Lesson 3: Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction and Litigation

Master Civil Procedure with free flashcards and spaced repetition practice for the Multistate Bar Examination. This lesson covers subject matter jurisdiction (federal question and diversity), personal jurisdiction (minimum contacts and long-arm statutes), venue and forum selection, the Erie doctrine, pleadings and motions, joinder of parties and claims, discovery rules, summary judgment, trial procedures, and the preclusion doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel—all essential for MBE success.

Welcome to Civil Procedure 🏛️

Civil Procedure is the engine that drives litigation through the courts. Unlike substantive law (which tells you what the rights are), Civil Procedure tells you how to enforce those rights. On the MBE, Civil Procedure questions test your understanding of jurisdictional limits, procedural mechanisms, and timing requirements. You'll encounter fact patterns involving diverse parties, complex claims, and strategic procedural moves. This lesson builds on your Constitutional Law foundation by examining how courts acquire power over cases and parties.

💡 MBE Strategy Tip: Civil Procedure questions often hinge on technical requirements and strict timelines. Always check: (1) Does the court have power to hear this case? (2) Is the procedure authorized by the rules? (3) Has the deadline passed?

---

Core Concepts in Civil Procedure

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) 🗂️

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's power to hear a particular type of case. Federal courts have limited SMJ—they can only hear cases authorized by the Constitution and Congress.

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

Federal courts have SMJ over cases "arising under" federal law. The well-pleaded complaint rule is critical: federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal issue appears on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.

Key Points:

• Federal law must be an essential element of the plaintiff's claim
• Federal defenses don't create federal question jurisdiction
• Anticipated federal defenses don't count
• State law claims with embedded federal issues rarely qualify (exception: Grable doctrine for substantial federal questions)

💡 Common Trap: A plaintiff sues under state law breach of contract. Defendant plans to raise a federal statute as a defense. This does NOT create federal question jurisdiction because the federal issue isn't in the complaint.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)

Federal courts have SMJ when:

1. Complete diversity exists between all plaintiffs and all defendants (no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant)
2. Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs)

Citizenship Rules:

Party Type	Citizenship
Individual	State of domicile (physical presence + intent to remain indefinitely)
Corporation	BOTH state of incorporation AND principal place of business (nerve center test)
Unincorporated Association	Citizenship of ALL members
LLC	Citizenship of ALL members
Decedent's Estate	Decedent's domicile at death

Amount in Controversy:

• Measured from plaintiff's good faith perspective
• Legal certainty test: must appear to a "legal certainty" that claim is less than $75,000 to dismiss
• Aggregate claims by one plaintiff against one defendant
• Generally CANNOT aggregate multiple plaintiffs' claims against one defendant
• Exception: Common and undivided interest (joint claims)

C. Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)

Once a court has SMJ over one claim (the "anchor claim"), it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that form part of the same "case or controversy" (same common nucleus of operative fact).

Key Rules:

• Applies to claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim
• Diversity exception: Court CANNOT hear claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 if it would destroy complete diversity
• Court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction if: (1) novel state law issue, (2) state claim predominates, (3) anchor claim dismissed, or (4) exceptional circumstances

Transaction Test: Would a reasonable person expect all the claims to be tried together? If yes, they're part of the same case or controversy.

II. Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) 📍

Personal jurisdiction is the court's power over a particular defendant. It requires both statutory authority (state long-arm statute) and constitutional due process (minimum contacts).

A. Constitutional Requirements (Due Process)

Under International Shoe and progeny, PJ requires:

1. Minimum Contacts: Defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum state's benefits/protections
2. Relatedness: Claim must arise from or relate to those contacts (for specific jurisdiction)
3. Reasonableness: Exercise of jurisdiction must be fair

Types of Personal Jurisdiction:

Type	Contacts Required	Claim Relationship
General (All-Purpose)	Continuous and systematic contacts; defendant is "at home"	Any claim (related or unrelated)
Specific (Case-Linked)	Single or occasional purposeful contacts	Claim must arise from or relate to contacts

General Jurisdiction (very limited):

• Individuals: domicile
• Corporations: state of incorporation OR principal place of business (nerve center)
• Exceptional case: continuous and systematic contacts so substantial that defendant is essentially "at home"

Specific Jurisdiction requires:

• Purposeful availment: Defendant deliberately directed activity at forum (not mere foreseeability)
• Arising from/relating to: Claim connected to forum contacts
• Reasonableness factors: burden on defendant, forum state interest, plaintiff's interest, interstate efficiency, shared policy interests

💡 Stream of Commerce Doctrine: Merely placing product into stream of commerce is insufficient; need purposeful direction toward forum state (advertising, distribution channels, sales agents).

B. Long-Arm Statutes

State statutory authorization for PJ. Many states have enacted statutes reaching to constitutional limits. Common bases:

• Transacting business in state
• Committing tortious act in state
• Owning/using property in state
• Contracting to supply goods/services in state

⚠️ Two-Step Analysis: (1) Does state long-arm statute authorize PJ? (2) Does exercise satisfy due process?

C. Service of Process

Valid service required for PJ. Federal Rule 4 methods:

• Personal service (hand delivery)
• Leaving copy at defendant's dwelling with person of suitable age and discretion
• Delivering to authorized agent
• State law methods (where court sits or where service made)
• Waiver (defendant waives formal service; gets extra time to answer)

100-Mile Bulge Rule: For parties joined under Rules 14 or 19, service effective within 100 miles of courthouse, even if outside state.

III. Venue and Forum Selection 🗺️

A. Venue (28 U.S.C. § 1391)

Venue determines which federal district court is proper. A civil action may be brought in:

1. Judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in same state
2. Judicial district where substantial part of events/omissions occurred or substantial part of property located
3. Fallback: Any district where any defendant is subject to PJ

Residence:

• Individuals: district of domicile
• Entities: any district where subject to PJ
• Defendants in multiple districts in one state: aggregate their contacts

B. Transfer of Venue (§ 1404, § 1406)

§ 1404(a) Transfer (from proper venue to another proper venue):

• Court may transfer "for convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice"
• Transferee court applies law (including choice of law) that transferor court would have applied

§ 1406(b) Transfer (from improper venue):

• Court must dismiss OR transfer if in interest of justice
• Transferee court applies its own law

💡 Van Dusen Rule: When plaintiff chooses forum and case transfers under § 1404(a), transferee applies transferor's law (prevents plaintiff from forum shopping then transferring).

C. Forum Non Conveniens

Dismissal (not transfer) when alternative forum is:

• Available (defendant amenable to service; can adjudicate claim)
• Adequate (provides some remedy, even if less favorable)
• Significantly more convenient

Court balances private interests (witness access, evidence location) and public interests (local interest, court congestion, choice of law).

IV. The Erie Doctrine ⚖️

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins established that federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law.

Erie Analysis Framework:

ERIE DECISION TREE

    Is there a federal statute,
    Federal Rule, or Constitution
    directly on point?
           |
      ┌────┴────┐
     YES       NO
      |         |
   Apply    Is issue
  federal   substantive
   source   or procedural?
              |
         ┌────┴────┐
    Substantive  Procedural
         |           |
    Apply state  Apply federal
       law         (if valid)

The Erie Steps:

1. Is there a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on point?

   • If yes, apply if valid under Rules Enabling Act (Rule must be procedural; must not abridge/enlarge substantive rights)
   • Federal Rules are usually valid (Hanna v. Plumer)

2. Is there a federal statute on point?

   • If yes, apply if constitutional

3. If no federal rule/statute, apply state law if:

   • Outcome determinative (would applying federal practice likely affect case outcome?)
   • Bound up with state rights and obligations
   • Twin aims test: avoid forum shopping and inequitable administration of laws

Classic Erie Issues:

Issue	Apply	Reasoning
Statute of limitations	State law	Substantive (outcome determinative)
Burden of proof	State law	Substantive
Elements of claim/defense	State law	Substantive
Choice of law rules	State law	Bound up with state rights (*Klaxon*)
Discovery scope	Federal (FRCP 26)	Federal Rule applies
Service of process method	Federal (FRCP 4)	Federal Rule applies
Burden of persuasion on directed verdict	Federal	Procedural

⚠️ Erie Trap: State law that conflicts with a Federal Rule doesn't apply. Example: State law requires specific service method, but FRCP 4 allows different methods → apply FRCP 4.

V. Pleadings and Pre-Answer Motions 📄

A. Complaints (Rule 8)

Requirements:

1. Short and plain statement of grounds for jurisdiction
2. Short and plain statement of claim showing entitlement to relief
3. Demand for judgment (relief sought)

Plausibility Standard (Twombly/Iqbal):

• Must plead sufficient facts to state claim that is plausible (not merely possible)
• Conclusory allegations insufficient
• Court accepts factual allegations as true but not legal conclusions

Special Pleading Requirements (Rule 9):

• Fraud/mistake: Must plead with particularity (who, what, when, where, how)
• Special damages: Must specifically state
• Malice, intent, knowledge: May plead generally

B. Pre-Answer Motions (Rule 12)

Defendant may move to dismiss before answering:

Rule 12(b) Defenses:

1. Lack of SMJ (never waived; can raise anytime)
2. Lack of PJ (waived if not in first response)
3. Improper venue (waived if not in first response)
4. Insufficient process (waived if not in first response)
5. Insufficient service of process (waived if not in first response)
6. Failure to state claim (12(b)(6))
7. Failure to join necessary party under Rule 19 (waived if not in first response)

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Claim:

• Court accepts all factual allegations as true
• Draws all inferences in plaintiff's favor
• Tests legal sufficiency (assuming facts are true, do they state valid claim?)
• Court generally cannot consider materials outside pleadings (exception: converts to summary judgment under Rule 56)

💡 Responding to 12(b)(6): Plaintiff should amend complaint if possible (one amendment as of right within 21 days of service of motion; otherwise need consent or leave of court).

C. Answers (Rule 8)

Requirements:

• Admit or deny each allegation
• State any affirmative defenses
• Lack of knowledge treated as denial (if reasonable)

Affirmative Defenses (must plead or waive):

• Statute of limitations, res judicata, statute of frauds, release, waiver, estoppel, accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, duress, illegality, etc.

Timing:

• 21 days after service of process
• 60 days if defendant waived service
• Must respond within time allowed for answer or within 14 days of denial of motion (whichever is later)

VI. Joinder of Parties and Claims 🔗

A. Permissive Joinder of Parties (Rule 20)

Plaintiffs may join (or be joined as defendants) if:

1. Claims arise from same transaction/occurrence or series, AND
2. Common question of law or fact

Each claim must have independent SMJ basis (or fit within supplemental jurisdiction).

B. Compulsory Joinder (Rule 19)

Required Party (should be joined if feasible):

• Without party, complete relief cannot be accorded among existing parties, OR
• Party has interest and disposition without party may impair interest or leave existing parties subject to multiple/inconsistent obligations

If joinder is feasible: Court orders joinder

If joinder is NOT feasible (destroys jurisdiction or party not subject to PJ): Court determines whether to proceed or dismiss:

• Can substantial justice be done?
• Prejudice to absent party?
• Can prejudice be lessened?
• Would judgment be adequate?

Indispensable Party: Required party whose joinder is not feasible and without whom case must be dismissed.

C. Impleader (Third-Party Practice) (Rule 14)

Defending party may implead third party who "is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it."

• Must be derivative liability (indemnification or contribution)
• NOT direct liability to plaintiff
• Third-party defendant may assert defenses against third-party plaintiff and claims against plaintiff arising from same transaction
• Timing: within 14 days of serving answer (as of right); thereafter needs leave of court

💡 Supplemental Jurisdiction: Court has supplemental jurisdiction over impleader claim even if it would destroy diversity.

D. Counterclaims (Rule 13)

Compulsory Counterclaim:

• Arises from same transaction/occurrence as opposing party's claim
• Must assert or waive forever
• Exception: No jurisdiction or pending action in another court

Permissive Counterclaim:

• Does not arise from same transaction/occurrence
• Optional
• Needs independent SMJ basis

E. Cross-Claims (Rule 13(g))

• Between co-parties (co-defendants or co-plaintiffs)
• Must arise from same transaction/occurrence
• Always permissive (never compulsory)
• Needs independent SMJ or supplemental jurisdiction

JOINDER MAP

    PLAINTIFF ──(claim)──→ DEFENDANT
         ↑                     │
         │                     │
   (cross-claim)         (impleader)
         │                     │
         │                     ↓
    CO-PLAINTIFF        THIRD-PARTY
                        DEFENDANT
         ↑                     │
         │                     │
         └──(counterclaim)─────┘

VII. Discovery 🔍

A. Scope (Rule 26(b)(1))

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to needs of case.

Relevance: Information reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Proportionality Factors:

• Importance of issues at stake
• Amount in controversy
• Parties' relative access to information
• Parties' resources
• Importance of discovery in resolving issues
• Burden/expense of discovery

Not Discoverable:

• Privileged materials (attorney-client, work product)
• Trial preparation materials (attorney work product—qualified immunity; fact work product—absolute immunity for mental impressions)
• Expert information (testifying experts—yes; consulting experts—generally no)

B. Discovery Devices

Device	Limit	Notes
Depositions (Rule 30)	10 per side; 7 hours each	Oral examination under oath; notice to all parties
Interrogatories (Rule 33)	25 (including subparts)	Written questions; only to parties; 30 days to answer
Requests for Production (Rule 34)	No limit	Documents, ESI, tangible things, entry onto land
Physical/Mental Exam (Rule 35)	Court order required	Good cause + in controversy
Requests for Admission (Rule 36)	No limit	Deemed admitted if not answered in 30 days

C. Required Disclosures (Rule 26(a))

Initial Disclosures (without awaiting request):

• Witnesses likely to have discoverable information
• Documents/things in possession that may be used to support claims/defenses
• Computation of damages
• Insurance agreements

Expert Disclosures:

• Identity of expert witnesses
• Written report (for retained experts)

Pretrial Disclosures:

• Witnesses and exhibits to be presented

D. Sanctions (Rule 37)

For failure to comply with discovery:

• Establish facts as established
• Prohibit introduction of evidence
• Strike pleadings
• Dismiss action or enter default judgment
• Contempt
• Attorney's fees and expenses

💡 Certification Requirement: Attorney must sign discovery responses certifying they are complete and correct to best of knowledge (Rule 26(g)).

VIII. Summary Judgment (Rule 56) ⚖️

Court may grant summary judgment if movant shows:

1. No genuine dispute as to any material fact, AND
2. Movant entitled to judgment as a matter of law

Standard:

• Court views evidence in light most favorable to non-moving party
• Non-movant gets benefit of all reasonable inferences
• Moving party bears burden of showing no genuine dispute
• Once moving party meets burden, non-movant must show specific facts (not conclusory allegations) demonstrating genuine dispute

Timing: May move anytime until 30 days after close of discovery.

Partial Summary Judgment: Court may grant on some claims/issues but not others.

⚠️ Not a Credibility Contest: If reasonable jury could believe either version of facts, summary judgment inappropriate. Judge doesn't weigh evidence or assess credibility.

IX. Trial Procedures 👨‍⚖️

A. Right to Jury Trial (Seventh Amendment)

Jury trial right for:

• Legal claims (damages)
• At law (not equity)
• Federal court (incorporated against states through due process)

No jury trial right for:

• Equitable claims (injunctions, specific performance, reformation, rescission)
• Admiralty claims
• Claims against United States (unless statute provides)

Mixed legal and equitable claims: Jury decides legal issues first; judge decides equitable issues.

Demand: Must demand in writing within 14 days of service of last pleading raising jury-triable issue.

B. Jury Size and Verdicts

• Federal civil jury: 6-12 members
• Verdict: Must be unanimous unless parties stipulate otherwise
• Jury instructions: Parties may submit proposed instructions; objections must be made before jury retires

C. Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) (Rule 50)

Directed Verdict (now called JMOL):

• May move after opposing party fully heard on issue
• Standard: No legally sufficient evidentiary basis for reasonable jury to find for non-moving party
• Court views evidence in light most favorable to non-moving party

Renewed JMOL (formerly JNOV—judgment notwithstanding verdict):

• Must have moved for JMOL before case submitted to jury (preserves issue)
• May renew motion within 28 days of entry of judgment
• Same standard as JMOL

D. New Trial (Rule 59)

Court may grant new trial:

• Errors during trial
• Verdict against weight of evidence
• Damages excessive or inadequate
• Newly discovered evidence
• Prejudicial misconduct

Motion must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment.

Remittitur/Additur:

• Remittitur (reduce damages): Constitutional
• Additur (increase damages): Unconstitutional in federal court (Seventh Amendment violation)

X. Appeals 📜

A. Final Judgment Rule (28 U.S.C. § 1291)

Generally, only final judgments appealable (disposes of all claims as to all parties).

Exceptions (interlocutory appeals allowed):

1. Collateral Order Doctrine: Order finally determines issue collateral to merits that is too important to defer and effectively unreviewable on appeal (narrow exception)

2. Injunctions (28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)): Appeals from orders granting, denying, modifying, or dissolving injunctions

3. Certification (§ 1292(b)): Trial judge certifies controlling question of law with substantial ground for difference of opinion; appellate court may permit appeal

4. Class Action Appeals (Rule 23(f)): Appellate court has discretion to permit appeal from order granting or denying class certification

B. Standards of Review

Issue	Standard
Legal conclusions	De novo (no deference)
Factual findings (bench trial)	Clear error
Jury verdict	Substantial evidence
Discretionary rulings	Abuse of discretion
Mixed questions of law and fact	Varies

C. Timing

Notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of judgment (60 days if United States is party).

XI. Preclusion Doctrines 🚫

A. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

Bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in prior action.

Elements:

1. Valid, final judgment on the merits in first action
2. Same claim (transactional test: same transaction or occurrence)
3. Same parties (or in privity)

Effect: Bars not only claims actually litigated, but also claims that could/should have been raised.

💡 Transactional Test: Claims arise from same transaction if they share common nucleus of operative facts.

B. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

Bars relitigation of particular issues actually litigated and necessarily decided.

Elements:

1. Same issue actually litigated and decided in first action
2. Issue was necessary to judgment (actually decided)
3. Valid, final judgment
4. Party against whom preclusion asserted had full and fair opportunity to litigate in first action
5. Mutuality not required (non-party may use against party if fair)

Offensive vs. Defensive:

• Defensive: Defendant uses prior judgment to prevent plaintiff from asserting claim
• Offensive: Plaintiff uses prior judgment against defendant
• Offensive use requires fairness analysis (could plaintiff have joined first action? Prior inconsistent judgments?)

Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: Party who wasn't in Action 1 may invoke issue preclusion against party who was in Action 1, IF:

• Party had full and fair opportunity to litigate
• No special circumstances making preclusion unfair

---

Detailed Examples

Example 1: Diversity Jurisdiction and Venue

Fact Pattern: Paula (California citizen) sues Delta Corp. (incorporated in Delaware; headquarters in Texas) in federal court in California for $100,000 in damages from breach of contract. The contract was negotiated in Texas, signed in California, and allegedly breached in Nevada.

Analysis:

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Diversity):

• ✓ Complete diversity: Paula (CA) vs. Delta (DE and TX) → Delta is citizen of both Delaware and Texas; neither is California → complete diversity satisfied
• ✓ Amount in controversy: $100,000 exceeds $75,000
• Result: Diversity jurisdiction exists

Venue (28 U.S.C. § 1391):

1. District where defendant resides: Delta (corporation) resides where subject to PJ. Likely subject to PJ in Delaware (incorporation), Texas (principal place of business), and California (contract signed there). If subject to PJ in California district, California district is proper venue.

2. District where substantial part of events occurred: Contract negotiated in Texas, signed in California, breached in Nevada → substantial events in all three states → federal districts in Texas (any), California (where contract signed), or Nevada (where breached) are proper.

3. Analysis: Multiple proper venues. Paula chose California. Delta could move to transfer to Texas or Nevada under § 1404(a) for convenience, but California is proper venue.

Transfer Analysis: If Delta moves to transfer to Texas:

• Court weighs convenience factors (witness location, evidence access, etc.)
• If transferred, Texas court applies law California court would have applied (including California's choice of law rules)

Example 2: Personal Jurisdiction and Long-Arm Statute

Fact Pattern: Paula (Florida resident) sues Manufacturer (Ohio corporation with no physical presence in Florida) in Florida federal court. Manufacturer sells products nationwide through independent distributors. Distributor sold defective product to Paula in Florida. Paula injured in Florida.

Analysis:

Personal Jurisdiction:

Step 1—Statutory Authorization (Florida long-arm statute):

• Florida's long-arm reaches to constitutional limits
• Manufacturer committed tortious act causing injury in Florida
• Statute satisfied

Step 2—Constitutional Due Process:

• Type of PJ: Specific (claim arises from contacts with Florida)

• Purposeful availment: Did Manufacturer purposefully direct activity toward Florida?

  • Sells through national distribution system
  • Independent distributors (not agents)
  • No advertising specifically targeting Florida
  • No sales offices or employees in Florida
  • Analysis: Mere placement into stream of commerce without more (targeting forum) is insufficient under Asahi
  • Likely result: Insufficient purposeful availment

• Relatedness: Claim arises from product sold in Florida (satisfied if purposeful availment found)

• Reasonableness: Burden on defendant to litigate in Florida; Florida's interest in providing forum for injured resident

Conclusion: Personal jurisdiction likely lacking due to insufficient purposeful availment. Manufacturer didn't specifically target Florida; merely placed product in stream of commerce.

💡 Compare: If Manufacturer advertised in Florida media, maintained Florida sales representatives, or had distribution agreement requiring sales to Florida customers, purposeful availment likely satisfied.

Example 3: Erie Doctrine Application

Fact Pattern: Paula sues Delta in federal court in New York based on diversity jurisdiction. State statute of limitations has run, but Paula moves for summary judgment arguing federal procedural rule allows longer time. New York law also has specific rule about burden of proof on affirmative defenses.

Analysis:

Issue 1—Statute of Limitations:

1. Is there a Federal Rule on point? No Federal Rule addresses statutes of limitations.

2. Is there a federal statute on point? No.

3. Erie substantive/procedural analysis:

   • Statute of limitations is substantive under Guaranty Trust
   • Outcome determinative: Applying federal practice would allow claim to proceed; applying state law would bar it → significantly different outcome
   • Bound up with state rights: Statute of limitations defines scope of state-created right
   • Twin aims: Applying federal practice would encourage forum shopping

Result: Apply New York statute of limitations. Paula's claim is time-barred.

Issue 2—Burden of Proof on Affirmative Defenses:

1. Is there a Federal Rule? No specific Federal Rule, but federal common law places burden of proof on party asserting affirmative defense.

2. Erie analysis:

   • Burden of proof is substantive (outcome determinative)
   • Defines elements of state-created right
   • Apply state law

Result: Apply New York rule on burden of proof.

💡 Key Takeaway: In diversity cases, federal courts are "state courts in federal clothing" for substantive issues. Statutes of limitations, elements of claims, burdens of proof—all substantive.

Example 4: Joinder and Supplemental Jurisdiction

Fact Pattern: Paula (California) sues Delta (Delaware/New York corporation) in federal court for $100,000 breach of contract (diversity jurisdiction). Paula wants to add:

1. Carl (California), a co-plaintiff, who has $60,000 claim against Delta arising from same contract
2. Claim against Zeta Corp. (California corporation) for $80,000 arising from related but separate contract

Analysis:

Adding Carl as Co-Plaintiff (Rule 20):

• Requirements: (1) claims arise from same transaction/occurrence; (2) common question
• Both claims arise from same contract → same transaction ✓
• Common questions of contract interpretation ✓
• Rule 20 satisfied

SMJ for Carl's Claim:

• Diversity? Carl (CA) vs. Delta (DE/NY) → complete diversity ✓
• Amount? $60,000 < $75,000 ✗
• Supplemental jurisdiction? Carl's claim shares common nucleus of operative facts with Paula's claim (same contract) → supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) ✓
• § 1367(b) exception? Exception for plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 in diversity-only cases → Carl's claim would destroy complete diversity? No—Delta is not a California citizen → no problem ✓

Result: Carl may join; court has supplemental jurisdiction.

Adding Zeta as Defendant:

• Paula (CA) vs. Zeta (CA) → destroys complete diversity ✗
• Supplemental jurisdiction? Related but separate contract → likely doesn't share common nucleus with Paula v. Delta claim
• Even if related enough, § 1367(b) bars claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rule 20 that would destroy diversity

Result: Paula cannot add Zeta without independent SMJ basis (e.g., federal question).

💡 Tip: § 1367(b) prevents plaintiffs from evading diversity requirements by joining non-diverse defendants. Defendants can implead non-diverse third parties under supplemental jurisdiction.

---

Common Mistakes to Avoid ⚠️

Mistake 1: Assuming Federal Defenses Create Federal Question Jurisdiction

❌ Wrong: "Defendant will raise a federal statute as defense, so there's federal question jurisdiction."

✅ Right: Federal question jurisdiction requires federal issue on face of plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Anticipated federal defenses don't count.

Why it matters: If you advise a client they can sue in federal court based on defendant's anticipated federal defense, case will be dismissed for lack of SMJ.

Mistake 2: Forgetting the Two-Step Personal Jurisdiction Analysis

❌ Wrong: "Defendant has minimum contacts with the state, so there's personal jurisdiction."

✅ Right: Need BOTH statutory authorization (long-arm statute) AND constitutional due process (minimum contacts). Check state statute first.

Why it matters: Even if due process satisfied, if state long-arm statute doesn't reach conduct, no personal jurisdiction.

Mistake 3: Misapplying Venue Residence for Corporations

❌ Wrong: "Corporation resides only in state of incorporation."

✅ Right: Corporation resides in ANY district where subject to personal jurisdiction at time action commenced.

Why it matters: Corporations may reside in multiple districts, creating multiple proper venues.

Mistake 4: Confusing Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

❌ Wrong: "Issue was decided in first case, so entire claim is barred."

✅ Right:

• Res judicata: Bars entire claim (same claim + same parties)
• Collateral estoppel: Bars only specific issue actually litigated and necessarily decided

Why it matters: Plaintiff may bring new claim with different elements, but specific issues already decided are conclusively established.

Mistake 5: Thinking Summary Judgment Means "No Evidence"

❌ Wrong: "Plaintiff has some evidence, so summary judgment inappropriate."

✅ Right: Summary judgment appropriate if no genuine dispute of material fact. Conclusory allegations, speculation, and implausible accounts don't create genuine disputes.

Why it matters: Even with "some evidence," if reasonable jury couldn't find for non-movant, summary judgment proper.

Mistake 6: Missing the § 1367(b) Exception

❌ Wrong: "Claims share common nucleus of facts, so supplemental jurisdiction applies."

✅ Right: In diversity-only cases, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 if it would destroy complete diversity.

Why it matters: Plaintiffs can't use supplemental jurisdiction to join non-diverse defendants, but defendants can implead non-diverse third parties.

Mistake 7: Forgetting Compulsory Counterclaim Rule

❌ Wrong: "I'll assert my related claim in a separate lawsuit."

✅ Right: Counterclaims arising from same transaction/occurrence are compulsory—must assert or lose forever.

Why it matters: Failure to assert compulsory counterclaim = waiver. Can't bring it later.

Mistake 8: Mixing Up Federal Rules and State Law Under Erie

❌ Wrong: "State has a rule on this, so apply state law."

✅ Right: If valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure directly on point, apply Federal Rule (even if conflicts with state law). Erie only matters when no Federal Rule applies.

Why it matters: Federal Rules trump conflicting state rules in federal court.

---

Key Takeaways 🎯

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

1. Federal courts have limited SMJ: federal question or diversity only
2. Federal question must appear in well-pleaded complaint (defenses don't count)
3. Diversity requires complete diversity + amount > $75,000
4. Corporations are citizens of incorporation AND principal place of business states
5. Supplemental jurisdiction allows related claims, but § 1367(b) limits plaintiffs in diversity cases

Personal Jurisdiction

1. Requires BOTH statutory authorization (long-arm) AND due process (minimum contacts)
2. General jurisdiction: defendant "at home" (domicile/incorporation/principal place of business)
3. Specific jurisdiction: purposeful availment + relatedness + reasonableness
4. Stream of commerce alone insufficient; need purposeful direction toward forum

Erie Doctrine

1. Federal courts in diversity apply state substantive law, federal procedural law
2. Valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure trumps conflicting state law
3. Statute of limitations, burdens of proof, elements of claims = substantive (apply state law)
4. Discovery scope, service methods (covered by Federal Rules) = procedural (apply federal law)
5. Transferee court applies transferor's law (including choice of law) when plaintiff chose forum

Pleadings and Motions

1. Complaints must satisfy plausibility standard (Twombly/Iqbal)
2. Fraud must be pleaded with particularity (Rule 9(b))
3. Defenses 2-5 (PJ, venue, process, service) waived if not in first Rule 12 response
4. SMJ never waived—can raise anytime
5. One amendment as of right within 21 days; thereafter need consent or leave

Joinder

1. Compulsory counterclaims: same transaction/occurrence → must assert or waive
2. Impleader (Rule 14): derivative liability only (indemnification/contribution)
3. Required parties (Rule 19): join if feasible; if not feasible, proceed or dismiss
4. Supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims and impleader claims
5. § 1367(b): plaintiffs can't use supplemental jurisdiction to evade diversity requirements

Discovery

1. Scope: nonprivileged, relevant, proportional to needs of case
2. Work product: qualified immunity (fact work product); absolute (mental impressions)
3. Interrogatories: 25 limit, parties only
4. Depositions: 10 per side, 7 hours each
5. Physical exam: court order required (good cause + in controversy)

Judgments

1. Summary judgment: no genuine dispute of material fact + entitled to judgment as matter of law
2. JMOL: no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for reasonable jury verdict
3. Must move for JMOL before case goes to jury to preserve renewed JMOL
4. New trial motion: within 28 days; remittitur OK, additur unconstitutional

Preclusion

1. Res judicata: same claim + same parties + final judgment → bars entire claim
2. Collateral estoppel: same issue + actually litigated + necessary to judgment → bars issue
3. Non-mutual issue preclusion allowed if fair
4. Offensive use requires fairness analysis

---

📋 Quick Reference Card: Civil Procedure Cheat Sheet

---

📚 Further Study

For deeper exploration of Civil Procedure concepts:

1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp - Official text of all Federal Rules with annotations

2. Civil Procedure Outline (Quimbee): https://www.quimbee.com/learn/civil-procedure - Comprehensive outlines and case briefs for all major Civil Procedure topics

3. CALI Lessons on Civil Procedure: https://www.cali.org/civil-procedure-lessons - Interactive exercises on jurisdiction, pleadings, joinder, discovery, and judgments

---

Congratulations! 🎓 You've completed Lesson 3 on Civil Procedure. You now understand the critical jurisdictional requirements, procedural mechanisms, and strategic considerations that govern federal litigation. These concepts form the backbone of the MBE Civil Procedure questions. Practice applying these rules to fact patterns, and remember: always check jurisdiction first, then procedure, then timing. Next, we'll build on this foundation as you continue your MBE preparation journey!