Civil Procedure punishes rushed ordering. Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, Erie, removal, and preclusion stay near the top because they control entire answers.
Civil Procedure punishes rushed ordering. Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, Erie, removal, and preclusion stay near the top because they control entire answers.
Very High frequency
GENERAL JURISDICTION: D "at home" in forum (domicile for individuals; state of incorporation or principal place of business for corporations). Can sue for ANY claim. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION: Claim arises from D's contacts with forum. Requirements: (1) Purposeful availment of forum's benefits; (2) Claim arises from or relates to contacts; (3) Reasonableness. MINIMUM CONTACTS: Must be intentional, not random/fortuitous. Stream of commerce: Split authority. CONSENT (forum selection clause, appearance without objection), WAIVER, and IN-STATE SERVICE also confer PJ. LONG-ARM STATUTES: Must authorize + satisfy due process.
HYPO: P (FL) sues D Corp (incorporated in DE, HQ in NY) in FL federal court. D Corp sold one product to P through D's website. Product malfunctioned and injured P. Does FL have personal jurisdiction? ANALYSIS: GENERAL JURISDICTION? D must be "at home" - only in DE (incorporation) or NY (principal place of business). Not FL. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION? (1) Purposeful availment - Did D purposefully direct activities at FL? One sale via website = close question. Did D target FL specifically or just have national website? (2) Claim arises from FL contact - Yes, injury from FL sale. (3) Reasonableness - Burden on D vs. P's interest. RESULT: Likely NO general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction depends on whether D specifically targeted FL market or just had passive website - courts split on internet jurisdiction.
Section sources
Very High frequency
FEDERAL QUESTION (§1331): Claim arises under federal law. Must appear on face of well-pleaded complaint (not defense or anticipated defense). DIVERSITY (§1332): COMPLETE diversity (no P and D share state) + amount exceeds $75,000. Citizenship: Individuals = domicile; corporations = state of incorporation AND principal place of business. Aggregation: One P can aggregate claims vs one D; can't aggregate multiple Ps/Ds unless joint/common interest. SUPPLEMENTAL (§1367): Court can hear related state claims. Limit: In diversity cases, can't extend jurisdiction over claims by Ps against nondiverse parties.
HYPO: P (FL citizen) sues D1 (GA citizen) and D2 (FL citizen) in federal court for $100K arising from car accident. All claims are state law negligence. Does federal court have SMJ? ANALYSIS: NO federal question - only state law claims. Diversity? Requires COMPLETE diversity - no P citizen of same state as any D. P (FL) and D2 (FL) share citizenship. Complete diversity DESTROYED. Amount over $75K? Yes, but irrelevant without diversity. Can P sue just D1? Yes - P (FL) vs D1 (GA) = diverse. Can P add D2 as party later? Not under diversity - would destroy it. What about supplemental jurisdiction over D2? NO - §1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs that would destroy diversity. RESULT: No SMJ with D2 as defendant. Must sue D1 alone in federal court OR sue both in state court.
Section sources
High frequency
In diversity cases, federal court applies STATE SUBSTANTIVE law and FEDERAL PROCEDURAL law. ANALYSIS: (1) Is there a federal rule/statute on point? If yes, apply if valid (REA - doesn't abridge substantive rights). (2) If no federal rule, is state rule substantive? OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE: Would applying federal rule cause forum shopping or inequitable administration? If yes, apply state law. SUBSTANCE: Statute of limitations, burden of proof, choice of law rules, elements of claim. PROCEDURE: Pleading standards (but FL uses notice pleading), service rules, evidence rules (but state privilege law applies). Conflicts between state constitution and federal procedure → federal wins.
HYPO: Diversity case in federal court. State law requires that medical malpractice plaintiffs submit claims to a screening panel before filing suit. P filed directly in federal court without screening. D moves to dismiss. Should federal court apply state screening requirement? ANALYSIS: ERIE framework: (1) Is there federal rule on point? No FRCP covers pre-suit screening. (2) Is state rule substantive or procedural? OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE test: Would different rules cause forum shopping? If P can avoid screening by suing in federal court, P will always choose federal. This is exactly what Erie aimed to prevent. State screening = SUBSTANTIVE for Erie purposes. Even though it looks procedural, it affects outcomes and would cause forum shopping. RESULT: Federal court must APPLY state screening requirement. P must comply before proceeding.
Section sources
High frequency
CLAIM PRECLUSION (res judicata): Bars relitigation of claims that were or should have been raised. Requirements: (1) Final judgment on merits; (2) Same parties (or privity); (3) Same claim (same transaction or occurrence). ISSUE PRECLUSION (collateral estoppel): Bars relitigation of issues actually litigated and decided. Requirements: (1) Same issue; (2) Actually litigated and decided; (3) Essential to judgment; (4) Full and fair opportunity to litigate. MUTUALITY: Traditional rule required same parties. Modern: Nonmutual defensive preclusion allowed; nonmutual offensive preclusion discretionary (Parklane factors).
HYPO: P1 sues D for negligence in car accident. Jury finds D was NOT negligent. Judgment entered. P2 (passenger in P1's car) now sues D for same accident. D argues P2 is precluded. P2 argues D is precluded. Who's right? ANALYSIS: CLAIM PRECLUSION against P2? NO - different parties (P2 wasn't party to first suit). ISSUE PRECLUSION against P2? D wants to use prior finding of "not negligent." This is NONMUTUAL DEFENSIVE preclusion (D using prior judgment as shield). Generally ALLOWED. P2 could have joined first case; was issue fully litigated? Yes. ISSUE PRECLUSION against D? P2 wants to use hypothetical finding of D's negligence offensively. But D WON - was found not negligent. Can't use losing finding. RESULT: D can use ISSUE PRECLUSION against P2. The "not negligent" finding bars P2's claim.
Section sources
Medium frequency
REMOVAL: D can remove from state to federal court if federal court would have original jurisdiction. PROCEDURE: Notice of removal within 30 days of service (or learning of federal question/diversity). All Ds must join. DIVERSITY REMOVAL: FORUM DEFENDANT RULE - Cannot remove on diversity if any D is citizen of forum state. No removal more than 1 year after commencement (unless bad faith to prevent removal). FEDERAL QUESTION: No forum defendant rule. Removable even if D is forum citizen. REMAND: For procedural defects, must move within 30 days. For lack of SMJ, any time. Bad faith removal = costs and fees.
HYPO: P (FL) sues D (GA) in FL state court for state law negligence, seeking $100K. D wants to remove to federal court. Can D remove? What if D was FL citizen? What if case was 14 months old? ANALYSIS: Basic removal: Diversity exists (FL vs GA, >$75K). Federal court would have original jurisdiction. D can remove within 30 days of service. FORUM DEFENDANT RULE: If D was FL citizen (forum state), NO removal based on diversity. D can't remove from home state. 1-YEAR RULE: If case was 14 months old, generally too late (1-year limit for diversity removal). BUT: Exception if P acted in bad faith to prevent removal (e.g., waited to amend to increase damages above $75K). RESULT: D (GA) CAN remove from FL state court. FL defendant could NOT remove. After 1 year, removal barred unless P's bad faith.
Section sources
Use it to decide review order, not as a substitute for practice. Start with the first two or three topics, then reinforce them with timed multiple-choice work.
No. It means the higher-ranked topics deserve earlier and more frequent review because they trigger more downstream issues and more repeat appearances across mixed sets.