Home Run Motions JAMES WAGSTAFFE THE WAGSTAFFE GROUP PRACTICE GUIDE: FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL (LEXISNEXIS 2018) June 28 th, 2018

Similar documents
Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Outline

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT. Seminar Presentation Rob Foos

JURISDICTION AND LOCAL RULES. Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.A This is called federal

QUESTION Does the federal court in State A have removal jurisdiction over the case? Explain.

Civil Procedure Darden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff AT&T Mobility Services LLC s

Sports & Entertainment Management, LLC ("Paramount") and Counterclaim Defendant Alvin

In Personam: Jurisdiction over LI.personally and/or his property

TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE FEDERAL COURT, VENUE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Litigating Employment Discrimination

MOTIONS PRACTICE BEFORE THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD AND THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION By Ernest C. Hadley and Sarah S.

MBE WORKSHOP: CIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR LISA MCELROY DREXEL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

ESSAY APPROACH. Bar Exam Doctor BAREXAMDOCTOR.COM. CIVIL PROCEDURE FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE

2. In considering whether specific jurisdiction exists, the courts consider: a. Whether the defendant gained benefits and privileges by the contract;

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 0:18-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2018 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:17-cv JLL-JAD Document 1 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1 : : : : : : : : : :

Arbitration-Related Litigation in Texas

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED 2013 by The State of Tennessee All rights reserved. *** Current through the 2012 Regular Session ***

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE LAW PROFESSOR

Overview of FOIA Litigation. ASAP National Training Conference. ASAP National Training Conference. Presented by Brent Evitt

Case: 4:14-cv AGF Doc. #: 49 Filed: 04/03/15 Page: 1 of 49 PageID #: 637

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2016

Plaintiff, v. DECISION AND ORDER 13-CV-310S RON HISH, ARIZONA UTILITY INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., and LINDA HISH, I. INTRODUCTION

Uniform Arbitration Act. Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 3. COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION

Unit 3 Dispute Resolution ARE 306. I. Litigation in an Adversary System

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

Case: 25CH1:15-cv Document #: 7 Filed: 10/05/2015 Page 1 of 16

TYPES OF MONETARY DAMAGES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. v. No. 04 C 8104 MEMORANDUM OPINION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 9:13-cv KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2014 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

Case 1:18-cv PGG Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 1 of 6

being preempted by the court's criminal calendar.

Honorable James J. Wechler v. San Juan River Adjudication. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Claims of Navajo Nation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 88 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C.

2018 Tenth Annual AIPLA Trademark Boot Camp. AIPLA Quarles & Brady LLP USPTO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240

CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT Title 3. Civil Rules Division 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution Chapter 1. General Provisions

CASE 0:09-cv MJD-JSM Document 151 Filed 10/13/11 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE. RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER SCREENING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:01-cv JWS Document 237 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 8

Massachusetts UCCJA Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B

Reconventional Demand

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:12-cv-1429-T-33TGW ORDER

United States District Court

Case 3:18-cv MO Document 1 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:13-cv FDS Document 57 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT YAKIMA

Case 3:18-cv BAJ-RLB Document 1 08/17/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

(Revised and Approved by the National Trust Board of Trustees, November 5, 2006)

Ch. 491 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 67 ARTICLE V. GENERAL PROCEDURES

Civil Litigation Forms Library

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

NC General Statutes - Chapter 28A Article 2 1

Case 0:13-cv JIC Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2013 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWE...

Wallach v Greenhouses Hotel, LLC NY Slip Op 32889(U) November 8, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2018 Judge: Arthur

CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan additionally asserted the following as damages: Blueprints: $20,000 Land Purchase: $20,000 Grading of Land: $20,000

3:14-cv MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5

ROSARIO ORTEGA v. STAR-KIST FOODS, INC.

R. BRIAN DIXON, Bar No LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 125 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *

Slip Op. UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

State Wage and Hour Class Actions Navigating Procedural and Substantive Challenges in Pursuing or Defending Dual Filed Claims

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION v. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES United States Supreme Court (2005). U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502

LLM Civil Procedure Angelos Law Room 403 Fall 2013

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT) Act 236 of 1961 CHAPTER 57 SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PREMISES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. ORDER v. Rudy Alarcon, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court of Florida

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (hereinafter FedEx Ground ), by and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO: 11-CV-1899 W (NLS) Plaintiff, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 3:13-cv wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM BUSINESS DISPUTE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Case No.

Question 1 Worth up to 43 points

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION. ) No. 2:10-cv JPM-dkv

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Verizon Wireless Services

RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES DIVISION

American Capital Acquisitions v. Fortigent LLC

RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

3:17-cv CMC Date Filed 03/21/18 Entry Number 55 Page 1 of 10

Case 3:13-cv JRS Document 11 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 487 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION V. A-13-CA-359 LY

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

v. and ORDER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

DeNault s Application for Employment 2019

United States District Court

Transcription:

Home Run Motions JAMES WAGSTAFFE THE WAGSTAFFE GROUP PRACTICE GUIDE: FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL (LEXISNEXIS 2018) June 28 th, 2018 wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com @JWagstaffeLxNx

JURISDICTIONAL CHECKLIST 1. JURISDICTION PROPERLY ALLEGED? 2. FEDERAL QUESTION? (TWG CH. 6) Arising under jurisdiction (not defensive or referential use of federal law) State claims involving a substantial federal question Private right of action Wholly insubstantial federal claim 3. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION? (TWG CH. 7) Complete diversity Dual citizenship of corporations Citizenship of all partners, association members, etc. Nondiverse or Third-party defendants joined by plaintiff disallowed Amount in controversy (in excess of $75,000) Indispensable parties

4. REMOVAL JURISDICTION? (TWG CH. 8) Federal question; diversity or separate and independent to federal question claim Non-removable claims (e.g., FELA) Waiver by conduct or agreement Removal limited to defendants Artful pleading/complete preemption Special removal statutes (e.g., federal officers) Procedural defects: 1. Removal within 30 days of service 2. Joinder by all served defendants 3. Other procedural requirements (attach papers, notices, etc.) 4. Resident defendant removal (diversity) 5. Removal more than 1 year after commencement (diversity) Post-removal destruction of jurisdiction

5. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION (TWG CH. 9) Do state claims derive from common nucleus of operative fact Does joinder of supplemental party destroy complete diversity (i.e., added by plaintiff, intervenor as plaintiff, indispensable party) Are there reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction (i.e., novel/complex state claims, federal claims dismissed, or other compelling reasons for dismissal/remand) 6. OTHER LIMITATIONS Venue (TWG Ch. 12) Timely and proper service (TWG Ch. 11) Personal Jurisdiction (TWG Ch. 10) Jurisprudential limitations (standing, abstention, mootness, ripeness, etc.) (TWG Ch. 24) Eleventh Amendment (TWG Ch. 24) Failure to exhaust administrative remedies (e.g., EEOC), notice requirements, etc. Iqbal, Twombly, Celotex and other Home Run Motions (TWG Ch. 22, 23, 25, 39, 43 and 44)

REMOVAL CHECKLIST Removal Jurisdiction (TWG Ch. 8) A. Diversity Is there complete diversity? Does removal notice show citizenship (not mere residence) of each party? Does notice allege citizenship both at time of commencement of action and at time of removal? If there is a corporate party, does notice of removal show both its principal place of business and state of incorporation? Does notice of removal allege citizenship of all members/partners of artificial entity parties (partners, LLC s) Are there any resident defendants (who have been served), thus preventing removal? Does the notice of removal allege specific facts demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000? B. Federal Question Does state court complaint plead a claim arising under federal law? If not, does artful pleading doctrine apply (claim under state law completely preempted by a federal claim)? Is there any express prohibition against removal of the federal claim?

C. Waiver Did defendant contractually waive the right to remove? Did defendant waive the right to remove by conduct in state court? Removal Procedure A. Removal Notice Did all defendants (who were served) join in the removal notice? Were copies of all state court pleadings attached? Was notice of removal given to state court and adverse parties? B. Timeliness of Removal Did initial pleadings reveal removal jurisdiction? If so, was removal effected within 30 days after defendant was properly served with such pleadings? If initial pleadings did not show removability, when was defendant put on notice that removal jurisdiction existed (e.g., through dismissal of nondiverse party, or addition of federal claim)? Was removal effected within 30 days thereafter? In diversity case, has more than one year passed since commencement of actions? 201752