Civil Procedure Legal Terms Glossary
Procedural terms that appear in pleadings, motions, and civil litigation.
Definitions
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is a court's power to exercise authority over a particular defendant. It requires that the defendant have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. General jurisdiction exists when the defendant is essentially 'at home' in the forum (domicile for individuals, state of incorporation or principal place of business for corporations). Specific jurisdiction exists when the lawsuit arises from or relates to the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum state.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's authority to hear the type of case before it. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the authority granted by the Constitution and Congress. The two primary bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Section 1331) and diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Section 1332). Unlike personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties and can be raised at any time.
Diversity Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 allows federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Complete diversity is required — no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. For individuals, citizenship is determined by domicile; for corporations, by the state of incorporation and the principal place of business (the 'nerve center' test from Hertz Corp. v. Friend).
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint — a federal defense or counterclaim does not create federal question jurisdiction. In limited circumstances, state-law claims with embedded federal issues may also qualify under the Grable test.
Minimum Contacts
Minimum contacts is the constitutional standard for personal jurisdiction established in International Shoe v. Washington. Due process requires that a non-resident defendant have 'certain minimum contacts' with the forum state such that maintaining the lawsuit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' The contacts must result from the defendant's purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum. Random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts are insufficient.
Long-Arm Statute
A long-arm statute is a state law that authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. Some states have long-arm statutes that extend to the full limits of due process, while others enumerate specific bases for jurisdiction (e.g., committing a tortious act within the state, transacting business in the state, owning property in the state). Even when a long-arm statute applies, the exercise of jurisdiction must still satisfy constitutional due process requirements.
Venue
Venue determines which court within a system of courts with jurisdiction is the proper place to hear the lawsuit. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391, venue in federal court is proper in any district where any defendant resides (if all defendants reside in the same state), where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or, as a fallback, where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Venue is waivable if not timely raised.
Forum Non Conveniens
Forum non conveniens is a discretionary doctrine allowing a court to dismiss a case when another forum is substantially more convenient for the parties and witnesses, and better serves the interests of justice. The court considers private interest factors (ease of access to evidence, costs, enforceability of judgment) and public interest factors (court congestion, local interest in the dispute, choice-of-law concerns). The doctrine typically involves an alternative forum in another country.
Removal
Removal is the procedural mechanism by which a defendant transfers a case from state court to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, a defendant may remove any civil action over which the federal court would have original jurisdiction. In diversity cases, there is a forum-defendant rule: removal is not permitted if any properly joined defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed. Removal must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint.
Remand
Remand is the process of sending a case back from federal court to state court when the removal was procedurally defective or the federal court lacks jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the case must be remanded. Procedural defects in removal must be raised within 30 days of removal, while subject-matter jurisdiction defects may be raised at any time.
Class Action
A class action is a procedural device under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that allows one or more plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a larger group (the class). Certification requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The class must also fit one of three categories: risk of inconsistent judgments (Rule 23(b)(1)), injunctive or declaratory relief (Rule 23(b)(2)), or predominance of common questions with a finding that a class action is superior to other methods (Rule 23(b)(3)).
Joinder
Joinder refers to the procedural rules governing which parties and claims may be brought together in a single lawsuit. Permissive joinder of parties (Rule 20) allows plaintiffs or defendants to join if their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share common questions of law or fact. Compulsory joinder (Rule 19) requires that necessary parties be joined if feasible. Compulsory counterclaims (Rule 13(a)) must be asserted if they arise from the same transaction, while permissive counterclaims may be raised at the party's option.
Interpleader
Interpleader is a procedural device that allows a party holding a stake (the stakeholder) to bring all rival claimants into a single action to determine who is entitled to the property or fund. It prevents the stakeholder from facing multiple, inconsistent liabilities. There are two forms: statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. Section 1335 (requiring only minimal diversity and a $500 amount) and rule interpleader under Federal Rule 22 (requiring complete diversity and the standard jurisdictional amount).
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is a motion requesting that the court enter judgment without a trial because there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute, and the non-moving party must then come forward with specific facts showing a triable issue.
Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff's case on procedural or substantive grounds before the defendant files an answer. Common grounds include lack of jurisdiction (12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2)), failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)), and insufficient service of process (12(b)(5)). Under Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face to survive a 12(b)(6) motion.
Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)
Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating a claim that was or could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. It requires identity of the parties, a final judgment on the merits in the prior action, and the same claim or cause of action (determined by the transactional test). The doctrine promotes finality, conserves judicial resources, and protects parties from the burden of repeated litigation.
Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents the relitigation of specific factual or legal issues that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding. Unlike res judicata, which bars entire claims, collateral estoppel applies to discrete issues. Traditionally, mutuality of parties was required, but the modern trend allows non-mutual offensive and defensive use of collateral estoppel, subject to fairness considerations.
Full Faith and Credit
The Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires each state to recognize and enforce the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1738, federal courts must also give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments as the rendering state would give them. This clause is the constitutional basis for the interstate recognition of judgments and prevents parties from relitigating claims in other states.
Erie Doctrine
The Erie doctrine, established in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, requires federal courts sitting in diversity to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. This landmark decision overruled Swift v. Tyson and eliminated the notion of federal general common law. Determining whether a rule is substantive or procedural involves the outcome-determinative test (Guaranty Trust), the Byrd balancing test, and the Hanna analysis for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (asking whether a valid federal rule directly conflicts with the state rule).
Discovery
Discovery is the pre-trial phase of litigation during which parties exchange relevant information and evidence. Federal Rules 26-37 govern discovery in federal court, providing tools such as depositions, interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, and physical or mental examinations. The scope of discovery extends to any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Electronically stored information (ESI) has become a major focus of modern discovery practice.