Procedure in Civil Cases

Jurisdiction and Venue

There are three prerequisites that a trial court must satisfy before it can entertain a claim by a plaintiff (a person who brings a lawsuit). The three prerequisites are: 

1. jurisdiction over the parties or things (usually referred to as personal jurisdiction);
2. jurisdiction over the subject matter; and
3. proper venue. 

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to require someone to come into its authority.

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear a specific kind of claim. 

Regardless of what type of claim it is, whether it is a claim brought by a plaintiff, a counterclaim brought by a defendant against the plaintiff, or a cross claim brought by defendants against each other, the court must have jurisdiction over both the parties or things and over the subject matter of the claim in order to properly exercise its authority over the case. 

Personal Jurisdiction

There are two elements that must be satisfied for a court to have personal jurisdiction: 

1. The law that governs the court must give it authority to assert jurisdiction over the parties to the case; and
2. The jurisdiction, even where allowed by the law governing the court, must not violate the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The essence of "due process" is that it must not be fundamentally unfair for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. It must be fair that the defendant be hailed into the jurisdiction in which the court sits and will determine the defendant’s rights and responsibilities. For example:

EXAMPLE: Bob lives in Washington State. He has never crossed the state borders, has never done any business outside of Washington State, has never conversed about business on the telephone with anyone outside of Washington State, and he has never purchased anything manufactured outside of Washington State. Bob is involved in a motor vehicle collision on a local road in Washington State. The other person in the collision has filed a summons and complaint against Bob with a trial court in Vermont. Bob has never had any contact with Vermont, has never been in Vermont, and certainly does not want to have to travel three thousand miles to defend himself in a Vermont court. This is an extreme example of a situation in which the Vermont court would not have personal jurisdiction over Bob. It would be fundamentally unfair for Bob’s rights and liabilities to be determined by a court in a jurisdiction in which he has had no contact and to which he does not consent to jurisdiction.

There are several ways in which a state can acquire personal jurisdiction over a party so that its courts will be able to determine that party's rights and responsibilities. Consent, service of process while in the jurisdiction, and sufficient contact with the state are examples of such ways to satisfy the need for fairness in an assertion of jurisdiction.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Most trial courts in the state judicial systems are courts of general jurisdiction. That is, they can hear all types of cases. However, the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, i.e., Congress has placed limitations on what types of actions the federal courts can entertain. 

Consent of the parties cannot create subject matter jurisdiction to a court. Unlike personal jurisdiction, which the court can obtain upon a party’s consent or failure to object, lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waivable; either the court has jurisdiction to hear a case, or it cannot assert it. Agreements between the parties to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a particular court are invalid.

So, over what subject matter do the federal district courts have jurisdiction? One type of case is where a federal question is raised. Federal law provides:

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

This law is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction under § 1331 is sometimes referred to as "federal question jurisdiction."

Diversity jurisdiction is another type of subject matter jurisdiction. It is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. No question of federal law is required, and jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the state courts, which means that if the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction are satisfied, the plaintiff can file the action in either federal or state court. The two requirements for federal courts to exercise diversity jurisdiction are: 

1. the plaintiff and defendant must be citizens of different states; and 
2. the amount in controversy must be greater than $75,000.

Proper Venue

Venue refers to the specific court in which a case is brought. In each city, county, state or country, there may be many courts in which a case may be brought, but one specific court may be more appropriate or proper than another. For example:

EXAMPLE: John wants to bring an action against Bill for injuries John sustained during a collision between John’s and Bill’s vehicles. Both John and Bill live in White Plains, New York, and the collision occurred in White Plains, New York. White Plains is in Westchester County, which is adjacent to Rockland County. New York State trial courts exist in both Westchester and Rockland. Both courts have jurisdiction over John and the subject matter of the case. However, the proper venue in which to being this case is in Westchester County since that is where both parties reside and that is where the accident occurred.

Where a plaintiff may bring a federal action is also an issue. If John’s claim, in this example, was based on federal law, should he bring his action in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or should he bring his action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York?

In state actions, proper venue usually depends on where the defendant resides. Where the cause of action arose, where the incident occurred and where the defendant does business are also factors on which proper venue may depend, depending on the type of case.

For federal cases, the general venue rules are codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The federal system devises a complex scheme by which proper venue is determined by a variety of factors, such as the residence of the parties, the place where the action occurred and where the property that is the subject of the dispute is located. It should also be noted that even if the court decides that venue is proper, it may choose to transfer the case to another venue for the convenience of parties and witnesses and/or in the interest of justice. 

Pre-Trial Practice

Pre-trial practice is divided into several stages. The first stage is the commencement of a lawsuit. Two essential components of beginning a lawsuit are:

1. the filing of the summons and complaint, and 
2. the proper service of process of these documents on the appropriate opposing parties. 

The next stage of pre-trial practice is discovery. In brief, discovery is the method by which the parties gather information prior to trial. This information may take many different forms, such as photographs, maps, documents, or videos. 

Following discovery, the next stage of pre-trial practice is "motions practice". Motions practice refers to the parties’ use of motions, which are written or oral requests for the court to issue an order or ruling on a particular legal issue. These include motions to dismiss the case, motions to strike certain elements of the pleadings, motions to allow certain types of discovery, etc.

It is also important to note that before the trial, there are various devices that allow parties to a lawsuit to join other parties in a case when those other parties may be affected by the case or if their interests are relevant to the case. Joinder, interpleader, and impleader are examples of procedural devices that help bring other parties into an action that may have a stake in a lawsuit or combine similar legal claims between certain parties to resolve them. These devices are discussed in the course in Civil Litigation.

Trial Procedure

An extremely basic trial will run as follows: 

First, if it is a jury trial, the jury must be selected. This process is aptly named “jury selection”. After the jury is selected, the trial will begin. The jury, kept in a room adjacent to the courtroom, will enter and sit in the jury box, which is usually on the side of the courtroom. Once a few procedural formalities are accomplished (e.g., the judge might introduce him/herself, tell the jury the name of the case, etc.), the attorneys will give their opening statements. After the opening statements, the plaintiff will begin by examining its witnesses. The defense is then entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. Once the plaintiff has no more witnesses to call, the plaintiff and/or defendant may choose to present motions. If no motion is made, or no motion has the effect of resolving (ending) the action, the defendant will call and examine its own witnesses, who the plaintiff is entitled to cross-examine. 

After the defendant has concluded examining its witnesses, the parties may, again, choose to present motions. If no motion is made, or no motion has the effect of resolving the action, the parties will present their closing arguments. After the closing arguments, the judge will instruct the jury on the applicable law and the case will be turned over to the jury for deliberations. After the jury deliberates, it will return its verdict.

The jury is the fact-finder. It is the jury who ultimately decides, for example, whether the plaintiff was or was not in the crosswalk when she was struck by the defendant’s motor vehicle or whether the defendant did not fulfill its duty to repair the sidewalk on which the plaintiff tripped. In other words, it is the jury who decides the truth of what actually happened, or at least, what is most likely the truth. 

Post-Trial Practice

Post-trial practice refers to what occurs after the jury renders its decision. The losing party may, for example, ask the court to reverse the jury’s verdict. The winning party may ask the court for an order to enforce the judgment.

Post-trial motions are employed after the jury (or judge, in a bench trial) renders its verdict. These motions are to be differentiated from those made at the close of evidence. 

A party can move for a new trial where:

1. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence; 
2. The verdict is inadequate or excessive; or
3. Newly discovered evidence makes the verdict unfair in light of the new facts

A judge has very broad discretion as to whether to grant or deny these motions.

A party can also move for “judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” In doing such, a party is asking a court to essentially ignore the jury’s verdict and enter a different judgment if the court determines that the evidence did not support the jury’s verdict. 

After a verdict, a party dissatisfied with the judgment has the right to appeal the verdict to a higher court. The federal and state systems each have their own system of appellate courts. The rules regarding the appeals process on the federal level are governed by the rules and procedures found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and another set of laws called the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

For an appeal to proceed, four factors must be present: 

First, the error which is being appealed must appear on the trial record. 

The second factor requires that the aggrieved party who is petitioning for the appeal must have objected to the allegedly "wrong ruling" during the trial. In other words, at the time of the alleged improper ruling (such as the admission of improperly seized evidence), the party bringing the appeal must have made a timely objection to the ruling. 

Third, the error must not be considered harmless under legal analysis. Harmless error is a legal term that means that the error did not have a significant impact on the trial court’s (usually the jury's) verdict. 

Fourth, the party bringing the appeal must properly raise the alleged trial court error in its appellate brief.