CIVPRO REVIEW CHECKLIST

• rational is that defendants as well as plaintiffs should have the option to choose federal court for cases within the federal jurisdiction
• don't want out of state defendants to suffer prejudice from litigating in a state court (diversity jurisdiction)
• the right to removal applies to cases not claims: D's entire suit is removed, including not only the specific claim that gives rise to removal jurisdiction, but also any related claims that the federal court has the power to hear under supplemental jurisdiction
• removal is a one way street: a defendant who is properly sued in federal court cannot remove to state court

1. removal should be available in cases only in which the P could have originally commenced in federal court - 1441 only authorizes removal of state court actions "of which the district courts of the USA have original jurisdiction" - if P could have not have chosen to bring the action in federal court originally, then D cannot remove it

• TWO WAYS to remove: DIVERSITY (§1441) or FEDERAL QUESTION(§1331) 1441(e) changed this: traditionally state court must have had jurisdiction to start with example: if federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter such as over a patent case (§1338a) the state court had no right to hear the case in the first place. The case would have to be dismissed and then an original action brought in federal court.

2. PROPER COURT TO REMOVE TO:

• cannot remove to another state court
• cannot remove to a state court in a different state
• cannot remove to a federal court in another state
• cannot remove to a federal court in a different district within the same state
• the federal district court "for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending [in state court]" is the ONLY proper court to be removed to (1441a)

2. courts require that only defendants actually served join in the removal (1441a&b) future defendants that have not been served at time of notice have recourse by moving to remand on the ground that he does not consent to approval. If last defendant is served more than 30 days after the first defendant, and wants to remove where the others have not, he is probably out of luck
3. nothing here….
4. DIVERSITY 1441(b) - "none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which such action is brought" - if a D is sued in his home state he may not remove on basis of diversity (no need to be protected from local prejudice)

• authorized by Article III of the Constitution: authorizes Congress to create lower federal courts and confer diversity jurisdiction upon them
• as long as P sues a diverse D and the claim is for more than $75,000 the federal court will have subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity

13. a plaintiff's claim for more than the amount in controversy controls unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less.

MULTIPLE PARITES: SPLIT:

• majority of courts use traditional rules: a single plaintiff may aggregate any claims he has against a single defendant. However he cannot add claims he has against different defendants to reach the magic number. Nor may he add his own claim to that of another plaintiff. Each plaintiff must have a colorable claim for more than $75,000 against each defendant. A way to look at this is to ask "if each plaintiff alone were suing each defendant alone, would he satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement?"
• modern, emerging view since passage of 1367: As long as one plaintiff satisfies the amount in controversy question, other plaintiffs may add their claims under 1367 supplemental jurisdiction.

14. complete diversity between the parties: all plaintiffs in a suit are from different states than all defendants at the time suit is brought. Justice Marshall in Strawbridge v. Curtiss. Can have parties from the same state as long as they are on the same side. Aliens that reside in a state are NOT citizens of that state. If plaintiff later amends to add additional defendants that are citizens of the same state as a plaintiff, most likely the court refuse to allow the amendment or dismiss the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

15. citizens of different states: equated with the common law concept of domicile. Domicile is defined as the state in which the person has taken up residence with the intent to reside indefinitely. Major problem here is determining what "intent to stay indefinitely means." Indefinitely means that a person's presence in a state is open ended. That is he has no definite intent to leave to make a home elsewhere.

16. corporations are deemed to be citizens of both the state where their principle place of business is located and the state in which they are incorporated in (1332c1). Consequently, if an opposing party is a citizen of either of those states, diversity does not exist. A principle place of business is defined as "place of operations" or "bulk of corporate activity." In cases which it is very difficult to determine a home state, courts will look to the "nerve center," the place where activities are coordinated (home office, corporate headquarters)

BASIC RULE: defendants must be sued in a district where they reside or where important events relevant to the suit took place

- venue rules are meant to further restrict the places where the plaintiff may choose to bring suit

• venue in diversity cases is governed by 1391a&b

19. these provisions focus on judicial districts not states. residence is equated with domicile for venue purposes (this issues it not clearly resolved)

20. these provisions often authorize venue for a particular suit in several districts. The purpose of this venue provision is to assure a relation between the underlying events that are litigated and the place where the case is tried

21. A fallback provision that is not often used. Because usually at least will be able to satisfy the requirement that venue is found where a substantial amount of the events took place

22. unclear as to what it means for a defendant to be "found" in a district. An individual defendant is probably "found" in a district if served with process there. Something less, such as being subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, may also suffice. A fallback provision that is not often used. Because usually at least will be able to satisfy the requirement that venue is found where a substantial amount of the events took place

23. 1391c: only applies to corporate defendants. a corporate residence is any district in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction

24. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute where the forum selection clause was upheld in absence of showing unfairness

27. minimum contacts:

• International Shoe v. Washington: courts of a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if she has such minimum contacts with the state that it would be fair to require her to return and defend that lawsuit in that state; minimum contacts jurisdiction is limited to claims arising from the defendant's contacts with the forum state
• Kulko v. Superior Court: minimum contacts test applies to individual as well as corporate defendants

28. specific jurisdiction:

• McGee v. International Ins. Co.: a single act because of their "quality and nature" will support "specific in personam jurisdiction"
• Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz: continuous but limited activity in the forum state, such as an ongoing business relationship, will also support specific jurisdiction

28. general jurisdiction: general in personam jurisdiction is sometimes permissible:

• Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia:
• Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.
• not a clear line between which contacts support general in personam jurisdiction and those that support only, minimum contacts jurisdiction

28. Burnham v. Superior Court of California: jurisdiction based on in-state service only requires that the defendant be present in the state at the time that the summons and complaint are served upon her. In such cases, the defendant need not have had any contact with the state at the time of the events giving rise to the suit.
29. purposeful availment - determining "quality and nature" of contacts:

• Hanson v. Denckla: the defendant must have "purposely avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws." - defendant must have made a deliberate choice to relate to the state in some meaningful way before it can be made to bear the burden of defending there
• World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson: defendant must have sought direct benefits activities in the state sufficient to require it to submit to jurisdiction there. (here no benefits were sought in Oklahoma so there was no personal jurisdiction)
• Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court: SPLIT mere awareness that the stream of commerce may sweep goods into the state after they leave the defendant's hands does not suffice to satisfy "purposeful availment" - need clearer evidence that defendant seeks to serve the market in the particular state. MINORITY: sending goods into the stream of commerce constitutes "purposeful availment" whether or not the original maker knows that the goods will be sold in a particular state or cultivates customers there.

28. a defendant can consent to jurisdiction by giving express consent: by contract, appointment of agent to accept service of process; implied consent; consent by voluntary appearance: no challenge to personal jurisdiction made

7. How does a D contest personal jurisdiction?

36. State courts: make a special appearance. Have to be careful not to raise any other issues. If other issues are raised the court may conclude the jurisdictional objection has been waived (some states allow claims like 12(b) as in federal courts)

37. In Federal courts, unlike state courts, under 12(b) a defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and at the same time, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 12(b)(6).

38. must be careful when this is done though because if D guessed wrong, he will have lost right to defend against the suit as the judgement will be enforceable. If found enforceable, the P will take the judgement to the court of the state in which D resides and ask for it to be upheld. Since Article IV of the Constitution says that states must give full faith and credit to judgements in other states, the judgement must be upheld. UNLESS, after a hearing the resident state finds that the original state did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. If the resident state finds there was jurisdiction, then the judgement is enforceable and D has lost rights to defend on the merits of the claim.

• D only gets ONE chance to object to personal jurisdiction. If he objected in the state where the claim was originally brought, lost, and then defaulted on the merits, D has no right to again object when the ruling is brought to his state of residence for enforcement.

7. Erie questions

40. if there is no applicable state law, the federal judge must predict how the issue before it would be decided by the state supreme court if that court decided the issue today
41. Hanna v. Plumer: in the broad areas where the law is largely judge-made, such as contracts, torts, probate, and property issues, state law reigns supreme because "there can be no other law."
42. Which rules to apply? Federal or state?

• broadened the Erie doctrine: seemed to require federal courts to use state law in many cases even though Congress of the federal court would have the power to adopt a separate rule
• this was too wide, so the pendulum swung back a bit

43. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electrical Cooperative, Inc.: federal courts must honor the "definition of state-created rights and obligations by the state courts." (the federal court must follow state law in those areas where it has no power to create law).

• This is the Constitutional Prong of Erie. In some areas of the law the power to make the law is clearly reserved for the states by the Constitution (ie. duty of a trespasser in Erie - an issue of substantive law)
• in order to assure uniformity of outcome, the federal court applies outcome-determinative state law even on procedural issues as to which there is federal constitutional authority to apply a separate rule
• this seemed to affirm that state rules of procedure would often supersede the FRCP in diversity cases

44. Hanna v. Plumber: The Rules Rescued!

• Policies underlying Erie: to prevent forum shopping and inequitable administration of the laws. Whether a federal procedure is outcome determinative must be viewed in light of these underlying policies. (Hanna Part I)

Four basic types of federal provisions that may conflict with state law:

1. conflicts between a federal constitutional provision and state law:

• US Constitution is supreme law - its provisions apply even if they conflict with state law

1. conflicts between a federal statute and state law:

• if the issue is arguably procedural the statute must be applied because Congress has the authority to enact the statute, and valid federal statutes are "supreme Law of the Land"

1. conflicts between a federal rule and state law:

• Federal Rule is valid. if the rule is rationally capable of classification as a procedural regulation the federal rule should be used as Congress has the constitutional power to authorize the Supreme Court to adopt a federal rule (Hanna Part II)
• Federal Rules are valid, unless they "abridge, enlarge, or modify" a substantive right under the second subsection of the REA

45:

1. conflicts between a federal judicial practice and state law:

• the diversity court should choose to apply the state rule if the difference between the federal practice and the state law could be "outcome determinative" in the sense that following a separate federal practice could lead to forum shopping or inequitable administration of the laws (Hanna Part I)

47. Klaxon v. Stentor Manufacturing Co.: the conflict of law rules to be applied by the federal court must conform to those of the prevailing state court in which the federal court is in

48. Van Dusen v. Barrack: when there is a transfer of venue under 1404(a) the transfer should effect a change of court but not the law. Therefore, the transferee court should apply the law that the transferor court would have applied if the case had not been transferred.

I. Res Judicata (Claim preclusion):

49. same claim: apply the transaction or occurrence test: preclusion turns on the right to join the claim in the original action, not on whether the claim was actually asserted. Consequently, claims need not have actually been litigated to be barred in a later action; they only need to have been available to the plaintiff in the first suit.
50. judgement on the merits: a dismissal of an action is the same as a final judgement because P had the full opportunity to litigate the merits in the first action (and lost). The same reasoning bars a claim in which the defendant defaults (that is, never answers to the merits and therefore loses by default).
51. nothing…
52. if this were not the case the res judicata rules would convert permissive joinder under the Rules into compulsory joinder. Rule 20(a) says that a P MAY choose to sue join defendants but he does not have to. Rule makers favored freedom of choice over efficiency.

7. Collateral Estoppel (issue preclusion)

56. an issue may not have been "actually litigated" even though it was raised in a prior action

60. "offensive nonmutual estoppel occurs when the plaintiff seeks to foreclose the defendant from litigating an issue the defendant has previously litigated unsuccessfully in an action with another party (Parklane Hoisery v. Shore)" Offensive because action seeks to use estoppel to establish the defendant's liability in a new action. Nonmutual because the parties to the new action were not parties to the action in which the issue was first litigated

factors that the courts must consider when deciding whether to allow offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel (they must be cautious):

• the party against whom estoppel is asserted in the second action was a defendant and did not choose the forum in which the issue was initially decided
• the prospect of taking advantage of another plaintiff's victory to establish crucial issues without trial may lead plaintiffs to "wait and see" (that is to hold back from joining in the first plaintiff's suit)
• a party might not have litigated the issue aggressively in the first action if the stakes were small or the forum inconvenient
• it may not have been possible for the losing party to litigate effectively in the first action if the procedural rules of the court that decided the first case were more restrictive than those of the court hearing the second
• one or more prior inconsistent judgements on the issue may suggest that it would be unfair to give conclusive effect to any one of them
• ABOVE FACTORS are from PARKLANE

67. a pre-answer motion under 12b is an alternative to filing the complaint. A defendant who has moved to dismiss under 12b need not answer the complaint until after the motion is decided (see 12a4)

• filing a pre-answer motion is entirely optional

68. 12g, h - provide that four of the 12b defenses will be waived (personal jurisdiction, venue, form of process, method of service of process) if not raised in the defendant's first response to the complaint (in the pre-answer motion). If D fails to raise one of these four "disfavored" defenses in initial response, D has waived the omitted defenses for all time

------------------------------

1. ÿ could have originally been brought in federal court by P?
2. ÿ the court being removed to is the federal district court "for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending [in state court]" (1441a)
3. ÿ have all defendants joined in the notice of removal?
4. ÿ federal question 1331 (see below): the civil action arises out of a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States (1441b) OR:
5. ÿ diversity jurisdiction 1332(see below): all the requirements of 1332 are satisfied - none of the defendants are citizens of the state in which the action is brought (1441b)
6. ÿ is there a separate and independent cause of action conferred by the jurisdiction of section 1331 (federal question) joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action? if so the case is properly removable (1441c)

B. Procedure for Removal (1446):

7. ÿ file a notice in the appropriate federal district court, together with all pleadings, process, and other papers on file in the state action (1446a)
8. ÿ the notice must be filed within 30 days of receiving the plaintiff's pleading in state suit (1446b)
9. ÿ once the notice is filed and the state court is notified the state court looses control of the case automatically (1446d)
10. ÿ P may move to remand the case back to state court if he thinks D has removed improperly - if basis for remand is failure to comply with the procedural requirements, must be made within 30 days of removal or objection is waived (1447c)
11. ÿ a motion to remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be made at any time

C. Federal Question Jurisdiction (1331):

12. the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

D. Diversity Jurisdiction (1332):

13. ÿ amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 (at least $75,000.01) 1332a
14. ÿ must be complete diversity between the parties - all defendants must be from different states than all plaintiffs 1332a
15. ÿ citizens of different states (1332a)
16. ÿ corporations are deemed to be citizens of both the state where their principle place of business is located and the state in which they are incorporated in (1332c1)

E. Venue (if removal proper, is venue proper?) (1391)

BASIC RULE: defendants must be sued in a district where they reside or where important events relevant to the suit took place

17. ÿ if forum is based on diversity, 1391a governs venue
18. ÿ all other cases ("a civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely upon diversity of citizenship") are governed by 1391b (usually cases that arose under federal law)
19. ÿ venue is proper if a civil action [based on diversity or all other cases] may only be brought in "a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state" 1391a1 & 1391b1 OR
20. ÿ venue is proper if the claim is brought in a "judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated" 1391a2 & 1391b2 OR
21. ÿ in case of diversity look at 1391a3: venue is proper in "a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought" 1391a3
22. ÿ in all other cases venue is proper in "a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought" 1391b3
23. ÿ a corporate defendant "resides" in every district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction: 1391c defines corporate "residence" for purposes of applying 1391a&b 1

Exceptions to 1391:

24. ÿ venue waived? is considered a privilege of the defendant and may be waived - venue is waived if the defendant fails to raise it when responding to plaintiff's complaint: 12b,g,h
25. ÿ have parties agreed in advance as to what the forum will be?
26. ÿ some certain claims that seem to be covered by 1391b2 are covered by other areas of the FRCP: patent infringement (1400b), copyright suits, interpleader actions, actions against federal officials

F. Does the Court Have Personal Jurisdiction?:

27. ÿ has the minimum contacts test been satisfied?
28. ÿ is there specific jurisdiction? jurisdiction arising out of activity in state
29. ÿ or is there general jurisdiction? when in state contacts are very substantial
30. ÿ was defendant served within the state? sufficient for personal jurisdiction
31. ÿ are the "quality and nature" of the contacts sufficient to support jurisdiction?
32. ÿ has defendant consented to personal jurisdiction?

Long Arm Statutes:

33. ÿ is there a state statute allowing personal jurisdiction?
34. ÿ if so, is it constitutional under the minimum contacts test and under the due process clause to do so?
35. ÿ in California, courts are allowed to exercise jurisdiction "on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States."

G. (How) Does Defendant Have Basis to Challenge Personal Jurisdiction:

36. ÿ State courts: Defendant can make a "special appearance" to contest jurisdiction without submitting to jurisdiction by the very act of appearing
37. ÿ Federal courts: 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to appear before answering to the merits of the complaint and object to personal jurisdiction
38. ÿ Other option is to ignore the suit entirely since if they truly did not have jurisdiction over D, any decision rendered will be invalid.

8. ?Choice of Law/Erie Problems

1. ÿ in diversity cases federal courts must apply the law that would be applied by the courts of the state in which they sit
2. ÿ job of the federal courts to apply the state common law
3. ÿ also applies to state claims brought before the court under 1367 supplemental jurisdiction
4. ÿ which law to apply: federal or state?
5. ÿ seemed that state law was to be applied in all cases in which state law would be outcome determinative
6. ÿ issue was resolved in Hanna v. Plumber:

• Policies underlying Erie: to prevent forum shopping and inequitable administration of the laws. Whether a federal procedure is outcome determinative must be viewed in light of these underlying policies. (Hanna Part I)
• if the rule is rationally capable of classification as a procedural regulation the federal rule should be used as Congress has the constitutional power to authorize the Supreme Court to adopt a federal rule (Hanna Part II)

1. ÿ if the state law is "outcome determinative" still apply the state law
2. ÿ lex loci delicti - apply the law of the place where the injury occurred
3. ÿ when there are several states whose law might apply (if the P had a choice of states in which to bring the matter to federal court) the federal court must do whatever the state court within that state would do
4. ÿ when there is a change of venue (1404a), the transferee court should apply the law that the transferor court (of the previous state) would have applied if the case had not been transferred

8. Res Judicata (claim preclusion):

1. ÿ the claim must be the same in both suits: a party who has asserted a right to relief arising out of a particular transaction or occurrence must join all claims she has arising from it, or the omitted claims will be barred by res judicata
2. ÿ judgement on the merits: any final ruling by the court will do. If the case has been dismissed this will be treated the same as a jury verdict for reasons of opportunity to litigate the merits
3. ÿ final judgement: SPLIT: many courts give res judicata effect to a judgement once it has become final in the trial court, even if an appeal is pending (Restatement 2d. view). Other courts, only give res judicata effect to judgements if the time for appeal has passed or the case has been finally resolved by the appellate court.
4. ÿ the same parties plus others in privity: all claims must be asserted in initial suit; Thus, in many cases, claims against additional parties could be joined under the Rules but will not be barred by res judicata if they are not.

8. Collateral Estoppel (issue preclusion)

1. precludes relitigation of issues that were actually litigated and decided in a prior action - if an issue could have been raised in the first case but was not explicitly raised and decided, collateral estoppel will not bar P from litigating that issue in a future action
2. collateral estoppel needed because issues already litigated may come up again in later litigation based on separate events
3. ÿ the issue in the second case must be the same as the issue in the first
4. ÿ the issues must have actually been litigated
5. ÿ even if an issue was litigated in a prior action, collateral estoppel will not bar relitigation unless the issue was actually decided in that action
6. collateral estoppel will not apply unless the decision on the issue in the prior action was necessary to the court's judgement
7. defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel: a new party (usually a defendant) is allowed to invoke collateral estoppel against a party who litigated and lost on an issue in a prior action (a future party can use ruling from prior case to estop the case from being relitigated)
8. offensive nonmutual estoppel: usually involves a new plaintiff (where defensive does not)who seeks to borrow a finding from a prior action to impose liability on a party who was a defendant in the prior action

8. Service of Process (Rule 4)

1. 4a - how the papers must be served
2. 4c1 - what documents must be served on the defendant
3. 4e-j - when and how the papers must be served
4. 4m - who must serve the papers
5. 4d - how the requirement of service may be waived

8. Motion to Dismiss (Rule 12)

1. 12a - defendant responds to complaint by filing an answer
2. 12b - if defendant has certain preliminary objections a motion to dismiss can be filed
3. 12g, h - govern the consequence of not raising 12b defenses

8. Basic Rules of Joinder (rule 13, 14, 18, 20, 24)

1. plaintiffs may sue together if:

ÿ the assert claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence (20a)

ÿ their claims against the defendant or defendants will involve a common question of law or fact (20a)

2. ÿ 13 - authorizes a defending party in a suit to assert claims back against a party who has claimed against him
3. ÿ 13a - compulsory counterclaims - if defending party's counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim against him, it is compulsory, which essentially means that he must assert it in the original action or lose it
4. ÿ 13b - permissive counterclaims - defending parties may also assert counterclaims that are completely unrelated to the original claim
5. ÿ 13g - a cross-claim may be asserted by one party against another party who is on the same side of the "v" as the claimant if the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the main claim
6. ÿ 18a - a party seeking relief from an opposing party may join with his original claim any additional claims he has against that opposing party (a 13g claim must be made first)
7. ÿ 14 - gives defendant a limited right to implead new parties against whom there are claims relating to the main action

• may bring in a "third party defendant" - a person not yet a party to the suit, but who may be liable to the original defendant (who becomes a third party plaintiff)
• for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of the third party defendant is irrelevant; only the citizenship of the original parties is considered
• third party is also disregarded in determining if venue is proper
• rule 14 cannot be used to foist alternate defendants on the plaintiff

8. Supplemental Jurisdiction (Section 1367)

1. pendant jurisdiction: plaintiff asserted a jurisdictionally proper claim against a nondiverse party and added on a related state law claim
2. ancillary jurisdiction: in which related claims over which the federal court would have no power to hear by itself, were asserted by defendants or other additional parties after the initial complaint
3. 1367a - if federal court has original jurisdiction (proper federal claim or diversity claim) the court may hear all the claims that are "part of the same case or controversy under Article III"
4. 1367b - supplemental jurisdiction shall not extend to certain claims by plaintiffs in diversity cases where "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24…"
5. 1367c - the courts has discretion to decline jurisdiction over supplemental claims for any of four reasons (see section)

three part analysis:

6. ÿ the court must determine whether there is constitutional power under Article II, § 2 to hear the supplemental claim - Gibbs - the constitutional power to hear the related claim exists if there is a proper claim within the jurisdiction of the federal court and the related claim arises from the same nucleus of operative facts
7. ÿ the court must determine whether there is a statutory grant of jurisdiction over the related claim - usually provided by 1367a
8. ÿ the court must decide whether to hear the claim or not (1367c)

3 rings: personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue

• personal jurisdiction: in personam (minimum contacts)
• subject matter jurisdiction: federal question, diversity
• venue: removal, proper venue

• due process analysis on the basis of domicile in a state
• in-state service of process
• consent to jurisdiction
• continuous or substantial in state service of process
• as a result of "minimum contacts" with the forum state that give rise to a particular cause of action

supplemental jurisdiction: authorizes a federal court to entertain related state claims that arise from the same facts as a federal claim (1367)

How can you tell if defendants will be successful in getting the case removed?

How does one achieve a change in venue?

Is the venue proper?

Jurisdiction (how to contest jurisdiction in personam? how to contest it under long arm statutes?)

Minimum Contacts (are XYZ amenable to service of process in CA?)

Joinder of Parties (procedurally, before or after transfer?)

Motion to Dismiss (on ground of statute of limitation?)

Transfer (procedurally?)

Choice of Law

Erie Problem (if federal law provides for a different result?)

Collateral Estoppel (may defendant use the prior judgement to its benefit?)

Res Judicata (may a CA judgement be used to preclude relitigation of claims or issues?)

FRCP 12 (b)(2) defenses (made by motion, how should court decide?)

- when does a Federal Court NOT have personal jurisdiction over D??

FRCP 13 (g) (will the court have jurisdiction over the claim?)

28 USC § 2201 (declaratory judgement statute)

56 USC § 567 (legislation to counter fraud in international trafficking in art and antiques)