Week-by-Week Schedule
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal Question and Diversity
Week 1 of 14
Readings
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908); Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974); Casebook Ch. 1-2
Key Concepts to Master
- Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 and the well-pleaded complaint rule
- Diversity jurisdiction: complete diversity and amount in controversy ($75,000+)
- Citizenship rules: domicile for individuals, state of incorporation and principal place of business for corporations
- Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367
- Removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Study Tasks
- Brief Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley and explain why the case was dismissed
- Create a flowchart for subject matter jurisdiction analysis
- Practice a hypothetical involving a multi-party diversity case with potential destroyers of diversity
- Create flashcards for the well-pleaded complaint rule and its exceptions
Personal Jurisdiction: Traditional Bases and Minimum Contacts
Week 2 of 14
Readings
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980); Casebook Ch. 3
Key Concepts to Master
- Traditional bases: presence, domicile, consent, service within the forum
- International Shoe minimum contacts test
- General jurisdiction: continuous and systematic contacts (essentially at home — Daimler/Goodyear)
- Specific jurisdiction: purposeful availment, arise-from-or-relate-to, reasonableness
- Stream of commerce theories (Asahi plurality vs. concurrence)
Study Tasks
- Brief International Shoe v. Washington and extract the minimum contacts framework
- Brief World-Wide Volkswagen and identify the purposeful availment requirement
- Create a flowchart for personal jurisdiction analysis
- Create flashcards for general vs. specific jurisdiction requirements
Personal Jurisdiction: Modern Developments and Internet Cases
Week 3 of 14
Readings
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985); Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014); Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021); Casebook Ch. 3-4
Key Concepts to Master
- Ford Motor Co.: relate-to prong does not require strict causation
- Daimler: general jurisdiction limited to where the corporation is at home
- Reasonableness factors (Burger King five-part test)
- Consent-based jurisdiction and forum selection clauses
- Long-arm statutes: co-extensive vs. enumerated acts
- Personal jurisdiction and the internet (Zippo sliding scale)
Study Tasks
- Brief Ford Motor Co. v. Montana and analyze the expanded relate-to standard
- Brief Daimler AG v. Bauman and explain the at-home test
- Compare pre-Daimler and post-Daimler general jurisdiction analysis
- Create flashcards for the Burger King reasonableness factors
Venue, Transfer, and Forum Non Conveniens
Week 4 of 14
Readings
28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1404, 1406; Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981); Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013); Casebook Ch. 4-5
Key Concepts to Master
- Venue rules under 28 U.S.C. § 1391: residence, events, property, fallback
- Transfer of venue under § 1404(a) (convenience) and § 1406 (cure for improper venue)
- Forum non conveniens: adequate alternative forum and private/public interest factors
- Forum selection clauses and Atlantic Marine framework
- Choice of law after transfer (Van Dusen v. Barrack)
Study Tasks
- Brief Piper Aircraft v. Reyno and list the Gilbert factors
- Create a flowchart for venue and transfer analysis
- Practice a hypothetical involving a forum selection clause in an international dispute
- Create flashcards for § 1404 vs. § 1406 vs. forum non conveniens distinctions
Erie Doctrine and Choice of Law in Federal Courts
Week 5 of 14
Readings
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938); Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945); Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965); Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996); Casebook Ch. 5-6
Key Concepts to Master
- Erie doctrine: no federal general common law; state substantive law applies in diversity
- Outcome-determinative test (Guaranty Trust)
- Hanna two-track analysis: FRCP/federal statute vs. unguided Erie choice
- Rules Enabling Act and the REA test
- Twin aims of Erie: discouragement of forum shopping and inequitable administration of law
- Determining state law: certification, predicting state supreme court ruling
Study Tasks
- Brief Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and explain its constitutional basis
- Brief Hanna v. Plumer and diagram the two-track analysis
- Create a flowchart for Erie analysis (is there a Federal Rule on point?)
- Create flashcards for the Erie doctrine tests and their applications
Pleading Standards and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions
Week 6 of 14
Readings
FRCP Rules 8, 9, 12; Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Casebook Ch. 7
Key Concepts to Master
- Notice pleading under Rule 8(a): short and plain statement of the claim
- Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard: factual matter stating a plausible claim
- Two-step Iqbal analysis: strip legal conclusions, then assess plausibility
- Heightened pleading under Rule 9(b) for fraud and mistake
- Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
- Rule 15 amendments: freely given when justice so requires
Study Tasks
- Brief Ashcroft v. Iqbal and apply the two-step plausibility test
- Compare the old Conley notice pleading standard with the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard
- Draft a complaint satisfying Iqbal's plausibility requirement for a hypothetical claim
- Create flashcards for the Rule 12(b) defenses and when they must be raised
Joinder of Claims and Parties
Week 7 of 14
Readings
FRCP Rules 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 24; United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990); Casebook Ch. 8-9
Key Concepts to Master
- Permissive joinder of parties (Rule 20) and claims (Rule 18)
- Compulsory vs. permissive counterclaims (Rule 13)
- Crossclaims (Rule 13(g)) and third-party practice/impleader (Rule 14)
- Required joinder under Rule 19: necessary and indispensable parties
- Intervention of right and permissive intervention (Rule 24)
- Interpleader: Rule 22 and statutory interpleader (28 U.S.C. § 1335)
Study Tasks
- Create a diagram showing all forms of joinder with their Rule references
- Brief Temple v. Synthes on the required joinder standard
- Practice a complex multi-party hypothetical requiring supplemental jurisdiction analysis
- Create flashcards for compulsory vs. permissive counterclaims with the same-transaction test
Class Actions
Week 8 of 14
Readings
FRCP Rule 23; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011); Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997); Casebook Ch. 10
Key Concepts to Master
- Rule 23(a) prerequisites: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy
- Rule 23(b)(1): risk of inconsistent adjudications or impaired interests
- Rule 23(b)(2): injunctive or declaratory relief classes
- Rule 23(b)(3): predominance and superiority for damages classes
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes heightened commonality standard
- Settlement classes and the Amchem adequacy requirements
Study Tasks
- Brief Wal-Mart v. Dukes and explain the new commonality standard
- Create a flowchart for class certification analysis through all Rule 23 requirements
- Compare 23(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) classes and when each applies
- Create flashcards for Rule 23 requirements and their leading cases
Discovery and Pretrial Management
Week 9 of 14
Readings
FRCP Rules 26-37; Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Casebook Ch. 11
Key Concepts to Master
- Scope of discovery: relevant to any claim or defense, proportional to needs
- Mandatory disclosures under Rule 26(a)
- Work product doctrine (Hickman v. Taylor) and opinion work product
- Attorney-client privilege in the discovery context
- E-discovery and preservation obligations (litigation hold)
- Sanctions for discovery abuse under Rule 37 and inherent power
Study Tasks
- Brief Hickman v. Taylor and distinguish work product from attorney-client privilege
- Create a timeline of discovery obligations from initial disclosures through expert reports
- Practice a hypothetical involving e-discovery preservation failures
- Create flashcards for discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, RFPs, RFAs) and their rules
Summary Judgment
Week 10 of 14
Readings
FRCP Rule 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986); Casebook Ch. 12
Key Concepts to Master
- Summary judgment standard: no genuine dispute of material fact
- Moving party's burden (Celotex: point to absence of evidence or affirmative evidence)
- Non-movant must show specific facts creating a genuine dispute
- Anderson: substantive law determines materiality; mere scintilla insufficient
- Matsushita: implausible conspiracy theory insufficient to survive
- Partial summary judgment and its strategic use
Study Tasks
- Brief the Celotex trilogy (Celotex, Anderson, Matsushita) as a set
- Create a flowchart for summary judgment analysis
- Practice evaluating whether a hypothetical set of facts creates a genuine dispute
- Create flashcards for the summary judgment standard and the trilogy holdings
Trial, Jury Rights, and Judgment as a Matter of Law
Week 11 of 14
Readings
FRCP Rules 38, 50, 59; Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959); Seventh Amendment text; Casebook Ch. 13
Key Concepts to Master
- Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases
- Legal vs. equitable claims and the jury right
- Rule 50(a) judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict) standard
- Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL (JNOV) and Rule 59 new trial
- Remittitur and additur
- Preserving error for appeal: contemporaneous objection rule
Study Tasks
- Brief Beacon Theatres and explain the jury trial right for mixed legal/equitable claims
- Create a timeline of trial motions from directed verdict through JMOL and new trial
- Compare Rule 50 JMOL with Rule 56 summary judgment standards
- Create flashcards for the jury trial right and post-trial motion standards
Appeals and the Final Judgment Rule
Week 12 of 14
Readings
28 U.S.C. § 1291; Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949); FRCP Rule 54(b); Casebook Ch. 14
Key Concepts to Master
- Final judgment rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
- Collateral order doctrine (Cohen): conclusive, important, effectively unreviewable
- Interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (injunctions) and (b) (certification)
- Rule 54(b) certification for partial final judgments in multi-claim cases
- Mandamus as an extraordinary remedy for appellate review
- Standards of review: de novo, clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion
Study Tasks
- Brief Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan and memorize the three-part collateral order test
- Create a flowchart for determining whether an immediate appeal is available
- Create a chart matching types of decisions to their standards of review
- Create flashcards for the exceptions to the final judgment rule
Claim Preclusion and Issue Preclusion
Week 13 of 14
Readings
Restatement (Second) of Judgments §§ 13-29; Rush v. City of Maple Heights, 167 Ohio St. 221 (1958); Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979); Casebook Ch. 15
Key Concepts to Master
- Claim preclusion (res judicata): same claim, same parties, final judgment on the merits
- Transactional test for same claim (Restatement approach)
- Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel): actually litigated, actually decided, essential to judgment
- Mutuality requirement and its erosion (offensive vs. defensive non-mutual issue preclusion)
- Parklane Hosiery: trial court discretion for offensive non-mutual issue preclusion
- Preclusion of defenses: compulsory counterclaim and failure to raise
Study Tasks
- Brief Parklane Hosiery and analyze the offensive non-mutual issue preclusion framework
- Create a side-by-side comparison: claim preclusion vs. issue preclusion
- Practice a multi-suit hypothetical involving both claim and issue preclusion
- Create flashcards for the elements of claim preclusion and issue preclusion
Review and Exam Preparation
Week 14 of 14
Readings
Review all major cases; FRCP key rules; 28 U.S.C. jurisdictional statutes; class notes and outlines
Key Concepts to Master
- Issue-spotting across jurisdiction, pleading, joinder, discovery, and preclusion
- Multi-step procedural analysis: jurisdiction to preclusion
- Integrating Erie analysis into procedural questions
- Connecting joinder rules with supplemental jurisdiction
- Writing organized civil procedure essays under time pressure
Study Tasks
- Complete a full practice exam under timed conditions
- Create a comprehensive one-page attack outline for civil procedure
- Review and consolidate all flashcard decks
- Identify your three weakest areas and re-read those cases and rules
- Practice walking through a complete case lifecycle from filing through preclusion