paulie walnuts exception

relation back doctrine

150 miles something or other - oh that's when someone is unavailable?!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1050319&forum_id=2#12347823)

a) Rule: The California Superior Courts have general SMJ, which means they may hear any civil case.

i) Limited Civil Cases ≤ $25,000

ii) Else Unlimited Civil Case

2) Pleading Theories

a) Cali uses fact pleading

b) Complaint must contain –

i) A statement of facts constituting the cause of action, stated in ordinary and concise language. P must allege the ultimate facts on each element of each cause of action

ii) Demand for judgment

(1) MUST state damages amount

(a) Exception: P must not state damages in personal injury cases and whenever P is seeking punitive damages

c) Fictitious Defendants

i) Rule: If P is genuinely unaware of the identity of a D, she may name the D as a ‘Doe’ defendant

ii) Relation back

(1) Ok with a fictitious D if –

(a) Original complaint was filed before the SOL ran and contained charging allegations against the fictitious defendants

(b) P was genuinely ignorant of the identity of the Doe defendants

(c) P pleaded that ignorance in the original complaint

(d) P substitutes the true D within 3 years of filing

3) Defendant’s Responses

a) D must respond in an appropriate way within 30 days after service of process is deemed complete

b) General Demurrer Can be used to assert either 1) P failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or 2) lack of SMJ

i) NB: These can be raised in answer instead

c) Special Demurrer Used to assert various defenses –

i) Complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible

ii) Lack of legal capacity

iii) NB: These can be raised in answer instead

d) Motion to Quash Service of Summons

i) Lack of PJ

ii) Improper process

iii) Improper service of process

iv) NB: Motion must be made before or with a demurrer or motion to strike, or else D waives

e) Motion to dismiss or stay for inconvenient forum

f) Motion to strike D can file this to strike all or part of a complaint.

g) Answer

i) Same as federal about responding by admitting, denying, or stating that lack of information to admit or deny

ii) Same as federal about admission of allegations not denied

iii) General denial: D simply denies each and every allegation of P’s complaint

4) Defendant’s Claims

a) NB: Everything is called a cross complaint

b) Cross complaint against P

i) Same rules for compulsory / non-compulsory

c) Cross complaint against co-party

i) Must arise from same T/O ; never compulsory

d) Cross complaint against a TPD

i) Like impleader but broader

(1) Works not just for indemnity or contribution, but for any claim that the TPD is liable on the underlying case, if it arises from the same T/O as the claim against the defending party or involves an interest in the controversy which is the basis of the underlying claim

5) Class Action

a) State statute uses vastly different language than the federal rule

b) Requires 1) an ascertainable class and 2) well-defined common or general interest and 3) impracticable to bring them all before the court

c) Court considers whether

i) Common questions predominate

ii) Rep is adequate

iii) Class will result in substantial benefit to the parties and the court

d) No separate types of class actions

e) Individual notice NOT required; notice can be by publication

i) Court decides who pays (class, rep, both)

f) All class members who do not opt out are bound by the class judgment. Opt out may be allowd by the class (FRCP requires for dmgs)

6) Trial & Motions

a) Jury trial

i) Cali Constitution provides for

ii) But try equity issues FIRST

iii) Thus, where dmgs in incidental (P really wants injunction) there will be no jury

iv) 12 jurors ; ¾ needed for verdict

b) Motion for directed verdict

i) Same as JMOL

c) Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict

i) Same as renewed motion for JMOL

d) Motion for a new trial

i) Bases (same as in federal ct): Something convinces the court that the parties should retry the case. Proper only if the court concludes “that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice”

ii) Excessive or inadequate damages

(1) One ground for a new trial is excessive or inadequate damages. The standard: damages figure “shocks the conscience”

(2) Remittur Give P the choice taking a lesser figure or having to go through a new trial. Ok in state or federal ct

(3) Additur Give D the choice of paying a greater amount in damages or else having to go through a new trial

(a) Ok in state court

(b) Unconstitutional in federal ct (7A)

7) Preclusion

a) Same rules, except in CA if Case1 has been appealed, or the time for filing an appeal has not yet expired, no res judicata or collateral estoppel

b) Other distinction: With respect to res judicata, P gets one “cause of action” for each primary right invaded (e.g. personal injury and property damage)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1050319&forum_id=2#12347833)

dork.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1050319&forum_id=2#12347844)

I made a one - pager based on what the lecturer (brain's so fried i can't remember his name) said were the more most likely topics to show

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1050319&forum_id=2#12347869)

In the Fed system, you must move for JMOL prior to verdict to be able to move for a RJMOL after.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1050319&forum_id=2#12348676)

when there is a suit that impinges a public right (freedom of speech), defendant can claim anti-slapp to put the burden on the plainitff to show that it has a legitimate case

plaintiff can respond with an anti-slapp motion to shift the burden back?

who the fuck knows

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1050319&forum_id=2#12348764)