United States
Answer ... Statutes of limitation vary with the cause of action alleged and the jurisdiction. For example, in the District of Columbia, the statute of limitations for breach of an express or implied contract is three years and it generally begins to run at the time of the breach (DC Code § 12–301(7); Wright v Howard Univ, 60 A 3d 749, 751 (DC 2013)). On the other hand, in New York, the statute of limitations for breach of contract claims is six years and begins to run when the alleged breach occurs (NY CPLR 213(2); Hahn Auto Warehouse v Am Zurich Ins 967 NE 2d 1187, 1190 (NY 2012)).
With respect to federal law, 28 USC § 1658(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided by law, “a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after [December 1, 1990] may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues”. Nonetheless, many federal statutes contain their own statutes of limitation and repose.
The Federal Arbitration Act does not contain a statute of limitations and most states do not have a specific statute addressing limitation periods in the context of arbitrations. The parties are free to incorporate time limits into their arbitration agreements.
United States
Answer ... State courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Federal courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction. They hear cases either under diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction. The diversity statute, 28 USC § 1332, provides that district courts have jurisdiction over all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are diverse. The statute demands ‘complete diversity’, which is present only when no party on one side of a dispute shares citizenship in the same state with any party on the other side. In diversity cases, federal courts apply the law of the state in which the federal court sits, including that state’s choice of law rules.
When a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is based on a question of federal law, rather than diversity grounds, courts apply the applicable federal statute (if there is one) or federal common law.
In most states, there must also be personal jurisdiction – that is, the non-resident party must have ‘minimum contacts’ with the state to satisfy due process (see Daimler AG v Bauman, 571 US 117 (2014)). In Daimler, the Supreme Court held that when the defendant is a corporation, general personal jurisdiction exists only in a forum where the corporation is ‘at home’ (id at 137). This generally means the corporation’s state of incorporation and the state in which the corporation maintains its principal place of business.
Rule 4(k)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives federal district courts power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant to the same extent that a state court in which the federal district court is located may assert that power. Accordingly, the same limits on personal jurisdiction generally apply in federal court.
United States
Answer ... Class actions in federal court are governed by Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members of a putative class only if:
- the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
- there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
- the claims or defences of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defences of the class; and
- the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
If the class seeks money damages, federal courts also require that:
- common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions concerning individual members; and
-
the class action be superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the matter (see Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
United States
Answer ... The only formal requirements are the service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must set out a “short and plain statement” of factual allegations that, if accepted as true, would provide a basis for relief. A party alleging fraud must meet a heightened pleading standard (see Rule 9(b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
United States
Answer ... Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and similar state procedural rules), once the summons and complaint have been properly served and filed, the defendant may file an answer or delay the filing of an answer in favour of a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion to dismiss takes the allegations of the complaint as true and argues that even assuming the facts the case must be dismissed for one of seven reasons, including lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Time limits are associated with certain of these motions. If the motion to dismiss is denied in part or in full, the case proceeds to the discovery phase, which can be quite complex and lengthy, depending on the nature of the litigation.
United States
Answer ... Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “At the commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment. But a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.”
Most interim measures are obtained by application to the presiding judge. They are generally granted at an early stage in the proceedings to preserve the status quo or prevent the dissipation of assets or evidence that could render an award ineffectual. For example, interim attachment orders are issued to prevent a party from dissipating, transferring or otherwise disposing of a debt or property to ensure satisfaction of any final judgment entered in the case. Other such orders include:
- garnishment;
- receivership;
- replevin; and
- liens.
Injunctive relief, in the form of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, is also available if a showing is made that:
- absent such relief, irreparable harm will occur;
- there is a likelihood of success on the merits; and
-
the public interest favours such relief (see Roe v DOD, 947 F 3d 207 (4th Cir 2020)).
United States
Answer ... There is no specific provision in the federal rules addressing security for costs, except when injunctive relief is sought, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Typically, federal courts, by local rule or on a discretionary case-by-case basis, follow the forum state’s practice regarding security for costs, particularly in diversity cases (see Sescock v D1 Kennels, 2021 WL 76713, at *1 (D Nev 8 January 2021), noting that “[w]hen suit is brought under a federal statute, state provisions requiring security for costs or expenses clearly are inapplicable”; but “the court may apply its own rules or state practice to require security for costs as a discretionary matter, taking into account the policy of the underlying federal statute, the defendant's ability to recover costs from an out-of-state plaintiff if the defendant prevails, the plaintiff's solvency, and any other pertinent factors” (alteration in original) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank v SFR Invs Pool 1, 257 F Supp 3d 1110, 1111 (D Nev 2017)).