ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions

[Cabra]

just teach me everything you know, other than jurisdiction.

I'm sure you could do this too, Wallace. Tell me what you want to know about claim and issue preclusion--I need to work on those.

[Cabra]

just teach me everything you know, other than jurisdiction.

I'm sure you could do this too, Wallace. Tell me what you want to know about claim and issue preclusion--I need to work on those.

i'm not actually wally, just so you know.

i'm pretty screwed, to be honest.  my exam is in 12 hours and i feel clueless.

not actually wally--all the better!

 

how is your outline? do you know where to find the stuff you don't have in your head?

[Cabra]

Also--when in doubt:

1. Transaction and Occurrence

2. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard

It's all about that.

[jellybean00]

if you're a 1L at CLS whose teacher didn't cover erie, it looks like we are in the same class! i have a question for you: did we ever go over removal?

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

Is there a situation in which a party could elect to move for either SJ or JML (where they can choose between the two)?  (in other words, might there be an overlap in timing for when SJ and JML are available to a party?)

Can a judge enter JML sua sponte?  How about renewed JML?

I don't think so.  SJ is pre-trial, and a party can move for JML after the other party has made their case.

I don't think that a judge can move for JML sua sponte, or renewed JML sua sponte, but let me check Rule 50 quickly.  Cabra: I'm also cramming for CivPro.

[Cabra]

if you're a 1L at CLS whose teacher didn't cover erie, it looks like we are in the same class! i have a question for you: did we ever go over removal?

Ha! we must be. If we did, it was the Wednesday before thanksgiving break or we were supposed to read it for the following Monday and never discussed it.

[Cabra]

Cabra: I'm also cramming for CivPro.

I thought so!

[Cabra]

About Removal: it's basically a subject matter jurisdiction question, since you can only remove something that could have been brought in federal court originally. (you have to go through the whole subject matter jurisdiction junk to tell if removal should or should not be granted)

[jellybean00]

i'm a little confused. why would states pass long arm statutes to limit the constitutional scope of their jurisdiction instead of doing what california does and let the state court have the total scope of personal jurisdiction under the due process clause? isn't that basically limiting the amoutn of power they have? 

[The Artist]

Also--when in doubt:

1. Transaction and Occurrence

2. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard

It's all about that.

Haha, so true