SMJ
Domicile calls for these two things
1. Currently live in a place
2. Intend to remain indefinitely
In evaluating the evidence, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of this party
Non-moving Party
In Rule 15(c)(1) an amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading
Name 2 of the 3 circumstances for relating back
1. Law that provides statute of limitations allowing relation back
2. Amendment asserts a claim/defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence of the original pleading.
3. The amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted.
Claims arise from the same transaction or occurence
Claims raise at least one common question of law or fact
No because it would be a due process violation as Gonzalez hasn’t had the chance to litigate. But Murphy brings up Privity which is a way to bind two litigants to an initial determination even though only one of them was present.
Is this an acceptable answer under Rule 8(d)(3). If so, why?
How the citizenship of a corporation is determined
Any state where it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of business
Which party has the burden of proof?
The party who must introduce evidence
What is the amount in controversy required under U.S.C. 1332?
$75,000
The person joined under Rule 14
Third-Party Defendant
Bubany sues Shannon over a collision at 19th andSlide. G, B's attorney, discovers identity of C. After speaking with C, G writes the following note: "C says B had the red light. Seems pretty solid." Shannon is representing himself & sends an interrogatory to G asking for a list of witnesses - Does G have to disclose C's identity or is it protected by work product doctrine?
G does have to disclose C's identity because work product protects tangible things, not facts.
Limited
Under rule 50, courts should render judgement as a matter of law when
(2 things)
1. a party has been fully heard on an issue
2. there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue
What is the definition of claim preclusion
(Doesn't have to be verbatim)
If you have a claim, you only get 1 case in which to vindicate it.
Can only sue once
Cannot sue on same claim twice
According to rule 14(a)(1) a defendant may assert a claim against a non party (fill in the rest)
who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it
Suppose that H, in response to E’s request for documents, turns over drafts of H’s report
– clearly labeled as such. One year later, Ch’s counsel discovers the mistake. Can H or Ch stop E from using materials?
Yes under 26(b)(5)(B)
From Gunn v. Minton. Federal jurisdiction over state law claim will lie if federal issue (blank)
Name all 4
1) necessarily raised, 2) actually disputed, 3) substantial, 4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting federal-state balance approved by
In order for a party to win on a montion for summary judgment, that party must show there is no genuine dispute as to these
Material Facts
The doctrine of precedent
A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if (fill it in)
claim arises out of the same T/O that is the subject matter of original action or of a counterclaim.
Suppose Chip was accused of negligence after allegedly running a red light.
What would be the difference between whether Chip had a green or red light and whether running a red light is negligence?
Whether chip had green or red light is a matter of fact
Whether running a red light is negligence is a matter of law
This federal question/claim must be in the plaintiff's complaint and not an anticipated defense. What is this rule?
Well Pleaded Complaint (or Mottley)
To show no genuine issue of material fact, either party can agree on all material facts or one party can show that there is so little evidence that THIS could not find for the opposing party
No reasonable jury
DAILY DOUBLE
Chip sues Shannon over his tannery, wins and then Shannon sells his tannery to Gonzalez who immediately restarts it. Can Chip use issue preclusion to automatically win?
Yes, because there was privity.
A relationship between two parties that is sufficiently close as to bind them both to an initial determination at which only one of them was present.
The 4 rules of FRCP that apply to Joinder
Rule 13,14,18,20
Shannon has 50 cardinals saying Chip had the red light
Chip testifies himself that he had the green light
Jury finds for chip
Shannon renews 50b motion seeking JMOL or a new trial
Should you Grant or deny JMOL?
Deny JMOL. Because a reasonable jury could choose to believe Chip and find for him.