444 U.S. 286 (1980). One-Sentence Takeaway: A state court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident corporate defendants (automobile wholesaler and retailer) whose only connection to the forum state is the foreseeable entry of defendant’s product (a automobile) into the forum state, absent purposeful availment of the forum’s laws—i.e., the defendant’s conduct and connections with the […]
Category: Civil Procedure
Anti-SLAPP Statute
California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) provides for special motions to strike complaints that arise from certain protected activity.1 In 1992, in response to the “disturbing increase” in meritless lawsuits brought “to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom and speech and petition for the redress of grievances,” the […]
Answer
A defendant’s response to a plaintiff’s complaint. An answer generally contains the defendant’s response to the specific allegations of the complaint (admissions or denials). Some states like California permit the defendants to generally deny all allegations of a complaint, unless the complaint is verified which requires the defendant to respond to each specific allegation raised […]
Anomalous Plea
A plea that is partly affirmative and partly negative.
After-Acquired Domicile
The term “after-acquired domicile” refers to domicile established after the facts relevant to an issue arose. After-acquired domicile cannot be used to establish jurisdiction or choice of law.
Affirmative Plea
One which sets up a single fact, not appearing in the complaint, or sets up a number of circumstances all tending to establish a single fact, which fact, if existing, destroys the plaintiff’s case.
Affirmative Defense
“An affirmative defense is a defense that does not negate the elements of the plaintiff’s claim, but instead precludes liability even if all of the elements of the plaintiff’s claim are proven.” Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 306 F.R.D. 279, 283 (N.D. Cal. 2015). In asserting an affirmative defense, a defendant does not necessarily deny […]
Additur
Latin. “It is added to.” The term additur refers to the process by which a trial judge adds to a jury’s award of damages. In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff may file a motion to increase the amount of damages awarded by the jury. The relief sought through such motion is “additur.” If the court agrees […]
Barton Doctrine
The Barton doctrine derives from the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881). It prohibits suits against “a bankruptcy trustee or other officer appointed by the bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer’s official capacity” without first obtaining leave of the bankruptcy court. In re Crown Vantage, Inc., […]
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) A 1997 United States Supreme Court opinion in which the Court held that certifying a class action merely for purposes of achieving a global settlement was not permitted under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This case involved hundreds of asbestos claims filed in federal courts around the […]
A.F.A. Tours, Inc. v. Whitchurch
937 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1991). One-Sentence Takeaway: To extent that court thought former employer alleging trade secrets misappropriation could not meet $50,000 federal diversity jurisdiction threshold, court should not have dismissed without giving plaintiff opportunity to present substantiation that value of its claims exceeded $50,000. Summary: A.F.A. Tours (Plaintiff) filed a complaint in federal […]
Barton Doctrine
The Barton doctrine derives from the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881). It prohibits suits against “a bankruptcy trustee or other officer appointed by the bankruptcy court for acts done in the officer’s official capacity” without first obtaining leave of the bankruptcy court. In re Crown Vantage, Inc., […]