Discovery
This Federal Rule of civil procedure governs discovery in general
what is rule 26
Although there are exceptions, diversity jurisdiction usually requires these two things
complete diversity and meeting the amount in controversy requirement
This is the holding of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
There is no general federal common law. Federal courts should use state statutes and court cases when coming to their decisions on state law issues.
A claim by a party against another co party is called this
what is a crossclaim
Looking at facts outside of the complaint turns what motion into a motion for summary judgement?
what is a 12(b)(6) motion?
This is the three part test the federal rules of evidence apply to what material may be discoverable
1. Nonpriviliged
2. Relevant
3. Proportional
Proportionality discussed in Oxbow Carbon v. Minerals LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
This case settled that TAG jurisdiction is still a valid method of obtaining personal jurisdiction
Burnham v. Superior Court (1990) SCOTUS
man travels to California on business and is served divorce papers.
This is the 3 part test to determine whether a matter may be reviewed on appeal from a trial court decision
1. Prejudicial
2. Preserved below
3. Presented above
the federal rules of civil procedure allow a non party to do this when their rights are so affected by a current lawsuit that they must become involved
what is intervene under rule 24
What proof can be used to determine whether a motion for summary judgement is proper?
any evidence that will be admissible or could be made admissible at trial
From a tactical trial perspective, when should depositions be conducted and why?
depositions, particularly of key witnesses, should be conducted later in the discovery process so you have had the chance to discover evidence to confront the witness with in the deposition.
This case says federal courts have jurisdiction over state claims even when those state claims do not meet the amount in controversey requirement.
what is Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services (2005)
To comport with the 14th amendment due process requirements, what means must someone attempting to serve someone else use?
they must use means that someone who actually wanted to serve and notify the party of legal proceedings would use. This can vary based on the amount of information known about the person being served.
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950) SCOTUS
A, a resident of state 1 is hit while driving in state 1 by B, a resident of state 2, and sustains injuries of $120,000. A sues B in federal court alleging that B was negligent. B and B's insurance settles with A. B then Sues A, claiming it was A who ran the red light at the intersection when they crashed. what happens and why?
the claim is barred by FRCP 13a. This is a counterclaim arising out of the same transaction/nucleus of operative fact as A's claim against B. B had to bring the counterclaim in the first responsive pleading given to A, which B did not do. therefore, the claim is waived
this is the standard for a rule 56 motion
whether there is any genuine dispute of material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law
A dispute is genuine when a reasonable jury could decide an issue of fact in favor of the non moving party
when a party against whom discovery is sought refuses to provide material on the grounds of privilege, what must that party do?
the party asserting privilege must
1. expressly state they are withholding matierial due to privilege, and;
2. describe the nature of the documents, materials, or things in a way that does not divulge their contents, but allows other parties to assess the validity of the privilege claim.
FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)
The class action fairness act of 2005 changed subject matter jurisdiction for class action suits in these 2 ways
1. changing the amount in controversy requirement to only require $5,000,000 in damages among the entire class
2. only requiring minimal diversity instead of complete diversity.
A, a resident of Colorado, is walking down the street in Tucson, Arizona when he is stabbed by a crackhead with his dirty heroin needle named B. A sues B in federal court in New Mexico, B's home state, claiming battery. B attempts to introduce a NM Supreme Court case stating that crackheads are immune from battery claims because they lack the necessary intent. New Mexico has a choice of law statute which states that judges should use the law of the state where the dispute took place. What law should the federal court apply? Will the federal court use the NM court case?cite all the necessary cases to sustain your argument.
The federal court in New Mexico will use Arizona law to determine the battery claim. The Erie doctrine states that federal courts should not make federal common law unless there are particular extenuating circumstances. There are none of those here, so state law, including court cases, will be used the federal court.
Federal courts are supposed to apply the law the state they sit in would apply, and because New Mexico says to apply the law of the state where the dispute happened, Arizona law will be used. The New Mexico case could be persuasive, but its not a slam dunk
can a plaintiff bring state law claims against a party joined as a coplaintiff under Rule 20?
No, parties joined as parties under rule 20 are immune from state law claims against them in an existing suit under 28 USC § 1367(b).
Why are judges more likely to grant a rule 50 motion after a jury verdict than at halftime?
because if the judgement for a new trial is appealed and overruled, there is a jury verdict that can be reinstated rather than a trial that stopped halfway through
Requests for Admission are typically used for these tactical purposes (FRCP 36)
A, a resident of state 1 is hit while driving in state 1 by B, a resident of state 2, and sustains injuries of $120,000. A sues B in federal court alleging that B was negligent. B then claims A ran the red light at the intersection when they crashed and sues. At the same time, B impleaded C, the vehicle manufacturer, claiming that C produced and sold a car with defective brakes that caused the crash. C Impleaded D, a Taiwanese company making brake components in Malaysia, claiming that D's crappily made brake caliper is why the car crashed.
2 Questions: does the federal district court have jurisdiction over company D?
If A were to bring state law product liability claims against Company C and D, would these claims be heard? why or why not
Q1: It depends, who knows! this is basically Asahi. argue either side, idk dawg
Q2: No, A could not bring those claims in this suit because they are barred by 28 USC § 1367(b) as claims against parties brought in under FRCP 14.
Paula is a tenant in Building, owned by Dan. Their lease says Dan will be responsible for maintenance of the building. A pipe bursts in Paula's wall and she files a maintenance report with Dan. 3 weeks go by and no response from Dan. Paula sues Dan for breach of contract. at trial, the jury rules that a water break is a sanitary issue, not a maintenance issue, and Dan wins. 2 months later, Dan sells the building to Dolly Parton. Paula sues Dolly soon after claiming breach of contract for failing to fix the still broken water pipe. What could Dolly do?
Dolly could invoke non mutual defensive issue preclusion because a court has already come to a final binding verdict on whether the lease requires the landlord to fix the water pipe. Paula already got her bite at the apple in her suit against Dan, so suing Dolly is only an attempt to get a second bite.
C runs a tanning salon. 2 young girls, A and B, come in one day to tan. they both switch off in the tanning bed, eventually tanning an hour each. At the end of the hour A realizes she has been horrifically burned and actually has stage 4 skin cancer from the UV exposure. A sues C in federal court, claiming negligent ownership of a tanning salon. After filing her lawsuit, A learns that B was also burned and wants to sue C, so they join forces. In the response, C sues A and B, claiming they broke and tampered with the tanning bed in order to turn up the power and get a better tan so they could get more men (or women, its 2025) to swoon over them. C also sues the tanning bed maker D for defective product design, claiming that D is liable to C because D made its tanning beds in a way that allows customers to overpower them and then sue tanning salons
Identify all the different types of joinder involved by name and rule number
B was joined as a plaintiff under FRCP 20 because B's claims arose out of the same transaction/ set of operative facts as A. C's counterclaims against A and B are allowed under FRCP 13, and they were included in the response so they were made in a timely manner and not waived. C's inclusion of D is also a proper FRCP 14 impleader because if C prevails and D is found to have allowed the tanning bed to be overpowered, then D is liable for at least some of the harm to A and B.
While a defendant may prevail on a motion for summary judgement by showing there is no evidence that can support a single element of the plaintiff's claim, a defendant must do this to prevail on a motion for summary judgement in favor of an affirmative defence
the defendant must show there is no genuine dispute about every element of the affirmative defence. They take on the same proof of the elements burden a plaintiff does when filing a motion for summary judgement.