{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Civil procedure - 2nd semester Rossi

Civil procedure - 2nd semester Rossi - Civil Procedure I...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Civil Procedure I. Judgments A. 3 requirements for valid judgment 1. SMJ – fed q/ diversity a. Diversity—must be complete diversity and over 75k b. Federal question—no minimum amount 2. Nexus – personal JD (territorial)/Notice – opportunity to be heard a. Minimum contacts b. Territorial c. Opportunity to be heard 3. Venue--§1391 a. Where D resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred B. Direct vs. Collateral attack 1. Direct a. 50(b) – motion for directed verdict b. 59(a) – motion for new trial c. 60(b) – motion to vacate judgment d. Appeal 2. Collateral – separate proceeding to attack judgment – can’t collaterally attack if already raised in 1 st C. Lack of Competency exists when: 1. court not empowered to entertain such cases 2. Judge by laws of state has no power to deal with subject matter 3. JD amount not met A. When Raised 4. court or parties at any time even party who invokes SMJ can challenge after judgment 5. If A B, can raise SMJ after statute of lim has run, to bar A from raising in proper JD 6. Can’t agree to SMJ – nonwaivable! 7. If SMJ raised once, can’t raise again on collateral attack b/c RJ, even if 1 st court erroneous! b. When claim is already litigated it can only be collaterally attacked on the basis of SMJ (as long as it wasn’t brought up in the prior action—BUT if it was only a default judgment, then it can be attacked on any of the 3 bases of a valid judgment II. SMJ D. Intro – “cases and controversies arising under fed const or treaties/laws 1. Art III § 1331 – gives broad discretion to courts 2. 1331 – limited by 3 requirements a. Well pleaded complaint rule –Mottley must be in complaint as basis of cause of action b. must be more than mere ingredient essential and directly on federal law c. substantially and not frivolous Bell v Hood – not made for sole purpose of getting JD 1) Bell v Hood – trespass suit but claim alleges violation of 5 th and 14 th Am. a) Rule – P may choose which laws to bring claim under, therefore, if issue may be decided by federal court b/c substantial and not frivolous , then court has SMJ b) Whether damages may be had for Const violation is a merits decision on 12(b)(6),not (b)(1) 1. if it were 12(b)(1) it would not be on the merits and there would be no problem for RJ
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 47

Civil procedure - 2nd semester Rossi - Civil Procedure I...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online