Civil Procedure Flashcards

Plaintiff sues Defendant in Case 1 for breach of contract and wins. Plaintiff then files Case 2 asserting fraud arising from the same contract transaction. Defendant raises claim preclusion. The court should:

Answer: Bar Case 2 because res judicata precludes all claims arising from the same transaction that were or could have been raised in Case 1

Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars not only claims actually litigated but all claims arising from the same transaction that could have been raised in the prior action.

In Case 1, a jury found that Defendant drove negligently. In Case 2, a different plaintiff sues Defendant for injuries in the same accident. Plaintiff invokes collateral estoppel offensively. The court will permit it if:

Answer: Defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate negligence in Case 1, the issue was essential to the judgment, and Plaintiff could not have joined Case 1

Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is permitted under Parklane Hosiery if the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, the issue was necessary to the prior judgment, and the new plaintiff could not easily have joined the prior action.

Plaintiff sues Defendant, who then files a third-party complaint against Subcontractor under FRCP 14. Which claim may Defendant assert as a third-party plaintiff?

Answer: A claim that Subcontractor is or may be liable to Defendant for all or part of Plaintiff's claim against Defendant

FRCP 14(a) permits impleader only for claims that the third party is or may be liable to the defendant for the plaintiff's claim—typically indemnity or contribution.

For a class action to be certified under FRCP 23(a), which element requires that the named representatives' claims be typical of the class?

Answer: Typicality

FRCP 23(a)(3) requires typicality—the claims or defenses of the representative parties must be typical of those of the class.

Defendant asserts a counterclaim against Plaintiff arising from a completely unrelated business dispute in a federal diversity case. Under FRCP 13, this counterclaim is best characterized as:

Answer: Permissive, because it does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Plaintiff's claim

FRCP 13(b) defines a permissive counterclaim as any claim not arising from the same transaction or occurrence; unlike compulsory counterclaims, it is not waived if omitted.

Under Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP), Oregon's pleading standard for complaints differs from federal Iqbal/Twombly by requiring what?

Answer: A notice pleading standard, requiring only a plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the claim

ORCP 18A requires a plain and concise statement of ultimate facts—Oregon follows a traditional notice/ultimate-facts standard, not the federal plausibility standard.

Plaintiff files suit in Oregon state court. Defendant timely removes to federal court. If plaintiff's only claim is for $60,000 under state tort law and both parties are Oregon citizens, which defect applies?

Answer: Both lack of diversity and insufficient amount in controversy are present

28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity (citizens of different states) and more than $75,000 in controversy; both requirements fail here.