You are on page 1of 13

Civil Procedure Outline Pleading

Complaint Rule 8(a) (1)Give grounds for courts jurisdiction (2)Notice Pleading: Short plain statement of a claim stating plaintiff is entitled to relief. o Most jurisdictions, to give defendant fair notice of claim and grounds of it. o Rules not necessary because it limits alternative causes of action. Code Pleading: Statement of facts constituting a cause of action, not conclusions. Used to be very detailed o Stricter standard than notice, used in CA,NY. Federal cases used notice pleading and just required basic claim, then use discovery to fill in factual allegations. Modern times with higher discover costs courts moved to require a plausibility of facts pleaded. (3) demand for relief Burden of allegations on plaintiff usually pleads claim, plaintiff pleads defenses. After notice, defendant replies with answer or motion. May have similar lawsuits in different areas, but if one is adjudicated, res judicata may apply.

Cases Conley v Gibson: used against heighten pleading that if any set of facts may be proved to entitle plaintiff relief, then case should not be dismissed. Test: Claim legally sufficient to entitle relief and factually particular. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema (2002): Complaint alleges Plaintiff was discriminatively replaced by less competent, but nationally related person. Court reverses dismissal because the complaint need not make a prima facie case, just assert facts that may be proved. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007): complaint alleges collusions between telecom companies. Only fact is parallel behavior which could be seen as normal, need a fact to tie the activity to cause of action. Thus due to high costs of discovery, complaint must show a plausible entitlement to relief. Seems to change standard of factual particularity, but maybe just to protect against fishing expeditions. Defenses Answer: short plain list defense to each claim and admit or deny allegations o If not denied, assumed to be admitted, Important to bring issues up if you intend on using them o General denial, deny everything o Specific denial, deny specific part of allegations o Can say you lack info, equals denial Affirmative Defenses: affirm facts, but justify actions. o Ex. Statute of limitations, qualified immunity

Cases Gomez v. Toledo (1980): Gomez asserts he was illegally fired. Toledo gives affirmative defense that he believed he was constitutionally protected. This affirmative defense fails if it was done in bad faith. Case originally dismissed

because bad faith needed to be pleaded by P. SC says that affirmative defense is a defense to be answered by defendant and reversed dismissal. P did not amend because it would add a burden of proof. Motions Motion to dismiss 12b(demurer): states that even if allegations are true, no relief may be granted o For failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: insufficient complaint. Rule 12(b)(6) o Lack of SM or Personal jurisdiction, venue, insufficient service of process o Subj. Matter jurisdictional challenges can occur at any point in Fed court. o Usually with leave to amend, which usually granted after answer/motion to dismiss. Or later in case sometimes o CA: general demurer, separate from answer or motions. Motion for a more definite answer: asks for a new complaint to base a reply on Motion challenging territorial jurisdiction (done in special appearance) Rule 12(c): motion for judgment on pleading: like summary judgment before discovery. Not really used.

Pleading in Alternative Complaint may list alternative theories of recovery. They may even be contradictory Rule 15 allows pleadings to be amended Important for res judicata, Prejudice, cases that are dismissed with prejudice cannot be retried.

Cases McCormick v. Kopmann (1959): Plaintiff alleges that either bar is liable for husband being drunk in crash or sober husband was hit by negligent driver. These allegations contradict each other but may be plead then determined later on.

Discovery
26 (b)(1) - scope: any nonprivileged, in relation to relevant to claim or defense, relevant to subject matter ok (need not be admissible at trial). Made out of tension between plaintiff and def. lawyers 26(f) -plan: lawyers get together to make sequence/principles for discovery, if no agreement magistrate will determine. 26(a) initial disclosure: not compulsory disclosure, but is an obligation to make a disclosure of routine items (witnesses likely to have info, documents and things for defense, damage calculation, insurance), qualified. Trying to promote cooperation. 26(b)(3) - work product protected 26(a)(3) - pretrial disclosure: ask for what you expect to discover 26(a)(2) - experts: disclose who they are, need written report of opinions, facts considers, qualifications etc. 26(b)(2),(c) - controls, judge has control over the amount of discovery 26(a)(D)(2)- expert summary - summary about the expert summary, rule in CA 26(b)(5) - privilege log: responding party believes it need not be produce because it is privileged, then they ID the documents you're not producing, which a description. Can ask for document destruction. 26(e) - supplement disclosure: if you found out something new, or changed, makes the accuracy of prior communication incomplete, you must add to what was said.

Spoliation: cant destroy evidence once a case is contemplated Types: depositions, documents & things, interrogatories, affidavits, exam, requests for admissions o Rule 30: Oral Deposition: can depose parties under oath, nonparties subpoenaed if geographically close. Expensive lawyer time. Typically 10 max. o Rule 31: Written Depositions: inflexible, pre written questions under oath o Rule 33: Interrogatories: questions, typically evasive answers so used to find out where other evidence is or clarify issues. 25 max o Rule 34: Production: of documents and things, e-documents common now o Rule 35: mental/physical exam: need a motion of good cause, privacy issues o Rule 36: rule for admission: ask for admissions to narrow case down. Motions to compel discovery for noncompliance or protective orders can limit harassing discovery. Sanctions can be imposed on parties who dont allow proper discovery. Experts provide analysis of the facts. Both sides often will have their own expert

Limitations to Discovery Scope and Costs of Discovery Traditionally responding party pays; but maybe cost-shifted if the court finds it too burdensome. Major concerns: Annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense.

Cases Zubulake v. UBS (2003): Discovery request of optical and tape back up. UBS says this is too expensive. Court limits discovery and awards cost shifting on the expense of using harder to use tape backup. Test based on tailored request, availability, total cost vs. controversy, cost vs. party resources, ability to control costs and incentive to do so, importance of issues, relative benefit all can be looked at to determine this Attorney Client Privilege All communications (not facts) between Attorney and client within scope of legal services or consideration of legal service are privileged and thus not discoverable. Generally absolute Exceptions: client waiving privilege, not objecting to it, or in a breach of duty by lawyer client. o Who is client?: Clients, organizations, corporations Counsel represents everyone in a corporation, but corporation can choose to waive the privilege for its employees.

Cases Upjohn v. US (1981): extended the attorney client privilege to all employees at a company when company lawyer interview lower level employees about possible bribing scandal. Work Product Immunity Lawyers works done in anticipation of litigations is protected. Is usually notes or memos on interviews or depositions. Protected to allow lawyer to create strategy without revealing it, promotes preparation, hurts discovery goals of cooperation. Exceptions: when acquiring the information would cause undue hardship or substantial need for info, not opinions on things. In CA attorney must waive WPI

Cases Upjohn v. US: Prevented the discovery of the lawyer notes during the interviews of employees. Did not demonstrate a substantial need or undue hardship in acquiring the facts in the notes. Hickman v. Taylor: Lawyer interview victims after a tug boat accident. During an interrogatory, his client refused to answer questions about these interviews and held in contempt. Court held that work product protected these interviews since litigation was foreseeable. Notes are not witnesses. Privacy/Confidentiality Harassment There are limitations, statutory, about what can be discovered. If it the element is essential to the case then it is discoverable. 26(c)Protective orders can limit dissemination or scope of discovery.

Cases Vinson v. Superior court (1947): Court allowed a mental exam of a lady claiming mental distress after sexual harassment because it was need to determine the fact of the claim of mental distress. Did not allow sexual history to be brought up because it did not relate to claim, thus privacy rights not waived here. They did not allow lawyer to be present because the limits placed on the exam and ethics of examiner. Coca-cola bottling v. Coca Cola: Bottlers said Coke was over charging for syrup. To discover this they needed a trade secret. Since it was relevant case, court created protective order limiting dissemination, coke still refused and subjected to sanctions to admit what the discovery was trying to prove. WA Physician Insurance v. Fisons: sanctions imposed on Fisons when they didnt produce some documents, and later shown to have many incriminating documents after settlement. The nondisclosure was not objected to by Plaintiff, thus Hazard feels sanctions are inappropriate.

Judgments
Default Judgment: Rule 55 Failure of defendant to defend complaint. Assumes allegations are true.

Cases Pennoyer v. Neff (1877): Neff suffers default judgment because he failed to respond to quasi en rem jurisdiction. Summary Judgment: Rule 56(a): The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When used: In-between (substantial) completion of discovery and 30 days after close 56(b). Can be used on part or all of the complaint allegations. Burden of proof: Rule 56(c) the moving party must show absence of genuine issue of concerning any material fact and must foreclose possibility of issues of fact in motion (Adickes) or prove that nonmovant has no evidence that supports an issue of fact. o The party with the burden of persuasion and production in the cause of action is makes it harder to win SJ because they need to provide proof that is indisputable. Fact Predicate: materials in the record (discovery documents, depositions, affidavits, declarations, interrogatory answers) .

o Can be supported by competent affidavits, (predicts what may come up in trial) o Can be challenged if evidence is inadmissible to trial. Standard of Review: evidence in the light most favorable to party opposing SJ. Usually dont appeal a denial for SJ, most appeal SJ being granted Generally if there is no evidence supporting an issue of fact, the nonmovant must in its motion say there is.

Cases Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co (1970): Adickes suing over discrimination for being at a restaurant with black kids. Summary judgment for Kress overturned because they did not provide evidence countering the complaint allegation that there was a police officer in the store. Here the movant must foreclose possibility of there being an issue of fact, if not supported, plaintiff need not provide additional evidence. Not explicitly overruled Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986): Catrett suing over husbands death from asbestos. Company moves for SJ because theres no evidence linking Celotex (decedents trial testimony, no affidavits from others, hearsay) to Catretts use and is granted, reversed in appeals, SC reversed and dismissed case. Changes standard for SJ since they didnt foreclose possibility, but showed that Catrett did not have evidence to support an issue of fact. Evidence given must be admissible for trial (no hearsay) Scott v. Harris (2007): Police chased Harris car. Rammed car to make it crash, Harris injured. Scotts motion for SJ granted. Majority found his ramming reasonable, reversed denial of SJ. Video evidence used to overrule Harris evidence, to make there no dispute in facts to officers motion. Hazard questions this because should the court determine reasonableness? Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law: Directed Verdict & Judgment N.O.V. Rule 50: Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and Renewed Motion When used: Directed Verdict happens after nonmoving party has been fully heard, before submission to jury; opposition may file a motion, renewed motion within 28 days after judgment by party who had judgment entered against. DV can be used by defendant to avoid their witnesses being crossed examined, but less likely to succeed by practical considerations of judges Since JNOV is a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, motion for directed verdict must have been made first to move for JNOV. CA uses directed verdict and JNOV Decides trial as a matter of law. Limits scope of jury, judge can decide if there is no genuine issue of fact that a reasonable jury could not rule in a certain way, and set aside jury verdict. Fact Predicate: evidence at trial. Standard of Review: evidence most favorable to nonmoving party and undisputed evidence against nonmoving party. (federal standard)

Cases Simblest v. Maynard (2d Cir, 1970): Simblest was struck by a fire truck. Claims its lights and sirens were off, other evidence say s otherwise. Maynard has directed verdict denied. Jury finds in favor for Simblest. Maynard moves for JNOV. Circuit court affirms JNOV for Maynard by finding that Simblests testimony is incompetent, thus there is un-contradicted evidence against Simblest to set aside jury verdict. Vermont standard here was less restrictive and allowed all evidence, but diversity case led to federal standard being considered.

Jurisdiction
Territorial Jurisdiction Courts have limited territorial jurisdiction based on the land that they reside, and can only make binding judgment over those within the jurisdiction. Traditionally based primarily on state boundaries, complicated by claims against those who are outside of state. Usually not an issue for Federal cases, unless foreign. In personam jurisdiction: personal jurisdiction over a person In rem jurisdiction: jurisdiction over things, brought where that thing is in pure in rem. Quasi in rem jurisdiction: creates in personam jurisdiction over an out of state person by attaching claim of instate property to them by seizure due to limits of traditional jurisdiction. Now days due to process needing to be reasonable, only used for hard to find plaintiffs. General jurisdiction: jurisdiction over the person regardless of nature of claim. This is where person is domiciled (citizenship), or presence (Tag Jurisdiction: ok if presence voluntary, needs reasonability) or corporation administrative center & state of incorporation, or unincorporated members reside. Specific jurisdiction: jurisdiction over person due the activities of person in state. Minimum contacts: allows out of state person/organization to be subject to specific jurisdiction by having a continuous and systematic. Casual and occasional not enough. o Determining contacts difficult. See case law. Purposeful availment: defines minimum contacts to be when someone or company purposely enters the state and uses the benefits of the laws there. Not enough to foresee that their products might end up there. Limits stream of commerce Internet: purposeful availment when targeting people in that state Purposeful direction: if there is direction of business activities in the state there is general jurisdiction. doing business Long Arm Statute: states codify how they may assert personal jurisdictions on non citizens. NY lists specific situations while CA is to the extent permitted by constitution. Courts will apply the law in their determination of jurisdiction. Special Appearance: without submitting to jurisdiction, make a special appearance to object to jurisdiction. Without this, you automatically consent to submit by appearing, or making any other claim. No appearance will cause suffer default judgment, which can only be attacked by collateral attack (intra or inter-jurisdictional recognition attack) (exception to res judicata) when enforcement sought in general jurisdictional court. Cant use a direct attack (SJ, motion to dismiss) because you didnt fight on merits to get an appeal or rehearing If you lose special appearance, may have to invoke extraordinary writ of prohibition in an interlocutory appeal (which can also determine controlling questions of law). Interlocutory appeal gets around the final judgment rule (rare outside NJ): an appeal may be taken only after finaldetermination of all issues involved in a case o Seek an extraordinary writ of mandamus/prohibition (CA terms). (interlocutory appellate review) You will consent to jurisdiction through general appearance, filing suit or contract.

Cases Harris v. Balk (1905): Jurisdiction over out of state resident through quasi en rem jurisdiction. Since the debt was in the state, the state had jurisdiction over the property and could seize it the provide notice. Debt follows debtor International Shoe v. WA (1945): Specific jurisdiction may be granted over a company that has continuous and systematic ties with the state. Here, Intl Shoe had paid sales men in the state organizing products made and sold out of state. requirement of fair play and substantial justice

World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980): Woodsons tried to assert that OK had jurisdiction over NY company because their cars had entered OK. Court denied this by saying that foreseeability of the cars entering another state was not enough to avail WWV to the benefits of OK. reasonable expect to be haled into court there Burger King v. Rudzewicz (1985): Franchisor in MI of FL Burger King did not want to submit to FL jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that despite never being in or doing business in FL, they are subject to jurisdiction since the contract was signed in FL and they benefitted under FL laws for the contract, and under FL long arm statute. Purposeful availment to FL laws Goodyear v. Brown (2011): Bus crash in France kills 2 NC boys. Tires made by foreign subsidiary. Court found insufficient ties for general and specific jurisdiction since only a few tires were indirectly in NC. Not continuous and systematic. McIntyre v. Nicastro (2011): Nicastro hurt by McIntyre machine which was made in Britain by British company. Court said the only ties were trade show reps that werent representative. Foreseeability not enough for jurisdiction. Tough case, was there purposeful direction to sell in US? This and Asahi maybe give less jurisdiction over foreign cos even though they knew their products being sold in US. Bensusan v. King (1977): King sues similar named bar for making website that infringed on trademark. The tortious act occurred outside of the state and thus not subject to the long arm statute. Internet sites must target business in state. Insurance Corp of Ireland v. DBG (1982): CBG files suit against foreign insurer in PA. By making a special appearance to contest jurisdiction, you accept limited jurisdiction over the issue of determining jurisdiction and subject to discovery to resolve. Mcgee v. Int'l Life: Texas company took over a CA life insurance plan from a different company. TX court wouldn't recognize CA judgment, but since it was a business with connection in CA, SC granted specific jurisdiction. Hanson v. Denckla: Delaware trust /trustee. Suit brought in FL, against trustee (because trustee had business ties with inheritor in FL) SC said ties not enough for specific jurisdiction despite payments and letters sent to Florida. Close case Perkins v. Benquet Mining: CEO does business for Philippines company in Ohio. Substantial and pervasive acts give rise to general jurisdiction. (nerve center type analysis) Notice Notice is informing a person that the court is asserting jurisdiction and that they are to appear defend against the claim. Due process requires notice. Constructive notice: notice by placing ads in papers or bills on walls Attachment: notice by attaching property to an out of state person by seizure. Originally notice could only be served in state, thus attachment useful for notice of out of state Change to require fair notice to be reasonable calculated to give actual notice

Cases Pennoyer v. Neff: Jurisdiction over out of state owner of property made constructive service of newspaper ad. Neff wins property back because it was not attached to debt in quasi en rem jurisdiction. Mullane v. Central Hanover (1950): Constructive notice was given to find trustees. They werent all found but the address of some were known. Court ruled that they should send notice to those that they had the address. Constructive notice for those without address.

Jones v. Flower (2006): house was subject to public sale. Notice never received by owner who did not live at house, but were returned unclaimed. He was informed by daughter when sale was posted. State should do an additional step to ensure notice is received. Not to be construed as requiring exhaustive search. Burnham v. Superior Court: allows jurisdiction to be applied when process is serve to out of state citizen when temporarily in state. Physical presence is enough for general in personam. Shaffer v. Heitner: did now allow Delaware to exercise quasi en rem jurisdiction over Delaware corporation by seizing stock held in state because the directors had no contacts to Delaware. Reasonable notice is require in QER jurisdiction. You need an additional basis to seize property. Its allowed if it is the only practical remedy. Ex. Out of country defendant, enforcing or securing judgment. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Original jurisdiction: Courts have general (state court), limited (federal question, diversity, agency) jurisdiction. Federal courts have concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction over federal questions with states. Can be challenged at any time, thus if complete diversity destroyed or federal question answered, can go back to state court.

Federal Questions Subject Matter is the right of the court to hear a case. This can be brought up at any point, unlike territorial jurisdiction. No implicit waiver by not bringing up issue. Usually an issue of Federal superiority but limited scope. Federal jurisdiction implemented by statute. 28 USC 1331-1332 1331 gives federal jurisdiction federal questions. States have concurrent jurisdiction unless statute gives federal exclusive jurisdiction Federal questions can be answered in trial court, or upon review of a state supreme court by US Supreme Court Federal court also jurisdiction over US as a P or D Well pleaded complaint rule: if a complaint is well pleaded and not federal question is there, then not Fed Subject matter jurisdiction, even if one will arise. Declaratory judgment: federal court can make a judgment on the rights of a party under a federal question relating to a state claim.

Cases Louisville Nashville RR v. Mottley (1908): Mottleys were promised free train travel after they were injured on a train. Federal statute made free train passes illegal, so LNRR refused to honor pass. Mottleys sue in US District Court of W. Kentucky. Court decided that since the federal question was a defense and not part of the complaint, the court has no jurisdiction. Established well pleaded complaint rule. Merrell Dow Pharma v. Thompson (1986): Filed case based on federal labeling law and main claim on state tort law. Statute didnt create a cause of actions for federal court, so no federal jurisdiction. Need a substantial federal element for jurisdiction. Smith v. KC Title Trust: provides federal jurisdiction over federal claims if the right to relief depends on the constitutional construction. Can be used as a declaratory judgment Diversity Jurisdiction 1332 gives federal jurisdiction over diversity cases

Interpreted to only include complete diversity (at onset of case) in which no two parties on P & D are of the same state and over $75,000 at issue. o Well pleaded complaint standard: a complaint with only the necessary elements of a claim will be a federal question if the federal question is part of the well pleaded complaint. o This creates issues in not being able to anticipate defense, and then any party may remove to federal court. o Bringing in nondiverse parties can remove case from federal court Citizenship is the basis for diversity cases, so determining citizenship important Persons citizens where they are domiciled (not necessarily residents). o Changing domicile means taking up new residence with intention to remain before filing. Foreign persons are diverse, foreign permanent resident is citizen of state where domiciled Corporations citizens of place of incorporation and principal place of business Unincorporated Orgs are citizens of where their members are citizens of. Ancillary jurisdiction- listen to related claims that would defeat jurisdiction Pendant jurisdiction- listen to state claims sufficiently related to original fed claim 1367 created to settle supplementary jurisdiction on state claims(ancillary and pendant) o Allows supplementary jurisdiction in federal questions o Allows supplementary jurisdiction in diversity except when plaintiff adds parties in rule 14 19 20 24, or if plaintiffs joined under 19 and 24. o May decline jurisdiction when state law is main part of claim, fed court dismisses original jurisdiction claims.

Cases Mas v. Perry (1974): Mr. and Mrs. Mas sued Perry for a see through mirror in their rented apartment. Mr. Mas is French and Mrs. Mas had domicile in Mississippi even though they lived in Louisiana where the rented apartment was. Mas was not resident of LA because she didnt intend on permanently remaining, thus complete diversity for federal court. Hertz v. Friend (2010): Friend brought employment case against in State Court. Hertz wanted case to be moved to federal court because business is in NJ. Principle place of business not deemed to be where most business is, but where the nerve center is. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966): Gibbs loses job after union protests. Coal miner supervisor asserts 2 claims, one against union liability under federal law, and a claim asserting liability on state tort law. State law is the baseline law. Federal court takes pendant jurisdiction because both claims derive from the same common nucleus of operative fact. Owen Equipment v. Kroger (1978): Kroger husband electrocuted by OP Power District in district court. Krogers Iowan, OPPD Nebraska. OPPD third party complaint on Owen Equipment which Krogers add to their complaint, Nebraska company, but principal business in Iowa. No more complete diversity, thus case must go back to state court because no independent base for fed jurisdiction and the Krogers added them. Exxon v. Allapattah (2005): Class action against exxon, some people in class didnt have 75,000 in damages, should it be diversity? court settled if when parties are joined and only one meets the amount in issue requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction that court has federal jurisdiction under 1367 (b) because the parties werent joined under rule 19 and 24. Venue Venue deals with the court that will hear the trial. To protect defendants from unfair place of trial. Venue can be changed when improper or when justice will be promoted (convenience of witness etc.) Venue can also be agreed to by the parties; Forum selection clauses may subject a person to jurisdiction by contractually agreeing to it

Federal In Federal court venue available where defendant resides, or in district where substantial part of events occur/ substantial amount of property in question, or anywhere within persosam jurisdiction. For venue purposes corporations and associations can have venue anywhere there is in personam jurisdiction. Aliens can be sued in any district. 1404 Change of venue: discretionary transfer case from one district court to another where case might have been brought for convenience or justice. Or at a defendants motion. Happens at the outset any party. o Law is the original law. o More lenient the FNC. o Weigh the convenience of the def, court, and plaintiff choice. 1441: Removal, defendants together may remove case from State court to Federal court district if the case could at time of removal be filed for diversity (can be defeated by reducing claim to under $75k) or federal issue jurisdiction. Can be done in first 30 days or 30 days after removal option. Forum Non Conveniens: case can be dismissed if the case should be heard in another jurisdiction(usually foreign) with conditions on dismissal. o Where the witnesses and evidence are o Hardship on defendant o Adequacy of alternate forum for Plaintiff, competence more likely to be issue instead of remedy Gonzales v Chrysler: Mexico has remedy, albeit small, Nemariam v. Ethiopia: no remedy. o Public Policy: no removal/transfers under FELA, public interest in the proceedings. Conditions: FNC dismissal can have conditions, ex. US style discovery, ore waive right to contest liability to escape US damages. Also a multidistrict panel option for common questions to be answered in one consolidated federal district, then redistributed.

State

CA has a system to transfer within state superior courts Cases may be removed to district by defendant For dismissal of forum non coveniens: can be stayed until parties submit to alternate forum.

Cases Carnival Cruise v. Shute (1991): Shutes from WA want to sue Carnival in WA where they bought tickets. Tickets said disputes to be done in FL. SC says that forum selection is reasonable because it can reduce overheads of business. Unless there is an extreme showing of inconvenience it will be enforced. Ferens v. John Deere (1990): P hurts loses hand. Sues under contract in diversity jurisdiction in District Court of PA, but could not file tort claim under PA law because of statute of limitations. Brings parallel tort claim in DC of Miss. which uses PA law for tort but Miss. law for statute of limitations under choice of laws. Then P transferred back to PA and consolidated. SCOTUS said the transferor courts choice of law rule still hold. Piper Aircraft v. Reyno (1981): Plane crashes in Scotland, but made in the US. Scottish adminstrix to file against US companies. Adminstratrix files in CA Superior Court. Def. removes to Federal Court in CA, then transfers to Mid Dist PA. Defendants move to dismiss for forum non conveniens which was upheld by SC because it was better suited for Scotland even if it hurt Ps claims, but the ruling would be satisfactory. Erie Problem In diversity cases federal courts use substantive state law in the state where the district sits.

Rules Enabling Act: federal court use Fed Rules for Civil Procedure, ex. Due process, discovery, service of process, discovery. In federal court, Supremacy Clause preempts if laws directly in conflict. Erie problem arises out of Auxiliary State Rules that are in Conflict with Federal rules that have substantive effect, ex. Statutes of limitation, burden of proof, venue. o Swift v. Tyson 1842: fed court did not need to follow state laws, taken advantage of in forum shopping, Taxi cases. General principles: outcomes should be the same, unless compelling reason to use federal procedural rules, state procedural rules can be used if substantive in purpose. Reverse Erie: If a state court is hearing a federal problem, federal rules are to be used, due to supremacy clause. In general State law use, Civ Pro used if part of civ pro rules (erie), otherwise state rules should be used to keep outcomes similar (York) unless theres a compelling reason to use the federal rule (Byrd). If the federal rule is just housekeeping, it may be used if its similar to state rule (Hanna). We should respect rules with substantive use(Gasparini) but limit it if in direct violation with rules of procedure(Shady Grove)

Cases Erie RR v. Tompkins (1938): Tompkins gets hit by train in PA. Under PA law, walking along track is trespassing and, T has no claim for reasonable care on railway. Federal rule would allow for this. Tompkins files in Federal Dist. Courts. and wins under Federal standard. On appeal SCOTUS says that PA substantive law should be followed. Equitable administration test, Substantce/Procedure Test Guaranty Trust v. York (1945): P sues over NY claims in District Court barred by NY statute of limitations. SCOTUS says that SoL should be used based on the outcome determinative test to say Feds doing a state claim should have similar results. Outcome determinative test the source of the problem Byrd v. Blue Ridge (1958): P a subcontractor, sues in diversity over workmans comp. Under state law, damages limited if his role was similar to a full time employee and determined by judge. Feds think it should be up to jury. SCOTUS say we should use federal rules because it violates due process. For procedural auxiliary state rules, th should be applied unless there is a compelling federal influence (7 amendment). Here state rule is constitutional th under 14 amendment, but unconstitutional for federal courts, thus a balancing test is used. 1) state interests in using this procedure 2) Fed interest in its law 3) outcome determinate effect. Balancing the problem Hanna v. Plumer (1965): Accident in SC but executors in Mass and sued in Fed Dist for Mass. Case dismissed since federal service rules followed, not stronger Mass service rules. SCOTUS says federal is fine because it is similar to state law and is mostly procedural. Form and Mode: fed law ok if just housekeeping or Outcome determination with Forum shopping Deterrence Gasparini v. Center for Humanities (1996): P sues for lost photos in Dist. Ct, damages of $450k on NY law. NY judges are allowed to reduce award if it deviates materially from reasonable and reduced it. P says shocks the conscious federal standard should be used. SC says state court rules apply. Rule has a substantive purpose. Blending: done like bird + outcome determinate/forum shopping effect. Weak analysis. Shady Grove v. Allstate (2009): Class action against Allstate for late payment in Fed Ct for NY law and diverse parties, $500 per person penalty. Class actions for penalties not allowed in NY state law. SCOTUS says here NY rule has substantive elements, but federal rules of procedure hold and are clear here. Dice v. Akron (1952): P sues due to train derailment, signed . FELA case cant be removed, under Ohio contract releasing liability is valid if competent when signed, federal invalid if fraud. SCOTUS says federal rules hold in federal actions. Is there an erie problem, changed outcome. (GT v. York) If yes, determine if it encourages forum shopping. If no the court can still apply the federal (Hannah). If yes we

1) If complete removes jury probably state rule under bird/shady grove 2) If the state rule conflicts but has substantive purpose maybe gasparini

Res Judicata
Things adjudicated: parties who has full opportunity to litigate is precluded from litigating after a judgment. Most cases settled and have an agreement to drop all claims.

Claim Preclusion (res Judicata) Precluded from using same claim/cause of action again All claims that could arise from one set of facts can be precluded after final judgment. Counter claims, cross claims can assert claims under the same transaction need to be pled or they will be precluded. use it or lose it all claims that could have been litigated with the action will be barred. Privies (those who closely related to the parties of a case) are bound by res judicata o Applied differently under class actions, that all future claims cant be bared. Test: 1) same parties 2) court of competent jurisdiction rendered prior judgment 3) prior judgment final on merits, 4) plaintiff must raise same cause of action. Transactional test: are the 2 actions part of the same nucleus of operative fact. Court may raise the issue. When courts of limited but exclusive jurisdiction hear cases, claim preclusion limited to the jurisdiction available to the court if the claims need to be split to be heard court of general jurisdiction. In general use court that has most jurisdictional competence Looser in CA: primary right ex. Right under contract and right under family law: same facts, different right.

Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel): precluded from raising the same issues in other trials. If the validity of bond/patent is determined in one proceeding, it will not be predetermined in another enforcement proceeding. Mutuality rule: old rule that you cant use a determination unless you could have been bound by it. Test: 1) issues are identical 2) prior issue litigated and final decision 3) full and fair opportunity to litigate (safeguards, burdens of persuasion) 4) the issue was necessary (an essential element) to support a valid final judgment. Defensive: when someone sues and loses, next defendant can say they already lost that issue. Offensive: when issue has been decided, you can use that issue decision to speed up your case. Allowed if you could not have been a party of previous case or if it is unfair to the defendant because they did not have incentive to or fully litigated the previous action Settlement helps avoid issues with preclusion th Criminal decisions preclude civil issues can be used against parties in privity. Exception invoking 5 amendment and not taking the stand. If federal statute gives ability to re-litigate, no IP, ex. Age discrimination Full faith and credit: States are to enforce other states judgments Comity: enforce judgments that were fairly rendered. Generally apply if due process was in foreign forum.

Cases Davis v. DART: Davis files one suit alleging discrimination. After that suit is done he files under federal EEOC and letter of the right to sue. Because the allegations are based on the same course of conduct they are barred under claim preclusion. He should have stayed until the letter to sue was ready. Blonder-Tongue v UI: P tries to enforce patent and loses. P then tries to enforce patent on unrelated party, and issue preclusion invoked. Court said this is ok even though the D would not have been mutually bound by the first judgment. defensive preclusion Staats v. Sawyer County: Plaintiff sues through an agency, and loses which then has limited and exclusive appellate review. Then gets an EEOC letter to sue and sues. SCOTUS says its ok because the agency had exclusive but limited jurisdictions and claim splitting is thus permitted. claim splitting Jacobs v. CBS: writers lose in a Writers Guild proceeding. CBS cant enforce this decision because there was not a full and fair opportunity to litigate. No safeguards. Ex. Small claims court. No full and fair opportunity to litigate Parklane Hosiery v. Shore: SEC comes up with nonjury judgment against Parklane. Shore sues Parklane and invokes SEC judgment. Defensive collateral estoppel is allowed on new parties, but the court allows offensive collateral estoppel here because plaintiff could not have joined earlier case, and it is not unfair to defendant who might have not fully litigated previous case. Court also allows a non jury equitable determination to be valid, and not violate th 7 amendment rights of D. offensive preclusion Fauntleroy v. Lum: Judgment in Missouri. P tries to enforce judgment in Mississippi which would not have been legally allowed to render the judgment in Missouri, but full faith and credit requires Missouri to enforce.

You might also like