Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
US — Civil Procedure (AI set 1) — US law flashcards · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · Civil Procedure
US — Civil Procedure (AI set 1)
US civil procedure — personal & subject-matter jurisdiction, the Erie doctrine, pleadings, and the FRCP.
23 cards · tap a card to flip it
All cards in this deck
Pennoyer v. Neff — what was the foundational rule of personal jurisdiction?
A court may exercise personal jurisdiction only over persons physically present or domiciled in the state, or those who consent to jurisdiction. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), established that a state's judicial power is strictly territorial and cannot bind absent nonresidents who have no connection to the forum.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, what are the two requirements for diversity jurisdiction?
Federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires (1) complete diversity—no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant—and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Citizenship of an individual is determined by domicile.
What is the 'arising under' standard for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331?
A case arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint itself establishes a federal cause of action or necessarily raises a substantial federal issue. The federal question must appear on the face of the complaint, not be raised only as a defense.
Claim preclusion (res judicata) — what three elements must be met to bar a second suit?
Claim preclusion bars a subsequent suit when (1) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior action, (2) the same parties (or those in privity) are involved, and (3) the second claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the first. The doctrine prevents relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in the first proceeding.
General venue rule — where is venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391?
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in (1) any district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) any district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred or property is situated; or (3) if no other district is proper, any district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) — what core rule did it establish?
Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state in which they sit, not general federal common law. The Supreme Court overruled Swift v. Tyson and held there is no general federal common law. ERIE RAILROAD CO. v. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
Under the Erie doctrine, how do courts distinguish 'substantive' from 'procedural' law for Rules Enabling Act purposes?
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs if it is rationally capable of classification as procedural; if it does not abridge, enlarge, or modify a substantive right, it applies in federal court even in diversity cases. State law controls on matters that would significantly affect the outcome and implicate the twin aims of Erie: discouraging forum-shopping and avoiding inequitable administration of the law. See ERIE RAILROAD CO. v. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), and its progeny under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072.
Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) — what four elements must be satisfied?
Issue preclusion bars relitigation of an issue when: (1) the issue is identical to one actually litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) it was actually decided; (3) the decision was necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. This doctrine promotes judicial economy and is recognized under federal common law and state law equivalents.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, when may a federal court exercise supplemental jurisdiction?
A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court's original jurisdiction, meaning they share a common nucleus of operative fact. The court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction if the state claim predominates, raises novel state-law issues, or the anchor federal claim is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
What is the scope of permissible discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)?
Parties may obtain discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering factors such as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, and the burden and expense of the discovery sought. Relevance for discovery is broader than admissibility at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
What is the effect of a defendant's waiver of a Rule 12(b)(2) personal jurisdiction defense?
A defense of lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) is waived if not raised in the first responsive pleading or in a pre-answer Rule 12 motion; unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction is a waivable, party-controlled defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)–(h). Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), established that a court's power over persons can be voluntarily submitted to, underpinning the waiver doctrine.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, when is a party entitled to summary judgment?
Summary judgment is proper when 'there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court views all evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party; a mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to defeat the motion.
What is the consequence of failing to join a Rule 19 required party who cannot be joined?
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), if a required party cannot be joined (e.g., joinder would destroy diversity), the court must determine whether 'in equity and good conscience' the action should proceed or be dismissed. Relevant factors include prejudice to existing or absent parties, whether a judgment would be adequate, and whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if dismissed.
Pennoyer v. Neff — what two constitutional bases for territorial jurisdiction did it recognize?
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), held that a state's personal jurisdiction derives from physical power: (1) in personam jurisdiction over persons physically present or domiciled in the state, and (2) in rem jurisdiction over property located within the state. Service of process outside the state could not compel a non-resident to appear without a connection to the forum state's territory.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), who may seek a protective order and on what grounds?
Any party or person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order under Rule 26(c); the court may issue one 'for good cause' to protect against annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The motion must certify that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other parties before seeking court action.
What is the 'transactional' test for claim preclusion, and which Restatement adopts it?
The Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 adopts the transactional test: claim preclusion bars all claims that arose from the same transaction or series of connected transactions as the prior suit, whether or not those specific theories were raised. This prevents parties from splitting a single cause of action into multiple suits against the same opponent.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), what must a complaint contain to satisfy the pleading standard?
Rule 8(a) requires (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought. This notice-pleading standard is now read alongside the plausibility requirement from Twombly and Iqbal.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h), which defenses are waived if not raised in the first responsive pleading or pre-answer motion?
Rule 12(h)(1) provides that the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction (12(b)(2)), improper venue (12(b)(3)), insufficient process (12(b)(4)), and insufficient service of process (12(b)(5)) are waived if omitted from the first Rule 12 motion or responsive pleading. By contrast, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (12(b)(1)) can never be waived and may be raised at any time.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), when may a party amend its pleading as of right, and what standard governs later amendments?
A party may amend once as of right within 21 days after serving the pleading, or within 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) motion. After that, amendment requires the opposing party's written consent or leave of court, which Rule 15(a)(2) directs courts to 'freely give' when justice so requires — meaning denial is proper only for undue delay, bad faith, futility, or undue prejudice.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), what is the standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim?
A complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face; conclusory allegations and formulaic recitations of elements are insufficient. This standard derives from Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but need not accept legal conclusions.
What is the 'complete diversity' rule, and does it apply to supplemental claims?
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity — no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Supplemental claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 need not independently satisfy diversity, but § 1367(b) restricts supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases when joinder of additional parties would destroy complete diversity.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), what must the moving party demonstrate, and how does the burden then shift?
The moving party must show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Once the movant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion.
What is 'forum non conveniens,' and what factors govern dismissal under the doctrine?
Forum non conveniens is a common-law doctrine allowing a court to dismiss a case when another forum is significantly more convenient, even if venue and jurisdiction are otherwise proper. Courts balance private interest factors (access to evidence, witnesses) and public interest factors (court congestion, local interest) in deciding whether dismissal is warranted. The plaintiff's choice of forum is given deference but may be overcome by strong private and public interest factors.