Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Reasonableness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
s burden
s interest
Forum state interest
Interest of judicial efficiency
Shared substantive policy issue
RULE 4
Rule 4(k): Territorial Limits of Effective Service (not a formal statute, but has the force of
one) Does 4(k)(1)(a) apply or an alternate applicable provision?
a. Rule 4(k)(1)(a) If none apply, then analyze according to Part B When federal
statute does not determine jurisdiction, Piggy-Back on state's long arm statutes.
this is the default
i.
b. Rule 4(k)(1)(b), if a party joined under Rules 14 or 19 are within 100 miles from
where the summons was issued, jurisdiction is proper. (dont really worry about
this one)
c.
d. Rule 4(k)(2). Is this a claim arising under federal law against a person not subject
to personal jurisdiction in any state? If so, service establishes jurisdiction if it has
minimum contacts with the United States, and analyze according to Part C, but
with reference to the United States as a whole. Proper under the Calder Effects
test.
In rem: jurisdiction to adjudicate claims concerning rights in property against the whole world.
Quasi in rem: refers to jurisdiction to adjudicate rights in property of a particular person or
persons.
QIR-I: property claim is only against a certain person or persons. I own this property and you
dont
QIR-II: Property as a hook for jurisdiction. Resulting judgment ONLY as good as extent of
seized property
Only exists where state doesnt go to the limits of the Constitution
If statute only goes to limit of property value
Still must satisfy minimum contacts
4. Removal 1441
a. Would the federal DC have original jurisdiction over Ps claims if they were
filed in federal court?
1. Limitation in Diversity cases, removal is proper only if no
defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was
brought.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Judges may also remand a state claim back to state court while
keeping the Federal Claim.
v.
b. Why remove?
i.
Removal decisions based on tactical reasons: jury verdicts, trial rules &
procedure, availability, caseload, personality of federal judges in making
decision of whether to remove a case to fed court
Joinder
1. RULE 18 Joinder of Claims
a. No limitation on joinder claims
b. As long as theres jurisdiction
c. You CAN bring the claims together
d. Not compulsory
e. Res Judicata motivates bringing them together
f. Prevailing notion that is the master of their complaint
2. RULE 42(b)
a. Court can separate claims
b. Discretionary
3. RULE 13 Counterclaim and Crossclaims
a. Counterclaims
i.
Counterclaims added by
ii.
13(b) Permissive counterclaims
1. Anything thats not compulsory
iii. 13(a) Compulsory counterclaims
1. 13(a)(1)(A)
a. Same transaction or occurrence
b. Second Circuit Test: logical relationship
c. Dont raise it, youve lost it
d. Exceptions:
i.
Lack of jurisdiction
ii.
Part of pending action
4
b. Crossclaims
c.
Against coparties
i. same transaction or occurrence
ii. 13(h)-allows joining additional parties
iii. NOT compulsory
iv. But if you have compulsory counterclaims due to a
crossclaim, you still must bring them
v. Because of Rule 18 crossclaims can be anything you want
vi. After you have one valid crossclaim
vii. Then you can bring anything
a. or may be joined
b. Arising out of the same transaction/occurrence
c. Or Common question of law or fact
d. Very permissive
e. Meant for convenience and expedience
6. RULE 14 Third Party Practice
a. Applies to the defending party ( or in counterclaim)
b. 2 ways to come in
i.
Contribution claim
1. Contributed to the wrong
2. Ex: Jeub v B/G Foods Inc. (MN District Court 1942)
3. Ex: Too, Inc. v Kohls Department Stores, Inc. (SDNY 2003)
ii.
Indemnification claim
1. Usually requires agreement to indemnify/ be responsible
2. Havent done anything wrong themselves
c. Less intrusive than rule 19
d. Helps avoid inconsistent judgments and inefficiency
7. RULE 24- Intervention
a. Outsiders joining in
b. Not required, but allowed (unlike 19)
c. 24(a)(1)
i.
US may always intervene in US issues
d. 24 (a)(2) Intervention of right
1. Possess an interest
2. Could impede rights of those absent
3. Not already represented
e. Written similar to 19 but read more broadly
f. 24 (b) Permissive Intervention
i.
very rare
PLEADING
A. Adequacy of the Complaint:
1. Must satisfy Rule 8(a), or be subject to Rule 12(b) dismissal:
a. Rule 8(a) Claim for Relief: A pleading that states a claim for relief must
contain:
i.
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim
needs no new jurisdictional support;
a. Diversity;
i.
F. Application in Iqbal
1. What allegations are discarded/rejected as conclusory?
a. Allegations going to purpose of policy
2. What allegations were treated as factual and thus entitled to presumption of
truth?
a. Fact that thousands of Arab Muslim men were arrested & detained
b. Fact that defendants approved policy of holding them in highly restrictive
conditions of confinement until cleared
3. Court says these facts are consistent with allegations of discriminatory purpose,
but do not plausibly establish such purpose: discrimination is not a plausible
conclusion due to obvious alternate explanation
4. No allegations sufficient to plausibly suggest that Ds had discriminatory state of
mind
5. Note: civil rights cases generally require proving a state of mind driving the
discrimination which is problematic b/c court here is clearly taking state of mind
as conclusory
G. Leatherman (2002) still good law
1. No heightened pleading standard required in civil rights cases.
a. BUT note the tension that it is hard to factually plead state of mind,
which is required in civil rights COAs.
H. Swierkiewicz (2002) still good law
1. No heightened requirement for Employment Discrimination, just conform to Rule
8(a)(2).
a. Subject to an adverse employment action because of my age Sounds
conclusory, but is not overruled, so must not be. Note the corresponding
levelness in success of MTDs.
b. You do not need to plead a prima facie case, which is simply an
evidentiary standard.
I. Quick and Dirty Pleading Test:
1. Which allegations are factual and conclusory?
a. Eliminate conclusory allegations
b. Determine if remaining allegations are factual
2. Do factual claims allegations support plausible claim for relief?
a. Use Judicial Experience and Common Sense plausibility standard.
9
J. Amendments to Pleadings
1. Rule 15(a) freely given
a. Rule 15(a)(1): as a matter of course
i.
ii.
c. In Beeck, it was determined first that they were the manufacturer and
admitted to it, but later discovered they were not. There is no prejudice to
Plaintiff; it was not bad faith; if anything it would prejudice the Defendant
heavily.
2. Rule 15(b): Amendments during and after trial must relate to original claim
a. Amendment to conform to the evidence (Moore v. Moore) if the
amendment seeks to conform a pleading to evidence presented or sought
to be presented at trial, should it be permitted under 15(b)?
i.
i.
11
a. Used to set out any transaction, occurrence or event that happened after
date of pleading being supplemented
i.
ii. Lower fed cts have allowed supp. complaint to bring new claims
because it promotes economical and speedy disposition of the
controversy
b. May be done despite original pleading being defective
5. Amendments as a matter of course Does it meet Rule 15(a)? (amendments
before trial) Amend once as a matter of course within:
a. 21 days after serving it; or
b. f there is a responsive pleading, 21 days after service of responsive
pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f).
6.
12
4.
Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope the test: what would
a reasonable person do if they actually wanted to notify? If not available,
then use the next best method thats not substantially worse.
Opportunity to Be Heard
1) Seizures
a) Property Seizure: Connecticut v Doehr: Matthew v Eldridge Factors - General
approach to appease due process
2) 3 Factors Analyzed to Determine if Seizure Satisfies Due Process
a) Private interest
b) Risk of erroneous deprivation OR value of possible procedural safeguards
i)
Posting of bond by individual seeking attachment/seizure tends to
discourage frivolous suits (Doehr)
ii)
Judge or magistrate overseeing seizure discourages error (as opposed to
other bureaucrat/agent)
iii) Availability of pre-seizure hearing prevents erroneous seizure
c) Government, or s interest
i)
Does have actual interest in property, or is it a means of securing other
interest (e.g. attachment to house for purposes of securing judgement in
separate case in Doehr) HOWEVER see Fuentes: even though has
possession of goods, has ownership (goods are leased); seizure allowed
3) Property Seizure w/o Hearing (limited exceptions to Connecticut v. Doehr)
i)
Necessary for governmental or general public interest
1) I.e. towing a car
ii)
Special need for prompt action
iii) Government official deems it necessary and justified
1) State monopoly, supposed to lower the risk of error
13
ii.
ii.
iii.
iv.
b. Prove it (Celotex)
i.
ii.
Only open to defending party who does not bear the burden of persuasion
at trial on that issue (not always necessarily , can be against a counterclaim)
iii.
iv.
Useful for making that party bring forth evidence that they would at trial
14
3. Evaluate summary judgment according to burden of proof that will have at trial
(Anderson v. Liberty Lobby)
TRIALS
Summary:
Right to trial exists in federal court due to 7th Amendment. (This amendment does not apply to
states!) Either side can demand a jury trial. If neither does, then this right is waived.
Legal Claims Jury Trial
Equity Claims Judge Trial
Mixed Claims Jury Trial, EXCEPT:
Where irreparable harm would occur (Beacon)
If overly complex, but Special Masters used to overcome this (DQ)
Where all claims sound in equity, but entitlement to that claim would have been characterized as
legal (Ross)
Where statute did not exist as of 1791, look to the language of the statute (Curtis)
1. Demand for Jury Trial: Rule 38 Demand has to be w/in 14 days after the last pleading
directed to the issue, and either side can ask for a jury trial.
i.
ii.
iii.
Mixed Cases (The Beacon Theatres v. Westover (U.S. 1959) Rule): Where
there are both legal and equitable claims in the same case, the trial judge
must ordinarily try the legal claims first.
b. Trying the equity claims first would mean that the judge has decided the issue of
competition, so the jury would be estopped from deciding this issue later. We
must bend over backwards to preserve jury trials.
c.
Beacon could have just denied and demanded jury trial, but later would
lose compulsory counterclaim.
15
The nature of the claim is not determined by the Pleadings. Artful pleading
(an accounting) cannot hide that they are seeking Damages.
1. Even where legal relief is minor, right to a jury trial is sustained.
ii.
Where complex accounting is involved, this would have been the province
of a judge because legal relief inadequate. Note anymore, however, the
appointment of special masters under Rule 53(c) alleviates this.
1. This procedural innovation constricts equitable relief
b. Ross v. Bernhard (U.S. 1970) Legal claim embedded in typically equitable one
i.
Rare that you will have a shareholders derivative suit with legal claim
embedded.
ii.
Here, the company forewent an action (suing) that would have been a
legal claim.
1. So the shareholders, to get the right to sue, must show that the
corporation should have brought a legal claim
2.
If the jury finds for the Plaintiffs, then it is for the judge to decide
if they have a right to sue.
ii.
Where legal rights and remedies are created by statutes, look to the
language:
1. Where the remedy is placed
2. How it is defined by Congress (e.g. backpay is equitable)
3. Is there discretion to award damages?
a. i.e. if you find a violation, must you award damages?
i.
Yes = Legal
ii.
No = Equity
16
Quick and Dirty Summation: First look to historical test (1791); if that does not apply, look
at the type of damages that would be awarded: legal or equitable? Legal are typically
damages, everything else is typically equitable. (However just because it involves money does
not mean its legal; awarding of back pay can be considered equitable. See Curtis)
1. Rule 50: Judgment AMOL in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial
a. Could a reasonable jury find for the nonmoving side?
b. Procedurally:
i.
ii.
iii.
Why is 50(a) required for 50(b)? Why deny the first then grant the second?
1. Its disrespectful to the jury
2. Gotta be really sure the jury is gonna go the wrong way
3. 7th Amendment
a. You cannot reexamine the facts BUT
b. You can renew a motion from before the jury examined the
facts
4. 50(a) is a FICTION!!!
c. Fed Standard for Taking the Case away from the Jury
i.
More friendly
ii.
Looks for some evidence that the jury might draw the inference from
1. The Scintilla Rule
2.
17
b. JAMOL/JNOV
i.
a. 60b1
i.
Excusable neglect
ii.
4 factors to decide
1. Danger of prejudice to the opposing party
2. Length and impact of the delay
3. Reason for the delay
4. Good faith
b. 60a
i.
c. 60b2
i.
PRECLUSION
Claim and Issue Preclusion
1. Claim- res judicata
a. Bar on litigating claims already litigated
2. Issue- collateral estoppel
a. Bar on relitigating certain issues
Quick and Dirty Claim Preclusion
1. Claim Preclusion
a. Elements of Defense
i.
Judgment is final, valid and on the merits
1. Valid correct
2. We may sacrifice correctness for finality
ii.
Same parties similarly situated
iii. Matters properly considered to have been included in the first action
2. Reasons for Claim Preclusion
19
a. Judicial economy
b. Fairness to parties
c. Efficiency
3. Doesnt apply when
a. Voluntary dismissal
b. Dismissal for subject matter jurisdiction
i.
ex/12(b)(6) motions are valid
c. Dismissal for personal jurisdiction
4. 2 theories of claim preclusion from s perspective
a. Shield sword
b. Undermining C1 with C2
A. Three Requirements for claim preclusion:
1. Must be fairly considered part of the same claim in the prior action.
a. This includes claims that arise from the same transaction or
occurrence as the prior action.
i.
20
i.
2. Moitie (US 1981) p.1261: no exception to claim preclusion even when dismissal
rested on a case that had been effectively overruled.
3. Jones v. Morris Plan Bank of Portsmouth (Vir. 1937): When P sued for only two
car payments, because of acceleration he could have sued for the whole amount.
He wins in C1, but is now precluded from bringing C2 to collect more.
A. Defense Preclusion
1. Mitchell v. Federal Intermediate Credit Bank (S. Car. 1932):
Bank (wins)
v.
Mitchell
Mitchell
v.
Bank
Mitchell tries to use his affirmative defense in C1 as his claim in C2. Not allowed. you cannot
use the same defense, first as a shield, and then as a sword.
Not as narrow as Rule 13. If facts were different, even if same T/O, then could have been
brought in C2.
ISSUE PRECLUSION
Quick and Dirty Issue Preclusion
1.
4 requirements
a. Actually litigated
i.
Not enough if in pleading but never brought up in ct
ii.
Not enough if settles
b. Necessarily decided
c. Essential to the judgment
i.
Counterfactual Test
d. Valid, final, and on the merits of the issue
2. 2 big differences with claim and issue preclusion
a. Claim- coulda, shoulda, Issue-actually litigated
b. Claim- same parties, Issue-parties may be different or differently situated
3. Purpose/value of Issue preclusion
a. Time and resources, efficiency
b. Inconsistency, finality
c. Excessive litigation worries
21
Judgment
v.
Davis (negligent)
Joins and Cross-Claims:
Rios (negligent)
Rios
v.
Davis
Rios claims that because of contributory negligence regime, his negligence in C1 was not
material, i.e. that because Davis was negligent, there is no recovery (if we change Davis to not
negligent, it changes the outcome (he would have recovered against Rios))
Rios had no chance to appeal his negligence because he won. Right of appeal is from a
judgment and not a finding.
22
Different bonds, so not actually litigated. Difference between issues being related v.
being the same issue (e.g. practice exam w/Fieri: looks like fish v. tastes like fish) (1
fish, 2 fish, red fish, marshmallow fish?)
Patent infringement case. Two patent claims, it was unclear which was actually litigated.
Therefore no preclusion. Certainty is essential, and is lacking here. Not necessarily
decided.
v.
Driver (wins on
general verdict)
Driver
v.
Bus Co.
v.
Driver
v.
Bus Co.
v.
Contractor (found
negligent)
Jane
v.
City
v.
23
Jane
v.
City
v.
v.
C (bank)
2. Bernhard (1942)
Generally not allowed when could have joined prior suit, or prejudice
would be suffered by . (i.e. Did have motivation to actually litigate issue?)
a. Offensive issue preclusion is generally not allowed against non-parties (nonmutual offensive issue prelusion), EXCEPT when applying factors in Taylor v
Sturgell:
a. Non-party may agree to be bound
b. Certain substantive relationships (i.e. privity)
c. If interests were adequately represented
d. Nonparty who has assumed control over a lawsuit (e.g. financing
suit in Montana)
e. Nonparty who has colluded to avoid preclusive effect by litigating
through a proxy
f.
ii. Note offensive issue preclusion never applies against the government.
24
Issue in Semtek was definition of on the merits (i.e. whose preclusion law to apply):
Eerie concern compels Scalia to read Rule 41 narrowly
Source of preclusive rule in Semtek is federal common law which in turn uses the
preclusive rule of the state in which the court in diversity is located
25
Erie
Erie: State Law v. Federal Judge Made Rule
1.
ii.
Note: In rare instances where there are substantial interests for both the
state and fed. govt, it is possible to bifurcate the statute to satisfy both
interests (Gasperini)
26
FRCP/STATUTE SIDE
1. Is it sufficiently broad (Walker)?
i.
sidenote Rule 3 does govern the tolling of the statute in arising under
jurisdiction
Court in Walker says they are not narrowly construing Rule 3, Reinert says
this is absurd!
d. They are saying if we can find a way to apply the Federal Rule and the State
Law, then we will.
e. Rule 3 doesnt control here because Rule 3 doesnt tell us when the SOL is tolled.
This outcome seems wrong, but we have to accept it. It is a question of statutory
interpretation.
f.
So a May v. Must (Walker) and May v. May Not (Stewart) are both sufficiently
broad to directly conflict.
27
28