Page 1
Capron (subject matter
jurisdiction on appeal)
Pennoyer v. Neff
(territorial jurisdiction,
service of process)
International Shoe
(territorial jurisdiction)
McGee, Hanson,
World-Wide Volkswagen,
and Kulko (purposeful
availment)
Helicopteros,
Milliken, and Goodyear
(general jurisdiction)
Burger King (fair
play)
Asahi (fair play;
stream of commerce)
McIntyre (stream of
commerce)
Burnham (tag
jurisdiction)
Rule 4(k) (federal
long arm—should know
subsections)
Shaffer (quasi in
rem jurisdiction)
Mullane
(constitutional notice)
Rule 4 (service of
process)
Carnival Cruise
Lines (forum selection
clause)
Insurance Corp. of
Ireland (special
appearance)
§ 1391 (venue)
Dee-K (venue,
forum non conveniens)
§ 1404, § 1406
(transfer)
Van Dusen and
Ferens (transfer and
choice of law)
Piper Aircraft
(forum non conveniens)
Article III (subject
matter jurisdiction)
§ 1331 (federal
question jurisdiction)
Mottley (wellpleaded complaint)
Smith, Merrell Dow
(federal law by
reference)
§ 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction)
Strawbridge
(complete diversity)
Mas (diversity)
§ 1367
(supplemental
jurisdiction—should
know first-level
subsections)
Exxon
(supplemental
jurisdiction)
United Mine
Workers v. Gibbs
(pendent jurisdiction)
Owen Equipment v.
Kroger (ancillary
jurisdiction)
§§ 1441, 1446,
1447 (removal and
remand)
Caterpillar v. Lewis
(removal and
jurisdiction)
Caterpillar v.
Williams (removal and
preemption)
Rule 18 (additional
claims)
Page 2
Rule 13
(counterclaims, crossclaims)
Plant (compulsory
counterclaims)
Rule 42
(consolidation and
severance)
Rule 20, Moseley
(permissive joinder of
parties)
Rule 14, Price,
Watergate (impleader,
third-party practice)
Rule 19 (necessary
and indispensable
parties)
Temple, Helzberg’s
(application of Rule 19)
Rule 24
(intervention)
NRDC
(intervention, public law
litigation)
Atlantis
(intervention)
Martin
(intervention, consent
decrees)
§ 1335, Rule 22,
and Cohen (interpleader)
Rule 23 (should
know subsections), Ortiz
(class actions)
Gomez (burden of
pleading)
Rule 8 (complaint)
Conley, Iqbal
(sufficiency of pleading)
Jones v. Clinton
(pleading)
Rule 9(b),
Stradford (heightened
pleading)
Rule 12 (motion to
dismiss – should know
all subsections of 12(b))
Rule 15
(amendments)
Aquaslide
(prejudice)
Moore and Bonerb
(relation back)
Civil Procedure: Long Outline
Capron: No jurisdiction: no subject matter jurisdiction, so thrown out (even for P)
Personal Jurisdiction Beginnings: courts authority over defendant
1. Requirements: Constitutional (14th due process) and Statutory
2. Types
a. In Personam: over individual
b. In Rem: jurisdiction over property (general interest in it)
c. Quasi in rem:
i. type 1: over property but between specific ppl: (could use
constructive service);
ii. Type 2: property not involved, for personal (limit recovery to
property; now absorbed?)
3. Pennoyer v. Neff: need service in state or consent
a. Quasi In rem: can have constructive but also attach property before
suit
b. Constructive service: not good for in personam jurisdiction bc violates
due process (enacted after but implicated). Can be good for quasi in
rem type II but then need constructive service likely to notify D
c. Presence: required for in personam: eliminated by Int’l Shoe
4. Full Faith and Credit: each state respect valid judgment of other state
5. Due process (14th Amendment): courts have power over D’s present,
resident, found in state: This evolving in Following Cases (minimum
contacts changed)
Minimum Contacts: Reasonableness test
Territorial Jurisdiciton
6. International Shoe minimum Contacts : Salesman in Washington served, had
samples and rented space but no contracts in state, stocks, deliveries within
state
a. Minimum Contacts: (No present D): have certain minimum contacts
to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
Justice
b. Corporations: can’t be present, so balance
i. Judge minimum contacts to satify fair play and substantial
justice
c. General Jurisdiction: Continuous (often) and Systematic
(connected+planned) Contacts : so substantial you get jurisdiction
even if unrelated suit
Page 3
1. Continuous alone may be insufficient if unrelated
ii. Specific Jurisdiction: Casual Presence/isolated contacts: only
if suit related to suit enough for jurisdiction
d. Shift from power (presence/consent) test to reasonableness Test
7. General Jurisdiction: contacts so continuous and systematic, sued over
anything
8. Specific Jurisdiction: contacts related to law suit: see if enough for
jurisdiction
Purposeful Availment: Specific Stuff
1. McGee: Life insurance company contacting McGee in state, received payment
from there:
a. so have Specific Jurisdiction: bc related to suit
2. Hanson unilateral not enough: PA resident moved to florida, trust in
delaware, only receiving communication from florida, unilateral activity (on
wrong side):
a. Unilateral: No specific Jurisdiction: would offend fair play+S.J.
3. World Wide Volkswagen: purposeful availment/other interests: crash in OK
after bought car in in NY
a. Holding: foreseeability car there; not foreseeable in court there (not
minimum contact)
b. Purposeful Availament: D must purposefully avail self to privilege
of conducting activities in forum state
c. Minimum contacts AND Fair Play and substantial justice considered
1. D’s Protection
2. State’s interest in adjudicating dispute: (Brennen
Descent)
3. P’s interest in convenience
4. Efficiency of court system
5. Shared interest in furthering social policies
4. Kulko: Purposeful Availment to Individuals: Seperated father buys ticket for
daughter, had gotten married in Cali (said no weight)
a. Holding: Kulko did not purposefully avail self to benefits of Cali
b. Compare Contacts of Domicile vs. Contacts of Domicile?
5. Burger King: Minimum Contacts Then Fair Play+SJ (Balance justice
concerns): BK suing franchise (MI) in FL, Contacts: oversight, contracts,
purchasing+Forum Selection Clause
a. Holding: first establish minimum contacts, then fair play+SJ
i. Minimum Contacts: Contracts of Oversight
ii. Fairness: given Florida’s interest (despite bargaining
power/wealth)
b. Fairness could outway the minimum contacts (D’s interests; P’s
interests; Forum State interests; Judicial System interest)
Stream of Commerce: linked to above
Page 4
1. Isahi: Stream of Commerce Not Good, violates Fair play/SJ: parts sold to
Japanese company from Taiwan sold in jurisdiction
a. Split court on stream of commerce
i. Conservatives: Mere knowledge it’s sold in forum not enough
ii. Liberals: Stream of Commerce is sufficient: predictable so
subject
b. Holding: Maybe had min contacts: but No Fairness: outweighs (P and
D’s interest, courts interest, state’s interest): but no real holding on
stream of commerce, just unfair
2. MacIntyre: Stream of Commerce not enough: Made machines in England, US
distributer who sells it: injury in NJ
a. Holding: foreseeability not enough (ends up you can just use
intermediary): no jurisdiction
b. Targeting (advertising/customizing): would be enough: Purposeful
Availment = fairness
i. Remarries issues
3. Intentional Tort Exception: Hustler Magazine: Jurisdiction if intentional Tort
across state lines
a. Liberals: just saying example of don’t need purposeful availment
General Jurisdiction:
1. Perkins: Suit in Ohio where business run from during WWII, but about mine
in phillipeans (no related contacts)
a. Holding: General Jurisdiction in 3 ways
i. Continuous and systematic activities
ii. Ohio temporarily home of company
iii. Jurisdiction by necessity
2. Helicoptoros: Helicopter crash in Peru, deal in Texas, payment, bought stuff
in Texas, training in texas: conceded no specific jurisdiction (lawyer wanted
more related contacts to get more weight, less related less)
a. Elements of CoA: what is related (for specific): was conceded
b. Holding: (split general/specific clearly of International Shoe for
first time) not continuous and systematic contacts: no jurisdiction
3. Milikin: individual Domicile=General jurisdiction regardless of presence:
Domiciled there, have jurisdiction
4. Goodyear: domicile for corporation: at home:
a. Render at Home: Contacts so continuous and systematic to render D
essentially at home
i. Tests for home: Doesn’t say Exhaustive (could be rendered at
home in multiple places bc of so many contacts, but only one
domicile/principle place of business/incorporation)
1. Principle Place of Business (Nerve Headquarters)
2. Place of Incorporation (Often DE)
3. Domicile (for individuals
b. Single Enterprise Theory: NOT APPLIED: aggregate related entities for
jurisdiction
Page 5
5. Coastal: trying to get indemnity in copyright: selling product≠specific
jurisdiction bc sales not related to the copywright
a. Look for cause of action related (Helicopteros), granted discovery to
see volume of sales (probably not good under Goodyear standard)
Presence: Tag Jurisdiction
1. Burnham: Tag Jurisdicition: Week ties to Cali but was tagged there
a. Holding: Still good Conservatives: tradition; Liberals: Fair
Play+Substantial Justice
2. Goodyear to Individuals: Unclear how it would apply, already have domicile
and tag, maybe not at all, maybe can have multiple places of basically at home
Quasi In Rem
3. Harris: dude walking through, owed money to 3rd party who owed money to
P: Jurisdiction was good bc attached for value of D’s owed Money (rejected by
Schaffer)
4. Schaffer: Eliminates Quasi in Rem II: quasi in rem jurisdiction over
shareholder by sequestration of stock (DE statute can do, overturned)
a. Holding: International Shoe applies to in Rem: minimum contact
would violate fair play and substantial justice: jurisdiction would
violate fair play
b. Left open if real property: still may be presence of real property (not
intangible) can support jurisdiction (Powell) (Brennen: expanded to
all quasi in rem II, but had P.J. (constitutional) as DE Co. Execs)
Statutory Personal Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction must be authorized by statute and Constitutional
2. States: sometimes limiting (long arm), others constitutional maximum
3. 4(K): Federal Long Arm Territorial Limits of effective Service:)
a. 4(K)1. In General: serving summons/filling waiver establishes P.J.
over D:
i. A. State Rule: D subject to jurisdiction of state court where
district court located
ii. B. 100 Mile Bulge: D Party joined (rule 14/19) and served
within district or within 100 miles where summons issued
iii. C. Federal Rule: when allowed by Federal statute
iv. ok if ok in state+100 mile bulge (for bringing in third parties
b. 4(K)2. Outside State-Court Jurisdiction: for federal law claim: (so
not just diversity): summons/waiver establishes PJ over D if
i. A. D not under PJ of any state court and
ii. B. establishing jurisdiction consistent with US
constitution/laws
iii. Aggregation of national contacts for foreign Ds
Consent
Page 6
1. Carnival Cruise Line: Fairness of Forum Clause: On ticket said forum
selection (FL), slipped, suit in WA
a. Holding: Forum selection if fundamentally Fare enforceable (not fair
if to make inconvenient)
i. Had Notice; obvious choice (where headquarters); benefit to
corp passed to passengers; disputes of all P’s in same place
2. Insurance Company of Ireland: special appearance=consent to find
jurisdiction: discovery to find if personal jurisdiction, D refused bc not in
jurisdicition
a. Holding: Special appearance=consent to jurisdiction for purpose of
determining jurisdiction
3. Gibbons v. Brown: Failure of statutory and constitutional contacts: suit about
car crash, Brown only related to Florida by bringing that suit: Fl Rule
(substantial and not isolated contacts)
a. Holding: did not satisfy Florida statute
b. Constitutional: Specific: Cause of Action not related to suit in florida,
not related, no jurisdiction
i. Had it been counterclaim, probably good
Notice: constitutional and statutory
1. Mulllane: Constitutional Notice: reasonably calculated to apprise parties:
trust expiring, Mullane guardian of Trust Manager, arguing that letter saying
notice would be in this paper not constitutional
a. Due Process being deprived (right to sue)
b. Notice Required: Due Process: Notice of Binding Agreement:
i. “reasonably calculated
ii. under circumstances
iii. to apprise interested parties of pendency of action
iv. and afford them opportunity to present objections”
c. Meaning: don’t necessarily have to be informed: statute can say
what’s acceptable (mail, whatever) (must still be constitutional):
i. Reasonably calculated to Reach most ppl
1. Not ppl with future/conjectural interest (impossible)
2. Not missing/unnamed parties
ii. Have addresses: send a letter
2. Constitutional:
a. Reasonable: if know wont give notice, not reasonable
b. Apprise interested parties: if only 1 party, more of a duty to find
3. Statutory Notice
a. 3: A civil action is commenced complaint filed
b. 4: Federal Service of Process
i. 4(a): summons contents
1. (1) Contents: summons must
a. name court+parties
b. be directed at D
Page 7
c. state name+address of P’s attorney (or if
unrepresented, P)
d. time which D must appear+defend
e. notify failure to appear+defend=default
judgment for relief demanded in complaint
f. be signed by clerk
g. bear court’s seal
2. (2): amendments: court may permit amendments
ii. 4(b): Issuance: clerk signs+seals, issues for service to each D
1. after/on filing complaint, P may present summons to
clerk for signature/seal.
2. If proper: clerk signs/seals/issues it to P for service on
D
3. Summons/copy addressed to multiple D’s: issued to
each D served
iii. 4(c) Service service: P responsibility, w/
summons+complaint); by anybody not party+19 or May
marshell/opointment
1. (1) In general:
a. summons must be served w/ copy of complaint
b. P responsibe for service (of
sommons/complaint) within time allowed by
4(m)
c. Must furnish copies to person making service
2. (2) by: any person (18 and not party) may serve
3. (3): by Marshell or someone specially appointed: at P’s
request
a. court may order service by US marshal or
specially appointment.
b. Court must appoint: if P authorized to proceed
in forma pauperis OR as seaman
iv. 4(d): Waiving Service
1. (1): requesting waiver: D subject to service under rule
4(e),(f),(h): has duty to avoid unnecessary expenses in
serving summons. P may notify D that action has
commenced and request D waive service: Request
must…
a. (A): be in writing and be addressed
i. to individual D
ii. (if D under 4(h): to officer,
managing/general agent, or agent
(authorized by appointment or law) to
receive service of process
b. (B): name court where complaint filed
c. (C): include: copy of complaint, 2 waiver forms,
prepaid means for returning form
Page 8
d. (D)L inform D (text in form 5), consequences of
waiving and not waiving service
e. (E): state date when request sent
f. (F): give D reasonable time to return waiver
i. (30 days: in US; 60 outside)
g. (G): sent by 1st class mail or other reliable means
2. (2): Failure to waive: failure to waive=expenses
a. In US: fails to sign/return waiver (without good
cause) requested by P in US, court may impose…
i. (A) expenses incurred by service and
ii. (B): reasonable expenses (including
attorney fees) of any motion required to
collect service expenses
3. (3): Time to answer Waiver: 60/90 days to answer
a. D (Before being served) timely returns waiver…
i. has 60 days after request sent to answer
complaint
ii. if outside US: 90 days
4. (4): Result of Filing waiver: file waiver=like moment of
summons/complaint served
a. P files waiver, proof of service not required
i. These rules apply as if
summons+complaint had been served at
time of filing waiver
5. (5): Jurisdiction and Venue not Waived: don’t waive
objection to PJ/venue
a. waiving service of summons does not waive
objection to PJ or Venue
v. 4(e): Serving individual within US: means of service: state
law/personal deliver, cohabitor, agent: Unless federal law
provided otherwise, an individual (not
minor/incompetent/waiver filed) may be served in a judicial
district in US by
1. (1) Following state law for general jurisdiction court
(state court): in…
a. state where district court located OR
b. where service is made
2. (2) Doing any of the following: to D, to cohabitor at
dwelling, with agent
a. (A): delivering summons/complaint to
individual personally
b. (B): leaving copy at individuals dwelling/place
of abode with someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides there
Page 9
c. (C) delivering summons/complaint to agent
authorized by appointment or law to receive
service
vi. 4(f): serving individual in Foreign Country: By international
agreement or basically US standards/court mail with signed
receipt: Unless federal law provided otherwise, an individual
(not minor / incompetent / waiver filed) may be served in a
judicial district outside US
1. (1) by international agreement means (Hague)
2. (2) if no international agreement/agreement allows but
does not specify other means: by method reasonably
calculated to give notice
a. (A): as prescribed by foreign country’s law (for
general jurisdiction courts)
b. (B): as foregin authority directs in response to
letter Or
c. (C): unless prohibited by that country’s law
i. personal delivery (copy+summons)
ii. mail: clerk addresses and sends +
requires signed receipt
3. (3): other means not prohibited, as court orders
vii. 4(k) Federal Long arm
1. 4(K)1. In General: serving summons/filling waiver
establishes P.J. over D if:
a. A. State Rule: D subject to jurisdiction of state
court where district court located
b. B. 100 Mile Bulge: D Party joined (rule 14/19)
and served within district or within 100 miles
where summons issued
c. C. Federal Rule: when allowed by Federal statute
d. ok if ok in state+100 mile bulge (for bringing in
third parties
2. 4(K)2. Outside State-Court Jurisdiction: for federal law
claim: (so not just diversity): summons/waiver
establishes PJ over D if
a. A. D not under PJ of any state court and
b. B. establishing jurisdiction consistent with US
constitution/laws
c. Aggregation of national contacts for foreign Ds
viii. 4(m): service must be made within 120 days of filing, but
extensions are available for good cause
Power and Notice Until Now
Statutory
constitutional
Page 10
Power
notice
Either
 State long arm
o May be specific
 Federal long arm
o Rule 4(k) itself
o Also refers back to long
arm
o 100 mile bulge
o international
(aggregate)
State (4e1) = procedures
Fed: rest of rule 4
Int’l Shoe: minimum
contacts development
to
BK: minimum contacts
then fair play
McIntyre: personal
Availment=fair play
Mulane: notice
reasonably calculated,
under all circumstances
Venue
1. § 1391 Venue
a. (a) Applicability of Section: except otherwise
i. (1): civil action in district court
ii. (2): doesn’t matter local/transitory
b. (b) In General: brought in…
i. (1): If all D’s reside in same state; any district one resides
ii. (2): substantial part of events/omissions giving rise to claim
occurred; or substantial part of property that is subject of
action (for in rem)
iii. (3): if neither of above work: any judicial district in which D
is subject to PJ for action
c. (c): Residency: for all venue purposes
i. (1): natural person (citizen/lawful alien for perm. Residence)
reside in district that person domiciled
ii. (2): entity (can sue/be sued in common law, whether or not
incorporated) resides in…
1. (if D): any district where subject to PJ of court for
action. Have PJ, you’re good (so any venue in state)
2. (if P): only in district of principle place of business
iii. (3): non resident of US: sued in any district; (still need PJ)
1. (joinder of such D’s) disregarded in determining venue
with respect to other D’s (ignore them)
d. (d) Residency of Corporations in States with multiple Jurisdictions
corporations reside in district where contacts to that district establish
PJ, if none, most contacts
i. (for venue under chapter):
ii. state with multiple districts
iii. D is under PJ at time action comments
iv. D resides: any district where contacts sufficient to subject it
to personal jurisdiction: if was separate state.
Page 11
1. If no such district: resides in district with most
significant contacts
2. Applied: (in 1391b1): only district made available is if
have minimum contacts for PJ, or (if none) most
substantial contacts
2. Dee-K: foreing defendents, both fallbacks (1391 and 4k) don’t have evidence
yet
a. Venue: foreign defendant thrown out: 1391(c)(3): can be sued in any
district
i. Special Venue: Clayton Act: Trumped by 1391(c)
ii. Failback: 1391(b)(3) any jurisdiction
b. Jurisdiciton: 4(k)(1)(A): not going to jurisdiction in any state, so go to
4(k)(2): aggregate contacts: any district court good
Transfer
1. Forum non Conviens: Federal: other forum must be abroad, it’s dismissal
when other forum available
a. Balance private interest factors (convenience: ease of access to proof,
attendance, cost, practicality) vs.
b. Public (complications: local controversies decided locally, burden on
local courts with non-local controversies, choice of law (applying
foreign law))
2. Piper Aircraft: airplane crash in Scotland, killed all scots, administratrix of
estates files in Cali
a. Holding: court didn’t err in dismissing
i. Change in substantive law not given substantial weight (maybe
unless no remedy)
ii. Condition Waiver of statute of limitations defense proper
3. 1404 Transfer
a. (a) court may transfer to where might have been brought/consented
i. for convenience of parties/witnesses
ii. in interest of justice
iii. district court may transfer civil action to any other
district/division where it might have been brought OR
iv. to any district/division which all parties have consented
1. anyone could request, court could just do it
b. (b) mechanics: all parties agree: transfer divisions (if in rem, US party
doesn’t have to agree)
i. upon motion/consent/stipulation of all parties
ii. any action/suit/proceeding of civil nature or any hearing
thereof may be transferred
iii. in the discretion of the court
iv. from the division in which pending to any other division in the
same district.
Page 12
v. Transfer of proceedings in rem brought by or on behalf of the
US may be transferred under this section w/o/ further consent
of the US where all other parties request transfer
c. (c) a district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place
within the division in which it is pending
4. 1406: Cure/waiver of defects
a. (a) Wrong venue(or PJ)/division: dismiss, or for interest of justice;
transfer
i. district court: where case filed with wrong venue (or no PJ) of
division/district, court shall dismiss OR, if interest of justice:
transfer such case to district/division which it could have been
brought
b. (b) court still has full jurisdiction involving non-timely/insufficient
objection to venue
i. Nothing in chapter impairs the jurisdiction of a district court of
any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely
and sufficient objection to venue
c. (c): includes Guam etc: district is territorial jurisdiction
5. Transfer D: Van Dusen: D induced transfer: apply transforring choice of law:
about a plane crash, transfer to bring suit together, but keep original choice
of law
a. Holding: in Diversity case: Transfer initiated by D: apply transferring
court choice of law
6. Transfer P Ferens: Transfer intiated by P, still apply transferring choice of
law: filed in Mississippi bc of SoL, then wants to transfer back to PA (contract
claim there)
a. Holding: even when P initiates transfer, transferor court’s choice of
law rules
HALFWAY THERE!!!!!
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: need both statutory and constitutional
1. Constitutional Jurisdiction: Article III: “all cases, in law and equity, arising
under constitution, law of US, Treaties made, or which made under their
authority”
a. Includes:
i. ambassadors/public ministers/consuls
ii. controversies which US is a party
iii. Controversies between:
1. 2 or more states
2. a state and citizen of another state
3. citizens of different states
4. citizens of same state: claiming lands under grant of
different states
5. a state/citizen thereof, and foreign state/citizen/subject
Page 13
Federal Question
2. Statutory Jurisdiction: 1331: interpreted narrowly “District courts have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws,
treaties of the US”
a. Interpreted more narrowly than article III (Sup.C. saw Mottley under
different Statute, same article III), statute: changeable
3. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule: Mottley: hypothetical “well-pleaded
complaint” must raise federal issue. filed contract claim, explaining railroad
would defend on the basis of federal statute
a. Holding: no federal ? jurisdiction: Fed. Claim only relevant as D
i. For federal question jurisdiction: the hypothetical “well
pleaded complaint” (containing everything P must plead and
nothing else) must raise federal issue
4. Declaration Relief: 2201: seeking indemnity, P is hypo D and vice versa
a. Skelly Oil v. Phillips: 2201 not way around well pleaded complaint, flip
to claim that hypothetical P (declaratory D) would make
5. Implication: Smith: state claim based on federal law=federal question:
claiming violation of rights under state law (no investing in illegal securities)
by investing in security that were illegal under Federal Law
a. Holding: apply well pleaded complaint, federal rule necessarily
implicated
6. Exception to Implication: Merrel Dow: congress deciding not to create federal
cause of action, no federal question: Negligence claim (state law,: negligent if
violate federal law) so D liable if violates federal law, in well pleaded
complaint
a. Holding: where congress decides not to create federal cause of
action, no federal question jurisdiction
i. Exception to Well-pleaded complaint
Diversity
1. Statutory Diversity 1332: Diversity jurisdiction
a. (a) District courts have original jurisdiction in civil actions where
matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 (excluding interest/costs) and
is between
i. (1): citizens of different states
1. complete diversity
ii. (2): citizens of a state(s?) and citizens/subjects of foreign state
a. Clarity: only US citizens v. Foreign Ones, NOT US
citizen w/ foreigner v. Foreigner
2. EXCEPTION: when foreigner lawfully admitted for
permanent residence in US and domiciled in same state
a. Perminant Residence/legal/domiciled in same
state as citizen=no diversity (but could have
domicile in different state but still foreigner?)
iii. (3): citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects
of a foreign state are additional parties
Page 14
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1. start with (1) and then adding citizens of foreign states
a. don’t have to be diverse foreigners
b. Doesn’t matter if domiciled/legal in same state
(exception of (2) doesn’t apply
c. But need US on both sides
iv. (4) a foreign state (1603(a)) as P and citizens of a
state/different states
b. (c): purpose of this and section 1441
i. (1): Corporations citizenship: Corporation is citizen: where 1.
Incorporated 2. Principle place of business (nerve center:
headquarters)
ii. (2) legal representative of an estate of
decedent/infant/incompetent=citizen only of same state as
decedent/infant/incompetent
Citizen of state: US citizen and domiciled there (last place intend to remain)
a. UC citizen Domiciled Abroad: no diversity: not a citizen of
state/foreigner
b. Unincorporated association: citizen of each of its members (law firm):
read restrictively (one member eliminates diversity)
Diversity Determined: at time of complaint
Pleading/Proof: On party invoking jurisdiction
a. Throw out improper/collusive joinder: just joined to get/lose
diversity
b. Domestic Relations/Probate: NOT INCLUDED
Legal Certainty of Amount: plausible claim
a. Calculation: injunction: cost of compliance/benefit to plaintiff
b. Aggregation
i. Single P: unrelated Claims: can aggregate (1 must meet
$75,000)
ii. Multiple P’s: Related Claim: can aggregate (1 must meet
minimum)
Strawbridge: Complete diversity requirement P (MA) brought suit against D
(VT), then other D (MA):
a. Holding: no diversity jurisdiction: need complete diversity
b. Look out for this coming in under Impleader, can’t just wait for other
to sue then piggy back (even though same facts, would destroy
diversity)
Mas: application of exception (2) not applying in (3); domicile; aggregation of
claims Spied on couple, he claims for $5,000, her for $15,000 (Min was
$10,000): she was born in Mississippi, moved around, no intent to stay, he
was same but starting in France
a. Minimum amount: can’t aggregate multiple Ps’ claims except if Not
separate and distinct (same event/marriage doesn’t matter) but joint
property ownership that was violated: so aggregate (maybe)
Page 15
i. Legal Certainty Test: plausible claim man could collect over
$10,000—so good (would also work under Exxon as
supplementary jurisdiction)
ii. (Can aggregate all claims by same P against same D)
b. Citizenship Issue:
i. her: domiciled in MI, no intent to stay in LO=diversity
ii. him: even if domiciled in LO, still diversity because exception
(in 2) doesn’t apply (in 3)
Supplementary Jurisdiction
1. Old Terminology for Supplemental Subject Matter Jurisdiction
a. Pendent Claim jurisdiction: P sues D for 1 claim with independent
subject matter (usually federal ?), and 2nd claim where isn’t
i. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs: Pendent claims are
constitutional if arise out of common nucleolus of
operative facts: 2 claims, one with subject matter, 2nd without;
judge set aside federal and judged state claim
1. Holding: Constitutionality permissible if both claims
“derive from common nucleus of operative facts”
and claimant ordinarily would be expected to try
together
a. Look at importance of common terms
2. Common Law: judges have discretion to dismiss
a. Federal Claim dismissed pre-trial: dismiss state
b. Predomination of State Claims (in terms of
proof, scoop, remedy) (state claim) may be
dismissed
c. Preemption: preemption of federal case, strong
reason to keep case
ii. Pendent Party: against non original party, Kroger
b. Ancillary: P sued D with original jurisdiction, D counters, D crosses, or
D third party (without subject matter jurisdiction but same transaction
or occurance)
i. Owen Equipment v. Kroger: Kroger (iowa) files diversity
against OPPD (Nebraska). ODDP files against Owen Equipment.
Kroger joins Own Equipment: (Kroger to OPPD thrown out)
Turns out they’re from Iowa as well, destroying diversity
1. Holding: don’t allow claim to proceed, parties could just
leave out party and wait for D to plead in to avoid
diversity rule
2. Note: would be ancillary jurisdiction for D1 v. D2 even
if D2 not diverse to D1: because not doing funny
business
c. Pendent Party: Ancillary but third party not originally sued
2. Modern Supplementary Jurisdiction 1367:
a. (a) allowed to maximum constitutional extent except below
i. (Except otherwise in (b)/(c)/Federal Statute): any civil action
where district courts have original jurisdiction: court has
Page 16
supplemental jurisdiction over other claims so related to
claims (with (original) statutory subject matter jurisdiction)
that they form part of same case/controversy under
constitution (Us Mine Workers v. Gibbs Test common nucleus
of operative facts)
b. (b) when original jurisdiction is diversity, no supplemental jurisdiction
for nondiverse claims by P’s under 14, 19, 20, 24
i. when original jurisdiction only on 1332 (diversity), NO
supplementary jurisdiction under subsection (a) for…
a. claim by P: against persons made parties under
rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 OR
b. claim by (proposed to be joined) as Ps:
proposed under rule 19, or seeking intervene
under 24
c. when inconsistent with 1332: supplemental
jurisdiction would mean no diversity
c. (c) district court has discretion to not exercise supplemental if four
circumstances (novel/compex state; predomination; dismissal of
original jur. Claims; other reasons)
i. district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over claim
under (a) if
1. the claim raises novel/complex issue of state law
2. claim substantially predominates over claim/claims
with original jurisdiction
3. district court has dismissed all claims with original
jurisdiction
4. in exceptional circumstances, there are other
compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction
d. (d) claims are tolled while pending for at least 30 days
i. SoL tolled while claim is pending and for period of 30 days
after dismissed (unless state law provides longer period) for
1. Claims asserted under (a),
2. and any other claim in same action voluntarily
dismissed at the same time or after the dismissal of
claim under (a)
3. Attack Method to 1367
a. Is non-original claim one over which the court has original
jurisdiction? No: continue
i. YES: Don’t need supplementary, already in
b. 1. At least one claim with original jurisdiction (1331, 1332, other
statute): YES, continue
i. No: no jurisdiction
c. Does the claim share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with
claim having original jurisdiction: YES: continue
i. No: no supplementary
d. If answer to any of the following=no, have supplemental
i. Is only original jurisdiction 1332? Yes: continue
1. No: GOT IT!
ii. Is the claim by a plaintiff/plaintiffs
(proposed/intervening/real): Yes: continue
Page 17
1. No: Got It!
iii. Is the claim against a party made a party under rule 14, 19, 20,
or 24? Yes: continue
1. No: Got it!
iv. If claim brought originally, would it be inconsistent with
diversity (shares citizenship (exxon)): Yes: Fucked
1. No: Got it! (so would have to be diverse and over
amount in controversy:
e. Shortcut (must meet 1+2)(presume not good on its own, then don’t
need supp):
i. is there one Original good? yes
ii. Related: yes:
iii. Is Original Fed Question:? Yes: GOOD
1. No to above continue: just no to any (plaintiff?; against
14, 19, 20, 24 party? Inconsistent with diversity (not
amount, exxon)?
4. Exxon: Claim 1 (Fl, 100,000), Claim 2 (Fl, 50,000): D (DE) amount in
controversy doesn’t contaminate diversity
a. Dicta: amount in controversy doesn’t contaminate diversity
b. Holding: 1367 shows can have supplemental jurisdiction over other P
claims even if doesn’t meet (75,000) amount in controversy
i. Had original jurisdiction: not contaiminated by meeting price
in controversy
c. Dissent: Keep Zahn: must independently meet requisite jurisdiction
amount
Removal
1. Removal Statutes
2. 1441: all the D’s must agree (except in part C)
a. (a) Generally: D (but not P) can remove to federal court, in district in same
area as state court if could have been filed there (have jurisdiction: original
and sup count)
i. generally: except otherwise provided, any civil action brought in
state court which district court have original jurisdiction, may be
removed by D or Ds to district court of the US for the
district/division embracing the place where such action is
pending
b. 1441(b) Diversity Exception D cannot remove if jurisdiction only based on
(1332) diversity and D is citizen of the state in which the case is fixed
i. removal based on of diversity:
1. in determining if removable under 1332 (divsersity):
citizenship of D’s sued under fictitious names removed
2. civil action otherwise removable solely under 1332, can’t be
removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and
served as D’s is a citizen of the state in in which such action
is brought
c. 1441(c) Severed unremovable terms D’s with 1331 can remove even if
unremovable claims in civil action: those claims are severed and remanded,
only D’s with 1331 claims must assent
i. If civil action includes claim under 1331 And
Page 18
ii. A claim not within original or supplemental jurisdiction of the
district court/a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute,
iii. the entire action may removed if could by without (ii)
iv. Upon removal: court severs unremovable (ii (like unrelated, 1441b
)) claims: remands to state court
v. Only D’s with 1331 claim must consent to removal
1. Stuff that gets supplementary jurisdiction just goes with it
3. 1446: Rules for Removal
a. (a) To remove, D(s) file a notice of removal to federal court in
district/devision action is pending
i. File Notice of removal in US district court for (state)
district/division within which action is pending
ii. includes: signature; short plain statement for grounds for
removal; copy of all process, pleading, and orders served upon Ds in
action
b. 1446(b): Time to Remove
i. 1. D has 30 days to file for removal after get served copy of
initial pleading or 30 days after being served if initial pleading
not necessary served (whichever is shorty)
ii. 2.
1. removal under 1441(a): all must consent
2. 30 days: each D gets 30 days after receipt by or service
on D of initial pleading to file notice of removal
3. D’s served different time: later files notice of removal,
others can consent (despite previous actions)
iii. (3) Initially not removable: get 30 days after find out its removable
(get copy of amended complaint)
c. 1446(c): requirement for removal on Diversity jurisdiction can’t remove
after 1 year if removing on diversity unless bad faith
i. 1. can’t be removed under 1441(b)(3): (diversity) if a year after
commencement of action (unless P bad faith)
ii. 2. If plan removal under 1332(a): sum demanded in good
faith=amount in controversy
1. BUT notice of removal can assert amount if
a. Asking for non material benefit
b. State practice to award damage in excess of amound
demanded
2. District court will determine if amount above: exceeds
amount in 1332
iii. 3. If only not removable bc amount in controversy: information
relating to amount in controversy in record=go back to 1446(b)(3):
can file new removal
1. if removal filed after 1 year, D may find deliberate failure to
disclose and go back to 1446(c)(1)
d. 1446(d) notice served to parties+clerk of state court
4. 1447: Remand
a. 1447 (a) District court takes over: Once Removed, D court may issue all shit
it needs, whether served by process in state court or not
b. 1447 (b) may require copies/records
Page 19
c. 1447 (c) Motion to remand should: be filed within 30 days after notice of
removal.
i. Must Remand: district court must remand the case at any time it
finds no subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether a
motion to remand was filed.
d. (d) Not reviewable: order remanding case not appealable/reviewable
e. (e) joinder destroying Sub Mat Jurisdiction: P wants to join D’s which would
destroy jurisdiction, court may
i. deny OR
ii. Peromit and remand
5. Caterpillar v. Lewis mistaken diversity, still okay if at end=fine : district court
allowed removal even though there was not diversity, later became deverse with
settlement
a. Hloding: Complete diversity measured at time of Removal BUT all that
matters is diversity on judgment day
6. Caterpillar v. Williams: complete preemption doctrine: exception to well pleaded
complaint: State claim, D thinks collective bargaining (Federal Law) preemptive
a. Compete Preemption Doctrine: Exception to well pleaded complaint: where
b. federal law without any doubt preempts state claims
i. doesn’t apply here
c. Holding: P is master of offer, just pleaded state claim
Joinder
Joinder of Claims
1. Joinder of Claims: 18 can combine as many as you want, related
(supplemental jurisdiction) or not (won’t necessarily have jurisdiction)
a. (a): party (asserting claim/counter/cross/third party) can combine
(as indi/alternative claims) as many claims as it has against an
opposing party (need jurisdiction as well)
i. in original complaint, even unrelated
2. Counterclaims: 13
a. 13(a) Compulsory counterclaims: must be brought (if have at time of
service) or lost if: (A) same transaction/occurance and (B) doesn’t
require adding party that court can’t have jurisdiction over
i. Pleading must state as counterclaim any claim that (at the
time of its service) the pleader has against the opposing
party if the claim
1. (A): Arises out of the transaction/occurrence that is
subject of opposing party’s claim and
2. (B): does not require adding another party that court
cannot acquire jurisdiction
ii. ** if compulsory: will be supplemental Jurisdiction
iii. Exceptions: (don’t loose it) (A)when claim already pending
action or (B) pleader not under personal (in Quasi in Rem)
jurisdiction+pleader doesn’t assert counterclaim
1. (A) When action commenced: claim was subject of
another pending action
Page 20
2. (B) opposing party sued on claim (by
attachment/other process) that did not establish
Personal Jurisdiction over pleader, and pleader
doesn’t assert counterclaim under this rule
b. 13(b) Permissive counterclaims: anything not compulsory, may claim
c. 13(c): Relief may exceed/be inferior/be different than relief sought by
original claim
3. Plant: compulsory or permissive counterclaim determines Ancillary
jurisdiction/not: was compulsory: P: Fed. Truth and lending, D counters with
state collection claim
a. Transaction/Occurrence will determine compulsory counterclaim
and also ancillary jurisdiction (changed to 1367)
b. Same transaction Tests
i. Issues raised the same?
ii. Res judica bar a subsequent suit on D’s claim?
iii. Evidence (substantially same) be relevant to both?
iv. Logical Relation between claim and counterclaim?
4. Transaction or Occurrence v. Common Nucleuis of Operative Fact
a. Some courts: same thing
b. Others: transaction/occurance is narrower, so necessarily part of
common nucleus
i. Permissive counterclaim could be in supplemental jurisdiction
c. 13(f) Ommitted Counterclaims Counterclaims omitted through
oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
requires: may be added by amendment with leave of court
5. Crossclaim against coparty 13 g : seeking indemnity (full/partial of claim)
from co-party if: out of same (A) transaction/occurance of original
action/counterclaim or (B) Property subject of action
a. 13 (g) Cross Claim: may be filed against co party if:
i. arises “out of same transaction/occurrence” of original
action/counterclaim OR
ii. relates to property subject of action
iii. indemnity: can seek full/partial indemnity
6. Rule 42: Consolidation and severance:
a. (a) Consolidate: court may order joint hearing/trial/consolidate
actions/issue orders whenever actions have “common question of
law or Fact”
i. court can join for hearing/trial all matters at issue in actions
ii. consolidate the actions
iii. issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary delay
b. (b) Separate Trials: For convenience/avoid prejeduce court can
separate trial of separate issues/ claims/ crossclaims/
counterclaims/ third party claims
Joinder of Parties (is NOT jurisdiction)
Page 21
1. Permissive Joinder of Parties 20:
a. Permissive Joinder of Plaintiffs 20(a)(1) may join if right to relief out
of same transaction/occurrence/series + some question of law/fact
common to all plaintiffs will arrise
i. (A) P asserts right to relief jointly/severally/in the alternative
with respect to/arising out of same
transaction/occurance/series of them AND
ii. (B) Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will
arise in the action
b. Permissive Joinder Defendants(a)(2): may be joined if right to relief
asserted against out of same transaction/occurance/series + some
question of law/fact common to all plaintiffs will arrise
i. Persons (and property subject to admiralty in rem) may be
joined in one action as defendant if
1. (A) Right to relief asserted against them
jointly/severally/ in alternative with respect to/arising
out of same transaction/occurance/series and
2. (B): Any question of law or fact common to all
defendants will arise in the action
c. (3): relief: Neither P/D need interest in obtaining/defending against
all relief. Court can grant for/against 1+ P/D
2. Moseley: Rule 20 loose, allow law/fact to come out in case: General policy of
discrimination at GM, but hard to say what linked them (different parts of
career/different discriminations/different reasons)
a. Holding: Allow joinder: will see some question of law/fact will come
up that’s common to all of them
3. Misjoinder/non-joinder 21 just fix the problem, don’t dismiss
a. Misjoinder of party is not ground for dismissal. On Motion or on own,
(on just terms) court can add/drop a party orsever a claim
4. Third Party Practice: Impleader 14:
a. (a) when defending Party may bring in a third party
i. 14: (1)Timing of summons and complaint: D (3rd party P) may
serve summons/complaint to nonparty if they may be liable for
all/part of claim against D: must be within 14 days (of serving
answer) or with courts leave (Must be liable for the claim
against D, not just saying it’s not my fault it’s his)
1. D, as 3rd party P, serve summons and complaint on a
nonparty who is/may be liable to it for all/part of the
claim against it BUT
2. 3rd party P must (by motion) obtain the court’s leave if
it files the 3rd party complaint more than 14 days after
serving its answer
ii. 14: (2) 3rd Party D’s claims+defenses
1. 3rd party D: can raise defenses to D1 and P (that D1
could), normal counterclaim rules, may assert against P
Page 22
for stuff arising out of same transaction/occurrence that
is subject of P’s complaint against D
a. (A) must assert any defense against the third
party P’s claim under rule 12
b. (B) must assert any counterclaim against 3rd
party P (“D1”) under 13(a); may under 13(b);
may crossclaim against D1 under 13(g)
c. (C) May assert against P any defense that D1 has
to P’s claim
d. (D) may also assert against P any claim arising
out of transaction/occurrence that is subject
matter of P’s claim against D1
iii. (3): P against D2 essentially treat parties as if D2 was D1,
normal rules
1. P may assert against D2 any claim arising out of same
transaction/occurrence that is subject matter of P’s
claim against D1
2. Then D2 must assent to defenses under 12,
counterclaim under 13(a/b), crossclaim under 13(g)
iv. (4) motion to strike/sever/try separately
1. any party can move to strike/sever/try separate
v. (5): 3rd Party D’s claim against non party basically 3rd party D
can become P3 (4th party P): start over
1. Third party D may proceed under this rule against
nonparty who is or may be liable to 3rd party D for
all/part of any claim against it
b. (b) P bringing in third party: P claimed against, can act as D
i. When claim asserted against P, P may bring in third party if
this rule would allow D to
5. Price: There was implied indemnity in contract, so 3rd party D rightfully
brought in D brought claim against 3rd party D for bad nails after P’s coop fell
apart, built by D, proper
a. Holding: Nail maker may be liable to chicken house maker
(contractual indemnity): so good interplead
i. Not case if CoA was Tort and in comparative negligence
jurisdiction probably
b. Hypo: if no indemnity on third party, wouldn’t be liable for all/part of
claim, so couldn’t implied Can’t just say someone else’s fault!
6. Watergate: Can’t just blame, 3rd party D must maybe be liable for claim of P
against D: P Hired realistate management (D) who hired engineers (D). Plans
done. Then Watergate hired Contractor to execute. Realistate managers
implead Contractor: improper
a. Holding: no good impleader bc just blaming someone else, no
indemnity (impleaded party may be liable for P’s claim against D1)
Page 23
7. Necessary Parties: 19: absence would prevent complete relief, impair rights
of absent party “as a practical matter” or leave a risk of inconsistent
obligations: remedy: join if able.
a. 19(a): Persons to be joined if feasible
i. (1) Required Party
1. Person who is subject to service of process and whose
joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter
jurisdiction must be joined as party if
a. (A): in their absence, court cannot accord
complete relief among existing parties OR
b. (B): that person claims interest in relating to
the subject of action and is so situated that
disposing of the action in persons absence may:
i. as a practical matter impair/impede the
person’s ability to protect interest; or
ii. leave an existing party subject to a
substantial risk of incurring
multiple/inconsistent obligations
because of the interest
ii. (2): Joinder by court order
1. if person has not been joined as required, the court
must order that person to be made a party: person who
refuses to join as P may be made either a D, or, in
proper case, an involuntary P
iii. (3) Venue
1. if a joined party objects to venue and joinder would
make venue improper, the court must dismiss that
party
b. 19(b): When joinder is not feasible: Party not subject to service of
process and/or territorial jurisdiction (venue/personal) or joinder
would deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction: court makes
determination below: can proceed “in equity and good conscience”
i. if person required to be joined if feasibly cannot be joined,
court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience,
the action should proceed among existing parties or should be
dismissed
ii. Factors if Indispensible
1. Extend judgment rendered in absence might prejudice
that person/existing party
2. The extent any prejudice could be lessened or avoided
a. Protective provision included,
b. Shaping the relief or
c. Other means
3. Whether a judgment rendered in person’s absence
would be adequate and
Page 24
4. Whether the P would have adequate remedy if the
action were dismissed for nonjoinder
iii. Indispensible party: 1. necessary, 2. cannot be joined, 3. court
determines cannot proceed in equity and good conscience
(factors: prejeduct to existing parties; if protective provisions
in judgment can lessen/avoid prejudice; if judgment would be
adequate; whether P would have alternative remedy)
8. Temple: P still can get relief, still ability to protect, no real double obligation
by having two suits: so no necessary party: P has suit against a doctor and a
manufacturer in different trials
a. Holding: No party required to be joined (failed tests): so fine
i. P: can get relief, just wants money
ii. doctor claiming interest but need more (practical matter
impair/impede his ability to protect interests): can still just
give his D
iii. Double obligations: patient get double recovery, but weak
9. Helzberg seems like it would be clear application of 19b dismissal but
because D’s fault, not dismissed: sues Valley West, diverse, but Valley West
wants to bring in Lord’s (no jurisdiction) because would influence their
contract with them
a. Necessary party?: P’s relief (trying to stop Lord’s); Lord’s ability to
protect interest (not law binding on them but as practical matter) and
double obligations (Valley West has two obligations)
b. Equity and Good Conscious Test: Dismissal Evidence: (seems to say
adequate other remedy, go to court in Iowa; and prejudice)
c. Holding: Court found no prejeduce: not clear it would happen + It was
Valley West’s Fault, so not given break
10. Intervention 24: Getting in to case
a. (a) Intervention of Right timely motion court MUST grant; by statute
or because: (a) interest in property/transaction; (b) disposition of
action may “as a practical matter impair or impede’s applicant’s
ability to protect interest” and (c) applicant’s interest not represented
i. on timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene
who
1. (1): is given an unconditional right to intervene by
federal statute
2. (2):
a. Claims an interest relating to property or
transaction
b. And is so situated that disposing of action may
(as a practical matter) impair or impede the
mover’s ability to protect interest
c. UNLESS existing parties adequately represent
that interest
Page 25
b. 24(b) Permissive Intervention allowed when statute provides/there
is a “question of law or fact in common” Court: Look if intervention
will unduly delay or prejudice parties
i. (1): in general: on timely motion, court MAY permit anyone to
intervene who:
1. (A): is given unconditional right to intervene by federal
statute
2. (B): has a claim/defense that shares with the main
action a common question of law or fact
ii. (3): delay/prejudice: in exercising discretion, court should
consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the original parties rights
c. 24(c): notice of pleading motion served/say grounds/pleading of
claim/defense
i. motion to intervene must be served on parties as provided in
rule 5. Must state grounds of intervention and be accompanied
by a pleading that sets out claim/defense for which
intervention is sought
11. NRDC: indervention as right: adequate representative of interests not there,
so must be allowed in Environmental group suit against regulatory agencies
to stop licensing nuclear plants
a. Holding: (definitely interest: trying to get license; and settlement
would impair ability to defend): proposed licensee allowed to
intervene (despite licensee in suit) bc actual licensee could not be
trusted to rep others interest
12. Atlantis: Intervention as Right: US v. company, intervene proper because 1
interest against US and 1 interest against company, plus if settled limits their
ability and obvious interest: no friend in litigation
a. Holding: although not binding on Atlantis, would need en
banc/supreme court: so definitely effects interest: Intervention Good
i. Worried about stare decisis: interpreting bound: bound as
practical matter
ii. Settling precedent=enough to intervene
13. Martin: Non intervention: not bound by suit, can have second suit, shift
burden to rule 19: White FF sued for racial discrimination allegedly
encompassed by consent decree
a. Holding: not bound by first suit, can have second suit
i. Shift burdon to rule 19, not 24 to avoid more suits
b. Dissent: no grounds bc could have intervened
i. Obligation: obligation on existing parties to join you if they
want you to be bound by the issue
Interpleader: possible duty to multiple ppl, settle inconsistent judgments
1. Statutory: 1335 Federal courts have jurisdiction over “any civil action of
interpleader or in the nature of interpleader’ where:
i. Property worth $500 or more
Page 26
ii. There is general diversity (minimum) (under 1332) among
claiments
1. Minimum: 1 of claimants from different state as others
iii. Plaintiff deposits money/property/Bond into the court
2. Venue 1397: district with at least 1 claimant
3. Process: 2361: court may issue process for all claimants: restrains them from
proceedings affecting property (or whatever interpleder about)
a. Process/order shall be returnable when judge/court directs:
addressed/served by US marshals in claimants districts
b. Such district shall hear and determine the case
i. May discharge P from liability, make injunction permanent
4. Statutory: good for ppl in different states, P is interpleding party but actually
paying you: claimants are Ds
a.
b.
(a) District court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader or
in the nature of interpleader filed by any person, firm, corporation, association,
society having in his custody or possession money or property of the value of $500:
if…
i. (1) 2+ adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship (in a/d of 1332) are
claiming or may claim to be entitled to such maney or property… and if
ii. (2) the Plaintiff has deposited such money/property or has paid the amount
of/the loan/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,
1. or has given bond payable to the clerk of the court in such amount
and with such surety as the court/judge may deem proper,
conditioned upon the compliance by the P with the future order of
judgment of the court with respect to the subject matter of the
controversy
(b) such an action may be entertained although 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
5. Rule Interpleader 22 persons having claims against P may be joined as D’s
and required to interplead when P is or may be exposed to multiple liability
a. (a) Grounds:
i. by a plaintiff
ii. Persons with claims that may expose P to multiple liability may
be joined as D’s and required to interplead. Proper even
though…
1. A
a. Claims (of claiments)/titles which claims
depend,
b. lack a common origin or
c. are advers and independent rather than identical
OR
2. B: P denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of
claimants
iii. 2: by D: defendant exposed to similar liabilities may seek
interpleader through a crossclaim(13g)/counterclaim(13a/c)
b. Relation to other Statues
Page 27
i. Supplements, not limits, joinder of parties allowed by rule 20.
ii. In addition to 1335, 1397, 2361
6. Cohen: Can intervene into interpleader case: Cohen has paintings, 3 possible
claimants (2) interpleaded,
a. Marcos: intervened under 24: worry about timeliness, court says it’s
okay
Source
§1335
Subject matter jurisdiction $500 in controversy,
minimum diversity among
claimants (pair of
claimants from different
states).
Personal jurisdiction
Venue
deposit
Nationwide service of
process that establishes
personal jurisdiction
(actually diferent statute
number but use it when
using §1334)
Where any person resides
Money/property must be
deposited to court
R-22
Other statute to get
jurisdiciton-§1331/§1332
$75,000 with complete
diversity (no claimant has
same residence as
interpleading party) here
we look at interpleader as
plaintiff, and claimants as
defendants
Ordinary personal
jurisdiction rules
Ordinary approach
No requirement
Class Action: Learn this shit!!
1. Class Actions 23
a. (a) Prerequisites : 1+ members of class may sue/be sued as rep if…
i. Class so numerous joinder of all members is impracticable
ii. Common questions of law/fact in class
iii. Claims/defenses of Reps are typical of claims/d’s of class and
iv. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
interest of class
b. Types: Either 23B(1A/1B/2/3). Satisfy 23A and 1 of following
i. 23B(1): prosecuting separate actions create risk of…
1. Inconsistency: (A): inconsistent/varying adjudications
with respect to indi class members: establish
incompatible standards of conduct for party opposing
class
a. If lots of ppl, makes difficult
2. (b) Difficulty as practical Matter (Limited Fund):
Page 28
a. Dispositive/impair anility to protect interests:
(B): adjudications for indis would be dispositive
of interest of other members OR substantially
impair/impede their ability to protect interest:
limiting fund
b. Fund must be really limited
ii. Injunction (not money maybe): 23B2: want final injunctive
relief/declaratory relief
1. party opposing class has acted/refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole
iii. Money Damages: 23B3: common questions
predominate/superiority of C.A. v. factors
1. predomination: common questions of law/fact
predominate over individual questions AND
2. superiority: class action is superior to other methods
for fair/efficient adjudication
3. Factors
a. Interest in individually controlling actions
b. Extent/nature of litigation already commenced
c. Desirability of concentrating litigation in this
forum
d. Difficulties likely in managing class action
c. Procedure 23C
i. Certification order 23C1 put order in early, define class, can
alter order
1. Time of Issue: at early practicable time after
commencement of action brought by class: court
determines by order if certify action as class action
2. Defining class: appoint council: order must define class
and claims, issues, defenses, and appoint council
3. Altering/Amending the Order: order can be conditional
and may be altered before final judgment
ii. Notice: 23C2
1. (A) B1(a and b)+b2 Classes: court may direct
appropriate notice
2. (B): B3 classes: need best notice practicable: including
indi notice to IDed members through reasonable effort:
clearly/concisely state that…
a. Court will exclude any member who so requests
iii. Particular Issues 23C4
1. When appropriate, action may be brought or
maintained as a class action with respect to particular
issues
iv. Subclasses 23C5
Page 29
1. When appropriate, class subdivided and each treated as
class
d. 23E Settlement
i. 1. Settlement needs to be approved by court to be fair, and
reasonable
ii. 2. Class member can object
iii. 3. You can opt out
2. Ortiz: limited fund must be actually limited Notiations to pay 1.5 bil
settlement with D liable only for 10 mil
a. Holding: no limited fund (fund not definitely limited, whole fund will
be used, claiments treated fairly) none here
b. Not good 23b1b
c. So failed to get courts approval
Pleading
1. Gomez: D (burden) must show acted in good faith Police officer suing for
being dismissed without hearing
a. Holding: Burden of Pleading is on D
i. Reasons
1. Element is not listed in statute
2. Court described as D
3. Relevant evidence is out of control of D
ii. Burden on D to prove defense as well (qualified immunity)
2. Rule 8:
a. (a) Claims for Relief.
i. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
ii. (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
iii. (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
iv. (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in
the alternative or different types of relief.
3. Conley: Only show ability to win: Cannot dismiss for lack of pleading unless
no support for case
a. Pleading only had to show enough to show possibility of winning, this
is notices function: not dismissed unless “beyond doubt that P can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle relief”
4. Iqbal: change test, (take out legal conclusions) and determine if complaint
plausible: Afghani guy contained post 9/11, treated harsher “because of
religion/national origin”
a. Said petitionars knew/condoned/agreed to it: if could prove true,
certainly had a case
b. Here: filter out legal conclusions
i. Determine whether complaint is plausible using common
sense
Page 30
5. Jones v. Clinton: whole bunch of shit
a. 8b: defences in short/plain terms: explain what true and what not
b. 8c: Affirmative Ds: list defences must be plead
c. failure to deny: 8d: alleged and not denied, taken as admitted
d. RULE 12 STUFF MADE OUT OF ORDER: 12b6 bc qualified privelage as
prez
6. Rule 9B: Pleading with particularity is required when fraud/mistake
7. Stradford: particularity in pleading for fraud insurance company didn’t have
particularity of 9B needed, just said lied, not about what, then amended and
it was find
Motion to Dismiss
1. Rule 12: Motion to dismiss
a. (a) Time to serve responsive pleading
i. (1) in general: time for serving a responsive pleading is…
1. A: a D must serve an answer
a. Within 21 days after being surved with summons
and complaint
b. If waived: (rule 4d): within 60 days after request
for waiver sent: (90 if international)
2. B: a party must serve an answer to a
counterclaim/crossclaim within 21 days of being served
with pleading that states it
3. C: 21 days after served with order to reply, unless
otherwise stated
ii. (4): effect of a motion: serving motion under this rule alters
these periods as follows
1. A: court denies motion/postpones its disposition until
trial: responsive pleading must be served within 14
days after notice of court’s
2. B: if court grants a motion for more definite statement,
must respond in 14 days
b. (B): every D to claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the
responsive pleading if one is required. Following can do by motion
1. 1. Subject Matter
2. 2. Personal Jurisdiction
3. 3. Improper Venue
4. 4. Insufficient Process
5. 5. Insufficient service of process
6. 6. Failure to state claim upon which relief can be
granted
7. 7. Failure to join a party under rule 19
ii. motion asserting these d’s must be made before pleading if
responsive pleading is allowed. (if claim of relief does not
require responsive pleading, opposing party may assert at trial
Page 31
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
any D’s to that claim): no D’s waived by joining it with one or
more other Ds/objections in responsive pleadings
(c): motion for judgment on the pleadings
i. after pleadings closed, but early enough not to delay trial, party
may move for judgment on pleadings
(d) result of presenting matters outside the pleadings
i. if, on motion under 12b6 or 12c: matters outside pleadings are
presented or 12c: matters outside pleadings presented to court
1. (so try to say not good on pleadings, put in more)
2. so reasonable time to present materials
(e): motion for more definite statement (if ordered, get 14 days, if
don’t do it, stricken)
(f) motion to strike:
i. court on own
ii. on motion, before responding within 21 days after served with
pleading
(g) joining moions
i. 1. Right to join: motion here may be joined with any other
allowed
ii. 2. Except 2H2/3: making motion under this rule must not make
another motion under this rule that was available but omitted
from earlier motion: onse make it, cant make again unless new
info
iii. all motions available must be made at once,: except 12b6:
(can be raised again as 12 c_and indispensable parties)
under 12b7
FAILURE TO RAISE 12B(2-5) MOTION WITH ANOTHER 12B FORFEITS THE
MOTION NOT FILED
h. (h): waiving and preserving D’s
i. (1): party waives 12b(2-5) by
1. omitting it from motion to dismiss
2. failing to
a. make motion under this rule
b. include it in responsive pleading/amendment
allowed in 15(a)(1)
ii. (2): failure to state claim which relief can be granted, to join a
person required by 19b: or state legal defense, may be raised:
1. in any pleading allowed in rule 7a
2. by motion under 12(c)
3. at trial
iii. (3) anytime lack of subject matter: dismiss
i. Basically: do 12 B pre answer and then once pleading
2. Rule 15 Amendments
Page 32
3.
4.
5.
6.
a. Can amend 1s within 21 days, or 21 days after response under
12b/e/f
b. Otherwise: need court/opposite party consent
c. Respond to amendment pleading made in 14 days, or in time of
regual, whichever longer
d. At trial: court can permit,
i. if tried, treated as raised
e. relation back: back to date of original
i. if claim/d in original
ii. amendment can be used for naming
iii. same “transaction/occurrence to relate back”
f. supplemental pleedings, court may allow based on new shit
Aquaslide: P had suit, but then found aquaslide wasn’t manufacturer, made in
good faith: now SoL gone bc relied on agreement
a. Amendment granted freely: if not bc in bad faith
b. So can amend complaint saying no case
15C: relation back=SOL (transaction/occurance)
Moore: refuses to allow amendment where initial complaint alleged failure
for informed consent, change to malpractice
a. Bc no relation back: judges care about notice as much as transaction
Bonerb: slip and fall to bad counciling, but came out of being allowed on bad
bball court, so referred back
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Conley, Iqbal (sufficiency of pleading)
Jones v. Clinton (pleading)
Rule 9(b), Stradford (heightened pleading)
Rule 12 (motion to dismiss – should know all subsections of 12(b))
Rule 15 (amendments)
Aquaslide (prejudice)
Moore and Bonerb (relation back)
Page 33