CA: bring 60 d After Gen App

Moving Party MUST show:

1. There's no genuine dispute of material fact

2. Moving pty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

ANYTIME you see (JML) in civ pro EXPLAIN it

JML = the jury reached a conclusion reasonable people could not have reached.

-facts MUST be viewed in light most favorable to non-moving party.

In DIVERSITY cases, Fed Ct MUST apply state substantive law AND fed procedural law

State Sub law = stats of limitations, elements of claim

Test:

1. Outcome determinative - would applying or ignoring state rule affect outcome of case?

2. Avoid forum shopping

3. Balance state and federal interests in having their rule applied

Proper where:

1. Any D resides, if all Ds reside in some state

2. Where Cause of Action arose

3. D subject to PJ

*Transfer - to district wehre case could have been filed must have proper venue & PJ

CA Venue

*Refers to the COUNTY where action may be tried

1. Venue is proper where any D resides, if no one resides in CA then ANY county

2. Where cause of action arose

Requirements

1. Case 1 & Case 2 were brought by SAME claimant against SAME D

2. Case 1 ended in a valid judgment on the merits

(not on merits if J based on jx, venue, indispensible pty)

3. Case 1 and Case 2 asserted same claim

* CA - final J not until ALL appeals are concluded (1 bite at apple)

PRIMARY RIGHTS - CA Distinction

PI claim is DIFF than Property claim even if came from SAME transaction

1. Final Judgment on the Merits

2. SAME issue was actually litigated in Case 1

3. ISSUE was ESSENTIAL to Jgmnt in Case 1

4. Against whom can issue preclusion be asserted

5. BY whom can issue preclusion be asserted =

(only against one who was a party in Case 1)

Non party relying on prior Judgment (Sword)

1. first case must be IDENTICAL to the issue presented in later case

2. Final J on merits

3. D had fair opportunity to be heard on critical issue

4. Would be unfair to apply CE

Proper Ds & many Ps "MAY" be joined if:

1. Arose from same transaction or occurrence

2. Raise at least 1 common question

(Make sure to mention that CA rule is SAME 

ALWAYS quick mention of compulsory joinder if calls for)

CA RULE IS SAME

Necessary Party IF:

1. Without party, Court cannot give complete relief

2. Ps interest will be harmed if party is not joined

3. Multiplicity of suits possible

Feasibility (Always mention w/ joinder)

1. You have PJ?

2. Will it destroy diversity jx?

Requires D to assert any claim against P arising out of same transaction or occurrence OR it is WAIVED

(don't confuse w/ compulsory joinder)

(Offense against co-party)

Permissive Cross Claim - does not arise out of same T/O as Ps claim and MAY asset in Ds answer OR in separate case

Fed req's Notice Pleading: P has present facts to put D on notice of being sued.

CA - req's CODE pleading - stricter standard 1. Statement of Facts, 2. Demand for relief.

FRCPs - Can object to being sued but should be done as early as possible. Can argue:

1. SMJ

2. PJ

3. Venue

4. Process

5. Failure to state claim

D may remove an action that could have been originally brought by P in Fed Court

- all Ds MUST agree

- P can never remove

- good SMJ - hidden issue, discuss

*NO removal on diversity if ANY D is a citizen of forum

Remand

If no SMJ, P can remand anytime

IF removal improper, must be remanded in 30 days.

Claim MUST share a "common nucleus of opperative fact" w/ the claim that invoked Fed.Subject Matter which means it arises from the same "transaction or occurrence"

Extra Points - Discretionary factors; Court has discretion NOT to hear Supp Claim IF: 1. State law claim is COMPLEX

2. State law issues would PREDOMINATE

Triggered when you have 1 good claim - however MUST have 

a. original claim has Fed Jx

b. New claim arises from same T/O

In diversity cases - Fed MUST apply State substantive law & FED procedural law. (Substantive law = SOL, elelments of claims)

Test: 1. Outcome determinative - would applying or ignoring state rule affect outcome?

2. Avoid forum shopping

3. Balance state & fed interest in having their rule applied.