Full Outline Structure
A hierarchical breakdown of every topic your Civil Procedure outline should cover.
1
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal Question Jurisdiction
- 28 U.S.C. §1331 — arising under federal law; well-pleaded complaint rule (Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley)
- Cannot anticipate federal defenses — federal question must appear on face of complaint
- Grable test for state claims with embedded federal issues — substantial, disputed, federal issue without disturbing federal-state balance
- Complete preemption — some federal statutes so thoroughly occupy the field that state claims are recharacterized as federal
Diversity Jurisdiction
- 28 U.S.C. §1332 — complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants; amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
- Citizenship — individuals: domicile (physical presence + intent to remain); corporations: state of incorporation AND principal place of business (nerve center test, Hertz Corp. v. Friend)
- Amount in controversy — good-faith allegation; aggregation allowed for single plaintiff against single defendant; not across plaintiffs
- Domestic relations and probate exceptions to diversity jurisdiction
Supplemental Jurisdiction
- 28 U.S.C. §1367 — federal court can hear related state claims that form part of same case or controversy (common nucleus of operative fact, Gibbs)
- §1367(b) limitations — in diversity cases, no supplemental jurisdiction for claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, 24 if it would destroy complete diversity
- Discretionary decline — novel state law issue, state claim predominates, original jurisdiction claims dismissed, exceptional circumstances
Removal
- 28 U.S.C. §1441 — defendant may remove if case could have been filed in federal court originally
- Forum defendant rule — no removal on diversity grounds if any defendant is citizen of forum state
- 30-day deadline from service of removable pleading; one-year cap for diversity removal
- Remand — if removal was improper, must be raised within 30 days; subject matter jurisdiction defects can be raised any time
2
Personal Jurisdiction
Constitutional Limits — Due Process
- International Shoe — minimum contacts such that suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
- General jurisdiction — at home (Daimler AG v. Bauman) — individuals: domicile; corporations: state of incorporation and principal place of business; exceptional cases only
- Specific jurisdiction — three-part test: purposeful availment (Hanson v. Denckla), claim arises out of or relates to contacts (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana), exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable
- Stream of commerce — O'Connor (purposeful availment needed) vs. Brennan (awareness product will reach forum) split in Asahi; narrowed by J. McIntyre v. Nicastro
- Internet contacts — Zippo sliding scale from passive websites to interactive business transactions
Consent, Domicile & Tag Jurisdiction
- Consent — express (forum selection clause) or implied (appointing agent, filing suit, not objecting timely)
- Domicile — general jurisdiction for individuals at their domicile state
- Transient/tag jurisdiction — personal service within the state (Burnham v. Superior Court); still valid for individuals
- Waiver — must raise personal jurisdiction defense in first responsive pleading or pre-answer motion or it is waived (Rule 12(h)(1))
Long-Arm Statutes
- State must authorize personal jurisdiction by long-arm statute AND exercise must comport with Due Process
- Some states — long-arm extends to full constitutional limits (e.g., California)
- Some states — enumerate specific bases (e.g., New York CPLR §302: transacting business, tortious act, owning property)
- Federal Rule 4(k)(1)(A) — federal court personal jurisdiction generally determined by state long-arm where court sits
3
Venue & Transfer
Venue
- 28 U.S.C. §1391 — district where any defendant resides (if all reside in same state), where substantial part of events occurred, or fallback (any district with personal jurisdiction over any defendant)
- Corporate residence for venue — any district where subject to personal jurisdiction (§1391(c))
- Forum non conveniens — dismissal when adequate alternative forum exists and private/public interest factors favor another court (Gulf Oil v. Gilbert)
Transfer
- §1404(a) — transfer to any district where case could have been brought for convenience of parties and witnesses
- §1406(a) — transfer from improper venue district rather than dismissal
- Choice of law after transfer — Van Dusen v. Barrard (transferor's law applies if defendant transfers); Ferens (transferor's law even if plaintiff initiates)
4
Erie Doctrine
Erie Analysis
- Erie Railroad v. Tompkins — federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law
- If direct conflict with Federal Rule — Hanna v. Plumer: is the FRCP valid under the Rules Enabling Act (arguably procedural, does not abridge substantive rights)?
- If no direct FRCP conflict — modified outcome-determinative test (Byrd balancing + York outcome-determination + Hanna twin aims of Erie: avoid forum shopping and inequitable administration of law)
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities — accommodation approach when state rule has both substantive and procedural aspects
- Shady Grove v. Allstate — FRCP validity analysis; class action availability governed by Rule 23, not state law limiting class actions
Common Erie Classifications
- Substantive — statute of limitations, burden of proof, elements of claims, statute of frauds, choice of law rules
- Procedural — service of process rules, pleading standards, discovery scope, jury trial right under 7th Amendment
- Gray areas — attorney-client privilege (state rule in diversity), forum selection clause enforcement, sanctions standards
5
Pleading
Complaint Standards
- Rule 8(a) — short and plain statement of jurisdiction, claim showing entitlement to relief, demand for judgment
- Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard — enough factual matter to state a plausible claim (not merely possible); court ignores conclusory allegations
- Two-step Iqbal analysis — (1) identify conclusory allegations, set aside; (2) do remaining factual allegations plausibly suggest entitlement to relief?
- Heightened pleading — Rule 9(b) for fraud and mistake (who, what, when, where, how); PSLRA for securities fraud
Responsive Pleading & Motions
- Rule 12(b) motions — (1) SMJ, (2) PJ, (3) venue, (4) process, (5) service, (6) failure to state claim, (7) failure to join required party
- Consolidation requirement — must raise 12(b)(2)-(5) in first response or waive; 12(b)(6)-(7) can be raised through trial; 12(b)(1) any time
- Rule 12(e) — motion for more definite statement; 12(f) — motion to strike
- Rule 15 — amendment as of right within 21 days of service or 21 days after responsive pleading/12(b) motion; otherwise by leave of court (freely given)
- Relation back — Rule 15(c): amendment relates back if same transaction/occurrence; new party if knew of action and would not be prejudiced
Rule 11 Sanctions
- Certification that pleading is not for improper purpose, legal contentions warranted, factual contentions have evidentiary support
- 21-day safe harbor provision — must serve motion, wait 21 days for withdrawal before filing
- Sanctions — limited to deterrence; may include attorney's fees, penalties, non-monetary directives
6
Joinder & Class Actions
Joinder of Parties
- Rule 20 — permissive joinder: same transaction/occurrence + common question of law or fact
- Rule 19 — required joinder: complete relief not possible without absentee, or absentee's interest impaired; if joinder not feasible, Rule 19(b) indispensable analysis
- Rule 14 — impleader: defendant may join third party who is or may be liable for all or part of plaintiff's claim against defendant
- Rule 24 — intervention of right (interest + impairment + inadequate representation) vs. permissive intervention (common question + no delay/prejudice)
Class Actions — Rule 23
- Prerequisites (23(a)) — numerosity, commonality (Wal-Mart v. Dukes — common contention capable of classwide resolution), typicality, adequacy of representation
- Types — (b)(1) risk of inconsistent adjudications or impaired interests; (b)(2) injunctive/declaratory relief against class; (b)(3) damages predominance + superiority
- Notice — (b)(3) requires best practicable notice to all members; opt-out right
- Settlement — court approval required; notice to class members; fairness hearing
Counterclaims, Crossclaims & Interpleader
- Rule 13(a) — compulsory counterclaim: arises from same transaction/occurrence; waived if not asserted
- Rule 13(b) — permissive counterclaim: any claim against opposing party
- Rule 13(g) — crossclaim against co-party: must arise from same transaction/occurrence
- Interpleader — statutory (28 U.S.C. §1335: $500 minimum, minimal diversity) vs. Rule 22 (requires independent SMJ basis)
7
Discovery, Summary Judgment & Trial
Discovery
- Rule 26(b)(1) — scope: relevant to any party's claim or defense, proportional to needs of the case
- Work product doctrine — Hickman v. Taylor: documents prepared in anticipation of litigation; opinion work product (mental impressions) almost absolutely protected
- Attorney-client privilege — confidential communications between attorney and client for legal advice; waiver by disclosure
- Rule 26(a) — mandatory initial disclosures, expert disclosures, pretrial disclosures
- Discovery sanctions — Rule 37: motion to compel, then sanctions for failure to comply (including adverse inference, issue preclusion, default judgment)
Summary Judgment — Rule 56
- No genuine dispute of material fact and movant entitled to judgment as a matter of law
- Celotex — moving party need only show absence of evidence supporting non-movant's claim; no affirmative burden to negate
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby — materiality determined by substantive law; court draws all inferences in non-movant's favor
- Matsushita — non-movant must present more than mere scintilla of evidence; must show genuine dispute
Trial & Post-Trial Motions
- Seventh Amendment — right to jury trial in federal court for legal (not equitable) claims over $20
- Rule 50(a) — judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) during trial; renewed motion under 50(b) after verdict
- Rule 59 — new trial for errors at trial, excessive/inadequate damages, verdict against weight of evidence
- Rule 60(b) — relief from judgment for mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or any other reason justifying relief
8
Appeal & Preclusion
Appellate Review
- Final judgment rule — 28 U.S.C. §1291: appeal only from final decisions of district courts
- Exceptions — collateral order doctrine (Cohen), interlocutory appeal (§1292(a) for injunctions; §1292(b) for certified questions), mandamus
- Standards of review — de novo (legal questions), clearly erroneous (factual findings by judge), abuse of discretion (procedural rulings)
Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)
- Same claim (transaction or occurrence test) between same parties with valid final judgment on the merits
- Bars all claims that were or could have been raised in first action
- On the merits — includes summary judgment and default judgment (not jurisdictional dismissals)
- Exceptions — consent, agreement of parties, jurisdiction not permitting joinder of claims
Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)
- Same issue actually litigated, necessarily decided, final valid judgment, against party who had full and fair opportunity to litigate
- Mutuality — traditional requirement that both parties bound; relaxed for non-mutual offensive and defensive use
- Parklane Hosiery — non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel allowed at court's discretion (not if could have joined earlier suit, unfair procedural opportunities)
- Full and fair opportunity — different burden of proof, different stakes, procedural limitations may preclude application
Outlining Tips for Civil Procedure
Build a jurisdictional analysis flowchart — always check SMJ, PJ, and venue in that order before reaching the merits on any exam
Master the Erie decision tree — it appears on nearly every Civ Pro exam and requires precise, step-by-step analysis
Know your Rule numbers cold — Civ Pro exams expect you to cite specific FRCP rules by number, not just concepts
Create a joinder chart mapping which rules allow which types of parties and claims, and track supplemental jurisdiction implications for each
For personal jurisdiction, always analyze both the long-arm statute AND constitutional due process — many students forget the two-step analysis
Understand preclusion deeply — it connects to everything else in the course and is almost always on the final exam
Practice timing rules — 21-day amendment, 30-day removal, 12(b) consolidation — these mechanical details are easy points on exams
Recommended Length
50-70 pages
A thorough Civil Procedure outline typically runs 50-70 pages and covers all 8 major sections with key rules, leading cases, and professor-specific notes. Start with this template and expand each section with your class notes, case briefs, and hypotheticals from lecture.