Personal Jurisdiction
Under the doctrine established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, this test asks whether a non-resident defendant has enough connection with the forum state so that requiring them to defend there would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
What is minimum contact
Alice, a resident of Virginia, sues Bob, a resident of Pennsylvania, in federal court claiming Bob violated a Virginia contract. In her complaint, Alice includes a brief paragraph asserting that Bob’s actions also violated a federal environmental statute — but that statutory claim was not pursued and is not material to her breach-of-contract theory. Should the court decline to hear the case under federal-question jurisdiction?
What is likely yes?
“Under the Federal Rules, a party may serve written questions on another party to obtain facts, known as this discovery method.”
What is Rule 33?
What are the necessary elements for issue preclusion/collateral estoppel?
For issue preclusion to apply, there must have been (1) a valid, final judgment on the merits, (2) the same issue, (3) that issue was actually litigated and decided, and (4) the determination was essential to the prior judgment.
This Federal Rule governs when multiple parties may permissively join in one lawsuit if their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share common questions of law or fact.
What is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 (permissive joinder)
This type of personal jurisdiction allows a court to hear claims against a defendant even if the cause of action did not arise from the defendant's activities in the forum state — because the defendant’s connections to the forum are continuous, substantial, and render the defendant essentially at home there.
What is general jurisidiction?
Chloe (citizen of New York) sues Delta Corp. (incorporated in Delaware, principal place of business in New Jersey) for breach of contract seeking $70,000 in damages. She also seeks injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees that could push the value over $75,000. Could a federal court properly assert diversity jurisdiction?
What is Unlikely — because the amount in controversy appears to be just $70,000, which is below the statutory threshold for diversity jurisdiction. Unless the injunctive relief or attorneys’ fees make the total “reasonable value in controversy” exceed $75,000, the court will likely lack SMJ under diversity?
Plaintiff sues a company for alleged breach of contract. She submits a discovery request asking the company to produce every email sent to the CEO over the past 10 years worldwide. The company argues the request is overbroad, burdensome, and costly given the limited issues in the case. Should the court allow full production under current Federal Rule standards?
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery must be both “relevant” and “proportional to the needs of the case", so likely no.
A consumer wins a judgment in a product-liability case against Company X, establishing that the company’s warning label was inadequate. Later, a different consumer files a separate action against Company X for a similar injury and seeks to prevent the company from re-arguing the adequacy of the same warning label. What doctrine allows the second plaintiff to use the prior ruling to foreclose the issue?
What is offensive collateral estoppel?
If a party wants to bring multiple claims against the same defendant — even unrelated ones — this Rule allows that in a single lawsuit.
What is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 (joinder of claims)?
When a defendant’s suit-related activities in a state give rise to the plaintiff’s claim (e.g. a contract made or a tort committed there), and the defendant has purposefully availed themselves of the state’s forum, the court may assert this kind of jurisdiction.
What is specific jurisdiction?
Under this basis for SMJ, a federal court can hear a case even if the parties are citizens of the same state — as long as the plaintiff’s complaint “arises under” the Constitution, federal law, or treaties.
What is federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)?
This rule was amended in 2015 to explicitly include a proportionality requirement, meaning discovery must be tailored so that the burden or expense is not disproportionate to the case’s needs.”
What is Rule 26(b)(1)?
In an earlier case between the same Plaintiff and Defendant, the court found that the Plaintiff committed fraud. Now, in a new lawsuit over breach of contract, the Defendant uses that prior judgment to stop the Plaintiff from relitigating whether the Plaintiff engaged in fraud. What doctrine is the Defendant invoking?
What is defensive collateral estoppel?
Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B both claim they were overcharged by Supplier X under separate contracts, but the overcharges arose from the same billing system used by Supplier X. They want to sue together in a single federal case. Under what standard would their claims be properly joined?
What is Rule 20?
State statutes that allow courts to ‘reach out’ and exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents, based on certain enumerated contacts (like doing business or committing a tort in the state), are generally called this.
Long-Arm Statute?
Plaintiff B brings a federal civil-rights claim (federal question) in federal court. She then seeks to add several state-law claims against the same defendant based on exactly the same underlying facts. The state-law claims would not qualify for diversity jurisdiction because Defendant is in the same state as Plaintiff B. May the court hear the state-law claims together with the federal claim?
What is likely yes, because the state-claim arises out the common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claim?
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery must be both “relevant” and “proportional to the needs of the case.”
What is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)
What is Plaintiff may seek sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) or 37(d)?
What are the elements of claim preclusion / res judicata?
For claim preclusion to apply, the prior judgment must be final, on the merits, by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the parties (or their privies) must be the same — plus the new claim must arise from the same cause of action (or could have been raised earlier).
Defendant Corp. is alleged to have manufactured two different defective products — Product A and Product B — and delivered them to Injured-Plaintiff in different years. The plaintiff sues for harm caused by Product A now, but another plaintiff, who used Product B later, wants to join the lawsuit. The two products are different and the incidents separated in time. Should the court allow joinder of the second plaintiff under Rule 20?
What is nah?
A small tech-startup, incorporated in State A with its principal place of business in State B, sells a software license to a company in State C. After a dispute arises, the C-company sues the startup in State C federal court, but the only connection the startup ever had with State C was delivering the license electronically after the contract was signed in State A, and the startup never marketed, advertised, or maintained any other business contacts in State C. The startup moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the court dismiss? Under what Rule of FDCRP?
What is Yes? Under 12b(2)?
his U.S. statute authorizes a defendant to transfer a civil case from state court to federal court when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction — and prohibits removal based solely on diversity if a “forum-defendant” is properly joined and served.
What is 28 U.S.C. § 1441?
A plaintiff sues a corporation for negligence. Before the lawsuit is filed, the corporation’s in-house counsel directs a consultant to interview purported witnesses and prepare a memo summarizing their statements, possible litigation risks, and a recommended defense strategy. After the lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff serves a discovery request seeking all interview-notes, memos, and strategy documents prepared by the consultant. The corporation refuses, claiming they are protected by the work-product doctrine. Should the court order production? Why or why not?
What is no? he consultation documents are likely protected under the work-product doctrine. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A), materials prepared “in anticipation of litigation or for trial” by or for a party or its representative (including consultants) are ordinarily shielded from discovery?
What are the elements for issue preclusion/collateral estoppel?
What is (1) a valid, final judgment on the merits, (2) the same issue, (3) that issue was actually litigated and decided, and (4) the determination was essential to the prior judgment.
Under Rule 20, a court may still sever joined parties or claims even if the technical criteria for joinder are met. What provision of Rule 20 authorizes the court to do so — and on what grounds?
What is Rule 20 (b)? if inclusion of certain parties causes “embarrassment, delay, expense, or other prejudice.”