CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW 5011) CIVIL
PROCEDURES FOR BOILER PLATES
COMPLETE AND SUMMARISED,
BARRY UNIVERSITY.
,Important tests/rules
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule
Typically, in order to have federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's complaint must be a well-
pleaded one. This means that the plaintiff's initial complaint must contain the references to the
federal question and the federal issue evoked. The federal question and issue cannot arise in
an anticipated defense, it must be presented from the initial complaint. This requirement was
established in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, and as such it is often referred to as the
"Mottley Rule."
Test for Principal Place of Business
Standard – the principal place of business is the nerve center (see Hertz Corp v. Friend)
• “Nerve Center” test – locus of corporate decision-making and overall control
• typically headquarters, although it cannot be just a HQ in name but must maintain
essential functions
Holmes (Creation) Test: A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.
Exception: If federal statute creates cause of action, but the suit does NOT require interpretation
of the Constitution or laws of the United States.
• Federal question jurisdiction requires the interpretation of federal law or at least the
implication of federal policy
Grable (Importance) Test: “the question is, does a state-law claim necessarily raise a stated
federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without
disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities?”
Reasonably Calculated Standard
• Rule – notice must be given to a party by means reasonably calculated, under the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pending action and afford them an
opportunity to present their objections (see Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust)
o in cases with a large number of small, but identical, interests – notice only needs
to be reasonably calculated to reach most of those interested
Requirements for Claim preclusion
Encompasses two different ideas
• foreclosing any litigation matters that never have been litigated, because they should
have been part of an earlier suit
• foreclosing litigation matters that have been litigated and decided upon
Essential elements
• only judgments that are “final,” “valid,” and “on the merits” have this preclusive effect
• parties in subsequent action must be identical to those in the first
Requirements for Issue preclusion
• Actually Litigated and Determined
• First proceeding produced a final judgment
• Issue must have been essential to that judgment
• Issue must be the same in the second proceeding as in the first
Erie doctrine
, a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal
court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question (most commonly
when sitting in diversity jurisdiction, but also when applying supplemental jurisdiction to claims
factually related to a federal question or in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy) must apply state
substantive law.
The doctrine follows from the Supreme Court landmark decision in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
(1938). The case overturned Swift v. Tyson, which allowed federal judges sitting in a state to ignore
the common law local decisions of state courts in the same state in diversity actions.
Rule – Absent federal or constitutional questions, the law to be applied is the law of the state in
which the court sits (Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins)
• rejects the “federal common law” approach adopted in Swift v. Tyson o no transcending body
of law to provide a basis or consistency of application for this standard
• procedurally, apply federal (not) state rules of civil procedure post-Erie (forum shopping
benefit) Conflict of Law Rules
• Federal courts must apply the conflicts-of-law rules of the state in which they sit
o See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.
• A state could apply its substantive law in a case, so long as the state had significant contacts
or a significant aggregation of contacts with the parties and the transaction
o See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague
o encourages forum shopping because state will likely end up applying its own laws if it
has personal jurisdiction over the parties
• change of venue cases – court applies the substantive laws of the state in which the action
was filed, not the court to which it transfers (see Van Dusen v. Barrack)
o partially maintains the advantages of the plaintiff to choose its own forum
Choice of law
Rule – Absent federal or constitutional questions, the law to be applied is the law of the state in
which the court sits (Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins)
• rejects the “federal common law” approach adopted in Swift v. Tyson
o no transcending body of law to provide a basis or consistency of application for this
standard
• procedurally, apply federal (not) state rules of civil procedure post-Erie (forum shopping
benefit)
Conflict of Law Rule
• Federal courts must apply the conflicts-of-law rules of the state in which they sit
o See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.
• A state could apply its substantive law in a case, so long as the state had significant contacts
or a significant aggregation of contacts with the parties and the transaction
o See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague
o encourages forum shopping because the state will likely end up applying its own
laws if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties
• change of venue cases – court applies the substantive laws of the state in which the action
was filed, not the court to which it transfers (see Van Dusen v. Barrack)
o partially maintains the advantages of the plaintiff to choose its own forum
A compulsory counterclaim generally must be part of the initial answer to the plaintiff's action
and cannot be made later in the suit or in a separate lawsuit. By contrast, the permissive
counterclaim arises from an event unrelated to the matter on which the plaintiff's suit is based.
Federal Rules
PROCEDURES FOR BOILER PLATES
COMPLETE AND SUMMARISED,
BARRY UNIVERSITY.
,Important tests/rules
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule
Typically, in order to have federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's complaint must be a well-
pleaded one. This means that the plaintiff's initial complaint must contain the references to the
federal question and the federal issue evoked. The federal question and issue cannot arise in
an anticipated defense, it must be presented from the initial complaint. This requirement was
established in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, and as such it is often referred to as the
"Mottley Rule."
Test for Principal Place of Business
Standard – the principal place of business is the nerve center (see Hertz Corp v. Friend)
• “Nerve Center” test – locus of corporate decision-making and overall control
• typically headquarters, although it cannot be just a HQ in name but must maintain
essential functions
Holmes (Creation) Test: A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.
Exception: If federal statute creates cause of action, but the suit does NOT require interpretation
of the Constitution or laws of the United States.
• Federal question jurisdiction requires the interpretation of federal law or at least the
implication of federal policy
Grable (Importance) Test: “the question is, does a state-law claim necessarily raise a stated
federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without
disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities?”
Reasonably Calculated Standard
• Rule – notice must be given to a party by means reasonably calculated, under the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pending action and afford them an
opportunity to present their objections (see Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust)
o in cases with a large number of small, but identical, interests – notice only needs
to be reasonably calculated to reach most of those interested
Requirements for Claim preclusion
Encompasses two different ideas
• foreclosing any litigation matters that never have been litigated, because they should
have been part of an earlier suit
• foreclosing litigation matters that have been litigated and decided upon
Essential elements
• only judgments that are “final,” “valid,” and “on the merits” have this preclusive effect
• parties in subsequent action must be identical to those in the first
Requirements for Issue preclusion
• Actually Litigated and Determined
• First proceeding produced a final judgment
• Issue must have been essential to that judgment
• Issue must be the same in the second proceeding as in the first
Erie doctrine
, a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal
court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question (most commonly
when sitting in diversity jurisdiction, but also when applying supplemental jurisdiction to claims
factually related to a federal question or in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy) must apply state
substantive law.
The doctrine follows from the Supreme Court landmark decision in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
(1938). The case overturned Swift v. Tyson, which allowed federal judges sitting in a state to ignore
the common law local decisions of state courts in the same state in diversity actions.
Rule – Absent federal or constitutional questions, the law to be applied is the law of the state in
which the court sits (Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins)
• rejects the “federal common law” approach adopted in Swift v. Tyson o no transcending body
of law to provide a basis or consistency of application for this standard
• procedurally, apply federal (not) state rules of civil procedure post-Erie (forum shopping
benefit) Conflict of Law Rules
• Federal courts must apply the conflicts-of-law rules of the state in which they sit
o See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.
• A state could apply its substantive law in a case, so long as the state had significant contacts
or a significant aggregation of contacts with the parties and the transaction
o See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague
o encourages forum shopping because state will likely end up applying its own laws if it
has personal jurisdiction over the parties
• change of venue cases – court applies the substantive laws of the state in which the action
was filed, not the court to which it transfers (see Van Dusen v. Barrack)
o partially maintains the advantages of the plaintiff to choose its own forum
Choice of law
Rule – Absent federal or constitutional questions, the law to be applied is the law of the state in
which the court sits (Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins)
• rejects the “federal common law” approach adopted in Swift v. Tyson
o no transcending body of law to provide a basis or consistency of application for this
standard
• procedurally, apply federal (not) state rules of civil procedure post-Erie (forum shopping
benefit)
Conflict of Law Rule
• Federal courts must apply the conflicts-of-law rules of the state in which they sit
o See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.
• A state could apply its substantive law in a case, so long as the state had significant contacts
or a significant aggregation of contacts with the parties and the transaction
o See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague
o encourages forum shopping because the state will likely end up applying its own
laws if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties
• change of venue cases – court applies the substantive laws of the state in which the action
was filed, not the court to which it transfers (see Van Dusen v. Barrack)
o partially maintains the advantages of the plaintiff to choose its own forum
A compulsory counterclaim generally must be part of the initial answer to the plaintiff's action
and cannot be made later in the suit or in a separate lawsuit. By contrast, the permissive
counterclaim arises from an event unrelated to the matter on which the plaintiff's suit is based.
Federal Rules
