FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)

Two key components that are necessary for federal court to be authorized to hear a case.
Federal court cannot hear a case if it lacks either Constitutional Authorization or
Statutory Authorization.
For a federal court to have SMJ, the case must fall under Article III, Section 2 of U.S.
Constitution AND either 28 U.S.C 1331 or 28 U.S.C 1332.

Article III, Section 2 of U.S. Constitution
For a court to have SMJ, it must have a case that falls under Article III, Section 2.
Article III, 2 allows federal courts to decide on cases arising under
o Constitutional law.
o Disputes between parties of different states.
o Disputes between different states.
o Disputes between citizens and citizens of foreign states.

* General Note: You need to have Article III, Section 2 AND either 28 U.S.C 1331 or 1332
for a federal court to have SMJ.

28 U.S.C 1331 - Federal Question:
Along with falling under Article III, Section 2, a federal court needs the case to meet
either 1331 or 1332.
Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that arise under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the U.S.
Under 1331, there is NO AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY and NO NEED FOR
COMPLETE DIVERSITY.

Federal Question (or Arising Under) Jurisdiction: Falling Under 1331
To meet requirement of a case arising under federal law, federal question must appear
on face of the s complaint.
cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the is
going to raise a defense based on the Constitution or on a federal statute.
Well Pleaded Complaint Rule:
o Determination of whether claims arise under federal law based on s well
pleaded complaint.
o Important to make only your claim and not make a claim based on what the
defense is going to make later on ( This would justify removal from federal
court)
o A well pleaded complaint states a claim created by federal law.
Ex: L & N R.R. v. Mottley

28 U.S.C 1332 - Diversity of Citizenship/Amount in Controversy:
Along with falling under Article III, Section 2, a federal court needs the case to meet
either 1331 or 1332.
Amount in Controversy + Claims Between:
o Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that meet the amount in controversy,
claims exceeding $75,000, and claims between:
Citizens of different states.
Citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign state (that are not lawfully
admitted for permanent residence in U.S. and are domiciled in same state).
Citizens of different States and citizens of a foreign state that are
additional parties.
Corporations:
o A corporation will be a citizen of the State in which it chooses to be
incorporated in and of the state in which it has its principal place of business.
Class Actions: NOT ON THE EXAM
o Class All members of a suit (this consists of MANY, MANY, MANY
people; i.e. 1,000 members, not 3 members).
o Class Action Means any civil action filed under Rule 23 or similar State
statute authorizing actions to be brought by one or more representative persons as
a class action.
o Class Members Means the persons (named and unnamed) who fall within
the definition of the proposed or certified class in a class action.
o Court will have jurisdiction of any matter that exceeds $5,000,000 and is a class
action.

Diversity Jurisdiction: Falling under 1332
Under 1332, a federal court must have complete diversity to be able to hear a case (both
sides of the v. need to be from different states).
o Citizens of a State is where a person or corporation is domiciled.
Domicile:
o Person(s) can be residency by having intent to stay indefinitely in the State.
o Person(s) must be IN THE STATE.
This can be proven by changing ones address/owning property, getting a
drivers license, changing voters registration, etc.
Ex: Mas v. Perry
o Corporations are domiciled where its nerve center is located and where it is
incorporated.
Thus a corporation can be domiciled in two locations.
Ex: Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Amount in Controversy: Falling under 1332
Sum claimed by that is made in good faith and exceeds $75,000 in question.
Good Faith Party has to show that the amount in controversy is reasonable pursuant
to the claims being brought.
Claims that arent $ can be appraised (in good faith) to see whether it is greater than
$75,000.
o Most things have statutory caps that place a maximum award on certain damages.
o Caps make it so you only collect x amount due to legal certainty.
Rule 18: A single is able to combine all its claims against a single to meet amount in
controversy (+$75,000).
o This is only okay to do if none of the claims (on its own) are above $75,000.
o HOWEVER, cannot add more s to combine claims to meet the +$75,000
requirement.
Ex: with claim of $50,000 combines its claims with a second with
claim of $27,000.
Rule 20 (Multiparty Litigation): Except where a claim is common and undivided, a is
not able to combine all claims to suffice +$75,000.
Counter Claim: Does not affect the amount in controversy and cannot be combined with
the original claim in an attempt to meet the +$75,000 requirement.

28 U.S.C 1367 - Supplemental Jurisdiction:
Allows the federal court to hear additional claims arising under a common nucleus as
the original claim being brought even though the court would lack subject matter
jurisdiction to hear the additional claim independently.
Elements:
o (a) Is there an action of which the federal court have original jurisdiction?
(ALLOWS SJ)
There must be original jurisdiction, so you must meet 1331 or 1332.
Are additional claims so related?
If they are not, stop your analysis.
o (b) Is the action based on 1332 alone? (CAN TAKE SJ AWAY - EXCEPTIONS)
If so, make sure the claims/parties are not added under Rule 14, 19, 20, or
24.
Rule 14 (Impleaders):
o Gives the limited right to bring into the suit a new party
against whom the has claims related to the main action
(3P as means of protection).
Rule 19 (Required Joinder):
o Parties may be ordered to join if they are required to fairly
adjudicate the case.
o has to join a second even if doesnt want to join it.
Rule 20 (Permissive Joinder):
o Multiple s can sue together.
o One can sue multiple s if they assert claims arising out
of the same transaction or occurrence (or series of
transactions or occurrences) and its claims against the (s)
will involve a common question of law or fact.
Rule 24 (Intervention):
o Where a party may be joined to either or s side even if
the doesnt want that party to be joined/intervene with the
case.
If not, move onto (c)
o (c) Is there any reason the court would refuse to go forward with the claim?
(COURT CAN TAKE SJ AWAY IF IT WANTS)
Reasons:
Claim raises novel or complex issue of state law (should the state
make the decision?)
Claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over
which the federal court has original jurisdiction (is the state claim
the main claim?)
Federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction.
Does the federal court even want to add the claim (its at its
discretion to take the claim)?

Things To Memorize For Final:
U.S.C:
o 1331, 1332, 1367
Rule(s):
o 14, 18, 19, 20, 24
Cases:
o Mas v. Perry Domicile (Person)
o Hertz Corp. v. Friend Domicile (Corporation)
o L & N R.R. v. Mottley Well Pleaded Claim

REMOVAL

U.S.C 1441 - Removal of Civil Actions:
(a) must timely file the removal papers and must show a valid basis for federal court
jurisdiction for the transfer of an action from state to federal court.
o ^ This is for removal to federal court ONLY.
(b)(2) Removal is not allowed if it is being removed to a federal court if one of the s is a
citizen in, which the action is brought.
o This coincides with the idea that if the is already at home, than it is going to get
a fair trial.
o * Note: THIS IS FOR ONLY 1332 CASES thus why diversity is important
here.

U.S.C 1446 - Procedure for Removal of Civil Actions:
(a) can effectuate removal by filing a notice with the federal court.
o The notice must contain a short/plain statement + everything else.
o The moment the notice is filed, the state court loses its ability to go any further on
the case.
(b)
o (1) Notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after the receipt (of notice) by
the .
o (2)(A) When removed solely under 1441(a), all s who had been properly joined
and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.
Everyone involved in the case has to agree to the removal.
o (2)(B) Each has 30 days after receiving service on that of the initial pleading
or summons described in the notice of the removal.
o (2)(C) If s are served at different times, and a later-served files a notice of
removal, any earlier-served may consent to the removal even though that earlier
served did not previously initiate or consent to removal.
o (3) It doesnt have to be 30 days if does not know, and something happens after
the time period (i.e. a new motion, pleading, order or other paper)
(c)
o (1) May not be removed based on 1332 more than a year after commencement,
unless there is bad faith on the part.
o (2) If removal is sought on basis of jurisdiction based on 1332(a), the sum
demanded in good faith in the initial pleaded shall be deemed the amount in
controversy except that

U.S.C 1447 - Procedure After Removal Generally:
(c) Motion to remand on basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction
must be made within 30 days after filing of the notice of removal under 1446(a).
o If at any time before final judgment it appears that federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, case will be remanded.
(e) If after removal the seeks to join additional s whose joinder would destroy subject
matter, court may deny joinder OR permit joinder AND remand the action to state court.
o Court can decide whether to blow case up and remand, or can say go back to the
state court if a party being joined that could ruin diversity.

Things to Memorize:
U.S.C:
o 1441, 1446, 1447

PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Personal Jurisdiction (PJ):
Imposes limits on the s capacity to sue the in the courts of the state that is most
convenient or favorable to the .
PJ hinges on two fundamental questions:
o Whether the state has jurisdiction over the under its long-arm statute, and
o Whether the exercising of jurisdiction is a violation of due process under the
Constitution (must meet traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice).

PJ Walkthrough:
Does the state long-arm statute allow for this claim?
o Federal Courts must check the State long-arm statute under Rule 4(k)(1)(A).
o * For the Exam: Usually dismiss this pretty quickly it will always satisfy state
long-arm statute, but still be sure to mention the rule.
Is Due process satisfied? (traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)
o Pennoyer v. Neff
Due process has been satisfied if the voluntarily appears in court or
Personal service has been rendered in the forum state.
o Prior Consent
Forum Selection Clause Clause that states what court the can be
hailed into, thus giving it prior consent.
Ex: Carnival Cruises case.
o ^ * Note: Due process is satisfied by any of these three options (Pennoyer or
Prior Consent).
Is due process satisfied through purposeful availment?
o Did the have minimum contacts in the state?
o Did the avail itself through the Stream of Commerce theory?
OConnor/Kennedy View: Better for s
Conservative Theres more than just Stream of Commerce
SoC+ Dont call it this.
o Must be an action directed towards the forum state.
o If you are designing the product specifically for a state,
then that, in it of itself, is purposeful availment.
o Look for intent to sell product in that forum state
Other/liberal-er views would say that you dont need to
target the forum state, so long as you just put the product
into the SoC.
Brennan View: Better for s
Brennans view is more liberal, mirrors the more class SoC view.
Basically, if the was aware or should be aware that its
good/product could enter the stream, then it can be brought into
court in the forum state.
Stevens/Brayer/Alito View:
Liberal, middle leading justices/view.
There must be a continuous flow and a certain volume of the
good/product.
o Cant just be one or two products
Mirror Eddy Metaphor Idea that a stream is a big body of water,
versus an eddy, which is just a small pool.
^ If this is how far it can go, then you should look at how long
it was being sold for and the amount Then also consider how
extreme this SoC analysis can be.
o Should smack you in the face.
o Calder Test: Did expressly aim at the forum state? (Separate from SoC, really
looking to the effects test of Calder v. Jones) NEED AN INTENTIONAL
TORT TO USE THIS.
Are the effects of the s conduct felt in the forum state?
Actions by the must be expressly aimed/toward in the forum state for
it to be able to be called into court in the forum state. NOT ON THE
EXAM
Does the court have general or specific jurisdiction? (*Exam Note: Pucillo likes this
attacked at the end of the analysis)
o General Jurisdiction: Allows all issues to be brought up
Is the at home? Is it domiciled there?
Is a corporation, does it have substantial contacts?
Is s actions so continuous and systematic that is essentially at
home in the forum state.
Perkins showed that it was subject to general jurisdiction since its
nerve center was in the forum state.
o Specific Jurisdiction: Isolated incidence
Are s contacts not substantial, but highly related to the claim at issue?
Apply the Asahi Fairness Factors: Weigh them
o What is the burden on the to litigate in forum state?
Keep in mind geographic location and factors in foreign (out of country)
judicial system is different than U.S. law = severe burden.
o What are the injuries (whats s interest in litigating in forum state)?
Normally, s interest in litigating in forum state is to get
convenient/effective relief.
o What is the forum states interest in adjudicating the dispute?
Has its interest already been met through prior suits?
Is this a matter that they feel the need to rule on?
Was the from the forum state already compensated, thus negating the
need to rule on case?
If it has already been compensated, forum state has no interest
since its member has already been compensated.

Things to Memorize:
Cases:
o Pennoyer v.Neff Due Process/Personal Service
o Intl Shoe v. Washington Evolution of Pennoyer
o Asahi Fairness Factors
o Calder v. Jones Calder Test, Express Aiming at the Forum State

VENUE
* Exam Note: Bunch of multiple-choice questions on Venue.

28 U.S.C 1391 Venue:
(b) A civil action may be brought in
o (1) A judicial district in which any resides, if all s are residents of the State in
which the district is located;
o (2) Substantial events or omissions occurred giving rise to claim making venue in
both places okay.
o (3) If (b)(1) and (b)(2) dont work, you can use any district where a person is
from.
(c) Residency Multiple Choice Questions NATURAL PERSON(S) ONLY!!!
o (1) A natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
in US, will be deemed to reside in the judicial district where that person is
domiciled.
o (2) Any company that is made a must be court that has personal jurisdiction
over it.
o (3) If a party is not a citizen (US), it can be brought in anywhere. The court may
deny on personal jurisdiction, however.
(d) Residency of Corporations in States with Multiple Districts NOT ON FINAL

Venue Walkthrough:
Step 1: Do SMJ
Step 2: Do PJ
Step 3: Is the a Corporation or
Individual?
o If is a Corporation, it is residing where its principal place of business is
1391(c)(2).
o An individual is a resident wherever it is domiciled 1391(c)(1).
Step 4: Are s Corporations or Foreign?
o If Foreign, s can be sued in any district 1391(c)(3).
o If a Corporation, venue is proper anywhere the Corporation is subject to
personal jurisdiction 1391(c)(2).
Step 5: Determine how 1391(b) applies.
o (b)(1) Do s reside in the same state? If so, venue is proper in the district where
a resides. For an individual , venue is proper where that resides.
^ Cant use this if you have s that reside in different states.
o (b)(2) Where has a substantial part of the events underlying the dispute
occurred? Venue is proper there.
^ Venue can be proper in many venues depending on the facts.
Ex: Bates
o (b)(3) What if neither apply? Suit can be brought anywhere the or any of the
s, if multiple, are subject to the courts personal jurisdiction.

TRANSFER OF VENUE AND FORUM NON CONVENIENS

1404 Change of Venue:
(a) Allows a transfer of venue when venue was initially proper, but inconvenient.
o Its a transfer from US district to another US district.
o Still need to have personal jurisdiction.
o Ex: Piper Transfer should not result in a change in the applicable law.
CONFLICTS LAW OF THE TRANSFEROR STATE IS APPLIED BY THE
TRANSFEREE COURT.

1406 Cure or Waiver of Defects:
(a) If venue is improper, the district court has the ability to dismiss or transfer the case to
a district it could have been brought in.
o Still need to have personal jurisdiction.
CONFLICTS LAW OF THE TRANSFEREE STATE WILL APPLY HERE.

*NOTE FROM REVI EW: Conflicts Rules =Choice of Law

Transfer Venue: From Spaeth 1404
These steps are only necessary if the problem does
not ask you to disregard them. Most problems
wont make you do both jurisdiction and venue.
Weighing Private Interest Factors for Transfer
o s privilege if choosing forum.
o s preferred forum.
o Location where the claim arose.
o Convenience of the parties.
o Convenience of the witnesses.
o Ease of access to proof/evidence.
Weighing Public Interest Factors for Transfer
o Transferees familiarity with the governing law.
o How backed up is the transferee court.
If it is backed up, should it stay in transferor court?
o Local interest in deciding local controversies at home.

Forum Non Conveniens: From Piper Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens.
Result is dismissal of the complaint with the expectation that it will be re-filed in another
forum.
Case in US district, but will be sent to court outside the US, or back to state court.
Dismiss and must re-file.
Weighing Private Interest Factors for Forum Non Conveniens
o Access to sources of proof.
o Obtaining witnesses.
o View of premises.
o Make trial easy, expeditious, inexpensive.
Weighing Public Interest Factors for Forum Non Conveniens
o Court congestion.
o Local interest in having local issues resolved at home.
o Having the trail of a diversity case with the law that must govern the action.
o Ability to apply foreign law and conflict of laws.
o Burdening jurors in unrelated forum with jury duty.

JOINDER OF CLAIMS & PARTIES

Rule 18 - Joinder of Claims:
(a) So long as you have ONE claim that works, you can join as many claims as you
would like.

Rule 42 Consolidation, Separate Trials: NOT ON THE EXAM
(b) Court can say to leave claims in same action, as well as move for separate trials.

Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder of Parties:
(a)(1) s Persons may join in one action as s if:
o (A) The joined party(s) have come from the same event/incident(s); and
o (B) Any question of law or fact common to all s will arise in the action.
(a)(2) s Persons may be joined in one action as s if: ( may gives court wiggle
room)
o (A) The s claims logically relate to the somehow (out of the same
occurrence/transaction); and
o (B) Any question of law or fact common to all s will arise in the action.

Rule 21 Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties: NOT ON THE EXAM
Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal.
At the courts discretion, and at any time during trial, on just terms, can add or drop a
party.
Court may also sever a claim against a party.

Rule 14 - Third-Party Actions:
(a) When a defending party may bring in a third party
o (1) Timing of the summons and complaint A defending party may, as a 3P,
serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all
or part of the claim against it.











Rule 13 - Counterclaims and Cross-Claims:
(a)(1) A pleasing must state as a counterclaim any claim that, at the time of its service,
the pleader () has against an opposing party if the claim:
^ *Note: You cant later bring a counter, must do it at any time the court would allow
it. If you dont, the claim cannot be added.
o (A) Arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
opposing partys claim.
(b) Permissive Counterclaim A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an
opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.
o ^ You can bring a claim that may be unrelated to the initial claim if you are
already heading to court.









Claim for Negligence against .
Counterclaim against for
breach of K between and .
v.
v. v.
3P
filing action against the 3P becomes a 3P since it is filing
its own action against a new . *Note: Whether for indemnity
or contribution, there must be a casual connection. If v.
falls apart, then (3P v. 3P falls apart as well.


(g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by
one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is
the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any
property that is the subject matter of the original action.
o Crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the
crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the
crossclaimant.












Compulsory Joinder: NOT ON THE EXAM
Intervention: NOT ON THE EXAM

PLEADING AND AMENDING CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
*Exam Note: 1) Dont use #s on the exam when discussing whether a claim is plausible or
probably Just make arguments justifying your reasoning. 2) Dont say more plausible, just
say need the claim to be plausible. 3) If you face legal conclusion(s), explain why you think it
is a conclusion, dont just state it is a legal conclusion.

Rule 8 Rules of Pleading:
(a) Claims for Relief A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
o (2) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief; and
o (3) A demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.
(b) Defenses; Admissions and Denials
o (1) In responding to a pleading, a party must:
(A) State in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted
against it.

Short & Plain Statement:
Short and plain statements need sufficient factual content in the complaint that makes a
plausible suggestion of the claim.
o Factual Content plausible? Claim
v.
1
2
1
Same claim of negligence against 2 as
1. 2 can bring claim against 1 if the
claim arises out of the came claim.

*Does not allow for cross claim outside the
scope of the original claim No
permissive crossclaims.
All the needs to do to have a claim brought forward is for the claim to be plausible
Thus any other explanation will be possible.
o To get nudged back up (from possible to plausible),the will need more in
claims to nudge it back (this comes with more specific claims being made), thus
pushing the s claim up to plausible and moving the s claim back to possible.
A court must accept all fact allegations as TRUE.
Legal conclusions are disregarded by the court.
o A legal conclusion is saying that the issue is something due to something
happened.
o In Iqbal, needed some form of evidence to make claim that it was MORE
LIKELY something other than the fact that they were profiling only Muslim
immigrants due to ties & connections with terrorists.
Need evidence/claim that would state Get the Arab guys.

Probable v. Plausible v. Conceivability:
Probable is GREATER than 50% likelihood of something having happened.
Plausible is something less.
Conceivability NOT PLAUSIBLE.
o Its possible, matter of individual judges thinking what is conceivable and
plausible.







Rule 12 Pre-Answer Motions:
(b) Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive
pleading if one is required. A party may assert the following defenses by motion:
o (1) Lack of SMJ.
o (2) Lack of PJ.
o (3) Improper Venue.
o (4) Insufficient Process.
o (5) Insufficient Service of Process.
o (6) Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.
o (7) Failure to Join Party Under Rule 19.
(h) When some are waived A party waives any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) by:
o (B) failing to either:
(i) Make it by motion under this rule; or
(ii) Include it in a responsive pleading or in an amendment allowed by
Rule 15(a)(1) as a matter of course.

Rule 15 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings:
(a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party
Possible/
Conceivable
Plausible Probable
> 50%
o (1) Amending as a Matter of Course A party may amend its pleading one as a
matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or;
(B) files an answer and 21 days after or 21 days after service under
motion of Rule 12(b), whichever is earlier.
o (2) All pleadings, party can only amend with opposing party consent or the
courts leave.
Standard: Judges have discretion to say yes freely.
Things that get in the way of Rule 15(a)(2):
Problem of undue delay
o Should they have known/did they know?
o If they knew and delayed intentionally, then this is in bad
faith and cannot be allowed.
Prejudice to the other party.
o Has there or would there be some other harmful impact due
to amendment.

Things to Memorize:
Cases:
o Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly Short/Plain Statement
o Ashcroft v. Iqbal Short/Plain Statement Must Have Specifics Giving Reason
To Go To Discovery

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment:
(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment A party may move
for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense, or the part of each claim or
defense, on which summary judgment is sought. The court will grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
o Court considering pleadings in totality + other documents Summary
Judgment.
^ How does party show no issue of material fact?
o Must convince judge that only way this is the only way it can be settled.

Rule 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial
Conditional Ruling:
(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial.
o If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under
Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject
to the courts later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion.
o The movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may
include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on
the renewed motion, the court may:
(1) Allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;
(2) Order a new trial; or
(3) Direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

In Sum:
Summary Judgment Can be brought at any time during the trial. A party can motion
for Summary Judgment after it has made its claim stating that the other side does not
have enough evidence to prove its claims wrong.
Judgment As A Matter of Law After a judgment has been passed, the losing party can
motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the ruling is incorrect and should be
found in its favor on a basis of law, even though the fact finder has found for the winning
party.


RES JUDICATA

Res Judicata:
^ This can also be called preclusion Matter has been adjudicated.
Two forms of Res Judicata:
o Claim Preclusion
Could be called claim splitting, or Res Judicata.
Claimant is barred by res judicata from asserting the same cause of action
in a later lawsuit.
Once a claimant has received an award, it can no longer look for rewards
on that same claim.
o ^ Application of Claim Preclusions:
Mutuality (same parties)
Only party to the judgment who can assert claim preclusion against
each other for the judgment.
Judgment on the merits
Court actually considered the merits of the claim.
Same claim or cause of action
Different Elements
o But conception of claim means does it have substantially
similar underlying facts.
o Would you need to apply substantially similar
underlying fact? If yes, should have brought the claims
together.
^ Ex: Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade
o Issue Preclusion
Could be called collateral estoppel.
Judgment binds the or (or privies) in subsequent actions on different
causes of action between them (or their privies) as to issues actually
litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action.
This conclusive effect of the first judgment is called collateral estoppel.
Focuses on something relatively narrow an issue that was litigated and
determined in the first case, and that is relevant in a second case. In this
scenario, the issue is deemed established in the second case without need
to proffer evidence on it.
o ^ Application of Issue Preclusion:
Same issue?
Issue that was ACTUALLY LITIGATED and decided.
Actually litigated - Parties disputed it in relation to how issue
should be resolved.
Necessary to the judgment.
Not all courts use this
Party against whom issue preclusion is sought had an opportunity to
litigate (thus there has already been a ruling). KEY PART.

Non-Party Preclusion:
Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel Still need to cover this.

Someone who is not party ro beginning litigation is now trying to use a finding in earlier
litigation against someone who was already a party.
ERIE DOCTRINE

Erie v. Tompkins: NOT ON THE EXAM
States that federal court sitting in diversity is required to apply generally the law of the
state in which the court sits.
^ This is done because courts do not want parties to forum shop and look for federal
courts to use federal common law that has been made by past cases ruled on.
o Forum shopping would be between the State Court and the Federal Court.
Only reason Tompkins had filed in federal court was because he was forum shopping and
would get a more favorable result in the federal court than if the state court applied state
common law to his case.
*NOTE: NEED DIVERSITY FOR THIS TO BE APPLICABLE.

Shady Grove v. Allstate:
Federal court is governed by lots of different provisions
o How much of state procedure needs to be applied?
o Shady Grove court ruled that the state courts influence on federal court can only
go so far.
State court rules are not going to apply to federal procedure.

QUESTIONS RE: INFORMATION FOR EXAM

Venue: Residency for an alien ? Can they sue in US?
1406/1404: Whose law is used on the transfer?


CITIZEN OF STATE: Natural Person(s)
1) US Citizen
2) Domiciliary of a State
a. Could be a domicilary of a state, but not a US citizen