over which the court does not have personal jdx.
• Unless: claim already part of pending actions
• (2) Optional to include other permissive counterclaims
• Uncertain if these have supp. jdx. under CNOV
• Counterclaims automatically have personal jdx. and venue bc plaintiff waives those
• FRCP 13 Permissive Crossclaims against Coparties
• Must arise out of CNOV
• SMJ must exist, usually supp. jdx.
• FRCP 20 Permissive Joinder of Parties
• Broad: Anyone may join or be joined as plaintiff or defendant if they assert a right to
relief jointly or a question of law or fact common to them arises in the action
• FRCP 14 Third Party Practice / Impleader
• Defendant can serve a third-party liable for part of the claim against it
• Needs court’s permission if more than 14 days after serving original answer
• FRCP 19 Compulsory Joinder
• (1) Is the person/entity a necessary party?
• Can court accord complete relief among parties w/o them? (efficiency consideration)
• Do they have legally protected interest to the subject of the action so that proceeding
without them would:
• Impair their ability to protect the interest (cannot be solely financial/speculative, but
persuasive effect of judgment can be practical impairment)
• Leave an existing party w/ risk of inconsistent obligations/liabilities
• (2) If necessary party, is their joinder infeasible because
• Joining the party would deprive court of SMJ (by destroying diversity)
• Court cannot acquire personal jdx. over the party
• Person proposed to be joined is immune to claims and does not consent
• Person objects to venue and including them would render venue improper
• (3) If necessary and infeasible, are they indispensable? (If indispensable, court dismisses
under 12(b)(7), if not action proceeds) Factors for consideration:
• Extent to which judgment rendered in their absence prejudices them or existing parties
• Extent to which this prejudice can be lessened by shaping relief, etc.
• Whether judgment w/o them would be adequate
• Whether plaintiff would have adequate remedy if action is dismissed for nonjoinder
• Discovery
• After close of pleadings; can request expedited discovery to get around Twiqbal, etc.
• Scope: Any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
• Sanctions: separate from Rule 11, can go up to dismissal/default judgment
• Initial disclosure: what a party must provide w/o request
• Depositions: Usually oral examination, can be written. Transcripts rarely used in place of
testimony at trial.
• Interrogatories: Limited number of written questions submitted to other party
• Production of documents, etc.
• Physical and Mental Examinations. Required court order w/o consent
Page 9
• Requests for admission: questions responded to w/ admit or deny
• Disposition without Trial
• Rule 55: Default and Default Judgment
• When a judgment for affirmative relief is sought against a party and it fails to plead or
otherwise defend, and failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, party defaults
• Entering of default judgment:
• Clerk: Specific or computable amount and defendant has not appeared
• Court: All other cases
• When party has appeared, hearing w/ opportunity to raise arguments. 7 days notice
• Further delay alone is not grounds for default
• Factors for setting aside default: Meritorious defense, acting with reasonable promptness,
prejudice to the party requesting default, etc.
Setting
aside default judgment: Under Rule 60 (general relief from judgment)
•
• Voidness, excusable neglect, fraud, maybe factors for default
• Recovery limited to amount in complaint, maybe a hearing
• No default against minors nor incompetents, maybe U.S. gov’t if plaintiff proves claim
• Rule 41: Involuntary and voluntary Dismissals
• Involuntary dismissal
• When a plaintiff fails to prosecute/comply with rules or court order, defendant may move
to dismiss action or claim
• or court sua sponte
• Claim is dismissed w/ prejudice (maybe only in district where it was filed)
• Voluntary dismissal
• plaintiff chooses to terminate action
• Notice of dismissal prior to filing or answer or summary judgment
• or with consent of all parties or court
• court will consider plaintiff’s explanation and prejudice to defendant
• Cannot seek dismissal to avoid adverse judgment or seek a more favorable forum
• W/o prejudice
• Plaintiff may only do so once
• Two dismissal rule: subsequent voluntary dismissal (w/o court approval) is dismissal on
the merits
Rule
56
Summary Judgment
•
• Framework:
• Who can seek it?
• Plaintiff or defendant, or judge sua sponte
• If judge does it, must give parties chance to respond
• On a claim or affirmative defense, by challenging or establishing an essential element
of it
• Standard
• (1) Factual component: There no (genuine) dispute as to a material fact
• Material = fact that could affect the outcome
• No dispute = the parties agree, or the opposing party does not controvert a fact
Page 10
• No genuine dispute = fact disputed, by no reasonable jury could find for the opposing
party, considering:
• Standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence)
• Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the opposing party
• W/o comparatively weighing the evidence or assessing witness credibility
• (2) Legal Component: Based on the undisputed (genuinely) facts, a party is entitled to
judgment under the law
• Burdens
• If moving party
• Does not have the burden of persuasion at trial, then point out the absence of
evidence in the record relating to the fact, in a more than conclusory way
• Does have the burden of persuasion, then must present affirmative proof of the fact
• Nonmoving party
• Present evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact
• Ask for more time to conduct discovery
• Evidence can only be considered if it is admissible at trial in some form
• Court will grant motion if “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to material
fact”
• Motions can be filed up until 30 days after close of discovery
• Procedure:
• Party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must:
• Show that materials in record support it
• Or show that materials do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or
that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact
Party
may object to material cited on grounds that it cannot be presented in advisable
•
format
• SC material fact: “the substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment”
• Courts draw inferences most favorable to party opposing motion
• Moving party does not have not to show lack of nonmoving’s case. Nonmoving party has
burden of showing there will be a genuine issue of fact at trial
• Trials
• Trial by Jury
• 7th Amendment right to jury trial
• Suits at common law (as opposed to equity)
• Right is to be preserved
• No facts tried by jury may be “re-examined” other than in accordance with common law
• When equitable and legal claims:
• Legal claims must be tried first
• Unless equitable claim is seeking to enjoin irreparable harm w/ inadequacy of legal
remedies
• 7th Amendment applies to statutes if it creates legal rights and remedies
Page 11
• 2-Step Test for Analyzing a Cause of Action
• (1) Cause of Action
• Find 18th Century equivalent of the cause of action
• Where would it have been filed and adjudicated?
• Equity only, then completely done. No jury trial.
• Law only, then move to (3)
• Both or unclear, move to (2)
• (2) Remedy
• Find 18th Century equivalent of the remedy
• Where would it have been obtained?
• Equity only (injunction or disgorgement of ill-gotten profits)
• Law only (actual damages)
• If more than one remedy, then determine all and:
• If all equitable, no jury
• If all legal, move to (3)
• If mixed, do the “legal” parts, then “equitable” parts at trial
(3)
Division of Labor between judge and jury (we have a jury, but what will it be
•
deciding?)
• Would 18th Century have decided this?
• If unclear, functional considerations: who does court think will do a better job?
• Markman: Judges are better at interpreting writings, patent interpretations should be
consistent
• Selecting the Jury
• Voir dire: process for selecting the jury
• For cause challenge: dismissing jurors with actual or implied bias
• Peremptory challenges: dismissing jurors for any reason (not against public policy or equal
protection) w/o explanation. Each side gets three.
• Responding to a peremptory challenge with a Batson challenge requires the party
requesting the peremptory challenge to give an non-pretextual reason for dismissing the
juror
• Equal protection protects race, gender, ethnicity, not religion
• Judicial Control of the Verdict
• Rule 50: Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) (Motion for directed verdict)
• Either party can seek JMOL if they believe that their adversary has failed to present
evidence sufficient to meet its evidentiary burden of proof
• Can be requested after a party has been heard at trial, or at any time before the case is
submitted to a jury
• Court finds that reasonable jury would not have legally sufficient evidentiary basis to
find for a party
• Court cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations
• Standards:
• Conflict of testimony creating a issue of fact for jury
Page 12
• When one party’s case depends upon establishing an inference that is contradicted by
other evidence, no issue of fact. JMOL
• Burden of proof is same as it would be before jury
• Unsuccessful JMOL motion can be raised after jury verdict, only if it has been raised before
• Instructions and Verdicts
• Rule 51: Jury Instructions
• Requests: Either at close of evidence, or earlier, a party can give other parties written
requests for jury instructions
• Instructions: the court must inform parties of its proposed instructions and proposed
action one the requests before final arguments
• Parties have an opportunity to object to instructions
• Must be specific
• Must be objection to instruction they proposed
• Unraised objections are waived, unless “plain error affects substantial rights”
• Verdicts:
• Must be unanimous of 6-12 jurors
• Mistrial if jury deadlocks -> new trial in front of new jury
• Verdict can be either:
• General verdict: Applies law to facts, does not reveal jury’s thought process
• Special verdict (Rule 49): Written answers to questions on each issue of fat
• General w/ written questions: Jury is more accountable to law. Judge can give JNOV
based on written answers if they are consistent w/ each other but inconsistent w/ overall
verdict
• New Trials
• Rule 59: New trials can be granted “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore
been granted in an action at law in federal court”
• Grounds for new trial:
• Jury verdict is against the great weight of the evidence
• Judge makes a mistake on the jury instructions
• Judge makes a mistake on evidentiary rulings (what is admissible)
• Excessive damages (award that “shocks the conscience”)
• Difference between new trial and JNOV
• “legal sufficiency of the evidence” is evaluated for JNOV
• “weight of the evidence” is factored into new trial
• Harmless error is not grounds for new trial
• Admitting/excluding evidence, unless justice requires
• Court must disregard errors that do not effect parties’ substantial rights
• Remittur: Court feels that damages are excessive, offers party less damages or new trial
• Additur: Suggesting higher damages is unconstitutional
• Rule 60(b) Relief from Judgment
• Grounds for granting relief from judgment, when new trial hasn’t been requested w/in 28
days
• Mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect by party
Page 13
• Usually applies to default judgment
• Judgment is void (typically jurisdictional reasons)
• Must make motion w/in “reasonable time?
• Rarely occurs
• Maybe when there has been a substantial change in law