Ten modules, one question each

Each module opens with the question a court is actually being asked, in ordinary language, before any doctrine. The bracketed codes link to the controlling rule, statute, or case — hover to see which.

These modules are an introductory federal core — a foundation, not an exhaustive litigation manual. State procedure, local rules, specialized statutes, and judge-specific orders need their own source checks.

Module A: Subject-matter jurisdiction

The question: May this federal court hear this kind of dispute?

Federal-question jurisdiction and ordinary diversity jurisdiction are separate routes, and each needs its own analysis. Under § 1331 and the well-pleaded complaint principle, an anticipated federal defense ordinarily does not make a state-law claim arise under federal law. Embedded federal issues and complete preemption are exceptions to that introductory rule — they come later, but they exist, so the rule is not exceptionless. J1 C7

For ordinary § 1332(a) diversity you need complete diversity and an amount exceeding $75,000, excluding interest and costs. An individual's citizenship is their domicile, not merely an address. A corporation ordinarily has citizenship in its state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. That corporate formula does not carry over to an LLC — unincorporated entities have their own citizenship rules, and they are an advanced topic of their own. J2

Practice: build a citizenship table as of the relevant time, separate each claim's jurisdictional basis, and identify missing facts. Parties cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction by consenting to it. R12

Module B: Personal jurisdiction, service, and notice

The question: What authorizes this court to bind this defendant, and how is the defendant brought into the case?

Statutory authorization comes before constitutional sufficiency. Under the usual Rule 4(k)(1)(A) route, the federal court borrows the forum state's jurisdictional reach. Keep three routes apart: general jurisdiction, claim-linked specific jurisdiction, and consent or waiver. Service and personal jurisdiction are separate inquiries — and a waiver of service does not itself waive a personal-jurisdiction or venue objection. R4

International Shoe supplies the contacts-and-fairness framework; Ford addresses purposeful forum activity and its relationship to the claim. Jurisdiction is analyzed over each defendant, not over "the lawsuit." Constitutional notice asks whether the method was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to inform the people affected — actual notice and valid service are not interchangeable. C1 C2 C8

Practice: classify each fact as a defendant–forum contact, a claim-related fact, a service fact, or an irrelevant detail.

Module C: Venue, transfer, removal, and remand

The questions: Which district is authorized? Can the case move? Who can move it?

Section 1391 governs venue for a civil action originally filed in federal court, including the substantial-events route and the limits of the fallback provision. Venue does not exist only where most of the events happened. Transfer from a proper venue under § 1404 is a different mechanism from the treatment of an improper venue under § 1406. J4 J5 J6

Removal is a statutory route from state court to the federal district embracing the state action, ordinarily invoked by defendants. Original jurisdiction, statutory restrictions, timing, and consent are separate questions. For removal based solely on diversity, the restriction on properly joined and served forum defendants matters. Procedural remand objections generally carry a 30-day clock; a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is treated differently before final judgment. J7 J8 J9

Practice: choose between filing, removal, transfer, dismissal, and remand — and explain why the other mechanisms do not fit.

Module D: Pleading, response, waiver, and amendment

The question: What must be alleged, and what must the responding party do now?

Read Rule 8 alongside the plausibility cases. Separate concrete factual allegations from legal conclusions, and identify the claim's substantive elements without turning the pleading stage into a merits trial. R8 C3 C4

Preservation turns on Rule 12(g) and (h), and the categories are not uniform. The defenses in Rule 12(b)(2)–(5) have important consequences if omitted early; failure to state a claim has different preservation routes; subject-matter jurisdiction is treated differently again. "All defenses go in the first motion" is a slogan, and it is wrong. R12

Amendment under Rule 15 is a controlled opportunity to revise a pleading, with separate questions for amendment as of course, amendment by consent or leave, and relation back. If a scheduling deadline has passed, Rule 16(b)(4) applies as well. R15 R16

Practice: assemble a first response, identify the omitted defense, and distinguish fixing a pleading from proving its allegations.

Module E: Joinder and supplemental jurisdiction

The question: Which claims and people can be included, and what separately authorizes the court to hear each claim?

"Someone else caused it" does not by itself establish the derivative liability impleader requires. And procedural joinder never grants subject-matter jurisdiction — a proper joinder mechanism does not answer the jurisdiction question for you. Work § 1367(a) first, then the restrictions in (b), then discretion in (c), paying attention to who asserts the claim and how that person entered the action. R13 R14 R19 R20 J3

Module F: Erie and identifying governing law

The question: Why might a federal court use state law for this issue but a federal rule for another?

Start with a state-law claim in federal court. Erie rejects a free-floating federal general common law as the source of substantive rights. Then identify the exact disputed issue and any federal enactment that addresses it. C9

When an applicable Federal Rule directly governs the issue, the questions are its scope and its validity under the Rules Enabling Act and the Constitution — not a loose outcome comparison. Hanna is the central example. Where no controlling federal enactment resolves the issue, the relevant Erie line applies, including forum-shopping and unequal-administration concerns and any countervailing federal interests. Calling something "procedural" does not finish the analysis. C10

Practice: pair a state-created liability rule with a federal service rule, then explain why different sources can govern within one case. Choice of state law, transfer complications, and contested Federal Rule scope are advanced topics beyond this core.

Module G: Discovery and case management

The question: What information is needed, how can it be obtained, and what limits apply?

Discovery is a plan tied to the disputed legal requirements. Rule 26(b)(1) includes relevance, nonprivilege, and proportionality — and discoverability does not require present admissibility. Match each request to its custodian, period, issue, burden, and a narrower alternative. Attorney-client privilege and work-product protection are different protections. R26

Rule 16 scheduling orders have consequences. An expired amendment deadline raises a good-cause question; it does not disappear because the amendment would otherwise be desirable. Discovery enforcement and sanctions require the conditions of the specific provision, not a general impression that someone behaved badly. R16 R37

Practice: choose the smallest defensible set of information requests that can answer the contested questions. For lost electronically stored information, check Rule 37(e)'s predicates before selecting a remedy.

Module H: Summary judgment and trial

The question: Must a factfinder resolve this dispute, or may the court decide now?

Rule 56 asks whether a genuine dispute concerns a material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Materiality comes from the governing substantive law. Celotex shows how a movant without the trial burden can identify a failure of proof; Anderson supplies the reasonable-factfinder inquiry and the relevance of the trial burden. R56 C5 C6

Summary judgment is different from judgment as a matter of law during a jury trial, and from its renewal after judgment. Jury demands must be preserved; legal sufficiency is a different question from credibility; and the particular issue has to be identified. R38 R50

Practice: sort disputes into material, immaterial, unsupported, and genuinely supported — then say what remains for trial.

Module I: Judgment, review, and preclusion

The questions: What has been decided, how may it be challenged, and what does it prevent later?

Final-decision review runs under § 1291; specific interlocutory routes run under § 1292; Rule 54(b) plays a role in qualifying multi-claim or multi-party situations. A district judge's view that an order is important does not by itself create appellate jurisdiction. J10 J11 R54

Post-trial and new-trial relief under Rule 59 is separate from relief under Rule 60. Appeal timing comes from Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, including the effect of specified timely post-judgment motions — a generic "reconsideration" label does not answer the timing question. R59 R60 A4

For preclusion, identify the rendering court and the governing law first. Section 1738 addresses state judgments; Semtek addresses the federal-common-law framework for the claim-preclusive effect of federal diversity judgments. Then distinguish barring a claim from barring a previously decided issue. Nonparty and nonmutual preclusion each have their own limits. J12 C11 C12 C13

Module J: Additional essential literacy

Each of these deserves its own orientation and, later, its own deeper study:

• provisional relief: a temporary restraining order is different from a preliminary injunction, and Rule 65 sets the requirements for each. R65
• default: entry of default is different from default judgment, and both are different from the merits of a defended case;
• Rule 11: source-based duties and sanctions procedures;
• voluntary and involuntary dismissal;
• class actions: certification is a separate inquiry from the merits;
• standing and other justiciability requirements;
• settlement and enforcement;
• multidistrict litigation and specialized case management.

The December 2025 federal rules compilation added Rule 16.1 on multidistrict litigation and Rule 87 on civil rules emergencies. Older course materials may not reflect either. Check applicability before relying on them. R0