Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Civil Procedure ! (Joinder (B) Joinder of Parties FRCP 19 FRCP 20 (4)…

- - - - Generally, D can add as many counter/cross claims as they want per FRCP 13
    - - Generally P can ad as many claims as they want per FRCP 18.
  - - - As many parties as they want, so long as they arise out of case or contra.
    - - Remember, that if not all required parties are joined in case, the case can be dismissed by 12(b)(7)
    - - Impleader: third party can be joined by D if there is a legal connection. (FRCP 14)
        
        Is not used to shift liability (not me but him). Rather, it's used to shift damages through contribution or indemnification.
    - - Counter is compulsory (Rule 12(a)) when claim arises out of the same trasaction or occurrence
        
        No min amount needed
        
        D's are incentized to counterclaim, b/c if CC is compulsory, then D can't bring that claim ltr on after suit is finished.
      - Counter is permissive when it doesn't arise out of the same same transaction or occurrence.
        
        Supp no apply here, so sub jx has to be met the old fashioned way.
  - - - Compulsory: When thr
        
        There's a need to intervene, b/c they'll lose it right to sue ltr.
        
        Factors that determine when intervention is required:
        1) Interest must be timely
        2) there must be interest in the suit
        3) The interest must be at risk
        4) the interest is not adequately represented in the case.
        
        Factors To Determine Timeliness:
        (1) how long the applicant knew of his interest before making the motion;
        (2) prejudice to the existing parties from any such delay;
        (3) Prejudice to applicant if the motion is denied;
        (4) other unusual circumstances.
      - Permissive Intervenor
        
        When not all are fulfilled, but some are, so judge may allow you to intervene.
        
        Under this, the court has the discretion of whether to allow intervention or not. It creates a second option for a party that might not be able to meet all four requirement elements of 24(a).
- - - - a) Origins; the old rule
        
        Pennoyer v. Neff
        Rule: grab the person or grab the property b/f the lawsuit begins
        
        Grab prsn=serving process while D is in forum.
        ---This part still exists under trans jx.
        
        Grab prop was attaching prop b/f lawsuit exists.
        ---This part is no longer good law
        
        Based on DP clauses
        
        Remember that when you ana for prsn jx, you ana for D, b/c D would be making motion to dismiss.
      - b) Evolution of the tests, culminating in the current test
        
        Two part test:
        1) Long arm (in state where suit is taking place) must apply; and
        2) Jx must be constitutional through either transient, specific, or general.
      - c) Changes to In Rem jx
      - d) Development of the modern rule: types of prsn jx
        
        1) Specific jx
        
        Four part test:
        1) State needs an interest
        2)Reasonableness
        3) Purposful Availment=intent
        4) Arising out of
        
        Interest can be met by any factual connection.
        ----low bar
        ----only time when no allowed is when there is zero factual connection
        
        Resonableness= can you physically get there.
        ---Note: this is a stupidly low standard. Almost always satisfied.
        
        Purposeful availment
        
        Must be some intentional act directed at the state by D
        
        Intentional activity could even be as a simple as driving through the state
        
        Note: This is not a question of forseeablilty, so stuff like stream of commerce theory no matter.
        
        Arising Out of=D's conduct arises out of activity in the forum
        
        2) Gen jx
        
        Rule; there must be continuous and systematic contacts for D to have gen jx.
        
        For an individual, where they are domiciled always equals gen jx.
        
        Note: Unless you spend equal amount of time in multiple places, you can only be domiciled in 1 place.
        
        For corporations, domicile exists anywhere where they have continuous and systematic contacts.
        
        Specifically where they are incorporated and where they have their nerve center (ex. administraive/executive offices)
        
        3) Transient Jx
        
        Rule: Jx exists when D served w/ process while physically present in the state.
    - - These are statutes that restrict f personal jx.
        
        Often, LA stats are just up to constitutional limits.
    - - If D is sued in a place, and is sued in place b/c she signed K saying she'd be sued there, then con jx. is met
        
        This is called a "choice of forum" clause
        
        Note: for suit to continue, the long arm still has to apply.
    - - a) Venue
        ---28 USC 1391
        
        Under Rule 12, improper venue can get case dismissed
        
        Venue is proper when:
        1) if all D's are from same state and suit is in that state or
        2) jx is good where sub amount of events arise out of.
        3) If neither of the first apply, Venue proper anywhere where any D is subject to jurisdiction.
      - b) Forum non Conveniens
        (situation where there's a foriegn D)
        Sec 1404
        
        D could arg venue not proper or that: even if venue is proper, but due to convenience reasons based on witnesses, evidence, forum should be somewhere else
        
        Specifically, venue could be moved for purposes of:
        1) convenience for parties
        2) convenience for witnesses; or
        3) in the interest of justice (ie a fairer place for the case to be judged).
      - c) Transfer
        
        Based on 28 USC 1040
        
        Changing venue is done based on motion, consent, or stipulation
        
        Suit can be transferred to any fed district ct. anywhere in the US.
    - - Rule: Notice has to be proper or case is dismissed
        
        Notice you have to give is proportional to how much information you have.
        
        Ex. if you don't have name or address, then notice in a newspaper may be sufficient.
        
        If means of giving notice are reasonable under circumstances, then it doesn't matter if D receives the notice.
        
        Note: some provisions of Rule 4 defer to local or international summons standards.
  - - - a) Fed question:
        An issues based on US con or a fed law (ex. stats, reg, treaties, exec orders_
        
        No jx minimum
        
        Fed issues must be pleaded in the complaint (can't be anticipated as a defense.
        
        Con basis in Art 3 Sec. 2;
        Stat basis in 28 USC 1331
      - b) Diversity:
        ----You must have citizens of different states on both sides of the "v."
        ---The amount in controversy EXCEEDS 75K.
        
        Ex. of no diversity if 4 Virginia P's and one NY P's vs. 5 Maine D's and 1 Virginia P's.
        
        This is called Strawbridge diversity
        
        Single P w/ two or more unrelated claims against a single D may aggregate claims to real 75K threshold
        
        If two P's, each needs claim over 75K. They can't combine in terms of math.
        
        Citizenship is limited
        
        For individuals, we look at domicile.
        ---If US, then we look at state
        
        For Partnerships, we break partnership and look at where each is in.
        
        For corporations: there are two residences:
        1) State it's incorporated and
        2) principal place of business (think nerve center test).
    - - Only comes up when there's a joinder
      - Is jx when new claim is being added that wouldn't have independent sub matter jx, then ct. can adjudicate it if arises out of same case
        
        Exceptions:
        1) No Supp If diversity is destroyed by P adding new, non-diverse D.
        ---Note: D can add a party even if it destroys jx. Only P is barred based on 28 USC 1367
        2) part c: where based on ct.'s discretion based on four factions
        
        1367(c) factors:
        
        1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
        
        2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
        
        3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
        
        4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
    - - Taking case from state to federal ct. based on subject matter jurisdiction
        
        Only proper if case could have been brought to fed ct's originally
        
        Hometown Exception: D can't remove from st. to fed based on removal if D is already being sued in D's home state.
        
        SN: This only for diversity-only cases. If Fed question claim, then removal allowed.
        
        SN: if you have multiple D's from different states, then you can't remove to either of their respective fed ct's.
        
        To remove, the removing party must file a notice within 30 days. 28 USC 1446 (b)
        
        The actual removal can happen at any point up to 1 year after the commencement of the suit.
  - - - 1) Does the long arm apply
      - 2) is there constitutional jx (general, prsn, tras)
- - - - 1) Purpose test: what is the purpose. If for procedural purpose, then use fed law
        If the purpose of the law in question is to do something more than regulate procedure, then the issue is SUBSTANTIVE.
        If the purpose of the law in question is to regulate procedure, then the issue is PROCEDURAL
      - 2) Outcome Determinative: will the outcome effect the result of the test?
        If yes, then the issue is substantive
        If no, then the issue is procedural
      - Balancing Test
        If there is NOT a strong federal interest in having federal law apply, and using federal law would lead to forum shopping and unequal administration of the laws, then state law should apply.
        If there IS a strong federal interest that outweighs the concerns of forum shopping and unequal application of the laws, then federal law should apply.