Civil Procedure: Glannon

CH 1 PERSONAL JURISDICTION: THE ENIGMA OF MINIMUM CONTACTS ......................................................................................................... 4

CH 2 STATUTORY LIMITS ON PERSONAL JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................................... 5
2 STEP ANALYSIS OF P. JURISDICTION .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
LONG ARM STATUTES: ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
CH 3 SEEKING THE HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: CHALLENGES TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION .............................................................................. 5
DIRECT ATTACK ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
COLLATERAL ATTACK: .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
CH 4 FEDERAL QUESTIONS AND FEDERAL CASES: CASES ARISING UNDER FEDERAL LAW .............................................................................. 6
ARTICLE III: IMPORTANT NATIONAL INTEREST PERCEIVED. .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Osburn v. Bank of US:....................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1331: CONSTITUTION, LAWS, TREATIES OF THE US ARE FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION........................................................................................................ 6
WELL PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
CH 5 DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: WHEN DOES MULTIPLICITY CONSTITUTE DIVERSITY? ..................................................................................... 6
1332: COMPLETE DIVERSITY AND AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY TEST MET ............................................................................................................................... 6
1332 (C) (1) : CITIZEN BOTH PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS/PLACE OF INCORPORATION........................................................................................................... 6
CH 6 PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION COMPARED ................................................................................................................ 6
4K1A RESTRICTION OF FEDERAL T. JURISDICTION TO WHERE STATE CT HAS T. JURISDICTION ......................................................................................................... 6
CH 7 SECOND-GUESSING THE PLAINTIFFS CHOICE OF FORUM: REMOVAL ...................................................................................................... 7
28 USC 1441 (A): REMOVAL ONLY IF D. CT. COULD HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER 1332 ........................................................................................... 7
28 USC 1441(B): REMOVAL IF IS NOT A CITIZEN OF STATE WHERE ACTION IS BROUGHT ...................................................................................................... 7
1441(E): SO THAT EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL SMJ COULD BE REMOVED FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURT. ............................................................................................ 7
1441(A): ONLY TO FEDERAL COURT WHERE STATE ACTION IS PENDING. ................................................................................................................................ 7
1404 (A) TRANSFER OF VENUE FROM ONE D. CT TO ANOTHER ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) removed, then transferred then dismissed for forum non conveniens ...................................................... 7
RULE 81 (C) REMOVED ACTIONS. .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
1447 (B) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1450 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
CH 8 PROPER VENUE....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
1391 (A) VENUE WHERE ANY IS SUBJECT TO P JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................................................... 8
1391 (B) VENUE WHERE ANY MAY BE FOUND ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
1391 (A)(2) AND (B)(2): ALLOW SEVERAL DISTRICTS FOR VENUE. ...................................................................................................................................... 8
1391 (A)(3) AND (B(3): ARE FALLBACK, ONLY IF NOTHING ELSE WORKS. .......................................................................................................................... 8
1406 REMOVAL FOR IMPROPER INITIAL VENUE .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
CH 9 CHOOSING THE PROPER COURT .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
CH 10 EASY ERIE ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
1789 RULES OF DECISION ACT (RDA), .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
1842 Swift v. Tyson .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
1938 Erie .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
FEDERAL COURT APPLYING STATE STATUTES AND LAW IN DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 1332.......................................................................................................... 9
CH 11 EERIE ERIE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Cities service Oil Co. v. Dunlap (US, 1939) ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
Guaranty Trust Co. V. York (US 1945) ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER TO FEDERAL COURTS:................................................................................................................................................ 10
Article III, 1: ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Article I, 8: ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
PENDULUM SWING BACK [TO FEDERAL POWERS] A LITTLE ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electrical Cooperative, Inc. (US 1958) ..................................................................................................................... 10
RULES RESCUED IN HANNA V. PLUMER.......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
YJK Fall 2008

Civil Procedure| Struve

Hanna v. Plumer (US 1965) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Gasperini ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
CH 12 ERIE AND STATE CHOICE OF LAW ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Klaxon v. Stentor Manufacturing co (US 1941) .............................................................................................................................................. 10
CH 13 JOINDER ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
FRCP 20(A)(1): MULTIPLE CAN SUE TOGETHER IF SAME TRANSACTION/OCCURRENCE ........................................................................................................... 11
FRCP 20(A)(2): CAN SUE MULTIPLE IN SINGLE ACTION ................................................................................................................................................ 11
RULE 13(A): COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM, .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
RULE 13(B): PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM (UNRELATED CLAIM), .......................................................................................................................................... 11
RULE 13(G): CROSS CLAIM AGAINST CO- .................................................................................................................................................................... 11
18(A): A PARTY CAN JOIN ALL CLAIMS AGAINST ANOTHER AS LONG AS PROPER CLAIM IS THERE. .................................................................................................. 11
CH 14 JOINDER OF PARTIES UNDER RULE 14 ................................................................................................................................................. 11
14(A): FOR TO IMPLEAD NEW PARTIES AGAINST WHOM SHE HAS CLAIMS RELATED TO MAIN CLAIM; .......................................................................................... 11
14 (A)(2)(A): ASSERT DEFENSE AGAINST 3P ............................................................................................................................................................... 11
14(A)(2)(C): ASSERT DEFENSE AGAINST ORIGINAL . ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
14 (A) (1) TIMING: SUE 3P WITHIN 10 DAYS OF ANSWERING .......................................................................................................................................... 11
CH 15 ESSENTIALS AND INTERLOPERS: RULES 19 AND RULE 24 ..................................................................................................................... 12
RULE 19(A) MUST JOIN IF FEASIBLE WHEN: ................................................................................................................................................................... 12
RULE 19(B): IF PERSON SHOULD BE JOINED UNDER 19(A) BUT CANNOT? 3 OPTIONS: ............................................................................................................. 12
YOONJEES JOINDER CHART ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
RULE 24 INTERVENTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
24(A)(1) RIGHT TO JOIN IF THERES A STATUTE AUTHORIZING:.......................................................................................................................................... 12
24 (A)(2) RIGHT TO JOIN IF 3 CONDITIONS ARE MET....................................................................................................................................................... 12
24(B)(1)(B): PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION, WHEN 24(A) DOESNT WORK (THERE IS NO RIGHT), ............................................................................................. 12
CH 16 1367 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Owen equip v. Kroger ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Finley v. US ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
1367 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................................................................................... 13
CH 17 JURISDICTION VS. JOINDER ................................................................................................................................................................. 13
CH 18 SERVICE OF PROCESS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
RULE 4:SERVICE OF PROCESS ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
RULE 4(C )(1): WHAT DOCS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
RULE 4(A) CONTENTS OF SUMMONS............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
12(B) (5): ATTACKS ADEQUACY OF METHOD USED IN SERVICE TO GIVE NOTICE. ................................................................................................................... 14
CH 19 MOTION TO DISMISS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
12(A) ANSWERS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
12(B) PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
CH 20 AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
CH 21 DISCOVERY ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
RULE 26(A) AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15
RULE 26 (B)(1) VERY BROAD SCOPE BUT ALSO LIMITED TO ANY NONPRIVILEGED MATTER RELEVANT TO ANY PARTYS CLAIM OR DEFENSE, .......................................... 15
RULE 26(C)(1): PROTECTIVE ORDERS FROM DISCOVERY REQUESTS ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Hickman v. Taylor, (US, 1947) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15
RULE 26 (B)(3) WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE PROTECTING WORK PRODUCED BY COUNSEL........................................................................................................... 15
RULE 26(A)(2) DISCLOSURE OF TESTIFYING EXPERTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
FED RULES OF EVIDENCE 702: EXPERT WITNESS .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
RULE 26(B)(4)(B) DISCOVERY OF NON-TESTIFYING EXPERTS ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCS ...................................................................................................... 15
CH 22 BASIC METHODS OF DISCOVERY ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
RULE 26 (A) (1)AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE...................................................................................................................................................................... 16
RULE 33 INTERROGATORIES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
RULE 34 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 16
RULE 34 (B)(1)(B) OPENING FILES............................................................................................................................................................................... 16
YJK Fall 2008

Civil Procedure| Struve

RULE 34 (A)(1) SAMPLING AND TESTING ....................................................................................................................................................................... 16

E-DISCOVERY .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
RULE 26(B)(2(B): ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
RULE 26(B)(5)(B) ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
RULE 37(E) NO SANCTIONS FOR DESTRUCTION OF E-DOCS ................................................................................................................................................. 16
RULE 30 ORAL DEPOSITIONS: TAKING TESTIMONY FROM WITNESS UNDER OATH ..................................................................................................................... 16
RULE 30(C)(1) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
RULE 30(A)(1): ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
RULE 35 PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION................................................................................................................................................................. 17
RULE 36(B) ISSUES ADMITTED ARE DEEMED ESTABLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF CASE. .................................................................................................................. 17
RULE 37 ORDER TO COMPEL DISCOVERY: ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17
RULE 37(A)(1), PARTY MUST FIRST CONFER IFNORMALLY .................................................................................................................................................. 17
RULE 37(A)(3) MOVE TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OR DISCOVERY............................................................................................................................................ 17
CH 23 DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM CF. TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ........................................................................................ 18
RULE 12(B)(6) FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM .................................................................................................................................................................... 18
RULE 56 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
CH 24 JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (DIRECTED VERDICT) ..................................................................................................................... 19
2 WAYS FOR A JUDGE TO CONTROL THE JURYS DECISION MAKING PROCESS: ......................................................................................................................... 19
S BURDEN OF PRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
RULE 50 (A)(1)(B): MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW .................................................................................................................................... 19
RULE 50 (A)(1) JMOL STANDARD: NO LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY BASIS TO FIND FOR NON MOVING PARTY ......................................................................... 19
O
RULE 50(A) FEDERAL STANDARD: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20
CH 25 JUDGE AND THE JURY: WHOSE CASE IS THIS ANYWAY? ...................................................................................................................... 20
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT ................................................................................................................................................................. 20
RATIONALE FOR ALLOWING JNOV AFTER JURY DELIBERATION .......................................................................................................................................... 20
RULE 50(B) PREREQUISITES TO RENEWED MOTION: ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
RULE 59 NEW TRIAL ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
RULE 50 (C)(1) JUDGES FACED WITH COMBINED MOTIONS MUST RULE ON BOTH .................................................................................................................... 21
RULE 50 (D) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
RULE 50 (E) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
CH 26 RES JUDICATA: LIMITS OF PROCEDURAL LIBERALITY ........................................................................................................................... 22
CH 27 RES JUDICATA AND RULES OF JOINDER, WHEN DOES MAY MEANS MUST? ......................................................................................... 22
CH 28 COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AKA ISSUE PRECLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 23
Parklane Hosiery Co.Inc. v. Shore (US 1979) .................................................................................................................................................. 23
CH 29 NON MUTUAL COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AKA NMIP ............................................................................................................................... 23
RESTATEMENT OF JUDGMENTS 27: C. ESTOPPEL ........................................................................................................................................................... 23
NON-MUTUAL ISSUE PRECLUSION: ............................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn. ........................................................................................................................ 23

YJK Fall 2008

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 1 Personal Jurisdiction: the enigma of minimum contacts

Basis for P. Jurisdiction:
1. Domicile
2. Consent (waiver by appearing)
3. Physical presence
4. minimum contacts for ppl not in the state.
5. In state service, Burnham v. Sup Ct (CA 1990)
Domicile
Where a person lives, lived, chooses to say indefinitely.
Consent
You can waive T. Jurisdiction, and appear to contest if you wish. (most probably wont)
Physical presence: aka, service in state.
Minimum contacts
Established by International Shoe v. WA( US 1945)
Kulko v. Superior Ct, said it also applies to individual as well as corporations
th
Long arm limits v. min contact limits under the 14 Amendment different.
Even acts outside the state may have minimum contacts. See Calder v. Jones (defamation in CA by writer in FL)
Quality and nature of the contacts = purposeful availment. See Hanson v. Denkla, (1958, needs to have made deliberate choice to
relate to state in some way. Unilateral contact is not sufficient.)
WorldWide Volkswagon v. Woodson (1980)
Keeton v. Hustler (1984) jurisdiction from selling magazine in state even though no contacts, and sold more in other states.
Stream of commerce entry into the state. See Asahi Metal v. Sup Ct (US 1987)
o Mnfct wholesaler retailer consumer
o Majority: Substantial quantity of goods into stream of commerce = purposeful availment
o OConners dissent in Asahi: wants clear evidence seeks market through design/advertising.
Balance with(below)
Fair Play and Substantial justice
Interest of the forum state to provide redress to citizens
Inconvenience to
Interest of to get relief
Interest of state enforcing its laws/policies
Fair to find T. Jurisdiction
Burger Kingjuris is reasonable, needs to make compelling
case that he cant given ease of transportation, choice of
franchising a FL corporation.

YJK Fall 2008

NOT Fair to find T. Jurisdiction

Asahieven though there are min contacts, unreasonable for
jurisdiction over two foreign companies.

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 2 Statutory Limits on personal jurisdiction

2 step analysis of P. Jurisdiction
1. Is there a State statute that authorizes? Aka, is there a long arm statute?
Yes #2
No too bad. Cant bring suit here.
2. Is it constitutional under due process?
Long arm statutes:
authorize jurisdiction of based on specific types of contact
1. Tortuous acts
2. Business in state
3. Property in state
Purpose: call nonresident back to state to defend
NOTE: Not all long arm jurisdiction is within due process!
Acts out of state that cause effect in F. State fall under long arms.
International shoe
Burger King v. Rudzewiz
Calder v. Jones
Gray v. American Radiator (jurisdiction even when did not act, send goods, know or anticipate goods would end up there)

Ch 3 Seeking the Home field advantage: Challenges to Personal Jurisdiction

Direct attack
1. Special appearanceappearing only to challenge jurisdiction
2. Some state allow interlocutory appeals on T. Jurisdiction issue
3. 12b6 motions preserves right to contest jurisdiction appeal after trial on the merits.
Collateral attack:
challenges forum courts judgment in enforcement in his state, not original suit.
1. More convenient b/c
a. No travel
b. More sympathetic to pick your own state
2. Pitfallno chance to challenge merits IF ct finds jurisdiction, failing to appear waive defense on the merits. (thus, bad idea)

YJK Fall 2008

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 4 Federal Questions and Federal Cases: cases arising under federal Law
Article III: important national interest perceived.
Risk of prejudice
Between states
Citizens of different states
International
Citizens & aliens
relations
Foreign ministers/consuls
Admiralty/maritime
Fed Law
Federal constitutional/law issues
Arise under federal law?
Osburn v. Bank of US:
very broad, only requires one party to rely on federal law to estb claim or defense or at least raise federal issue in proving case
2 Questions:
1. Constitutional power?
2. Actual statute power?
1331: constitution, laws, treaties of the US are federal question jurisdiction
Well pleaded complaint rule
ONLY if s claim is federal question. See Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley (US 1908).( SCOTUS decided it lacks SMJ even
though s defense is a federal law.)
EXCEPTION to well pleaded complaint rule: sometimes, state claim that turns on substantial question of federal law has SMJ! See

Grable & Sons v. Darne (2005).

Ch 5 Diversity Jurisdiction: when does multiplicity constitute diversity?

1332: complete diversity and amount in controversy test met
Complete diversity = all and all are not from the same state (can have from same state if on the same side) See Strawbridge
Citizens of a state = CL domicile
People:
o Intent to reside indefinitely
o Does not have to be full time residence
o Residency necessarily not sufficient for domicile
Corporations:
1332 (c) (1) : citizen both principle place of business/place of incorporation
o Principle place of business =
place of operations,
bulk of corporate activity test
nerve center,
totally activity test

Ch 6 Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction Compared

territorial
jurisdiction

**Can bring successful suit only where all 3 are met.

4k1a restriction of federal T. Jurisdiction to where State ct has T. jurisdiction.

YJK Fall 2008

venue

subject
matter
jurisdiction

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 7 Second-guessing the Plaintiffs choice of Forum: Removal

gets to choose first (master of the claim), BUT
gets to remove some cases
Jurisdiction intended to protect both parties.

1441 removal: state ct --> federal ct

28 USC 1441 (a): removal only if D. Ct. could have original jurisdiction
under 1332
28 USC 1441(b): removal if is NOT a citizen of state where action is
brought
Eg: if NY citizen is sued by PA citizen in NY, CANNOT remove.

1404 transfer: fed ct--> fed ct

Forum non conveniens: US--> some other country!

1789 Judiciary Act: first time congress introduced removal

1441(e): so that exclusive federal SMJ could be removed from state to federal court.
1441(a): only to federal court where state action is pending.
Even if its not the right federal court, you would have ended up in if had started in federal court.
1404 (a) transfer of venue from one D. Ct to another
If, after removal, still the wrong court,
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) removed, then transferred then dismissed for forum non conveniens
Rule 81 (c) Removed Actions.
(1) Applicability. These rules apply to a civil action after it is removed from a state court.
(2) Further Pleading. After removal, repleading is unnecessary unless the court orders it. A defendant who did not answer before removal must answer or
present other defenses or objections under these rules within the longest of these periods:
(A) 20 days after receiving through service or otherwise a copy of the initial pleading stating the claim for relief;
(B) 20 days after being served with the summons for an initial pleading on file at the time of service; or
(C) 5 days after the notice of removal is filed.
(3) Demand for a Jury Trial.
(A) As Affected by State Law. A party who, before removal, expressly demanded a jury trial in accordance with state law need not renew the demand
after removal. If the state law did not require an express demand for a jury trial, a party need not make one after removal unless the court orders
the parties to do so within a specified time. The court must so order at a party's request and may so order on its own. A party who fails to make a
demand when so ordered waives a jury trial.
(B) Under Rule 38. If all necessary pleadings have been served at the time of removal, a party entitled to a jury trial under Rule 38 must be given one
if the party serves a demand within 10 days after:
(i) it files a notice of removal; or
(ii) it is served with a notice of removal filed by another party.

1447 (b)
It may require the removing party to file with its clerk copies of all records and proceedings in such State court or may cause the same to be
brought before it by writ of certiorari issued to such State court.
1450
Attachment or sequestration; securities: Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States, any attachment or sequestration of the goods or
estate of the defendant in such action in the State court shall hold the goods or estate to answer the final judgment or decree in the same manner as they would have been held to
answer final judgment or decree had it been rendered by the State court. All bonds, undertakings, or security given by either party in such action prior to its removal shall remain valid
and effectual notwithstanding such removal. All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or
modified by the district court.

YJK Fall 2008

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 8 Proper venue
Venue MUST be waived or satisfied in addition to SMJ and T Jurisdiction
Purpose of venue rules:
restrict where can sue
assure suits are tried where there is sensible relationship
1391 (a) Venue where any is subject to P Jurisdiction
1. where any Df lives if all in same state
2. substantial part of events or omissions occurred (or property is located)
3. where any is subject to P. jurisdiction if no other place.
1391 (b) Venue where any MAY be found
1. same as (a)?
2. Same as (a)
3. Any MAY be found
Focus on judicial districts/ NOT states
Reside only in your domicile OR,
Reside (for venue) in several districts if many residences maintained.
1391 (a)(2) and (b)(2): allow several districts for venue.
1391 (a)(3) and (b(3): are FALLBACK, only if nothing else works.
Privileges of , may be waived (by failing to raise at response)
Forum selection clauses upheld generally (agreeing in advance on venue)
See Carnival Cruise v. Shute (1991)
Exceptions to 1391 venue:
Copyright
Patent infringement 1400b
Federal officials
Interpleaders
CL: local actions where land is located!
1406 Removal for Improper Initial Venue

Ch 9 Choosing the Proper Court

YJK Fall 2008

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 10 Easy Erie
1789

1842

Rules of Decision Act

Swift v. Tyson

1938

growing split between federal and state

courts.

J. Story said RDA applies only to statutes

and establishes that federal cts don't
have to apply state CL.
Story felt federal judge's job was to figure
out the "natural" law, not apply some
state judges'.
RATIONALE: new country, wanting to
unify/standardized the countries' laws.
Tyson owed Norton money, who owed
Swift. Resulting suit would have been
treated differently in FED and NY law.
PROBLEMS: created potential for
maniupluation
Holme's criticism: Swift assuming there is
this thing, the law, that is omnipresent,
and that it's not a set of rules laid down
by those w/ power.

federal courts leaning towards

Corporations.
Manipulative uses like Black and White
taxi cab.

Erie v. THompson
FACTS: guy loses arm when hit by door
protuding from train car while walking on
foot path along traintracks. PA law said
no duty b/c he's a trespasser, D. Ct says
not found by PA law, decision followed
Fed Law, and verdict for $30K.
SCOTUS HOLD: overturn Swift b/c
(1)it failed to merge into one general CL
b/c state judges did their own thing,
didn't follow federal law
(2) federal practice of creating CL led to
grave discrimination in justice,
ironically, meant to protect out of
stater from biased state juries, BUT
created system where out of stater
could subject DF to federal law --> black
and white taxi cab
(3)unconstitutional to have federal
judges MAKE law where there is NO
authority.

1789 Rules of Decision Act (RDA), stated that federal courts would apply the laws of several states
1842 Swift v. Tyson
1938 Erie
Federal Court applying state statutes and law in Diversity jurisdiction 1332

Post Swift

Post Erie

State statute
=>
follow!

State statute
=>
follow!

State claim from CL

=>
figure out general common law

state claim from CL

=>
follow!

Federal Courts apply state law by:

Applying state statutes

Following state court interpretation of statutes

Applying state laws as ANNOUNCED or WOULD BE announced by the

states highest court.

FORK: what if states highest court hasnt decided on the issue?

Court with Claim

State trial court

Applying State Law

Mandatory authority= States highest court

State appellate Court

May look at federal courts application as PERSUASIVE authority if state appellate or supreme
court has not made a decision.
Mandatory authority= States highest court

State Sup Ct
Federal District Court

May look at federal courts application as PERSUASIVE authority if state appellate or supreme
court has not made a decision.
Stare decisis, unless it decides to overturn previous decision
Mandatory authority= States highest court
Unless, no decision by them, then may look at what appellate courts have said, or

Federal COA

GUESS what states highest court would do.

Mandatory authority= States highest court
Persuasive Auth = other federal courts guessing what states highest court would do.

SCOTUS

Mandatory authority = only itself.

Persuasive authority = states highest court.

**if a federal court applies the law, guesses what state court would do, but a year later, state supreme court goes the other way?

Can the court reopen if parties request Rule 60 (b)(6)?

TENSION:
o
NOfinality is important, its not fair to have diversity judgments never be final
o YESimportant not to have weird judgments out there/ its not fair!

YJK Fall 2008

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 11 Eerie Erie
Which issues are governed by Erie?
Where there is no federal law-making power.
Cities service Oil Co. v. Dunlap (US, 1939)
Which party had the burden of proof on a question of title to land? TX and feds have different burdens. COA: said no need apply TX law
since its a procedural question. SCOTUS held, burden of proof is a substantial right so Erie mandated application of state law.
Ironic b/c in from 1872 to 1938, Conformity Act of 1872 said federal courts applied procedures of the state and only in 1938 were the FRCP
created to make one uniform federal procedure. Then the Erie decision seems to reverse that.
Guaranty Trust Co. V. York (US 1945)
ISSUE: whether federal diversity court must apply state statute of limitations to a claim, or whether free to apply its own more flexible
laches doctrine. HOLD: state SOL statute must be applied in order to implement Erie policy, outcome of the litigation in the federal
court should be substantially the same so far as legal rules determine the outcomeas it would be if tried in a state court
outcome determinative test
Constitutional Grant of power to Federal Courts:
Article III, 1: congress has the power to establish lower federal courts
Article I, 8: and make law necessary and peroper for exercising that power.
there is constitutional authority to make federal procedural rules, even for
diversity cases.
court in York decided that uniformity of state and federal court outcomes more
important than following a separate federal rule whenever it could.
NOTE: also there is statutory power since Congress reviews FRCP before taking effect,
See 28 USC 2074

uniformitiy of
outcomes in state
and federal court

following a seprate
federal rule
whenever
constitutionally
allowed.

Pendulum swing back [to federal powers] a little

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electrical Cooperative, Inc. (US 1958)
Whether judge or jury should determine the s status as an employee of the . HELD, federal courts must honor definition of statecreated rights and obligations by the state courts. Reaffirm, under York, federal courts apply outcome determinative state law even on
procedural issues, where there is federal constitutional authority to make its own rule. BUT, also said, federal court must also consider
any countervailing federal policies that arise from federal courts status as an independent judicial system. THUS, federal policy of jury
trial > Erie policy of uniformity.
Rules rescued in Hanna v. Plumer
Hanna v. Plumer (US 1965)
served process on by following Rule 4(d)(1) and leaving summons and complaint at home w/ person of suitable age and discretion. MA
law required in-hand service.
PART 1: CJ. Warrenoutcome determinative test, did not require federal court to substitute state rule for its own.
PART 2: established a different analysis for cases in which official FRCP conflict with state law. Which said.
Gasperini

Ch 12 Erie and State Choice of Law

Klaxon v. Stentor Manufacturing co (US 1941)
Federal court must do what the state court within that state would do.

YJK Fall 2008

10

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 13 Joinder
FRCP 20(a)(1): multiple can sue together if same transaction/occurrence
FRCP 20(a)(2): can sue multiple in single action

Plaintiff

Rationale:
More efficient
Consistent judgments

Plaintiff
1

Plaintiff
2
defendant
1

defendant
2

Joinder is NOT required, but permitted.

b/c has right NOT to sue if they dont want to! For SMJ and P. Jurisdiction
issues/concerns

Defendant

Rule 13(a): compulsory counterclaim,

use it or lose it! If it occurs out of the same transaction/occurrence

Perhaps, brings out fair issues all at once, prevents from waiting, taking it somewhere else and suing .
NOTE: SMJ and P jurisdiction in this forum is NOT an issue, b/c already has P jurisdiction over simply by virtue of them filing claim
there.

Rule 13(b): permissive counterclaim (unrelated claim), efficiency says, settle all claims w/o separate suit.
Rule 13(g): cross claim against co- . Optional, can sue separately if wants to.; again, efficiency allowance.
18(a): a party can join all claims against another as long as proper claim is there.
NOTE: still need SMJ over every single added claim.

Ch 14 Joinder of Parties under Rule 14

Original
Plaintiff

14(a): for to implead new parties against whom she has claims
related to main claim;
must follow R8-R11
Impleaded 3P is allowed to assert defenses against both .
14 (a)(2)(A): assert defense against 3P
14(a)(2)(C): assert defense against original .

Defendant
3P Plaintiff

3P Defendant

14 (a) (1) timing: sue 3P within 10 days of answering

w/o Ct Permission, but generally Cts still have discretion
Factors Courts Consider:
In favor of impleader
Efficiency of hearing related claims
Avoid repeated suits
Avoid inconsistent judgments

Denial of Impleader
Undue delay in seeking
Complication of main issues
Potential prejudice to from
impleading sympathetic 3P.

Jurisdiction Issues:
3P doesnt count for venue
1367 a supplemental jurisdiction
3P doesnt have to be diverse from anyone.

Original Plaintiff
(NY)

Defendant

3P Defendant

3P Plaintiff

(NY)

(PA)

YJK Fall 2008

11

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 15 Essentials and Interlopers: Rules 19 and Rule 24

Rule 19(a) Must join if feasible when:
19(a)(1)(A): when ct cannot provide redress UNLESS absentee also brought in,
Eg: joint owners, and only sues 1
Eg: sue landlord who is leasing from someone else.
19(a)(1)(B)(i): Or if proceeding w/o person impairs their ability to protect their interest.
19(a)(1)(B)ii): Or if NOT joining exposes one of the original parties to multiple obligations
Rule 19(b): If Person should be joined under 19(a) but cannot? 3 Options:

TODAY: Courts Consider the factors

19b:Options if party should
be joined under 19a but
cannot be joined.

Go forward
anyway w/o
absentee

Dismiss (to state

court)
[TRADITIONAL
APPROACH}

Go forward,
craft judgment

a) Would judgment in absence prejudicial to

parties joined & not?
b) Extent protection can be used to avoid
prejudice
c) Adequate w/o party?
d) gets adequate remedy (in another ct) if
dismissed?

Yoonjees Joinder Chart

Stage in Trial

Parties

Claims

Designing that lawsuit

20(a) multiple suing together

20 (b) multiple s to a suit
Can also use rule 20 when is 13 a /13b counterclaimingor cross claim.

18(a)--With one valid claim, can bring all kinds of

claims (for efficiency)

Defensive moves after suit is

filed

14 (a)-- 1 can IMPLEAD 2 who may be liable to 1 but cannot implead

a 2 if 2 is only liable to original
Completely voluntary.
19a--must be joined if feasible
19b--what to do if not feasible.
Is this a move by the ? Usually used for the 19b purpose, the get the claim
dismissed.

13(a) compulsory counter claims

13(b) permissive counter claims

Parties that want IN

(within 10 days after suit is
filed)

Once 13 counterclaims attached, 18a, bring all your

claims.
14 (a)2(A)-- 2 can counterclaim against 1
12 (a)2( C )-- 2 can counter claim against original

24 (a)1-- right to join if there is statute (US govt)

24(a)2--right to join IF 3 conditions MET
24b1B--if 24a doesn't work.

Rule 24 Intervention
Plaintiff : Prima Co.

24(a)(1) RIGHT to join if theres a statute authorizing:

Eg: for govt (uS AG, trademark office, etc)

"invalid patent"

24 (a)(2) RIGHT to join if 3 conditions are met.

(a) interest relating to property/transaction that is subject of
action
(b) and interest may be impaired if not allowed in case AND
(c) absentees interest not already adequately represented by
parties to the action

Newton
24 (a) (2)
wants to join, MY
patent, My royalties

Defendant: Apex
company that holds
patent, pays royalties
to Newtwon.

24(b)(1)(B): permissive intervention, WHEN 24(a) doesnt work (there is no RIGHT),

Ct has ultimate control
When:
Limitations:
o Timely under 24b3?
o same question of law,
o Will it delay resolution?
o shared interest,
o Require reopening of discovery?
o
more efficient
o Did they attempt intervention sooner?

YJK Fall 2008

12

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 16 1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction

Pendant jurisdiction:
Federal claim + related state claim. See united mine workers v. Gibbs, federal LMPA + state contract intereference.
Do we have power to hear claim?
o common nucleus of operative facts test
o Federal courts have power to hear state claim, but not required. Ct can sever.
Does it make sense to hear claim together?
YES federal court
NO dismiss, goes to state
Factors:
o State law claim predominates?
o Senstive issues of state law?
o Confuse jury?
o Federal issues resolved early?
Ancilliary jurisdiction: claims by over other 3P
Close connection between original and added state claim SINGLE court case
Available for:
o 14(a)(1):
o 13(g)
o 24(a)
Deny for 13(b) permissive counterclaims.
Owen equip v. Kroger
o No jurisdiction b/c there is no statutory grant of SMJ
Finley v. US

1367 Supplemental jurisdiction

made a statute in 1990
1367 (a)Very broad, same as Gibbs, BUT
1367 (b) limits on claims makes against under 14,, 19, 20, 24 (preserving limits from Kroger
3 part analysis
o Is the constitutional power Art III 2 to hear supplemental claim?
Proper claim exists within jursidciton of federal court?
Related claim arises from same ooperative facts?
o Statutory grant of jurisdiction over supplemental claim? [1367 (a) and (b)]
o Use discretionary factors to decide whether to do so.

Ch 17 Jurisdiction vs. Joinder

YJK Fall 2008

13

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 18 Service of Process
Service of process
= delivery to a party or witness court orders.
= service of initial notice to of filing of lawsuit
Rule 4:Service of Process
Rule 4(c )(1): what docs
Rule 4(a) contents of summons
4 (e) and 4(d): how papers served
o 4(e)(2): serve individuals:
personal delivery
Leaving copies at dwelling or abode w/ person of suitable age/discretion
Deliver to agent appt by to receive
o 4(c) (2): after 1980: anyone over 18 and NOT a party can deliver, usually s lawyer hires someone
o 4(e)(1): provisions of state court
o 4(e)(1) for ppl outside of statefollow state laws where is.
4(h): serving corporations:
o 4(h)(1) if corporation is in US serving officers, manager, or general agent is OK.
o 4(h)(2) if corporation is outside of the US
4(m): when
4(c )(2): who must serve
4(d) waive requirement of service (get deadline extended to 60 days from 20 days)
o 4(d) waiving is sort of mandatory since
4(d)(2)B: impose cost of service to if w/o good cause
4(d)(3) gives 60 days to respond if they waive. Cf to 20 days.
Defensive move:
12(b) (5): attacks adequacy of method used in service to give notice.

Ch 19 Motion to Dismiss

DF's options

Once sued, s Options:

12(a) answers
o Usually, what s do.
12(b) pre-answer motion to dismiss

12 (b)
preanswer
motion to dismiss

12 (a)
answer

Ch 20 Amendments to Pleadings
Pleadings
Its where the parties state their claims, their defenses, what
theyre going to argue!

YJK Fall 2008

Motions
When parties ask the court to DO something
Eg:
12(b)(6) demurrermoving to dismiss the claim for failure
to state a claim that entitles to relief

14

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 21 Discovery
discovery

Discovery
Court mandated production of information from other
parties.
Conducted by the parties, not the court
Usually very important in determining outcome of the
case

Rule 26 broad
scope

relating to
claim or
defense

Rule 26(a) automatic disclosure

Rule 26 (a)(2)
testifying
experts

Limitations

work products
protected

privileges
protected

26(b)(4)(B) non
testifying
experts

Rule 26 (b)(1) very broad scope but also limited to any

nonprivileged matter relevant to any partys claim or
attorney client
doctor patient
defense,
limited to nonprivileged information
Used to be even broader before 2000. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders (US 1978) (committee recommended reining in
at the outer bounds of relevance)
Purpose of broadness: designed to help define and clarify the issues
Privileged info:
o Attorney-client (rationale: for effective representation need full and frank communication.
Notion of client expanded to include any employee of a corporation. See Upjohn v. US, US 1981)
o Priest and penitent
o Doctor-patient
o Husband wife
o Psychotherapist-patient
o Work products = materials developed in anticipation of litigation. See Hickman v. Taylor (US 1947)

Note: courts may choose to protect info, and when they do, dont need to disclose.

Rule 26(c)(1): protective orders from discovery requests

After receiving a discovery request , parties can seek a protective order from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.
Hickman v. Taylor, (US, 1947)
s attorney wanted the counsels memories of the interviews of various witnesses in a wrongful death suit.
SCOTUS concerns:
1. about confidentiality of trial prep and de-incentivizing lawyers from writing stuff down which would lead to poor representation.
2. Lawyers get to be lazy and take advantage of oppositions work.
3. Lawyers end up as witnesses in their own cases.
However, not ALL work is privileged. If the other party can show a need for written statements from witnesses not available through other
means.
Rule 26 (b)(3) work product doctrine protecting work produced by counsel.
documents and tangible thingsprepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another rparty or its representative only obtained
in discovery if requesting party can demonstrate substantial need for materials and cannot botain equivalent information through other
means w/o undue hardship
Rule 26(b)(3)(B). Also, even if showing is made, mental impression, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a partys attoney or other rep
shall be protected.
1.
2.
3.

Docs prepared for litigation are barred

Information that cannot be obtained may be ordered to be produced by court
Opinion work products are protected

Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure of testifying experts

parties are required to disclose names of testifying experts at least 90 days before trial, with a report on opinions, qualifications,
compensation, etc.

Fed Rules of Evidence 702: expert witness

A person whose testimony will assist trier of fact in understanding b/c of special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or edu.
Rule 26(b)(4)(B) discovery of non-testifying experts only in exceptional circs
Because it would be like prying into the strategy of the opposing party.
YJK Fall 2008

15

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 22 Basic Methods of Discovery

Mostly a self-help thing.
Rule 26 (a) (1)Automatic disclosure
Created in 1993, rationale that certain info will always be requested, so mandate w/o need for a request.
Amended in 2000: removing awkward obligation to disclose unfavorable witnesses and info.
limited to discoverable info and witnesses the party may use to support its claims or defense
Does not force disclosure of damaging information. If party does not intend to present at trial.
Rule 26 (a)(1)(B): 8 categories of cases exempted from discovery
Rule 26(f) requires parties to meet and confer about disclosure and discovery
Rule 26 (d)(1) parties are barred from traditional discovery until the meeting

Rule 26(a)
automatic disclosure
for basic facts

Rule 33 interrogatories

Rule 34 Production of
Docs

useful in beginning
for background
information: names,
locations, evidence,
physicians, bills, etc.
contention
interrogatories
answers are usually
too carefully crafted
to be of much use

other discovery tools

illustrates FRCP
premise that
litigation shoudl be
based on open
access to all relevant
information
requires opponent
to open her files.
requesting parties
draft broadly b/c
producing parties
are like hostile
librarians.
requests usually
include definitions

Rule 35
examinations
Rule 30 Depositions

Rule 33 Interrogatories

Questions from one party to another seeking relevant information

Good because theyre cheap, but seldom answered without careful crafting not always the most helpful.

MOST EFFECTIVE: for getting background information

Also useful to force opponent to specify ground of general claims in contention interrogatories
Responding party can Rule 33(d) allow a search through records
Rule 34 Production of documents

Rule 34 (b)(1)(B) opening files allows responding party to open all files create burden on requesting party to go through them.
Rule 34 (a)(1) sampling and testing allows production for testing and sampling, and entry on land for testing, etc.
E-discovery
Changes in 2006 to allow discovery of electronic storage
Rule 26(b)(2(B): disputes over e-docs not reasonably accessible: court considers whether to order production, deny production, or
order with restrictions. And decides who pays.
Rule 26(b)(5)(B) if party inadvertently discloses info, may notify opponent who then MUST destroy, return, hold info. ( Rule
16(b)(5)(B)(iv) says parties can also discuss what happens with inadvertent disclosure in scheduling conference)
Rule 37(e) No sanctions for destruction of e-docs through routine good faith operation of e-info system. However, there may be
sanctions if party failed to prevent auto-deletion of info relevant to litigation.
Rule 30 Oral depositions: taking testimony from witness under oath
Both parties sit with witness and questions
Rule 30(c)(1)Witness is sworn, testimony subject to penalties for perjury
Most effective means for getting detailed info from witnesses before trial
o Counsels get to SEE the party/witness; assess effectiveness as witness
o b/c required to answer spontaneously, provides better preview of testimony than interrogatories
o follow up questions allow counsel to explore detailed issues
o gets deponent on record so they cant change their story later
drawback: time and expense
YJK Fall 2008

16

Civil Procedure| Struve

Rule 30(a)(1): says any person including the party can be deposed.

If deponent a party, end notice of time/place Rule 30 (b)(1)

If deponent NOT a party RULE 45 subpoena required.
Rule 30(c)(2): even if opposing counsel objects, deponent answers, objection noted saves time b/c the most cases dont go to trial
and thus dont need objections litigated prior. Unless
Rule 30(d)(2): objection is based on a privilege not to reveal info. b/c the entire point of privilege is not to produce info at all.
Opposing parties have right to cross-examine. (to clarify statements, or if its a trial deposition instead of discovery deposition,
opposing counsel will fully cross examine)
Trial deposition = deposition used instead of witness LIVE testimony at trial. For whenwitness cannot be subpoenaed to testify in
trial district, or unable to testify in person.

Rule 35 physical or mental examination

Parties must obtain a court order to authorize physical and mental exams fo parties whose condition is at issue b/c of intrusive
nature, and only for good cause. See Rule 35 (a)(2)
Rule 35(b)(1) party must provide a copy of independent examiners report to party
Rule 35 (b)(3) party must also provide copy of exams and reports from own physicians.
Rule 36(b) issues admitted are deemed established for purposes of case.
Narrowing the scope of trial by eliminating uncontested issues
Party sends request to opponent to admit facts. Must admit or deny, or raise objection.
But if a party makes a mistake, judges allow withdrawal of admissions b/c they would rather case be decided on merits, no on
mistaken concessions.

Rule 37 Order to compel discovery: if the opposition doesnt comply with request for really important info
Rule 37(a)(1), party must first confer ifnormally with opponent to resolve dispute without court involvement
Rule 37(a)(3) move to compel disclosure or discovery.
Rule 37(a)(5) if the motion granted court MAY order paying moving partys expenses and fees for the motion to compel.
Rule 37 (a)(5)(C) protective orders defining scope of required discovery
Rule 37(b) authorizes sanctions if compelled party still respond adequately.
Striking claims, taking disupted facts or claims as estb. Excluding evidence, dismissing action, ordering payment of feeds and
expenses
BOTTOM LINE: even if there is a threat of sanction in the background, the difficulty/time/irritating the judge most discovery issues get left
unresolved/resolved w/o court intervention

YJK Fall 2008

17

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 23 Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim Cf. to Summary Judgment

Rule 12(b)(6) Failure to state a claim
Only question posed: whether the complaint itself states a legally sufficient claim
o Whether , if proves allegations in the complaint, he will have estb. A cause of action entitling him to some form of relief
from the court.
Court doesnt consider other pleadings, evidence in deciding the motion
BUT, court must construe the complaint in favor of the pleader
DRASTIC! Because will never
o have opportunity to present case to a jury, OR
o gather evidence through discovery
SO, courts generously allow AMENDMENT (at least once)
Does not weed out cases where cause of action is properly alleged, BUT cannot prove it!
Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment
What is it?
Sum judgment = entry of judgment by court in favor of a party w/o going to trial.
Purposes?
Designed to allow early resolution of cases in which the meets the burden to plead, but cannot PROVE one or more of those
elements!
Intended to determine whether there are genuinely contested issues of material fact or NOT
SJ avoids:
o
risk of irrational decision making by the jury.
o Delay and expense of trying unprovable cases.
Provides needed avenue for resolution of issues where facts are mutually agreed upon, but dispute about legal implication.
56(c ), (d) Resolve individual claims in a multi-claim lawsuit
Judges role: determine only whether parties evidence reveal such a factual dispute, then send to jury.
HOW does it work?
56(c): Appropriate only if evidence demonstrates there are no disputed issues of material fact to be tried, and
moving party is entitled to judgment on the undisputed facts
o 56 (c ), 56 (e) Support motion with : affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
admissions, admissible docs.
o These things dont always have to be admissible at trial.

56(e): other party has to respond giving evidence why sum judgment should NOT be granted
(countervailing evidence).
o Burden of opposing party: simply to show he has legally competent evidence upon which a jury
could resolve the factual issues in his favor.

Motion to dismiss 12b6

56 sum judge

Assuming it's all true(in the

pleading), has the person
presented a valid claim?

can challenge those factual allegations.

Judge

Just looking at the pleadings,

Cannot weigh the credibility

Standard of review
ON APPEAL

De novo.

De novo

Moving party's
burdens

no.. Just based on

complaint/amended pleadings

Celotex: you don't need to do anything really,

Anderson: at trial, they have to prove clear and convincing
evidence, but when moves for sum judgment, court should take
into account the nature of the burden of proof at trial!
Note: that could make it easier for to get sum judgement if the
needs to meet higher burden at trial.
Paradox: youre not supposed to weigh evidence
Matsushita: not as imp. Really only for antitrust conspiracy claims.

Standard for
success

YJK Fall 2008

50 jmol

56 motion for
summary
judgment

countervailing
evidence?

Insufficient / NO
countervailing
evidence

keeps progressing
(jury trial)

sum judgment
entered.

New trial

**you've gone through discovery, have evidence to show

Effectively, the same as SUM JUDGE.
Judge has to weigh the jury's verdict
against the great weight of the
evidence.
De novo

18

**abuse of discretion.

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 24 Judgment as a Matter of Law (Directed Verdict)

3 ways to resolve a case:
1.
2.

12b(6) dismissal
Summary judgment

3.

Jury trial

Claim

No jury trial is OK because there is

no genuine issue of material fact
for jury to consider.
Right to jury trial protected by
constitution

Judge

2 ways for a judge to control the jurys decision making process:

1. JMOL
2. New trial

12 b 6 dismissal

jury

summary
judgment: "no
genuine issue of
material fact"

verdict

s burden of production

Between X and Y,
judge should NOT take the case from the jury.
Point W. Where
there is no proof
for PL
stronger evidence for PL

weaker evidence for PL

burden of production met, realm

of legit different opinion--> goes
to jury.

Line X-burden
of production;
after which
jury could legit
find proved
each element

Preponderence: where jury

could find for PL

Line Zwhere
evidence is equal

Line Y
burden of proof;
after which
reasonable jury
HAS to conclude
PL proved case

Rule 50 (a)(1)(B): motion for judgment as a matter of law

Previously known as directed verdict; new name better b/c :

1. it removes any indication that jury had anything to do with the outcome.
2. Emphasizes judge does not resolve factual matters, just legal judgment that evidence so lopsided no meaningful factual dispute

Made by party seeking to have judge take the case from jury on the ground that evidence is too weak to support a verdict how is it
different from sum judgment?

TIMING:
Rule 50 (a)(1) JMOL standard: no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for non moving party

Opening
statements

PL
presents
evidence
DF may move
for JMOL
if judge grants,
it's over.
unlikely b/c if
it's overturned
on appeal, then
a new trial will
have be
granted.

YJK Fall 2008

DF
presents
evidence

closing
statments

either party
MAY move for
JMOL

Judge
instructs jury

jury
deliberates

Jury Verdict

Judge enters
Judgement
on Verdict
Can move for
JMOL again
as long as they
have preserved
right by moving
before.

19

Civil Procedure| Struve

What is legally sufficient?? 3 options:

o A few states: scintilla of evidence to support (ANY evidence to support claim) jury. See Brown v. Turner (AL 1986)
o Judge looks at ONLY evidence that supports case for nonmoving party, assume truth, take all inferences and enter JMOL
only if evidence would not support verdict for non-moving party. See Reeves v. Sanderson Planting Products, inc (US 2000)
; Wilkerson v. McCarthy, US 1949)
NOTE: judge may not determine credibility of the witnesses; rather, if jury believed witnesses
o Rule 50(a) federal standard: Judge considers the nonmoving partys evidence in most favorable light, BUT ALO,
consider any evidence put forward by moving party that is not impeached or contradicted as in considering all the
evidence. See Boeing Co. v. Shipman (5th Cir, 1969).

Ch 25 Judge and the Jury: whose case is this anyway?

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict = asking judge
to decide differently from what jury came up with b/c the
evidence was clearly pointing one way. Not the jurys way.
Standard is same as directed verdict. See Chapter 24.
= opponents evidence so weak that no reasonable
jury could have reached a verdict for him.
Asserting that jury acted irrationally.
1991: jnov changed to JMOL Rule 50 (b)

Scenario 1:
JMOL before jury trial

JMOL after jury trial

Scenario 3:
JMOL after jury trial AND Jury finds for
DF

DF seeks JMOL at close of evidence

DF seeks JMOL at close of evidence

DF seeks JMOL at close of evidence

Judge grants, discharges jury, judgment

for DF

Judge denies or defers decision on

motion

Judge denies or defers decision on

motion

goes to jury, verdict for PL

NOTE: usually. jury will find for DF
anyway if evidence weak enough

goes to jury, verdict for DF

Rationale for allowing JNOV AFTER jury deliberation

Frequently appealed. And when appealed, the
evidence is debatable, COA may send back for jury
trial and then its more efficient to have had the jury
trial to fall back on.
Rule 50(b) Prerequisites to renewed motion:
Motion must be filed within 10 days of entry of
judgment. See Rule 58, 79(a)
Can only move after verdict, if preserved the right by
moving before
th
o Silly historical reason: 7 amendment
o b/c Rule 50 (a)(2) says party moving for
JMOL before verdict needs to state their
grounds for concluding not to send to jury,
and at that time, the opposing party has a
chance to fix any problems (cure the
defect). Its to prevent sandbagging the
other party by raising defects AFTER jury has
been dismissed. Goes back the aspiration of
the FRCP to determine suits on the MERITS
not on the procedural skills.

YJK Fall 2008

Scenario 2:

DF renews JMOL

Judge grants renewed JMOL

P appeals

P appeals

appellate court finds evidence legally

sufficient reverses JMOL

appellate ct finds evidence legally

sufficient for jury, reverses JMOL

sends back to trial court.

appellate ct orders judgment entered on

jury verdict

Bottom Line: case retried from beginning

(INEFFICIENT)

Bottom Line: No need for a new trial.

20

Civil Procedure| Struve

Rule 59 New Trial

<--weaker evidence for PL

judge's
assessments

judge's disposition
of the case

[evidence balanced]

stronger evidence for PL -->

evidence too weak to

support ratioanl
verdict for PL

verdict of PL is
supportable but
against clear wieght
of evidence

judge does not agree

with jury, but cannot
say verdict for PL is
against clear weight
of evidence

judge and jury concur

that preponderance
of evdience favors PL

verdict for DF is
uspportable but
against clear weight
of evdience

judge concludes that

evidence is so
compelling that no
reasonable jury could
find for DF (rare)

judge may enter

JMOL for DF

judge may order new

trial

judge will order entry

of judgment on jury
verdict

judge will order entry

of judgment on
verdict for PL

judge may order new

trial

judge enteres JMOL

for PL

2 categories where ct traditionally grant new trials:

1. Errors in the trial process
th
a. b/c every litigant has right to due process of law (14 )
b. things like improper admission/
if the losing party MOVES right away, Rule 59 allows judge to vacate and order retrial.
If the losing party MOVES and judge denies, party will APPEAL and COA would reverse, and new trial.
2.

Judge believes trial process was fair but the result is clearly wrong
th
against the clear weight, overwhelming eight or great weight of the evidence See Goldsmith v. Diamond Shamrock co, (8 Cir,
1985)
rd
When it is quite clear that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result See Lind v. Schenley Ind. (3 Cir, 1960)
th
When new trial is necessary to prevent injustice See Whalen v. Roanoke County Board (4 Cir, 1985)
Evidence is strong enough to rationally support jurys verdict but believes verdict is erroneous.
Pros and Cons of a new trial:
th
Judge is acting like a 13 juror,
its not as bad as JMOL b/c its still being decided by jury
it sucks b/c USC 1291 says grants for new trial may not be appealed b/c there is no final decision at trial level yet!
o Note: some state systems allow interlocutory appeal.
Different Standards for appellate review:
1. Questions of law: reviewed de novo, from scratch, w/o deference to trial judges decision
nd
2. Questions of Great weight over evidence reviewed w/deference to trial judge rare for appellate to 2 guess grant for new trial.
FORK:
OLD cases show federal courts reluctant to overturn grants for new trial;
NEW trend: review them under abuse of discretion standard. Approved by SCOTUS in Gasperini.
Rule 50 (c)(1) judges faced with combined motions must rule on both
the JMOL (JNOV) and make conditional ruling on alternative new trial so that COA can address both at appeal.
Rule 50 (d)

Rule 50 (e)

YJK Fall 2008

50 (d)
party wins jury verdict

judge takes verdict

away w/JMOL for
opposition

party wins jury

verdict

verdict taken away

by appellate court
w/JMOL for
opposition

21

winner can move for

new trial within 10
days of entry of
judgment

50 (e)
winner at trial can
move for new trial

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 26 Res Judicata: Limits of Procedural Liberality

Requirements:
1. Final judgment
2. On the merits
3. Same claim
4. Same parties

On the Merits: RJ
- full trial on the merits
- 12b6 failure to state a claim (since they could
have amended to make a claim)
f-ailure to prosecute

NOT on the merits: NOT RJ

Final judgment:
- default judgment
o FORK: some allow RJ even if at appeal
- improper venue
o Others wait until time for appeal runs out.
- lack of jurisdiction
On the merits: see chart on right.
Same Claim:
o Same as federal joinder rules definition of transaction or occurrence b/c if had RIGHT to bring the claim, MAKE THEM
bring the claim.
use em, or lose em!
o Not whether they used the claim, whether they had the right to use.
o NOTE Fork in the Law:
Traditional: does not bar counterclaims
Many juris: this includes compulsory counterclaims
o two disease rule: allows asbestos to sue for later developing cancer even if previously aware of a separate injury from
exposure.
o If the claim didnt exist at time of prior action, it is NOT the same claim.

Same Parties: either in the case, or privity

Purposes:
Efficiency
First litigation will be their best shot
Terminology:
Winning claim it MERGES with the judgment.
Losing claim BARS new claim.

Ch 27 Res Judicata and rules of Joinder, when does May means MUST?
Claim theories
18a: even though may join, RJ means that practically speaking, USE IT OR LOSE IT MUST
However, 18a does not bar claims the court could not hear b/c lack of jurisdiction.
Claim parties: more generous than claim theories.
Claims against additional parties who COULD be joined not barred by RJ.
b/c is the master of the claim
HOWEVER, the first suit may have some preclusive effect. b/c of C. Estoppel
One suit with joined s
PL

DF 1

YJK Fall 2008

2 separate suits

PL

PL

DF 1

DF 2

DF 2

22

Civil Procedure| Struve

Ch 28 Collateral Estoppel, aka Issue Preclusion

Prerequisites:
1. Same issue
2. Actually litigated fully and Fairly
3. Decided on in litigation
4. Necessary in prior action for Cts Judgment
FORK: ct holds on multiple theories
a. Restatement: no estoppels b/c impossible to tell which was important
b. Estoppels to both alternative determinations
c. Middle ground: sometimes if you can tell which mattered, let it be IP.
Parklane Hosiery Co.Inc. v. Shore (US 1979)

Ch 29 Non Mutual Collateral Estoppel aka NMIP

Restatement of Judgments 27: c. estoppel
party stopped from relitigating an issue he had litigated in a prior suit and lost.
Non-mutual issue preclusion:
allows a new party to invoke IP against a party who litigated and lost on an issue in a prior issue.
Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn.
First established NMIP
First claim: Mrs. B Cook, claimed funds were part of estate.
Second claim: Mrs. B BOA, for the funds given to Cook.
o Bank claimed IP b/c in Suit 1, issue of who had the right to funds had already been litigated.
Claim Preclusion

Issue Preclusion

Valid and final judgment

Valid and final judgment

On the merits

Issue was actually litigated (full and fair opp)

Same or related claim

Issue was actually determined, and determination was

necessary to the judgment

Same parties or their privies

Same parties or their privies, but

YJK Fall 2008

23

Civil Procedure| Struve