a complaint must allege sufficient facts that, if accepted as true, would “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”

Rule 26(a)
-names/info of witnesses that support your case
-ESI and other tangible documents

oCase one and case two must be brought by the same claimant against the same defendant
oHave to show that case one ended in a valid final judgment on the merits
oThe claimant asserted the same claim in both cases
the claim is the transaction or occurrence (majority rule)
primary rights theory: we get a different claim for each right invaded (minority rule)

Arises from or relate to defendant’s contact with forum state; Covers defendant less intimately connected with a State, “purposeful availment” minimum contacts needed + reasonableness
o Contacts must be defendant’s own choice — deliberate; defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state
o Plaintiff’s claims must arise out of or relate to defendant’s contact with the forum!!!

are both parties citizens of different states?
do the meet the amount in controversy? (must exceed $75,000 and have legal certainty)

Step 1: find legal conclusions
Step 2: Throw out legal conclusions
Step 3: Factual allegations (take as true)
o The factual allegations have to match the claims they are alleging
Step 4: Do they give rise to plausible claims for relief?
o Plausibility is up to the judge

Work Product
•Something is work product if it is prepared in anticipation of litigation
•You can override work product if you show 2 things
oSubstantial need
oThe information is not otherwise easily available
•some kinds of work products are absolutely protected
o mental impression
o conclusions, opinions, and legal theories
•work product can be generated by the party or any party representatives

oHave to show that case one ended in a valid final judgment on the merits
oMust show that the same issue was litigated and determined in case one
oShow that issue was essential to the judgment in case one
oWe ask against whom issue preclusion used (only can be used against someone who was a party to case
o By whom is issue preclusion asserted

any and all claims brought against defendant, claims need not relate to the forum state or defendant’s activity there

1. if it raise a federal question (1331)
2. if it has diversity jurisdiction (1332)

the defendant MUST respond to the complaint. The defendant MUST go through line by line and respond to what the plaintiff said
• Defendant is going to ADMIT, DENY, OR LACK SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ADMIT OR DENY
• Failure to deny is an ADMISSION, and this is true for any allegations except damages

Rule 56: must show that there is no genuine dispute of any material fact. No reasonable jury would find in favor of the non-movant

• Defendant had full chance to litigate in case 1
• Defendant could foresee multiple suits, incentive to litigate strongly
• Plaintiff could not have easily joined in case 1
• No inconsistent judgments
Procedural differences

ONLY USED FOR NON-MUTUAL OFFENSIVE ISSUE PRECLUSION

Individual: presence + intent to stay indefinitely
Corporation: Incorporated and Public Place of Business

YES! 28 USC 1367

1. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
2. Lack of personal jurisdiction
3. Improper venue
4. Insufficient process
5. Insufficient service of process
6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
7. Improper joinder of parties

• 12(b)(2)-(5) must be put in FIRST rule 12 response (motion or answer) or else they are waived
• 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) can be raised whenever through trial for the first time, not use or lose
• 12(b)(1) is NEVER WAIVED. You can raise whenever, even on appeal

Rule 50: a party may move for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury for lack of evidence to support an adverse verdict
o The party may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence after the verdict by renewing the motion or seeking a new trial under Rule 50(b)
o An appellate court has no power to direct entry of a different verdict unless a party has filed a 50(b) motion

NO. Rule 18(a)(1)
• Claimant may assert “any” claims she has against defendant in a single case
• The claims need not be related legally or factually

Daimler: when the corporation’s affiliations are so constant that they are essentially “AT HOME” in the forum there is general jurisdiction
Perkins: public place of business warrants general jurisdiction (example of at home from Daimler)
Burnham: if you are served in the forum, general jurisdiction is proper
• Brennan: we still need to add the Shoe test
Carnival Cruise Lines: forum selection clauses are valid if they are reasonable and fair
Goodyear: stream of commerce doesn’t work for general jurisdiction
Helicopteros: GJ not found where contacts were limited to:
• One trip by CEO to negotiate contract
• Acceptance of checks drawn on Texas bank (unilateral activity of payor)
• Purchases and associated training

Plaintiff’s choices are §1391 (b)(1) and (b)(2)
• (b)(1) plaintiff may lay venue in any district where all defendant’s reside
o All defendant’s must reside in the same district for this to work
o Sub-rule: if all defendant’s reside in forum state then you may la venue where 1 of them resides
o “resides”: different from citizenship, residence in district in which you are domiciled, only can have 1
• (b)(2) plaintiff may lay venue in any district where a substantial part of the claim arose
o Could be more than 1 district

•Rule 15(a): amendments before trial
•Rule 15(b): amendments during and after trial
•15(c): amendment after statute of limitation has run
oTrying to amend to add claim
oTrying to amend to change defendant
•15(d): supplemental pleadings: where you want to add something that happened after the case was filed, no right, have to ask permission

Burden of Production
• Standard = evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable trier of fact find for you on that issue
o Occurs at the summary judgment phase
Burden of Persuasion
• Standard = By a Preponderance of the Evidence
o Occurs at trial

Compulsory Counterclaim (13(a))
Permissive Counterclaim (13(b))
Permissive Counterclaim (13(b))
Cross Claim (13(g))

Same Evidence Test
• Are issues of fact and law raised in the claim and CC largely the same?
• Would res judicata (“a matter decided”) bar a subsequent suit on the party’s CC, absent the compulsory CC rule?
• Will substantially the same evidence support/refute claim as well as CC?
• Is there any logical relationship between the claim and CC?

Shoe: continuous/systematic contacts and close connection between contact and claim (Min. contacts, reasonableness, relatedness, fairness)
WWV (fairness factors): must be foreseeable that the defendant could be sued in the forum. Defendant must reach out and purposefully avail itself the forum, but the defendant doesn’t have to step foot there
• State’s interest, plaintiff’s interest, burden on defendant
Burger King: contact comes first (need contact before fairness) burden is on defendant to show inconvenient
• Has to show that the forum is so gravely inconvenient that defendant has a disadvantage in the case
McGee (one purposeful availment): reached into state and solicited business therefore contact
Hansen (unilateral activity): unilateral activity by someone other than the defendant does not count as contact
Asahi(Stream of Commerce): Brennan: if I put my product in the stream of commerce and reasonably anticipate it will get to state “C” that is contact and availment. O’Connor: need everything Brenna said plus intent to serve the market in the state
Nicastro (stream of commerce): are any of the defendant’s contacts with the state relevant to plaintiff’s claim? Defendant must purposefully avail itself within the forum
Bristol-Myers Squibb: plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or relate to defendant’s contact with the forum causal link to the injuries/claim
Caulder (effects): intentional, tortious actions were expressly aimed at the forum. Brunt of injury occurred in the forum. Brunt of injury occurred in the forum
Walden (effects): defendant must create contacts with forum. Plaintiff cannot be the only link. Defendant’s contacts with the forum must be created by Defendant AND must be contact with the forum not just plaintiff who is from that forum
Ford: “relate to” indicates that court may also exercise personal jurisdiction even without showing causation as long as the defendant’s forum contacts relates to claim in some real way
Shippista: applies Zippo Test
Shaffer: Can't just have in rem, must have minimum contacts as well
Keeton: Just like Calder case

1404(a): Transferor is proper venue that court may transfer to another district based on convenience of parties and witnesses and interest of justice
1406(a): venue is improper, gives courts a choice, may transfer in the interest of justice or it may dismiss
Forum Non Conveniens: o The better/more convenient court is in a different judicial system and you cannot transfer there so you must dismiss