Civil Procedure Exam Checklist

Follow the litigation timeline. A Civ Pro fact pattern is almost always a case in motion, and the professor built it by walking a dispute from filing to judgment. If you answer in that order you will not skip a step, and the grader can find your points without hunting.

The spine is: (1) personal jurisdiction over each defendant; (2) notice and service under Rule 4 and Mullane; (3) subject matter jurisdiction, including removal; (4) venue and transfer under §§ 1391, 1404, 1406; (5) Erie/Hanna if a federal court is applying state-law-adjacent rules; (6) pleadings and Rule 12 motions; (7) discovery; (8) joinder and class actions; (9) summary judgment, trial, JMOL, and post-trial motions; (10) appealability; (11) preclusion in the second suit.

Do not write all eleven. Skim the facts once and mark which links the professor deliberately stressed — a defendant who sold one product into the forum, a plaintiff who added a party after the statute ran, a second lawsuit filed in another state. Those are the tested issues. Everything else gets a sentence of clearing: "Service was properly made on the corporate agent under Rule 4(h)(1)(B) and is not at issue."

Do it defendant by defendant and claim by claim. Start with the statutory hook: Rule 4(k)(1)(A) borrows the long-arm of the state where the district court sits, so if the state long-arm is narrower than due process, say so before you reach the constitutional analysis. Note Rule 4(k)(2) if the defendant is foreign and not subject to jurisdiction in any single state.

Then run the constitutional branches. General jurisdiction now means "essentially at home" — place of incorporation and principal place of business for a corporation (Daimler AG v. Bauman; BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell), domicile for an individual. Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson), a claim that arises out of or relates to those contacts (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, loosening the causal reading that Bristol-Myers Squibb had suggested), and reasonableness under the Asahi/Burger King factors. Stream-of-commerce problems need the split between O'Connor's plurality and Brennan's approach in Asahi, unresolved in J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro. Intentional torts get Calder v. Jones as narrowed by Walden v. Fiore: the defendant's contacts with the forum, not with the plaintiff, are what count.

Keep three alternate bases in reserve: consent (including forum-selection clauses), in-state personal service on an individual (Burnham v. Superior Court), and the fact that quasi in rem now runs through International Shoe under Shaffer v. Heitner. Finally, check waiver — Rule 12(h)(1) kills a personal jurisdiction defense not raised in the first Rule 12 response, and Rule 12(g)(2) blocks a second bite.

For federal question under § 1331, apply the well-pleaded complaint rule from Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley: a federal defense or anticipated federal issue does not count. If the claim is state-created but turns on federal law, run the Grable/Gunn v. Minton test — necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and resolvable without disturbing the federal-state balance.

For diversity under § 1332, you need complete diversity (Strawbridge v. Curtiss) measured at filing, plus an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Individuals are citizens of their domicile; corporations are citizens of the state of incorporation and the principal place of business, which Hertz Corp. v. Friend fixes as the nerve center. Unincorporated associations, including LLCs and partnerships, take the citizenship of every member. Aggregation is allowed for a single plaintiff against a single defendant on multiple claims, not across plaintiffs on separate claims.

Then § 1367. Supplemental claims must share a common nucleus of operative fact (United Mine Workers v. Gibbs), and in diversity cases § 1367(b) strips jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 parties when it would defeat complete diversity — the Kroger problem. Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah lets additional plaintiffs ride along on amount-in-controversy, not on diversity. For removal, check § 1441 (only defendants remove; the whole case goes), § 1441(b)(2) (no removal on diversity if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state), § 1446(b) (30 days), § 1446(c)(1) (no diversity removal more than one year after commencement absent bad faith), and § 1447(c)-(d) (remand timing and the general bar on appealing remand orders).

Ask one question first: is there a federal rule or statute on point that directly conflicts with state law? If yes, you are in Hanna v. Plumer's second track. A Federal Rule applies if it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act — arguably procedural and not abridging a substantive right. Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate is the fight over how to characterize the state law; note the Scalia plurality and Stevens's concurrence and pick one.

If there is no on-point federal rule, you are in unguided Erie. Run outcome-determination as refined by Hanna's twin aims — discouraging forum shopping and avoiding inequitable administration of the laws — measured ex ante at the time of filing, not after the fact as in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York. Then check for a countervailing federal interest under Byrd v. Blue Ridge. Statutes of limitations, tolling rules, and burdens tied to state substantive policy usually go to state law; filing-to-service mechanics usually go to the federal rule.

Pleadings: Rule 8(a)(2) as construed by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal — strip conclusory allegations, take the rest as true, ask whether the claim is plausible using judicial experience and common sense. Rule 9(b) demands particularity for fraud and mistake. Amendment runs through Rule 15(a) (once as of right within 21 days of service or of a responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion; otherwise leave freely given) and Rule 15(c) relation back, where changing a party requires notice within the Rule 4(m) period and a mistake concerning identity — Krupski v. Costa Crociere holds the test looks to what the new defendant knew, not to the plaintiff's diligence. Flag Rule 11 if a party filed something baseless, and mention the 21-day safe harbor.

Discovery: Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Work product under Rule 26(b)(3) and Hickman v. Taylor requires substantial need and undue hardship, with near-absolute protection for opinion work product. Testifying experts are draft-protected under Rule 26(b)(4); consulting experts are discoverable only in exceptional circumstances. Sanctions run through Rule 37, including 37(e) for lost electronically stored information.

Disposition: Rule 56 requires no genuine dispute of material fact, with Celotex Corp. v. Catrett on the movant's burden when the nonmovant bears the burden of proof, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby importing the trial evidentiary standard, and Scott v. Harris on record evidence that blatantly contradicts a party's account. Rule 50(a) motions must be made before submission to the jury to preserve a Rule 50(b) renewed motion within 28 days; Rule 59 new-trial motions run on the same 28 days. On appeal, start with § 1291 finality, then Rule 54(b), § 1292(a)(1) injunctions, § 1292(b) certification, and mandamus.

Joinder is mechanical if you keep the rules straight: Rule 13(a) compulsory counterclaims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and are lost if not pleaded; Rule 13(b) permissive counterclaims need an independent jurisdictional basis; Rule 14 impleader is only for derivative liability; Rule 19 asks whether an absentee is required and, if joinder destroys jurisdiction, whether the case can proceed in equity and good conscience; Rule 20 permissive joinder needs same transaction plus a common question. Always pair each joinder move with a § 1367 check.

For Rule 23, hit numerosity, commonality as tightened by Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes (a common contention capable of classwide resolution), typicality, and adequacy, then pick the subsection — 23(b)(2) for indivisible injunctive relief, 23(b)(3) for predominance and superiority with notice and opt-out rights, informed by Amchem Products v. Windsor and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend on damages models.

Preclusion is the most commonly under-answered issue. Claim preclusion needs a valid final judgment on the merits, the same claim (majority transactional test), and the same parties or privies. Issue preclusion needs an identical issue actually litigated, actually decided, and essential to the judgment; nonmutual offensive use is discretionary under Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, and Taylor v. Sturgell rejects virtual representation. If the first judgment came from a federal court sitting in diversity, Semtek International v. Lockheed Martin directs you to the preclusion law of the state in which that court sat.

Spend the first eight to ten minutes of a sixty-minute question outlining in the margin: list every party pair, then tag each with the checklist steps the facts actually implicate. Write in CRAC or IRAC with headings that name the issue ("Specific Jurisdiction over Nordvik AB"), because graders working from a rubric award points by location.

Cite rules by number and cases by name; you do not need reporter citations on an exam, and Bluebook form is irrelevant there — save it for your memo and journal work. Argue both sides on anything genuinely contested, especially stream of commerce, Shady Grove characterization, and Twombly plausibility, and then commit to an answer. A conclusion with a reason beats a hedge.

Confirm the format questions with your professor rather than guessing: whether the exam is open-book, whether the Federal Rules supplement is permitted, whether policy questions appear, and whether the professor tests topics like personal jurisdiction over internet contacts or ESI sanctions that vary heavily across syllabi. Coverage differs sharply between a four-credit year-long course and a three-credit semester, and old exams from that specific professor are worth more preparation time than any commercial outline.