Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction, Venue, and the Life of a Case
The Analytical Skeleton
Every Civil Procedure question starts with the same three-step filter: subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, then venue. Ask whether a federal court may hear the case at all (federal question under Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity with complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000), then whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum plus a statutory hook and fair play, and finally whether venue is proper where the defendant resides or where events occurred.
Joinder, Pretrial, and Disposition
The exam rewards knowing the joinder rules by their purpose: permissive party joinder (common question of law or fact), compulsory counterclaims (arising from the same transaction or occurrence), impleader, intervention, and interpleader. Then trace the pretrial path: Rule 12 motions, waiver traps, Rule 26 disclosures, the scope of discovery, summary judgment, and Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law.
Preclusion and Appeals
Claim preclusion requires a final judgment on the merits by a court with jurisdiction, same claim, same parties. Issue preclusion requires actual litigation and a necessary determination, and mutuality rules vary. Final judgment rule, interlocutory appeals under § 1292(b), and the Erie doctrine (substantive state law, procedural federal rules) round out the tested material.
Traps
A common trap: a defendant who answers without objecting waives lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, but never waives subject-matter jurisdiction. Another: removal is available to a defendant sued in state court only within 30 days of service, and diversity removal fails if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to claims by plaintiffs against nondiverse parties.
Rule of Thumb
Worked example: a plaintiff from State A sues a State B defendant in federal court for $90,000 on a state tort claim. Diversity is complete and the amount is satisfied, so the court has jurisdiction. If the plaintiff instead sued in State A court and the defendant removed, removal is proper because the defendant is not a citizen of the forum.