Fed Question Juris -- need const & statute 1331, Art32: arising under.

. Con broader than 1331 (statute requires s) Mottley: arising under pertains to s complaint. Well-pleaded complaint. 12h3: must consider SMJ even if no party raises Div Juris 1332, Art3_: const broader than - ( req complete div) Strawbridge complete diversity Hawkins - diversity = domicile for individuals = phys presence + intent to stay Redner: alien div: cit of foreign state not merely resident Hertz: nerve center test for PPoB Saadeh: no div b/w 2 aliens even if 1 a perm res (despite 1332a4) Supp Juris 1367: same case or cont under Art 3. (decline: 1) predominates 2) dct dismissed 3) except circum 4) complex issue R18: joinder In re Ameriquest: if fed/state claims tell 1 story Szendrey-Ramos: PR code complex issue & state claims predominate Removal 1441a: if dct would have orig juris. 1446: SPS, 30 days, written notice/(b) if changed circumstances, +30 days, 1 yr limit Caterpillar: 1447d: order remanding unappealable. @ time of trial was complete div, mad ea mistake but lets it go Pers Juris About s & their rights among states Juris exception to FF&C if 1st ct no juris. o FF&C: 1738 (every ct) Art4,1: (state to state) Pennoyer: collateral attack. DPC prohibits using first suit o Rts to PJ: (1) tag (Burnham) (2) in rem (3) consent (4) fiction Intl Shoe: spec: min contacts, continuous activites, contacts reason for suit ; gen: substantial contacts fair to be sued at home McGee: CA had valid state interest, single contact sufficient Hanson: purp avail & quality & nature of s activity WWVW: purposeful avail, shifts focus to s conduct giving rise to min contacts BK: on-going interactions, business relationship, long time. Pavlovich: gets rid of purp avail through effects test (s case too broad) CCLines: forum sel clause OK b/c 1) special interest b/c many diverse pass 2) dispel confusion 3) benefit of reduced fares from cost of lit Goodyear: not subj to gen PJ in NC: not fairly regarded as home. Not spec bc tires and accident abroad Asahi: stream of commerce

McIntyre: no spec juris. Reject foreseeability, didnt target, manifest intention to submit to power of soverign Gibbons: 4k1a: fed ct uses state long arm statute of forum. not engaged in any activity in FL other than suit Horiz Law: state v state FF&C, priv/imm, supremacy Hauge: >1 juris if: needs of interstate, relevant policies of forum AND other interested states, protection of expectations, certainty, easy in determination o MN has 3 contacts w/ parties giving rise to lit: workforce, state interest, familiarity State cts dont always apply own law. Can apply own choice of law rules. Vertical law: Erie Sup clause: if DJ, and US const, valid fed statute/rule follow State law for: o Guaranty Trust: statute of limitations o Ragan & Walker: commencement of action o Klaxon: choice of law of forum state Erie: prior state ct decisions count as law Swift: (overruled) state cts law. Gen fed CL 1652: RDA: laws. Venue 1391: a1) if all s same state, any JD. a2) JD where events a3) JD which any subj to PJ [fallback]; d) alien sued anywhere (but need PJ; for aliens PJ narrower than venue) R12b3 & h1: if dont make 12b2-5 in 1st motion, waiver. (venue) 1404: pure transfer w/in a system. Choice of law rules of 1st state 1406: transfer to cure venue. Choice of law for 2nd 1631: transfer to cure PJ. Choice of law of 2nd FNC: unwritten, judge made doctrine. Dismissal & re-file somewhere else Piper: 1404 transfer & 1631 transfer. Dismiss to go abroad (Scottish). FNC about abuse Summons R4: additional time to answer (60 not 30) if waive service. R12: must serve answer Pleading : draft (R8) SPS, file (R3), serve (R4b-n) : nothing (R55), answer (R8), pre-answer motion (R12a4) o answer: not true (8b) affirm defense (8c) CC/x-claim (R13-14) o pre-answer: SMJ (12b1), PJ (12b2), venue (12b3), insuf process/service (12b4-5), demurrer (12b6), need detail (12e) 12d: if staple evidence to 12b6 or 12c, treated as SJ under R56 R8: d2: inconsistent pleadings; d3: inconsistent claims

Bell: although vague, R8/11: must have theory, dont have to share Haddle: appeal of 12b6. Cant dismiss u/l can prove no set of facts would entitle relief 12b6: exclusively on pleading, assumes truth of all factual allegations Conley: no 12b6 dismissal unless no set of facts Twombly: under 8a2, not enough that pleading merely consistent w/ illegality must be plausible. Requires a showing Iqbal: 1) ID & ignore legal conclusions/bare assertions/conclusory statements 2) ask whether remaining if assumed true are plausible issue of legality Rule 11 R11: only to papers to ct, must make reasonable inquiry, ct may impose sanction, sanction a party but clients sanction for bad legal contentions, cant impose monetary sanctions on rep party, Limits: 21 day safe harbor, show-cause order, dct must explain, limit sanctions Bridges: R11 @ cts discretion. Although violated, no need for sanctions Walker: allowed sanctions (review=abuse of disc), atty knew no div but did nothing Christian: sanction for disc abuses or oral misstatements s Response Zielinksi: 8b2: straight denial not OK if some facts true. Jury inst that deem employer, facts notwithstanding 8b4: if intend good faith to deny part, must admit truth & deny the rest 10b: claims/defenses in numbered s. 26e1: must sup/correct response in timely matter if learn incomplete/incorr 37c1: if fail to provide info, party not allowed to use info @trial unless subst justified or harmless Discovery Types of discovery o Mandatory disclosures R26a1 o Depositions: R27-32 under oath) o Written interrogatories R33: facts and contentions o Requests for admissions R36: pure facts, mixed questions, evidentiary o requests for document production R34 o Physical and mental examinations R35 o all these can be sanctioned by R37 Post-discovery resolutions: most cases survive motions, but most trial o SJ (R56): before trial starts, standard no issue of material fact) o Pre-verdict JMOL: directed verdict. R50a o Jury verdict o Post-verdict JMOL R50b: test: no legally sufficient evidentiary basis o must only win once whereas must win every time Mandatory disclosures R26: initial, expert, pretrial

SCOPE: 26b1: any nonpriv that is relevant Limits: orders:: 26b2A (# of depos, admiss requests, length of live depos); 26b2C (undue burden), no order:: ESI not readily accessible (26b2B) Davis: relevant if reasonably likely to lead to discoverable info Steffan: relevant if substantive law says amtters A/C Priv comm b/w a/c soliciting legal advice for matter at hand. 26b3C: may obtain own previous statement Experts R26 o Testifying (26a2) ID them, report w/ opin, $, cases, may be deposed on other patys dime o Non-testifying (26b4b): only if hire as pre-lit then dont have to do anything otherwise do Hickman: priv > rel. info NOT: could get yourself, balance privacy BUT: if witnesses no longer avil, etc. protects sources of info not info Thompson: cant get psych records of 10 days later on your own so ordered Chiquita: in prep of lit and could get on own no disclosure 26g: must sign every request: complete, correct, consistent w/ rules, no improp purpose, nonfriv argument, unreasonably burdensome 37: motion to do something (compel, failure to follow, failure to do others) Silvestri: spoliation of evidence (duty to prserven when reas know relevant): linked to scope of disc, relevant to claim/defense, reas asked for Zubulake: duty to preserve arises when party has notice relevant or when should know. To get adverse inference: party control & duty, destroyed w/ culp state of mind, what was destroyed is relevant Amendments Relation back is exception to SOL R15: mayn amend w/ written consent of opposing party or w/ justice (consideration of movants diligence, prejudice). Look to non-movant o 15a1: 1 free shot w/in 21 days of service, more restricted post-trial Aquaslide: allowed amendment: 15a, absent apparent reason, leave freely given. Looked @ diff prejudices Moore: doesnt relate back (same conduct/trans/occur) diff time Boner: relates back: states same allegations SJ R50a: pre-JMOL: no leg suff ev bias R50b: post-JMOL: no leg suff ev bias R56: no gen issue material fact. o R56c1: may consier: affidavits and disc materials o R56c4: aff/decl based on pers knowl, facts would be admiss, and show competent to testify o 56d: if cant present facts essential, ct may: defer, allow time, issue order Houchens: jury couldnt reasonably conclude more likely than not died from accident

Norton: jury allowed to re-construct series of events from inference on inf Celotex: SJ if party fails to show sufficient evidence to est essential evidence to partys case which party will bear at trial. Moving party shows no GIMF Bias: burden shifts to nonmoving to show theres a gen issue and must show more than some metaphysical doubt. Recusal 144: limited to dct jdges 455a: if impartiality might reasonably be questioned In re Boston: should have recused after public comment of more complex Caperton: objective appearance is enough Appeals ASK: 1) procedural mechanism 2) party entitled 3) can grant relief? R46: cant ask app if didnt ask for in first place (waiver) R52a6: standards of review: de novo, abuse of disc, clear error 1291: FJ rule Evade FJ o Cohen Collateral order doctrine: conclusively determine disputed question, resolve important ? separate from merits, effectively unreviewable on appeal o 1292a: injunctions o 1292b: can ask o madamus Liberty Mutual: 54b: when 1+ claim for relief, FJ allowed for 1+ but fewer than all (applies to more than 1 claim, which isnt here Lauro Lines: denial of forum selection clause unappealable (not final judgment). Focus on 3rd of Cohen (effectively unreviewable) Claim Preclusion Must be FJ, on the merits, claims and parties must be the same. FF&C issue: 1738 every ct, Art 4: fed cts. Rush: CP: damage to self should have been added (same parties, same incident) Frier: state ct precludes fed ct. transaction test. Issue Preclusion [Issue] [actually litigated & determined] [valid FJ[essential to judgment] Searle: DPC, since not parties to 1st suit, get their own. Not in privity Parks: burden of proof. Same plaintiffs, his COA different, jury not necessarily actually litigated Def non-m IP: 1 sues 1, FJ=1. 2 sues 2, 2 MAY invoke IP BlonderTongue Off non-m IP: 1 sues 1, FJ=1. 2 sues 1, sometime. o Parklane: OK b/c adequate incentive to defend in 1st suit, procedures not too different, couldnt have joined first o State Farm: not OK. Where several suits w/ varying & inconsistent verdicts, IP not OK.

Joinder of Claims Additional claims by s against o Do joinder rules permit, forbid, require? Do juris rules forbid? Does preclusion require? Additional claims by against o Do joinder rules permit, forbid, require? Do juris rules forbid? Does preclusion require? R8c: defense. Counter Claim: R13a: compulsory if arise out of same transaction or occurrence, R13b: permissive if anything else Plant: test if compulsory CC: issues of fact/law largely the same? Would CP bar subsequent suit? Same evidence? Logical relation (chooses this test) Joinder of Parties R20: Permissive joinder (20a1 mult s) (20a2 mult s). same trans/occ/series test R19: required joinder. Arise when s want to add a party. o 19a: if feasible. 19b if not feasible, equity & good conscience. (absent party in danger of being seriously affected by lit) R24: intervention. Allows 3P to jump in o 24a: of right. Test: fed statute gives right, or claims an interest and suit may impair abil to protect interest unless existing parties adequate o 24b: permissive. Fed statute or has claim that shares w/ main action a common quest of law/fact R22: interpleader. Avoid inconsistent judgments. Test: any party potentially subj to double liabil may interpleade even if various claims lack common orig, etc. R14: 3P Parctice/impleader o to bring in 3P. limited to person may be liable to . 14 days to file. Price: nails in chicken coop. L properly impleaded ITW under 14a. o can bring any claim to 3P if same trans BUT cant destroy diversity. o 3P may assert against any defense 3P could have asserted. Complex Civil Lit R13g: x-claim. couldnt have brought in orig suit in fed ct shouldnt be able to now Class Actions R23a: need 4: [numerousity, commonality,] [typicality & adequacy of lead ] R23b: need 1: b1(common fund), b2 (class injunction, b3(predominance/superiority) 1291: class cert not appealable Walmart: maj: commonality = common answers. Not b2 class b/c not injunctions (wouldnt affect people that have already left co). had money relief.