Civil Pro Issues in Civil

Civil Pro

Issues in Civil Procedure: An Overview of Factors and Complications in United States Civil Litigation

Civil suits in the United States are fairly common, and in many cases can be relatively straightforward and simple. There are an abundance of factors that must be considered in every case, however, and especially in cases of greater complexity, to determine proper procedures in the filing and carrying out of a civil suit. The interactions between state and federal court systems and procedural law can be an especially complicating factor in civil suits brought within the United States, and other issues arising both in intrastate and interstate suits are also complex considerations that must be taken into account. This essay provides a brief overview of several of the key factors in civil procedure, discussing complications and established procedure for dealing with these complications.

Jurisdiction

The first issue that must be considered in any civil matter is that of jurisdiction. Often, specific statutes or rules exist granting a given court jurisdiction based on the parties to the lawsuit and the geographical location of the issue leading to the suit. Constitutional limitations on state and federal courts' jurisdictions also exist, and other issues such as the possible appropriateness of other courts and proper notice being filed also affect the jurisdiction of individual courts. Serving the defendant with the suit within he borders of a given state almost always grants that state's court system jurisdiction over a matter, except in very rare circumstances.

There are also different types of jurisdiction, granting and limiting the amount of action that the court can compel to take place. In personam jurisdiction means the court's decision is personally binding upon the individuals involved, with other types of jurisdiction involving property disputes having been developed. Subject matter jurisdiction is more complex than personal/property jurisdiction, yet is an equally vital consideration. Federal district courts have an especially limited subject matter jurisdiction, becoming involved only when there is no overlap in state citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant, with other restrictions in place as well. A case that raises a question of federal law must usually be heard in a federal court, and if the matter is initially raised in any state court there are specific and explicit procedures that must be followed in moving the case to a federal court. Minimal diversity rules -- where at least one plaintiff is a citizen from a state other than that of at least one defendant -- can be brought in federal court in some circumstances, and is a relatively common occurrence in class action suits involving many plaintiffs and/or defendants.

Procedures regarding jurisdiction do not end once the case has been accepted by the court, and indeed the defense can raise a subject matter jurisdictional dispute at any time during the proceedings of the case. Within state courts, a high degree of specialization usually exists such that, in addition to the rules and statutes granting the state's court system jurisdiction over a case, the rules and jurisdictional limitations of individual courts within that system must also be met. Other special types of cases have been granted to the jurisdiction of specific courts on a case-by-case basis.

State Law in Federal Courts

In civil proceedings that are heard in federal courts, the laws of one or more states serving as the place of residence/citizenship for the plaintiff and/or the defendant and possibly the location of any property involved in the dispute, might also apply. In matters of Constitutional law, federal laws and procedural rules take precedent over state laws regardless of the other facts of the case, but when state issues are being heard in federal courts for whatever reason, the general (though far more complicated in practice) rule is that state substantive law and federal procedural law are followed. Complications can be avoided where there is no true conflict between the bodies of law; where such a conflict does exist, the source of federal law -- i.e. The Constitution, Congress, an established and promulgated court rule, or purely decisional law -- must be considered before a determination of its weight in comparison to state law can be determined. These rules developed after a long history of court decisions on related topics.

Pleadings and Procedural Rules

Once jurisdiction and applicable bodies of law have been established, effective and comprehensive complaints must be made before the matter can proceed. Complaint sufficiency varies from court to court, but generally includes the facts of the case and often cites relevant laws regarding jurisdiction and other matters, when they are not readily apparent. There are similar prescriptions for answers to complaints, and a variety of procedural rules that must be followed by both parties both in bringing/responding to a suit and during the process of a court hearing or trial.

Discovery, Summary Judgment, and Settlement

An abundant amount of information is subject to discovery rules, but not everything requested in a discovery motion is necessarily required to be turned over by law. The type of information being sought may or may not require additional court action before discovery is compelled, and the relevance of the information being sought must also be established by the requesting party. There are also a variety of protections that apply to certain information, including protections of various privileged relationships and of work products, that limit the scope of discovery rules. The practicality of discovery -- the amount of burden and expense incurred by complying to a discovery request -- can also be a factor in discovery decisions. In most circumstances, once information has been disclosed from one party to another, it is admissible at trial by either and both parties to the proceeding.

Summary judgments are awarded in cases where there is no issue of fact for a jury to consider, but only a dispute regarding the law. Such summary judgments can be motioned for by either party to a suit, with the burden of proof or evidence of lack thereof the responsibility of the moving party. Time for a proper response from the nonmoving party is required, after which a determination as to whether or not there is a triable issue must be made. Consideration of this issue must be made form a perspective favoring the nonmoving party -- summary judgment must only be awarded if there was no way for a reasonable jury to find against the moving party, or due to a lack of evidence presented by the nonmoving party.