I.  Introduction & Review

1)      Ways to attack a judgment:

a)      Appeal

i)        ordinary appeal

(1)    on all grounds

(2)    have 30 days to appeal

ii)       restricted appeal (a “writ of error”)

(1)    brought by someone that did not actively participate in the action at the trial ct level

(2)    errors appear on the face of the record

(3)    180 days to perfect

b)      Direct Attacks (at trial ct level)

i)        JNOV

ii)       motion for new trial

iii)     motion to alter/amend jj

iv)     equitable bill of review (Texas only)

c)      Collateral Attacks

i)        only for certain cirx

(1)    no notice

(2)    no personal jx

(3)    other we will discuss later

ii)       defined:  on behalf of D in original lawsuit, argue to another ct that jj is invalid

iii)     only avail. if default jj rendered

iv)     policies

(1)    finality

(2)    avoid multiplicity of suits & conflicting jj’s

2)      Finality

a)      res judicata (claim preclusion; merger & bar)

i)        valid

ii)       final

iii)     jj

iv)     same parties or privies (interest protected in prior suit) (parties = P & D)

v)      same claim [CNOF] (claim = arises out of same transaction/occurrence, series of transactions/occurrences)

b)      collateral estoppel

i)        valid

ii)       final

iii)     jj

iv)     PTB estopped was party/privy to prior suit (only PTB estopped)

v)      same exact issue:

(1)    actually litigated

(2)    necessarily decided

c)      single satisfaction doctrine

i)        elements

(1)    if there is any overlap of injuries

(2)    P barred from recovering on 2 jj’s (must elect)

ii)       ex.  damage to property from one flood caused by 2 D’s; in one suit, P gets $100k; in second suit, P gets $110k; P can recover up to $100k from D1 and up to $110k from D2 but only up to $110k total

d)      law of the case:  legal issue decided earlier in case, can’t re-determine at later stage (e.g. on appeal)

e)      direct estoppel:  can’t re-determine fact-finding once decided

II. The Plaintiff’s Pleading

1)      Form

a)      name

i)        federal = complaint

ii)       Texas = petition

b)       

2)      Parties & Joinder

a)      Pleading Obligations

b)      Identifying proper parties

i)        must name the P (that’s the fx of the pleadings)

ii)       D’s named per R 79

(1)    requirements

(2)    exceptions

(a)    shareholders of dissolved corps whose names not known

(b)    potential interests in land

(c)    heirs to estate, etc.

iii)     foreign corps:  can’t sue in Texas unless registered to dbi Texas

iv)     partnerships: 

(1)    Partners actually served are personally liable

(2)    Pship and p’s named are liable

(3)    partners liable even if not named, as long as personally served

c)      Substitution of Parties

i)        you have to sue for the P (real party in interest); not trustee, executor, guardian, etc.); FRCP 17

ii)       TRCP 150:  if coa survives, then death doesn’t abate coa

iii)     death of P:  heirs/admin may take over; if no one does after rzbl time D requests scire facias; if none appt’d, then dismissed

iv)     D dies, then scire facias issued for admin/exec/heir to appear & defend

v)      FRCP 25

(1)    death:  unless claim extinguished, ct can order substitution on motion; if no motion in 90 days, action dismissed

(2)    incompetent:  upon motion proceed against rep

d)      Assumed Names, Misnomer, Misidentification

i)        federal court (same rule for misID and misnomer):  relation back alloawed when:

(1)    allowed by SOL or

(2)    amended claim arose out of same transaction/occurrence as original claim or

(3)    if name of party changed, then

(a)    same transaction/occurrence (b above) and

(b)    w/in the period of time allowed for serviced (120 for filing), the new party

(i)      received notice of the action & will not be prejudiced and

(ii)    knew/should have known he would be sued but for mistake

ii)       Misidentification = separate legal entity

(1)    default jj

(a)    if mis id’d party was served & fails to appear, you can take default jj against them

(b)    can’t take default jj against party intended to sue b/c they have not been notified

(2)    limitations

(a)    general rule: no relation back

(b)    Ensearch exception:  relates back if

(i)      D not misled or put in disadvantage in defending the suit AND

(ii)    companies have the “necessary bsns relationship”

1.       this means corporate affiliates

2.       e.g. parents and subsidiaries

3.       does not include franchise agreements

4.       contractual bsns relationship not enough

(iii)   [exception to Ensearch:  Medical Malpractice Act – that statute’s SOL does not allow tolling; of course tolling okay under FRCP’s b/c supremacy]

iii)     Misnomer

(1)    defined: 

(a)    sued, served right person, but got their name wrong (mis-named not mis-id of the party to sue)

(b)    idem sonans:  if you misspell the name but it would sound the same when you say it, it is not an error!

(2)    default jj

(a)    misnomer & default jj taken, if directly attacked default is vacated b/c there is strict compliance req’d

(b)    collateral attack:  must show you didn’t get notice!

(c)    restricted appeal:  must show on the face of the record there was an error (the petition is named on the face of the record; mtn for new trial would then be granted)

(3)    amending

(a)    amendment relates back

(b)    D files plea in abatement until corrected

(c)    has no effect on SOL (relates back)

(d)    as long as true party had notice of the suit

iv)     Assumed Name

(1)    may sue under assumed name

(a)    FRCP 28

(b)    any Pship, unincorp, corp, dba (any bsns)

(c)    may sue or be sued

(d)    but on motion or sua sponte must use real name

(2)    same rule in Texas per c/L

(3)    service rule (per Hyson)

(a)    reqs

(i)      you serve the proper party

(ii)    you named the dba correctly

(iii)   but you named the legal name incorrectly

(b)    effect:  SOL tolls

(c)    hypo:  wrong legal name and party sued; proper dba used; correct party finds out; later P amends petition.  Result?  not proper per assumed name rule

(4)    find out dba

(a)    assumed name certs w/ SOS

(b)    ppl must file dba w/ county

v)      SOL notes

(1)    K 2 years?

(2)    tort 4 years?

(3)    service must be a rzbl time after limitations

e)      other party practice

i)        J&S:  if D’s are J&S if D’s join to produce a single injury

ii)       proportionate responsibility (ch 33.015)

(1)    P barred if over 50%

(2)    if any D over 50% then

(3)    contribution D:  claimant seeks damages but claimant didn’t seek relief at time of submitting claims?

iii)     joining parties

(1)    before trial necessary or proper parties may be brought in by P or D on ct’s terms as long as doesn’t unrzbly delay trial (r 37)

(2)    D may bring in 3P (he becomes 3P P and new party is 3PD) if the 3PD comprises part of the P’s claim against the D

(3)    P can join 3P if D brings counterclaim against P; then P as counter-D can bring in 3PD

iv)     misjoinder

(1)    remedy:  add or drop parties; sever trials; dismissal is not a soln

(2)    sever

(a)    more than one coa

(b)    severed claim could be proper subject of a suit independently &

(c)    severed claim is not too interwoven, involving same facts and issues

v)      procedure

(1)    Fed: 

(a)    if missing necessary party, file motion to join;

(b)    if missing indispensable party, file motion to dismiss (12b7)

(2)    Tex: 

(a)    if missing necessary ???

(b)    if missing indispensable file plea in abatement

(3)    waiver:  failure to join a party can’t be waived b/c we are concerned w/ the ppl who are not parties yet; but if its not raised, then we don’t consider their interests on appeal much

vi)     intervenors: 

(1)    Tex:  any party can intervene by filing a pleading (but may be stricken on motion for cause)te confers conditional right to intervene, if claim/defense and main action have common q’s; ct considers prejudice to existing parties

(2)    Fed:  r24

(a)    intervention as right if applicant claims an interest in the transaction/property that is the subject of the suit

(b)    permissive intervention:  if stat

vii)   Responsible 3Ps (CPRC 33.04)

(1)    before SOL, on timely motion, D can join a R3P who hasn’t sued

(2)    even if barred by limitations:

(a)    if filed w/in 30 days of D’s answer, can join R3P or

(b)    P can join R3P barred by SOL if joined w/in 60 days after  a 3P claim filed under(2a)

viii)  exam tips

(1)    if you represent D, join R3Ps and 3PD

(2)    3PD:  D asks for affirmative relief from this party

(3)    R3P:  D doesn’t ask for relief, just says it’s their fault (or not all my fault) [serve them b/c we’re not sure if you have to; you probably don’t need jx over them]

(4)    if the party is jj-proof then name them as a R3P!

f)       Permissive Joinder of Parties

i)        elements

(1)    CNOF +

(2)    common q of law or fact

ii)       minimal commonality requirement:  any common q of law or fact is enough

g)      Compulsory Joinder of Parties (Tex 39, frcp 19)

i)        necessary parties

(1)    complete relief cannot be afforded w/o him or

(2)    claims an interest in s.m. and

(a)    can’t protect his interests or

(b)    other parties might be subj. to inconsistent obligations

(3)    effect:  if necessary & the court has jx => must be joined; if no jx, see if “indispensable”

ii)       indispensable parties

(1)    necessary + indispensable = must dismiss case if can’t be joined

(2)    should action proceed in “equity and good conscience”; considering

(a)    how prejudicial will a jj be to him or parties (P’s interest in the forum)

(b)    can jj be protected to lessen prejudice (can jj be written to protect absent party?)

(c)    will a jj be adequate w/o a necessary (multiple liability?)

(d)    will P have another adequate remedy if the action is dismissed?

iii)     appeal:

(1)    federal court, you can appeal in name only, but v. hard to show reversible error

(2)    Texas if you don’t raise lack of joinder by plea in abatement at trial, you can’t appeal; exceptions

(a)    if absent 3P’s rights hurt but seldom

(b)    partition case:  absence of 3P who has ownership interests in land renders jj void

h)      Class Actions  draft class definition

i)        Tex 42, FRCP 23

ii)       elements

(1)    numerosity:  so numerous joinder is impracticable

(a)      where are P’s located?  (spread out?)

(b)     rule personal jx only needed over class reps.

(c)      size of individual claims

(d)     sheer number eventually makes it too big

(2)    commonality:  there are q’s of law/fact common to whole class

(a)      sometimes create subclasses

(b)    ex.  promotion and hiring sub-classes in employ. discrim. suit

(3)    typicality:  claims and defenses of the representative are typical of whole class &

(a)      member of class

(b)     possess same interests

(c)    suffer same injury

(4)    adequacy:  representatives will fairly & adequately protect the interests of the whole class

(a)    this goes to atty b/c rep. already typical

(5)    and proper for this type of relief: (a-d)

(a)    separate actions by/against members would create a risk of:

(i)      inconsistent/varying adjudications to different “class members” that would make other party subj. to incompatible standards of conduct  (here, D requests class to fashion dec jj or injunction so they won’t have inconsistent liabilities)

(ii)    members’ adjudications would be dispositive (practically) of members not a party (or substantially impair, impeded ability to protect interest) (D has ltd. funds to satisfy P’s claims; class avoids first in/first out rule)  or

(b)    party opposing has acted/refused to act on grounds re: whole class, making final inj relief or dec jj appropriate for whole class or

(c)    object of the action is to adjudicate claims that affect specific property or

(d)    damages - ct finds q’s of law/fact common to class member predominate over q’s re individuals and class action is superior method of adjudication; factorsà

(i)      test:  is the effect on each P the same (or differs mathematically)?

(ii)    procedure

1.       determine substantive issues of the case & which will predominate

2.       then see if those predominant interests are common to class

3.       predominance is more demanding that commonality

4.       PI cases usually have predominant individual claims

(iii)   factors;

1.       interests of class members in individually controlling their claims/defenses

2.       extent/nature of lit. already commenced by/against individual members

3.       desire of concentrating lit in one forum

4.       difficulties in managing class action

(iv)  solutions

1.       subclasses avail?

2.       restitutionary remedy:  rescission of a K

iii)     procedure:

(1)    complaint filed: 

(a)   name P’s:  “Joe Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated”

(b)    paragraph of class definition:  describes “persons similarly situated”

(c)    request in prayer that class is certified as id’d

(2)    class cert. hearing:  as soon as practical, ct shall hold hearing

(a)    evidentiary hearing *usually) so can have W’s and testimony

(b)    can filed interloc appeal

(3)    notice to class members:  best notice practicable under the cirx, incl individual notice to all member id’d w/ rzbl effort; notice of…

(a)    Texas:  must give notice post-cert pre-trial and at end for all types

(b)    Federal:  must give post-cert, pre-trial notice only in dmgs classes

(c)    5a, b, c above (non-damages):  **members cannot opt out of class**

(i)      nature of suit

(ii)    binding effect of jj (favorable or not) and

(iii)   rt of any member to appear & challenge determinations of class & reps.

(iv)  effect:  binding on all those who are in class and who receive notice

(d)    5d above (damages):  (members can opt out of class)

(i)      nature of suit

(ii)    ct may exclude him if requested by certain date

(iii)   jj will bind all members not excluded &

(iv)  if you do not request exclusion, you may appear via counsel

(v)    effect:  binding on all who had notice and did not request exclusion

(4)    before certification, governed by regular civ pro rules

(a)    if SJ granted (for D) before certification, the SJ has res judicata effect on P but not on “class”

(b)    but if SJ disposes of all the P’s claims, the case must be dismissed, incl. class claims

iv)     class definition

(1)    can’t define class w/ a liability question (fail safe class)

(a)    those on the shores of the contaminated stream; contaminated = liability

(2)    can’t define class w/ subjective state of mind

(a)    “asserted a claim” is okay b/c objective

(b)    sought services; deterred by demonstrations = subjective (witnesses rallies would be ok)

(3)    future members of class:

(a)    this is only allowed for injunctive relief in Federal court! (not Tex. b/c no way to give notice

(b)    why? so res judicata effect – so you can enforce your jj in the future

(c)    ex.  “all persons who have or will have fmha farmer loans”

v)      attorney’s fees:  not statutory; attys recover under quantum meruit theory; no fee ag. req’d

vi)     partial class action

(1)    can have class w/ respect to a particular issue

(2)    but can’t have separate trial on causation, liability and damages in Texas (that’s why we can’t bifurcate mass torts b/c damages would be different for all class members)

vii)   court supervision

(1)    settlement:  court uses Ball factors to determine whether to approve

(a)    arm’s length or fraud/collusion btwn D and atty?

(b)    complexity and expense of litigating

(c)    stage of proceeding

(d)    P’s obstacles in prevailing

(e)    range of recover and certainty of damages

(f)     opinions of all:  class counsel, reps, absentees

(2)    settlement notice must contain

(a)    max amt. sought by atts

(b)    proposed method of calculating fees

(i)      % approach

(ii)    lodestar approach (hourly); consider

1.        benefits obtained for class

2.        complexity of issues

3.        expertise of counsel

4.        preclusion of other legal work

5.       hourly rate typical of that work in region

i)        Derivative Suits (never covered in class)

i)        petition must allege

(1)    P was record or beneficial O of shares when bad transaction happened

(2)    efforts P took to have suit brought for corp. by BOD

ii)       P must fairly and adequately rep. the interests of SH’s similarly situated

iii)     demand letter to corp. before filing

j)        Next Friends & Guardians Ad Litem

i)        lacks capacity:

(1)    minor

(2)    ncm:  declared by ct

(3)    idiot:  born w/ low iq

(4)    lunatic:  moments of lucidity

ii)       who can be next friend?

(1)    anyone w/ capacity

(2)    no next friend if there’s a legal guardian; if there’s a legal guardian, they have exclusive control over litigation decisions/matters

iii)     appointing GAL

(1)    ct must appt when: 

(a)    D lacks capacity

(b)    P and representative has adverse interests

(2)    if non appointed

(a)    SOL tolls until child reaches majority

(b)    if next friend had adverse interests, then voidable at child’s option

iv)     GAL’s role

(1)    fiduciary

(2)    if collusion btwn GAL and parent, child can sue for boFD (and P still okay)

(3)    court must approve settlement when child has GAL

v)      default

(1)    court will not enter default v. person w/ no capacity

(2)    if you have no answer, move to appt. GAL so you can get answer or take default

k)      Interpleader:  whenever claims are inconsistent w/ each other, exposing to multiple liability on same claim when only one obligation is due

i)        Statutory Interpleader

(1)    when to use:  whenever you can

(2)    reqs

(a)    $500

(b)    at least 2 claimants adverse (minimal divers.)

(3)    nationwide service of process (min/con with the US)

(4)    venue:  wherever any of the claimants resides

ii)       Rule Interpleader

(1)    when to use:  when claimants from same state, but ins. co. from another state (all P’s diverse from all D’s = complete diversity)

(2)    reqs

(a)    usual smj (fed q or complete diversity + $75k) & personal jx (state long arm + bulge)

(b)    common origin of claims??

(3)    venue:  only where all P’s or D resides ??

iii)     Texas Interpleader

(1)    when to use:  no diversity (all from Texas or don’t meet $75k amt. w/ rule interpleader)

(2)    reqs: 

iv)     procedure: 

(1)    request injunctive relief in federal courts to enjoin suits in state ct (b/c Gig and H have both sued over W’s ins. policy)

(2)    file Interpleader action in fed. ct.

(3)    [note – if state ct Interpleader statute, then you can’t enjoin a concurrent out-of-state or fed. proceeding, so you’re sol unless all in Texas?]

v)      petition (fed. form 18)

(1)    jx

(2)    facts; b/g about who $ owed to, what triggered payment

(3)    claimants

(4)    D’s

(5)    how claims are conflicting

(6)    prayer:  that no one recover and each be restrained from filing until this ct determines who to pay

(7)    (can incl. all that in answer w/ counterclaim for interpleader)

3)      Pleading Jx over Non-Residents

a)      Substantive Law of Personal Jurisdiction

i)        personal jx = long arm + Due process (same in Texas)

(1)    min con

(a)    specific jx:  suit must arise out of contacts

(i)      just b/c sub is present in Texas doesn’t mean parent corp. is

(ii)    must purposefully avail yourself of the benefits/burdens of dbi state

(iii)   foreseeable to be haled into court

(b)    general jx: 

(i)      the proper rule is that there must be such c&s contacts that it would be fair to sue you in Texas for any purpose; you are concluding that this is the D’s home.

(ii)    the courts are incorrect when they say you have ongoing Texas contacts, therefore you are subj. to general jx (& then the courts fail you on the FP & SJ prong – which is incorrect)

(iii)   timing:  must presently be your home; where you can be sued now (but if the contacts have ended, you can rely on Schlobom precedent)

(c)    family law exception to min/con showing

(i)      show Texas is child’s home state => custody jx (but not child support)

(ii)    show in Texas for 6 mos. or one parent has significant contacts w/ Texas

(iii)   divorce suits:  if P lives in Texas, then jx over D if last state of marital residence & filed w/in 2 years of being married & living in Texas

(2)    FP & SJ

(a)    burden on D to show!!!

(b)    interests of Texas in adjudicating dispute

(c)    P’s interests in obtaining convenient and effective relief

(d)    interests of interstate judicial system in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies and

(e)    shared interests of the several state in furthering fundamental substantive social policies

b)      Pleading Obligation:  pleading service

i)        pleading burdens

(1)    burden to plead basis for personal jx is on P

(2)    but D need only rebut bases pleaded by P; if P doesn’t plead anything, just show D is not a resident

(3)    so P should plead “doing bsns in Texas” and all facts he can think of (and how they’re related, if they are)

ii)       who & how served:

(1)    plead resident & personally served

(a)    person:  Texas domicile (physical presence & intent to indefinitely remain)

(b)    Bsns: existence of regular place of bsns in Texas & where that is

(2)    nonresidents:

(a)    service on nonresident corps that dbi Texas

(i)      contracts by mail or otherwise w/ Tex resident & either party is to perform some of K in state

(ii)    commits some of a tort in Texas or

(iii)   recruits Texas residents (directly or via intermediary located in Texas) for employment in/out of Texas

(iv)  others (list illustrative); anything that is an activity that is directly to Texas

1.       intended to have effects in Texas and

2.       have actual effects in Texas

(b)    who served

(i)      registered agent

(ii)    person in charge of bsns if no agent req’d

(iii)   SOS if:  plead these facts!

1.       req’d to have agent, but none or

2.       has agent but 2 unsuccessful attempts made to serve or

3.       17.044b

a.       nonresident

b.       corp,

c.       no place of bsns in Texas,

d.       no agent,

e.       suit arises out of bsns done in Texas

(iv)  SOS was served

(v)    notice given:  copy mailed to nonresident

(3)    making record for appeal

(a)    default jj:  if P gets default jj, if directly attacked, P has burden of showing strict compliance w/ service of process provisions; note if you “specially appear” b/c improper service, that is treated as a general appearance b/c you can’t specially appear to that, dummy

(b)    if restricted appeal, must meet burden by face of record; so must plead the facts!

4)      Pleading Venue

a)      Substantive Law of Venue

i)         Federal:  Texas venue law is v. different than fed.

(1)    proper venue

(a)    if all D’s reside in same state => district where any D resides

(b)    substantial part of events occurred

(c)    if no other… where any D is subj. to personal jx (diversity cases) or where any D found (fed q)

(2)    improper venue:  dismiss (waivable)

(3)    inconvenience venue: can be transferred for convenience of parties, witnesses, interests of justice

ii)       Texas

(1)    framework:

(a)    follow general venue statute

(b)    or permissive venue statute

(c)    unless mandatory venue somewhere

(2)     improper venue = transfer (on motion filed with or before answer)

(3)     inconvenient venue can transfer if

(a)     injustice to movant (eco & personal hardship)

(b)     balance of interest of all parties in favor of other counties and

(c)    not injustice to any other party to move venue

(4)    general venue

(a)    any county where all/substantial part of the events giving rise to the coa occurred

(i)      look at facts that exist at the moment the coa accrues (all the elements come together)

(ii)    hypo:  B has a K with C.  Competitor in A induces C to breach K.  Venue proper in B b/c injury there.

(iii)   Nonpayment on a K is an omission; venue is proper K was to be paid and where payment was due.

(b)    D’s residence at the time the coa accrued (if natural person)

second residence test:

(i)      D possesses a fixed place of abode (own or rent)

(ii)    occupied or intended to be occupied consistently for a substantial time (long enough to get possessory interest somewhere)

(iii)   is permanent rather than temporary

(c)    D’s principal office in Texas (if bsns)

(i)      you may have more than one principal office

(ii)    if a Texas office reports to another Texas office than the one reported to is principal

(iii)   must conduct daily affairs of the org. but more than “mere agency” decisions; probably policy decisions that affect the operations of the bsns

(d)    if no other, then county where P resided at time coa accrued (if no where, sue anywhere b/c D can’t get it transferred)

(5)    multiple parties effect on venue

(a)    P’s must each establish proper venue

(i)      exception

1.       proper joinder

2.       venue does not unfairly prejudice another party

3.       there is an essential need to have the claim tried in the current cty &

a.       indispensably necessary; important to the highest degree

b.       convenience factors are not enough to show essential need (common q’s, money, same atty/experts, slower in other cty, etc.)

c.       probably ok when most of the P’s are in one county and only way the stragglers can get an atty to take their case is if they join

4.       current cty is fair & convenient for new P

(ii)    D should always take the allowed interlocutory appeal from this!

(b)    venue over one D = venue over all (so to get your venue, find a venue that is good for one D

(c)    cross, counter, 3P

(i)      venue over main action establishes venue over cross, counter, 3P if proper joinder

(ii)    if D joins 3PD, venue proper for claim by P v. 3PD if that one arises out of same s.m. as P’s claim v. original D

P      v.             D

            D    v.   3PD                 same CNOF for joinder to be proper

P      v.             3PD                 P’s claim v. D and 3PD must have CNOF, too

**if D waived venue, 3PD becomes D and can still challenge venue

(d)    waiver

(i)      act of one D doesn’t waive venue challenge by other D

P      v.             D (improper venue waived)

            D2 (not waived as to D2)

(ii)    waiver by D doesn’t waive venue challenge by 3PD

P      v.             D (improper venue waived)

            D    v.   3PD

(iii)   afds

b)      Pleading Obligation and Venue Selection Considerations

i)        plead general venue

(1)    basis for venue (general, mandatory, etc.)

(2)    when coa accrued

(3)    where coa accrued

(4)    natural person or corp.

(5)    no mandatory venue

(6)    ???

ii)       procedure

(1)    P choses venue

(2)    if not objected to by D, waived & venue stays there

(3)    if D objects => D has burden to show his venue is proper & P has burden to show his venue was proper

(4)    if P doesn’t make showing and D does, then transferred

iii)     P’s burden

(1)    don’t have to prove coa, just that you properly plead a coa!

(2)    need prima facie proof of proper venue =

(a)    venue facts properly pleaded

(b)    taken as true if not specifically denied

(c)    if denied, only need to file affidavit:  affidavit filed supporting venue facts (persona kn on admissible facts & competent)

iv)     D’s burden

(1)    files special exception (which is based solely on the pleadings)

(2)    must show his venue is proper (just like P has to)

v)      conflicting mandatory venues

(1)    if 2, P picks

(2)    exception: injunction cases (why? b/c too easy to throw in as a coa); only use injunction venue if that is the primary relief sought

5)      Pleading SMJ          draft smj allegation in petition

a)      The law of SMJ

i)        justice courts:  appeal to ccc’s

(1)    up to $5k

(2)    exclusive FED jx

ii)       county courts & county courts at law:  appeal to cts of appeals

(1)    constitutional county courts: 

(a)    $200-$5k + probate jx

(b)    probate – if contested, can transfer to district ct or ask for probate judge to sit

(c)    appeal:  from justice & small claims for claims over $2o, incl. FED suits

(d)    excluded:  defamation cases for damages, liens on land, divorce, corp. charter forfeiture, trial re property valued at over $5oo

(2)    county courts at law (statutory county courts)

(a)    $500 - $100k + ccc jx, so $200 - $100k

(b)    probate & guardianship:  can exercise probate jx unless there is a statutory probate ct in same county

(3)     Statutory Probate Courts

(a)      pendent jx to hear all matters pertaining to probate of an estate

(b)     in counties w/ statutory probate cts, ccc may hear probate matters too; if contested in ccc, the case is transferred to stat. probate ct

(c)    in counties w/o statutory probate cts:  probate matters filed w/ ccc & if contested, may request judge to hear case

iii)     district courts

(1)    default court if can’t be filed elsewhere

(2)    family courts:  special district courts for divorce, child custody, support, annulment; has regular district ct jx + jx over all family law matters

(3)    juvenile courts:  district ct + exclusive jx over juvenile justice code

iv)     federal trial courts

v)      amount in controversy

(1)    Pleading Jurisdiction

(a)    need to plead proper coa to get amt. in controversy

(b)    can aggregate claims, but if you can determine from face of pleading that amt. not met, then don’t have smj

(i)      but if apparent from fame of pleading that element of damages cannot be shown, then can’t use that to meet jx’al floor

(ii)    contrast w/ element missing from coa; don’t dismiss; just b/c fed Q is missing an element doesn’t deprive ct of jx

(2)    Amendments & Subsequent Events

(a)    general ruleà look at damages as pleaded by P

(b)    exceptions

(i)      can forgo and entire element of damages (unless mandatory like trebling penalty)

(ii)    can forgo portions of damages if unliquidated

1.       if liquidated, ex., you can waive a penalty to keep from hitting jx’al ceiling but only if you waive the entire penalty

2.       can’t amend pleading to later conform to damages award unless increase is only due to the passage of time

(3)    Counterclaims, Cross Claims, Third Party Claims

(a)    multiple defendants:  aggregate P’s claims v. all Ds

(b)    multiple claims v. one D:  aggregate if single P

(c)    multiple P’s

(i)      Tex (aggregation statute):  if properly & originally joined, each is treated as one party suing for total amt => (aggregate all P’s claims)

1.       originally joined = only claims of the P’s originally; can’t amend and add more claims by/against more ppl.

2.       if aggregate claims bust ceiling, ea claims is treated as a claim for entire amt, so must dismiss whole case for no smj

3.       soln:  file v. one P then add others immediately thereafter

4.       but if later added P’s need supplemental jx, then ea. claim treated as new amt. and all bust ceiling, no smj (rare!)

(ii)    Fed:  cannot aggregate several P’s claims together; but if one P meets the amt, ct can get supplemental jx over other P’s

(d)    Counterclaims         [D v. P]

(i)      cc’s are not aggregated

1.       exception:  if we have a single D we add up all his counterclaims against P (not b/c of aggregation statute)

2.       remember, multiple cc’s by several D’s against the P are not added up (b/c agg statute only applies to P’s)

(ii)    counterclaims must independently comply w/ smj rules

1.       exception:  counterclaim below floor => ok if compulsory cc

a.       even ok if main action is dismissed

2.       counterclaim busts ceiling

a.       but if cc is above ceiling, then busts jx and D must refile his cc

b.       dismiss the cc b/c it is no longer compulsory if it busts jx (no res jud)

(e)    Cross claims [D1 v. D2] & Third Party claims [D v. 3PD]

(i)      follow counterclaim rules (need to have own jx unless cnof+floor)

(ii)    have to independently have jx

(iii)   exception: 

1.       cross claim below floor if CNOF cross claim

2.       including cross claim by D against 3PD

(4)    Foreclosures, FEDs, Eminent Domain

(a)    FED’s are in exclusive jx of justice cts

(b)    county ct at law has no jx over these

(5)    Injunctions

(a)    amt in controversy doesn’t exist, so district ct gets jx (residual)

(b)    county cts may issue injunctions to enforce a jj only if they already have jx

(6)    Fraudulent Assertion of Jurisdiction

(a)    jx’al amt. pleaded is taken as true unless opposing party shows false

b)      Family law matters:  varies from cty to cty

c)      Probate: 

i)        also varies from cty to cty & w/ type of action

ii)       probate cts have jx over all matters appertaining to or incident to an estate & get pendent jx over other claims

iii)     have concurrent jx as district cts in probate matters

iv)     wrongful death & survival claims are not probate matters

d)      Pleading SMJ: 

i)        Texas

(1)    Rule 47b

(2)   unliquidated à allege “this is w/in the jx’al limits of this court”

(3)    liquidated à this must be specifically pleaded (state specific amt)

(4)    include general prayer:  demands jj and requests all other relief to which he is entitled

(5)    D can use special exception to force P to make it more specific (max. amt. claimed)

ii)       Federal:  short plain stmt of jx’al basis

(1)    diversity:  complete diversity, citizenship of all parties, amt in contro. over $75k exclusive of interest and costs

(2)    federal q:  plead existence of fed q (this action arises under 14 USC 2222)

e)      Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction

i)        D files plea to jx

ii)       but no smj can’t be waived

iii)     remedy is to dismiss claims over which there is no jx if there is jx over main action

iv)     you can amend to bring yourself inside jx’al limits if unliquidated damages

f)       Priority of Jurisdiction

i)        Texas

(1)    general rule:  first filed has dominant jx to the exclusion of other courts

(2)   exceptions

(a)    once a court had jx over parent-child relationship (incl. divorce), that ct has exclusive, continuing jx (Tex. Fam.11.05)

(b)    inequitable conduct:  delay in obtaining service of process

(i)      second court has jx to decide, in granting/denying plea in abatement, if there is inequitable conduct

1.       filed merely to obtain priority b/c no bona fide intention to prosecute claim

2.       had dissuaded adversaries from filing earlier by misrepresenting you would settle, etc.

(ii)    what is (in)equitable?

1.       simply filing preemptory suit to pick jx is allowed & not inequitable

2.       court determines objectively if the P has any intentions of prosecuting claim?

a.       look to objectively manifested actions (serving, etc.)

b.       do not consider subjective SOM of P in first-filing the suit

c.       deadline for service in Texas “rzbl time”

(c)    anticipatory declaratory jj actions

(i)      if not a proper dec. jj action, then that suit is treated as a nullity

(ii)    proper dec jj:

1.       actual dispute, that if resolved

2.       would al low parties to structure their conduct

3.       to avoid all/part of the damage!

(iii)   hypo:

1.       ins. co. 1 files dec jj, cty A

2.       insured is sued

3.       ins. co. 2 files dec jj, cty B

4.       ctyA wasn’t ripe when filed, so nullity & cty B has jx

5.       note:  if 1 amended pleadings after filed but before 2 filed, they would have priority

need same parties, same controversy or no priority problem…

(d)    different claims:

(i)      what constitutes “same claim”?

1.       inherent interrelation of the sm of the pending suits

2.       use compulsory counterclaim rules (r 97) as a guide

a.       w/in court’s jx

b.       new claim is not the subj. of a pending action at time original claim is filed

c.       mature and owned by pleader at time for filing answer

d.       arises out of same transaction(s) or occurrence(s)

e.       against opposing party in the same capacity

3.       especially if the claims arise out of the same transaction(s) or occurrence(s)

(e)    different parties:  (liberal view) “same parties” if claim in first suit may be amended to bring in all necessary & proper parties!

(3)    procedure:  plea in abatement

(a)    P in second suit files plea in abatement w/ 2d court

(b)    waiver

(i)      must be filed before you take action or it’s waived!

(ii)    due order of pleading!  plea in abatement waived if you delay beyond the completion of substantial portion of proceedings (asking trial ct for determinations on the merits before filing plea

(c)    first court must dismiss its action IF 

(i)      same parties

(ii)    same controversy

(d)    mandamus

(i)      if denied, file Mandamus against first judge; file in ct app as original proceeding

(ii)    reqs

1.       clear abuse of discretion

a.       clear, non-discretionary duty violated

2.       no adequate remedy by appeal

a.       substantive right that will be irretrievably lost!

b.       ex.  Coke has to give 7Up its formula

c.       ordinary appeal not enough for me

d.       mere delay, expense does not make remedy inadequate

(iii)   Mandamus proper?

1.       first court grants plea in abatement => M proper b/c can’t ever appeal (never a final jj)

2.       second filed ct refuses to grant plea in abatement & second court interferes w/ 1^st court’s actions => M proper

3.       if second court refuses to abate, but doesn’t interfere, M improper b/c can appeal

(iv)  procedure to stop 2d suit

1.       P1 requests first court to enjoin P2 from proceeding in second ct

2.       P1 requests second ct to grant its plea in abatement, stopping its action

3.       [if granted, P2 files M proceeding b/c never appealable b/c abated]

4.       if denied, P2 can go to first court and get anti-suit injunction against court 2; if court 2 interferes (and only if interference), then P2 can get M against court 2

5.       [note if conflicting inj’s can use automatic interloc appeal and don’t need M]

ii)       Federal anti-injunction statute  22 USC 2283

(1)    federal court can’t enjoin state proceedings

(2)    except

(a)    as expressly authorized

(b)    in aid of jx or

(c)    to effectuate its jj’s

iii)     Procedure in different courts:

to be enjoined

(1)    Tex. v. Texas               see 3(d)(iv) plea in abatement

(2)    Tex. v. Oklahoma         use whatever Okla uses (mtn to dismiss)

(3)    Okla v. Texas               see 3(d)(iv) plea in abatement b/c per comity Texas ct will abate in deference to Okla action

(4)    Tex v.   Federal ct         a.  in federal court, filed motion to stay under anti-inj act

b.  if substantial progress made in Texas, feds will defer

c.  appeal to fed ct’s equity b/c Tex. can’t enjoin supreme cts!

(5)    Fed v.   Texas               a.  federal court has power to enjoin Texas, but won’t unless can do so under anti-inj act (in aid of jx, protect jjs, necessary); rare

                                                  b.  Texas will abate proceeding per comity, so use plea in abatement in Texas ct

6)      Pleading Claims       [plead negligence coa]

a)      Joinder of claims, severance, separate trials, consolidation

i)        plead as many claims as you want

ii)       severance & separate trials may be ordered

iii)     consolidation if actions w/ common q’s law/fact pending

b)      Sufficiency of Allegations

i)        Federal court:  notice pleading

(1)    if something not plead

(2)    and you allow production

(3)    => waiver

ii)       Texas: 

(1)    fact pleading

(a)    plead coa’s

(b)    plead elements of each coa

(c)    plead facts supporting elements of each coa

(2)    ex. negligence

(a)    duty

(i)     “D owed P a duty of rzbl care because P and all other drivers on the road could have been affected by D’s driving; he was on public roads w/ P, driving a potentially dangerous vehicle”

(b)    breach

(i)     need facts (this is where pleading usually inadequate)

(ii)   “D breached duty by driving recklessly in ignoring the stop sign and not having his lights on”

(c)    proximate cause (but for + foreseeable)

(i)     “the acts alleged factually & proximately caused damage to the P as follows

(ii)    facts not required

(d)    harm:  list injuries and harm

(3)    ex. boK

(a)    duty:           there is an agreement, a K

(b)    breach        K was breached (how)

(c)    cause          nexus btwn breach & injury

(d)    injury          damages sustained due to breach

iii)     waiver

(1)    you must object before “persuasion” to something not plead

(2)    object before submitted to jury

iv)     effect of bad pleading

(1)    ambiguous pleading

(a)    D files special exception

(b)    if none filed, then waived

(c)    if default => will not withstand direct attack (restricted appeal)

(2)    missing element

(a)    default => will not withstand direct attack (restricted appeal)

(b)    special exception

(i)      P amends & adds

(ii)    if can’t add => MSJ for D

(c)    no special exception

(i)      waiver

(ii)    but if no evidence put on, can get JNOV

(d)    D’s strategy

(i)      if you don’t think they can plead missing element in GF, file special exception + pray to dismiss; (fed ct 12b6)

(ii)    if you do think they can prove element but forgot about it, be quiet and after jj, try for JNOV

(3)    pleading affirmatively demonstrates absence of an element of coa

(a)    D can specially except + dismissal or

(b)    MSJ

7)      Pleading Remedies

a)      Legal remedies

i)        specify elements of special damages

ii)       and general damages (best to specify, too)

iii)     if you plead all specifically and miss a general, you can still get the general

b)      Equitable remedies:  injunctions

i)        TRO

(1)    elements:  “plain, intelligible grounds for relief”

(a)    likely success                                 plead elements of your tort

(b)    imminent irreparable harm               money dmgs too speculative

“will be unable to calculate damages by a certain pecuniary standard & b/c of that uncertainty, remedy at law is inadequate and the P is faced w/ irreparable harm.”

(c)    balance of equities                         can plead generally:  “balance of equities favors granting equitable injunctive relief”; Underwood says to plead it so you can make an argument

(2)    verification (sworn pet)                          swear & sign before notary

competent to T (capacity)

personal knowledge that each factual allegation is true

(3)    type of inj. requested                             TRO to last until hearing can be had on temp inj; further request temp inj. and permanent inj. after successful trial

(4)    relief requested                                     specific enough to be enforced; can’t be broader than necessary to prevent imminent irreparable harm

ii)       temporary injunctions           &                     permanent injunctions 

(1)    likely success                                        (1) success on merits

(2)    likely irrep. harm                                   (2) irreparable harm

(3)    balance of equities                                 (3) balance of equities ($ dmgs inadequate)

as long as you requested all 3 inj’s in POP, then that’s enough b/c elements so similar

c)      Declaratory Relief

i)        plead ripe (justiciable controversy)

ii)       must be a q of liability

iii)     harm can’t have already (fully) occurred

iv)     insurance

(1)    if have duty to defend, can’t have dec. jj on indemnity (b/c still hypothetical, iffy)

(2)    if no duty to defend, than can get dec jj on indemnity

8)      Exhibits & Attachments:  allowed, incorp. by reference, is part of claim or defense!

9)      Sanctions for Frivolous Allegations

a)      R 13

i)        harder to meet:  must show objectively groundless AND subjectively brought for purposes of harassment or BF

ii)       safe harbor provision:  must give notice to atty and give him opp. to modify pleading

iii)     remedies aren’t as good

b)      cprc Ch. 10

i)        signed w/ individual name (even if you sign as “agent” of firm, doesn’t matter)

ii)       scope: 

(1)    Texas:  all pleadings & motions & responses

(2)    Fed:  all papers

iii)     effect

(1)    objectively groundless or subjectively brought in BF or to harass

(a)    objectively groundless;  rzbl inquiry into factual basis of allegations & the law  OR

(b)    subjectively in BF, to harass; not presented for improper purpose (no BF by me or client)

(c)    if you have a good claim but bring to harass, you violate

(d)    if you have a bad claim but brought in GF b/c you’re dumb, you violate

(2)    each contention is warranted by law or nonfrivolous argument to change the law (objective)

(3)    evidentiary support for ea fact or if noted, likely to have evidentiary support after discovery (on info and belief) and

(4)    denials warranted by E or is based on lack of info and belief (if so stated); exception for general denials

iv)     no safe harbor

v)      remedies

(1)    attys fees and

(2)    if no due diligence, then all costs of the subject litigation

(a)    due diligence:  burden on filer

(b)    to show he conducted a rzbl inquiry into factual basis & law

(3)    penalty:

(a)    costs for inconvenience

(b)    harassment and

(c)    oop expenses

10)  Special Pleading Obligations in Certain Actions

a)      trespass to try title

i)        P & D names & residences if known

ii)       description of premises by metes & bounds & county where located

iii)     interest P claims & amt. of undivided interest if any

iv)     that P was in possession or is entitled to possession

v)      that D unlawfully entered and dispossessed P (date!)

vi)     if rents, profits or damages claimed and facts supporting

vii)   prayer

b)      sworn accounts

i)        note D must verify denial of existence of acct

ii)       sale and delivery of goods services

iii)     amt. of account is just & charged in accordance w/ ag. (if no ag. w/ what is customary)

iv)     amt. is unpaid

III. Filing

1)      Answer date

a)      Federal:

i)        w/in 20 days of service you have to serve answer

ii)       service of answer complete upon mailing

iii)     exceptions:

(1)    suit v. government 60 days

(2)    officer of employee of US sued in official capacity

(3)    waiver of formal service under 4D:  60 days from date request for waiver signed

(4)    D files R 12 motion in lieu of answer

(a)    motion deadline is by answer deadline

(b)    if motion denied, then file answer w/in 10 days of notice of denial

(c)    if granted, w/in 10 days of service of new pleading

(d)    defendant tip:  file answer w/ 12b motion to be safe! (also, often 12b motion only for some claims to best to file together)

iv)     cross, counter, 3P:  same answer day as D

b)      Texas:  20 days => next Mon. 10a

i)        trigger = service

ii)       count weekends (if period longer than 5 days)

iii)     last day is included unless that day is holiday/weekend

(1)    if last day Sunday, file next Monday

(2)    if Monday answer day is legal holiday, you only have till end of next day so file by 10a Tuesday (to be sure)

iv)     first day is day after service

v)      can’t have service on a Sunday

c)      Attacking improper service

i)        easy option

(1)    object to improper service by filing motion to quash service

(2)    after or concurrently file answer by answer day

ii)       stall option (use this to make a SOL argument stronger)

(1)    default jj (P gets immediately at 10:05, hearing, move for default, prove unliquid dmgs, jj signed)

(2)    notice to D from clerk

(3)    D files motion for new trial:  must do this unless deadline passed

(4)    or restricted appeal (using bill of review); this is not as good b/c takes forever and limited to face of record; can use if too late for legal remedy

(5)    D proves no-strict-compliance w/ rules of service of process (Sunday filing, misnomer, misid, etc.)

d)      waiver!

i)        if no default by time untimely answer arrived, then objections to untimeliness of answer is waived

2)      Mailbox Rule          

a)      must use USPS

i)        must be actually recv’d by clerk w/in 10 days of answer date

ii)       best to mail by 10a on answer date to be sure

iii)     must be properly addressed, stamped

b)      Fed ex doesn’t work

c)      if default taken when mailbox rule used:  file motion for new trial & request default jj be vacated

3)      Cross, counterclaims:  no answer due b/c P appeared; you are deemed to have generally denied (still file your affirmative defenses, verified denials)

4)      3P claims:  follow D rules; must appear, answer, etc.

5)      Fee:  if you file but don’t pay fee, you get that date as long as fee paid later

IV. Default Judgments

1)      Allegations Sufficient to Support a Default

a)      notice to opposing counsel:  only if you know they are representing D on this case + rzbl opp. to respond per lawyer’s crred III, 11

b)      what to prove to ct

i)        pleading on file

ii)       D served w/ citation and petition

iii)     return of service on file for 10 days

iv)     hearing on unliquidated damages:  bring E w/ you to default hearing (W or affidavits)

(1)    amt of expenses

(2)    that it is rzbl amt

(3)    that the services rendered were necessary

v)      request presence of ct reporter!

(1)    why? so other side can appeal & you can avoid mtn for new trial

(2)    if you proved unliquidated damages w/o record, other side can get new trial b/c can’t appeal from damages hearing (note only gets new trial on dmgs!)

vi)     present default jj, get signed

vii)   notice to clerk:  certificate of last known address must be field at or immediately before default rendered (when signed)

2)      Types of Default and Required Proofs

a)      No-answer default

i)        no appearance (plea to jx, motion to transfer venue, plea in abatement, other dilatory pleas; almost any written thing sent to other side will prevent no-answer default)

b)      Judgment Nihil Dicit

i)        elements

(1)    D has appeared via dilatory plea

(2)    court rules on dilatory plea

(3)    D fails to plead contesting merits (or answer, but withdrawn)

ii)       effect:  stronger confession of admission of facts pleaded by opponent than no-answer default so attacking a jj nihil dicit is hard

3)      Attacking Default

a)      no notice

b)      no service

c)      no service of pleading upon which default is based

d)      failure to strictly comply w/ service or process (even if actual notice, the slightest error provides grounds for attacking default)

e)      no smj

f)       no personal jx (only if you collaterally attack)

g)      pleadings inadequate

i)        properly plead coa

ii)       other relief requested:  new trial only on remedy received

iii)     misnomer

h)      negligence (but not conscious disregard or intent)

i)        errors in process of taking default

i)        no E of damages

ii)       absence of record

iii)     no return service

iv)     absence of notice to known counsel

j)        D incompetent

k)      answer on file (just not in clerk’s office b/c mailbox rule)

4)      Ways to Attack

a)      appeal

i)        deadline

(1)    30 days after jj signed

(2)    exception, you have 90 days after jj signed if in the interim you filed

(a)    motion for new trial

(b)    motion to modify the jj

(c)    165a motion to reinstate

(d)    a request for finding of fact and law as req’d

ii)       requirements:  none special b/c right of appealing jj’s

iii)     evidence:  appellate ct must be able to decide error from the record of the trial ct

iv)     use:  if there is nothing on file showing return of service => could get reversed on ordinary appeal

(1)    notice:  no b/c no record of no notice

(2)    failure to strictly comply w/ service:  yes, will show on citation & return

(3)    no smj:  yes, b/c determined from pleadings

(4)    no personal jx:  no b/c waiver

(5)    pleadings inadequate:  yes, clear from pleadings (this includes misnomer)

(6)    errors in process:  yes, except for III laywers creed

(7)    D incompentent: no

(8)    answer on file b/c mailbox rule:  yes (unless rare case where no postmark on envelope)

b)      motion for new trial

i)        deadline: 

(1)    30 days after jj signed

(2)    exceptions

(a)    if you didn’t have kn/notice of jj w/in 20 days of jj being signed => 30 days runs from date of notice

(b)    but clock will not start running more than 90 days after jj signed; ***if notice after 90 days, then follow first rule – 30 days after jj signed – no extension at all***

ii)       requirements:  good cause; ex. equitable motion for new trial (Craddock negligence review)

(1)    atty has negligence mens rea

(a)    plead facts that support negligence

(b)    produce:  support pleading w/ affidavit

(c)    persuade

(i)      if not controverted, then you have met burden

(ii)    if controverted by P, hearing; put on E b/c you have BOP; need live testimony, etc

(2)    set up a meritorious defense

(a)    plead:  facts that if true would be meritorious defense

(i)      can’t just plead “I have a merit. defense” need facts

(ii)    can be negative or affirm. defense

(b)    produce E:  must support w/ affidavit

(c)    persuade?  no;  if controverted, doesn’t matter!

(3)    no unfair prejudice to P (no delay of trial)

(a)    plead facts alleging P will not be unfairly prejudiced by granting new trial

(i)      commit to paying:  pay atty’s fees, filing fee, reimburse costs incurred by W’s brought for unliquid. damages claim

(ii)    pay

(iii)   tell court you’ve paid

(iv)  no delay:  we’re ready to go now (or at least that you’re as ready as you would have been)

(b)    produce – affidavit

(c)    persuade:  we don’t know; but almost positive if controverted, you have BOP

iii)     evidence:  you can produce new evidence

iv)     use:  anything on the list!

c)      restricted appeal (writ of error)

i)        deadline:  6 mos. after jj signed

ii)       reqs:  if you and client did not actively participate in trial below

iii)     evidence:  apparent from face of the record

iv)     use:  same as regular appeal (b/c depends on face of record)

d)      collateral attack

i)        deadline:  when jj attempted to be executed

ii)       reqs:  can’t have waived

iii)     evidence:  can put on E

iv)     use

(1)    no personal jx

(2)    no notice (actual notice – not just defects in service!)

e)      equitable bill of review: (this is v. different from equitable mtn for new trial!)

i)        deadline

ii)       reqs

(1)    you have lost a meritorious opportunity to avoid the jj

(a)    merit. defense to claim on merits

(b)    merit. claim you could have filed MNT

(c)    merit. equitable MNT

(i)      negligence

(ii)    merit. defense

(iii)   no unfair prejudice to P

(d)    lost opp. to present restricted appeal

(e)    lost opp. to assert a compuls. cc that would offset the jj

(f)     not procedural defects b/c these are not meritorious opps. to avoid jj

(2)    show fraud, accident, mistake of the opposing party or official error

(a)    P provided false address:  fraud or mistake

(b)    P provided correct addy but clerk didn’t send: official error

(3)    no negligence by the BOR P in losing opp. (will depend on what “opportunity” was lost!)

(a)    lost opp must be due to P’s negligence to fail this prong!

(b)    ex.  negligence of BOR-P is cause of lost opp. to collaterally attack, but is not the cause of the lost opp. to get an equitable MNT b/c can get equit. MNT despite the negl.

(4)    no failure to exhaust adequate legal remedies

(a)    collateral attack is an equitable remedy so don’t have to exhaust this

(b)    usually not hard to see if other remedies still avail

(c)    only tricky b/c be careful that the failure to exhaust legal remedies wasn’t fault of BOR-P

(d)    always make sure 6 mos have passed and you can no longer restricted appeal

iii)     evidence

iv)     use

f)       procedure for equitable BOR

i)        file sworn petition w/ facts + affidavit

ii)       (if don’t, BOR-D will file MSJ)

iii)     trial on equitable BOR

(1)    BOR-P has burden of proving elements

(2)    court will decide if you’ve set up meritorious opp to avoid jj if it is Q of law (like are elements there for equit MNT or BOR)

5)      Default JJ’s in Federal Court

a)      failure to plead or defend shown by affidavit

b)      default can be entered

i)        by clerk if liquidated dmgs

ii)       by court in other cases

c)      if party has appeared in case, they must have 3 day notice of default app.

d)      no default against infants, incompetents

e)      attack:  will be set aside for good cause or per 60b

i)        60b:  you can amend default jj if you show you (atty) were negligent; consider factors

(1)    extend of prejudice to P

(2)    merits of D’s asserted defense and

(3)    culpability of D’s conduct

V. The Defendant’s Pleadings

1)      Federal Court procedure

a)      collateral attack:  if you lose, that’s the end; seek to enjoin enforcement of jj in your home court

b)      direct attack:  12b2 no personal jx

i)        make by motion to dismiss

(1)    must be made before further pleading, but all 12b’s can be made in one motion, but 12b must be first filed motion & if no 12b in that motion, then lost

(2)    no interloc appeal

(3)    must be prior to answering!

ii)       answer (preserve in responsive pleading)

(1)    good b/c gives you more time; wait and later file msj on the issue

(2)    is a general appearance

c)      BOP:

i)        Federal court once personal jx raised, BOP to party invoking jx

ii)       (Texas has a presumption of jx)

2)      Dilatory Pleas

a)      Special Appearance

i)        BOP on D b/c presumption of jx

ii)       collateral attack

iii)     direct attack:  special appearance 120a

(1)    don’t use for case brought in violation of forum selection clause; use plea in abate and request dismissal

(2)    can sever claims for jx’al problems as long as possible for ct to decide the claims separately

iv)     special appearance procedure:

(1)    file special appearance, made by sworn affidavit

(a)    affirmatively appears from face of affidavit

(b)    competent to T

(c)    facts true, based on personal kn

(d)    must be on file 7 days prior to hearing

(2)    negate all bases of jx that P pleaded

(3)    no min con; even if, not FPSJ

(4)    hearing:  present E, can be by affidavit (not HS per rule 120a3), live, etc. (best to have live W’s if things will be controverted)

v)      amending special appearance

(1)    can amend to cure defects in special app.

(2)    deadline: before you generally appear!

vi)     waiver of special appearance:

(1)    failure to comply w/ order of pleading

(2)    failure to comply w/ order of hearing

(a)    must hear special app.

(b)    before MNT and

(c)    before mtn to transfer venue

example:

(d)    file special app.

(e)    file mtn for continuance

(f)     hearing on mtn

(g)    does this waive special app?

(i)      doesn’t recognize properly pending

(ii)    does seek affirm relief, but not inconsistent – just to get more time; no waiver

(3)    making a general appearance (before special app. ruled on)

(a)    invokes jj of court (on any Q besides persona jx) (jj = decree resolving the claims or defenses in the case) or

(b)    D’s act recognizes the action is properly pending or

(c)    seeks affirmative relief inconsistent w/ special appearance

(d)    unless expressly authorized by 120a

(i)      expressly authorized:

1.       any plea, pleading, motion may be contained in same instrument or file after special appearance

(ii)    exception removal doesn’t waive b/c just a notice – no action taken

vii)   attack

(1)    interloc appeal from 120a determination allowed

(2)    default + collateral attack: 

(3)    default + direct attack (default entered, but you want to go to that court and attack the default jj b/c no jx)

(a)    procedure

(i)      file special app. in court where default entered

(ii)    then file your direct attack

(iii)   hearings! 

1.       need MNT heard before special appearance b/c it’s done if no new trial

2.       but if you say “ready for trial” that is accepting ct’s jx;

3.       soln:  conditional language “we’re ready for trial subj to our pending special app. which must be heard and determined and only if the ct determines it has jx, which we contend it does not, are we ready to go to trial in this ct”

(b)    direct attacks:

(i)      MNT

(ii)    Equitable MNT

(iii)   BOR

(iv)  restricted appeal

viii)  discovery

(1)    court can hear mtn to compel before special app (b/c not mtn transfer venue or plea or pleading)

(2)    seeking affirm relief? yes; inconsistent w/ claim that the ct lack jx?  depends…

(a)    IF your discovery is re personal jx => not inconsistent

(b)    If your discovery relates to merits => inconsistent & waiver if no relation to special app. (rule isn’t too strict or it would be unworkable)

b)      Motion to Transfer Venue

(1)    Fed ct: (direct attack only; 2 options)

(a)    motion

(i)       12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue (1406)

(ii)    exception:  will transfer if improper for justice (SOL, etc.)

(iii)   mtn to transfer venue if proper but inconvenient (1404)

(b)    answer

(i)      answer & allege venue is improper

(ii)    preserves ability to present defense later w/ mtn to dismiss for improper venue

(2)    Texas:

(a)    order of pleadings else waiver

(i)      first file special pp

(ii)    then can file mtn to transfer venue

(iii)   then pleas in abatement

(b)    hearing:  no due order of hearing!

(i)      should be determined in rzbl time (you could waive if wait a yr or something)

(ii)    movant’s duty to request hearing

(iii)   why no order?  b/c orders transfer w/ case if mtn granted, so no wasted effort

(iv)  must have 45 day notice of hearing

(c)    motion contents

(i)      venue is improper (then venue shifts to P to show proper) b/c (negate bases of venue… “no events giving rise to coa occurred in cty x”)

(ii)    allege new proper cty

(iii)   allege venue facts for proper cty

(iv)  request transfer

(d)    BOP

(i)      burden on party seeking to maintain venue (P) to prove venue proper, but only need to make prima facie proof

(ii)    prima facie proof means plead, produce E (affidavits) but no burden of persuasion; only plead facts that if true support venue

(iii)   evidence at venue hearing:  pleadings, stips, affidavits

1.       affidavits:  responding affidavits due - filed 30 days prior to hearing; reply affidavits are due 7 days before hearing

2.       stipulations:  anything not specifically denied in pleadings; interrogatory responses

3.       if you don’t have time to get affidavits to support venue facts, just wait until you get mtn to transfer venue and controvert anything not admitted

(e)    forum selections clauses may not chose venue (unless in K over $1mil not personal/HH/fam unless unK, voidable)

(f)     waiver & multiple parties

(i)      waiver by one D doesn’t waive for other

(ii)    venue proper for 3P’s if same cnof

(iii)   except if waived by D, 3P can challenge

(g)    contesting venue determination

(i)      no rehearings! (but if granted, ct can reconsider until it is actually transferred)

(ii)    no interloc appeal (except 15.003 mult P’s)

(iii)   but can be reversed on appeal, jj vacated, and then transferred

(h)    15.002 Motion to Transfer for convenience

(i)      uses factors like FNC

1.       keeping here works injustice to movant (economic and personal hardship),

2.       balance of interests of all parties predominates in favor of another cty.

3.       transfer of action not injustice to any other party

(ii)    is discretionary w/ judge; no mandamus or appeal from it

c)      Motions to Quash Service

i)        can be used for defect in service of citation

ii)       never use this b/c it waives venue and special app; just buys time – but its so easy to file anser w/ general denial

iii)     D deemed to have appeared at 10a the next Monday, 20 days after quashed

3)      Pleas to the Jurisdiction: 

a)      used for SMJ

i)        but if can be cured by pleading, file special exception

ii)       ct will retain jx unless clear from pleadings that ct does not have jx

b)      can be in answer;

c)      can’t be waived

4)      Pleas in Abatement

a)      uses;  See Dorsaneos 70.03[7]A

i)        dominant jx

ii)       capacity, standing

iii)     failure to join an indispensable party

iv)     forum selection clauses

v)      pre-suit notice reqs

vi)     not ripe, moot

vii)   failure to exhaust admin remedies

viii)  not for:

(1)    personal jx

(2)    smj

(3)    venue

b)      purpose:  to stay a proceeding until something else happens; some req met

c)      procedure

i)        no due order of pleading

ii)       no due order of hearing

d)      contents

i)        plead factual basis for what you are claiming

ii)       some have to be verified

(1)    party lacks standing

(2)    pendency of prior proceedings

(3)    absence of necessary & indispensable party

5)      Exceptions

a)      deadline:  waiver if defects in pleadings (form or otherwise) not excepted to before submitted to jury

b)      pleading exceptions:  must specifically point out pleading excepted to and the defect or omission

c)      types of exceptions:

i)        mechanical

(1)    mislabeled pleading

(2)    no residence

(3)    paragraphs not numbered; didn’t separate into counts, etc

(4)    you probably would never specially except for these reason

ii)       ambiguity

(1)    alleges negligence but does not id acts/omissions constitution negl.

(2)    P’s pleading of unliquidated damages doesn’t specify max

(3)    in fed ct. this is a mtn for more definite stmt

iii)     failure to allege a necessary element

(1)    specially except if you don’t think they can allege element in GF

(2)    if you think they’ve forgotten about it, then don’t except, get verdict and move for JNOV

iv)     allegations affirmatively demonstrate absence of a coa

(1)    ex. sued for malpractice but pleading shows no a/c rel.

(2)    no advantage to delaying

(3)    fed: 12b6 mtn to dismiss for failure to state a claim

d)      procedure

i)        specificity

(1)    point out para & defect

(2)   “D specially excepts to para 3 of POP where P pleads “blah, blah, D was negligent.”  P alleges negligence but fails to identify the particular acts or omission that P asserts were negligent.”

ii)       file & request hearing

iii)     timing:  you can delay as long as brought before submitted to jury but seldom a benefit to delay

iv)     exception granted:  P must amend and fix; if not fixed move for dismissal

6)      Denials

a)      General Denials in Texas

i)        allowed; sanctions don’t apply;

ii)       “D denies ea and every, all and singular, the allegations in POP’s and demands strict proof thereof.”

iii)     effect: puts BOP on P

iv)     exceptions:  verified denials

b)      Special Denials:  verified denials & pleadings

i)        effect:  burden of pleading on D but BOP does not change – once pleaded by D, BOP on P (e.g. b/c verified denial req’d does not make it affirm. defense)

ii)       verified denials:  must be plead and verified

(1)        no capacity to sue

(2)        can’t recover in that capacity

(3)        priority

(4)        defect of parties

(5)        deny existence of pship, corp, dba as alleged

(6)        deny execution of instrument upon which pleading is founded

(7)        deny genuineness of signature

(8)        lack of consideration or failure of consideration

(9)        denial of an acct

(10)     usury

(11)     no notice; and conditions precedent not met

(12)     insurance co:  unless deny/verify, it is presumed that insured complied w/ policy

iii)     capacity

(1)    I am not liable at all.  (not capacity but b/c of Oleary decision, do verify)

(2)    You have sued me in the wrong capacity. 

iv)     contracts:  filing a general denial in a boK case admits everything in r 93, 94; what defenses are we waiving?

(1)    not liable in that capacity

(2)    no consideration, failure of consideration

(3)    material breach (failure of conditions excusing performance)

(4)    usury

(5)    deny executing K

(a)    you can argue ambiguity

(b)    but K will come into E as “fully proved”; can’t argue no meeting of minds, etc.

v)      deny but don’t verify:  can always make trial am. unless you’re somehow asking for a jj to be reversed

7)      Affirmative Defenses

a)      laundry list:

i)        claims that have already been resolved

(1)    accord & satisfaction

(2)    arbitration & award

(3)    discharge in bankruptcy

(4)    payment

(5)    release

(6)    res jud

ii)       unrzbl delay

(1)    laches

(2)    SOL

iii)     barred by P’s own conduct

(1)    assumption of the risk

(2)    contrib. negl. or comparative responsibility

(3)    duress

(4)    estoppel

(5)    waiver

(6)    failure of consideration

(7)    fraud

(8)    illegality

b)      things similar to what is in the laundry list

c)      things that were designed to benefit the D not the P; should the P be able to recover absent proof of it?  then prob. affirm defense  J

d)      caselaw

i)        mitigation:

(1)    failure to mitigate damages

(a)    is an affirm. defense

(b)    except in PI cases, not an affirm. defense

(2)    mitigation of damages

(a)    this goes to amt. of dmgs. probably part of proving dmgs. but prudently plead it

ii)       truth in defamation cases?

iii)     statutory exclusions:  affirm. defenses per Eckman

iv)     insurance policy exclusions:  affirm defenses

v)      consideration!

(1)    lack of consideration:  must be in a verified denial; may be an affirm defense

(2)    failure of consideration: in the rule, so is affirm. defense (and needs verified denial)

e)      inferential rebuttal defenses:  all negative defenses but some judges don’t think so

i)        unavoidable accident

ii)       act of god

iii)     P sues on vicarious liability theory

8)      Cross Claims:  97, 38, fed 13

9)      Counterclaims:  97, 81, 82, 124, 21a, 16.069, fed 13

10)  Third-Party Claims:  97, 38, fed 14, forms 22A&B

11)  Rule for Costs:  125-27, 129, 130-31, 133, 136-49

12)  Removal

a)      b/g: 

i)        removal could change substantive law:  if you remove maybe 5^th cir. has different interpretation than appellate ct if issue not decided by Tex. sct

ii)       change opposing counsel:

(1)    tex:  you can sue current client if unrelated matter

(2)    fed:  you cannot sue current client w/o consent

b)      Actions removable

i)        federal question

ii)       diversity if

(1)    can’t remove in D’s home state

(2)    if becomes diverse, you can remove at that time if due to voluntary act of P

(3)    exceptions

(a)    unless it only becomes “diverse” because the D moved away

(b)    unless it only becomes diverse b/c of involuntary dismissal of a party

(i)      involuntary:  MSJ granted for nondiverse D

(ii)    settlement = voluntary

(4)    not over a year from commencement (POP filing)

iii)     and no waiver: 

(1)    waiver = affirm. actions manifesting intent to submit to state ct action (would not include general denial or special app. but you wouldn’t want to do special app in Tx b/c hard)

(2)    ex. if you file MSJ, denied; later you find out from interrog. they seek over $75k; too bad, too late

(3)    but if P sues (nondiverse D) and (diverse D) and actions are taken in state ct, etc., then after 10 mos, P settles w/ nondiverse D; now diverse D can remove; no waiver b/c no right existed before (in hypo above it was different b/c right existed, just not clear)

c)      Removal procedure

i)        30 days from when first became apparent from pleading, motion or other paper that case is removable

(1)    other papers:  from P, not pre-suit papers

(2)    facially apparent removable even though not stated => prudent req’s removal

(3)    but subjective knowledge will not start clock running (but you can remove)

ii)       remove to district that is in state ct removed from

iii)     notice:

(1)    include everything you think helps

(2)    doesn’t have to be other paper – that just is re deadline; this is re notice of removal – right to remove

iv)     Plaintiff doesn’t want removed…

(1)    attack removal notice not amt. b/c you don’t want to be later estopped from getting over $75k

(2)    D can try to remove again later but at least you stalled and maybe it’ll be over a year

v)      all D’s must join in removal!

(1)    D1 served, D2 served => both must join in removal notice (or affirmatively consent) w/in 30 days of service on D1

(2)    D1 served, removes, => D2 served; D2 has 30 days from date he is served to remand; if he doesn’t then implied consent

(3)    D1 served, D2 sued but not served; D2 destroys diversity; D1 needs to remove w/in 30 days b/c some cases say so (if D2 later served, just remand)

(4)    but you can always remand for lack of SMJ!

vi)     appeal: 

(1)    can’t appeal or M if proper reason is stated for remanding case (if case remanded back to state ct)

(2)    only can appeal if erroneous reason (federalism)

(3)    can appeal order refusing to remand a case (if case kept in fed. ct)

d)      Remand

13)  Removal Papers  on exam you must remove a case; any flaw = no credit

a)       

VI. Amended & Supplemental Pleadings

1)      Supplemental Pleadings

2)      Amended Pleadings

3)      Waiver of Defect & Trial by Consent

4)      Limitations & Relation Back

5)      Intervention

VII.  Discovery

1)      Informal Discovery

2)      Scope of Formal Discovery

a)      Relevance Standard

b)      Work Product Doctrine

c)      Exceptions to WP

i)        discovery of witnesses

ii)       contentions

iii)     potential parties

iv)     witness statements

d)      Expert Exception…next quarter.