Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 27

CIVIL PROCEDURE II OUTLINE

The Civil Action


1.) Forms of Action

Trover: A common law action for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal
property. Recovery only for the value of what was taken, not for recovery of the property
itself.

Requires (1) right of property and (2) right of possession: Gordon

Misuse or abuse of item bailed is not enoughneeds to be put to different use for rights
to be severed. Swift

Trespass: action to recover for direct and immediate injuries resulting from unlawful
act. No proof of actual harm or fault necessary. D has burden of proof

D is liable for all injuries that follow original wrongful act (continuation of the
first force)

justified in removing danger from oneself, even if it puts another in peril Scott

Willfulness/intent doesnt matter; Immediacy is the key distinctionimmediate =


trespass; consequence from cause. Leame
-A case in trespass is maintainable if the injury is immediate and direct

Case: action to recover damages that are NOT the immediate result of a wrongful act but rather
a later consequence. Proof of actual harm and fault IS required. P had BOP.

Start to look at the conduct of the actor as opposed to the immediate


consequences (no longer look at direct or indirect) Negligence = case or trespass
Williams

Immediate act can be brought in trespass or case

Trespass vie et armis:

Direct interference w/persons, their land, their chattels

No proof of damage, no proof of intention, or wrongful motivation (just on its face


wrong)

2.) LAW AND EQUITY

Law Court (Common Pleas, Kings Bench) Remedy: money or other object. Fact finder:
Jury

Equity Court (Chancery): Remedy: Decree (judgement, judicial decision) or injunction.


Factfinder: Judge. Used for the settlement of controversies

Demurrer: D claims he does not have to answer complaint because Ps claim are
insufficient (does not state a cause of action on which relief can be granted)

Courts of equity cannot vacate prior judgementsEquity follows the law (you cant go to
equity until you have a judgment in law) J.R. v. M.P.

Chancery Court cannot undo a ruling at law already completed by the court of common
pleas. Courtney

Judiciary Act of 1789: Chancellor shall give relief in equity as long as there are no
common law proceedings already against them. Laws in equity only applied if no
common law applicable. Judgment of James

Opposite of Courtneycourts of law and chancery courts are equal but where a
court of law acts in an unjust manner, chancery courts may alter or change

3.) THE MODERN CIVIL ACTION

There is now only one form of action (R2) Ps enter court by commencing actions
(R3)

Forms of action remain to be the framework for the exercise of judicial power
Compuserve

Multiple wrongs under one fact pattern are just different grounds for supporting the one
cause of action

Must have at least on substantial federal question Hurn

Jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that Ps complaint might fail to state a cause
of action on which he could actually recover. Bell

Actions for damages may be brought against federal agents acting unlawfully. State law
cannot limit federal authority. Bivens

Court of equityspecific performance; Court of Lawmoney damages. Equity follows

the lawyou cant go to equity until you have a judgment at law Grupo Mexicano

4.) MULTI-PARTY LITIGATION UNDER FEDERAL RULES

Third-party claims provided a procedure for resolving both claim in one lawsuit.
When Consumer sues you, you may bring a claim against Manufacturer (who is not
2

yet a party to the action), all in the same action. The claim by you against
Manufacturer is a third-party claim; the procedure used is impleader.

Impleader is a procedural device before trial in which one party joins a third party into a
lawsuit because that third party is liable to an original defendant. Using the vocabulary of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant seeks to become a third-party plaintif by
filing a third party complaint against a third party not presently party to the lawsuit, who
thereby becomes a third-party defendant. This complaint alleges that the third party is
liable for all or part of the damages that the original plaintiff may win from the original
defendant.

The theory is that two cases may be decided together and justice may be done more
efficiently than by having two suits in a series.

Barab v. Menford (1983)


Rule: In order to implead a party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a), the original defendant must
show that the proposed third-party defendant will be liable to the original defendant in the
event that the original defendant is declared liable to the plaintiff.
United States v. Heyward Robinson Co (1970)
Rule: For a counterclaim to be compulsory it must have a logical relationship with the
original claim.

Permissive counterclaim = no Fed. JDX unless they rest on independent


JDXional grounds

Compulsory counterclaim = they are ancillary to the claim asserted in the


complaint and no independent basis of Fed. JDX is required

RULE 13(a)a counter claim is compulsory if it arises out of the transaction or


occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim

Only need a logical relationship between them

FINALITY
1.) Res Judicata (claim preclusion): Rule 8affirmative defense: If it applies claimant
cannot re-litigate

Elements:
1. A final judgment on the merits rendered in a court of competent JDX
2. An identity of the cause of action, and

3. An identity of the parties or their privies

To establish Res Judicata a party must show: that the former adjudication involved the
same cause of action and the same subject matter

Literally "a matter judged", res judicata is the principle that a matter may not, generally, be
relitigated once it has been judged on the merits.
Res judicata encompasses limits on both the claims and the issues that may be raised in
subsequent proceedings:

Claim preclusion is the principle once a cause of action has been litigated, it may not
be relitigated.
o

Bar: A losing plaintiff is barred from re-suing a winning defendant on the same
cause of action. (Scenario: Plaintiff P unsuccessfully sues Defendant D on Cause
of action C. P may not try for better luck by initiating a new lawsuit against D on
C.)

Merger: A winning plaintiff may not re-sue a losing defendant. (Scenario: P


successfully sues D on C. P may not again sue D on C to try to recover more
damages.)

Issue preclusion (Collateral estoppel): Once an issue of fact has been determined in a
proceeding between two parties, the parties may not relitigate that issue even in a
proceeding on a different cause of action. (Scenario: P sues D on C. P sues D on C1.
Element E, which was determined in the first trial, is common to C and C1. At the second
trial, P and D cannot attempt to get a different disposition of E.)

Same Evidence Test: if the evidence is the same for all injuries then there can be one cause
of action

Car accident: whether P injured leg an car its the same evidence = one cause of action
If there is enough difference in the evidence there may be more than one cause of action
Clancey (minority view case)overruled by Mason

Transaction and Occurrence Test: (why are we here test) Separate claims will be
considered the same cause of action if they arise from a single group of operative facts. End of
claim splittingRes Judicata extend not only to issues actually decided in the original action,
but also to those which could have been decided. Mason
Exception: where litigation involved different causes of action
Everybody has an interest to do it in one cause of action
No reason to try multiple issues over and over for one occurrence
No second chance to litigate stuff you forgot in the first case
Mutuality No Longer Needed: A third party can now use a prior judgment to estop a party
who had litigated the issue in a prior action (defensivelyas a shield and offensivelyas a
sword) Bernhard

Ofensive Collateral Estoppel: using previous decision to preclude issues from being
relitigated in a new case Goldstein
OK if:
1. Identity of the issue was necessarily decided in a prior case and is decisive
of the present one
2. Party its asserted against had full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue
in the previous case
Clancy v. McBride (1929)
Rule: Where an injury to person and property are caused by same negligent act, can bring two
separate actions because right to property and right in body. Not barred by res judicata
Recovery of a judgment for damage to property is not a bar to a subsequent action to
recover damages for injuries to the person
Mason v. Parker
Rule: An entire claim arising out of a single tort cannot be divided and be the subject of several
actions regardless of whether or not the party suing has recovered all that might have been
recovered.
Zurich v. Amcast
Rule: Exception to Mason Property damage or personal injury from same transaction
constitute one cause of action however there in an exception for subrogation by
insurershelps facilitate prompt payout to injured insured
Bernhard v. BOA ( Defensive Collateral Estoppel )
Rule: If P loses on an issue (that is fully and fairly litigated) in case A, the D in case B can
assert defensive collateral Estoppel to bar relitigation of the issue.
Where a party though appearing in two suits in different capacities is in fact litigating the
same right, the judgment in one is estops him in the other
Goldstein v. Con. Ed. (Ofensive collateral estoppel)
Rule: Identical issue, and full and fair opportunity to litigate therefore offensive collateral
estoppel was proper.
In order to invoke offensive collateral estoppel
1. There must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided in the
prior action and is decisive of the present action
2. There must have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now
said to be controlling
Identity issue: Con Ed. grossly negligent in failing to prevent
blackout
COLLATERAL ATTACK
An attack on a prior judgment that does not stem from the original case or appeal. The tactic of
avoiding the Res Judicata plea by claiming the judgement it is based on is invalid.

If you dont challenge the validity of a statute in the first action you cant collaterally
attack it in the current action. Res Judicata still applies to decisions based on statutes even
if those statutes are later deemed unconstitutional. Chicot
Once a case is fully adjudicated, it is finally adjudicated and it cannot be retried in
another State: No forum shopping.
Courts can question whether first court had JDXthat is it
Collateral Bar Rule: court orders, even those later determined to be unconstitutional,
must be complied with until amended or vacated. Exceptiondoes not apply when that
order constitutes a transparently invalid prior restraint on a constitutional right (may
challenge it by violating it) In re Providence
Chicot County Drainage v. Baxter State Bank (1940)
Rule: Res judicata cannot be avoided due to subsequent determination that a statute is
unconstitutional

Federal courts have the authority to determine whether jurisdiction exists under a
particular statute, and a subsequent claim that the statute is invalid will be barred by res
judicata if not raised at trial.

Durfee v. Duke
Rule: Jurisdictional finality judgment entitled to fair and full credit when 2nd courts inquiry
closes questions as to (1) full and fair opportunity to litigate issue and (2) issue finally decided

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, a state courts judgment on subject matter
jurisdiction is entitled to res judicata effect in other state and federal courts if the question
was fully and fairly litigated in the original court.

In Re Providence Journal Co. (Rare Example of successful Collateral Attack) Facts: FBI
released recordings of mob guy to Journal. Son of mob guy got temporary injunction. Dist. Ct.
violated temporary restraining order published story about P father.
No Prior Restraint TEST: requires proof to be established with the degree of certainty our
cases require on prior restraint
1. The nature and extent of pretrial publicity would impair the Ds right to a fair trial
2. There were no alternative measures which could mitigate the effects of the publicity, and
3. A prior restraint would effectively prevent the harm
4.
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Rule 60: Relief from a Judgment of Order: on motion and just terms, the court may
relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons:
1. Mistake or excusable negligence
2. Newly discovered evidence
3. Fraud
4. Judgment is void
5. Prior judgment on which it was based had been reversed
6. Any other grossly unfair reason

60(b)(6) is not a substitute for appeal. Must be a substantial change that shows original
outcome is no longer equitable. To make a judgment void, you need clear usurpation of
authority. Lubben

P cant reopen a federal case in order to gain benefit of a newlyannounced decision of a


state court. 60(b)(6) requires more extraordinary circumstances to justify reopening the
case. DeWeerth

You cant be in 60(b)(6) unless you have gone through 1-5. 60(b)(6) allows Independent
Action for relief from a judgment Beggerly

Alternative relief to getting out from under a judgment that should be reversed in
equity. Has to be so much new evidence that the claim has entirely changed and
shouldnt be bound to it

Only available to prevent miscarriage from justice

Void judgment: is one which from its inception was a complete nullity w/out legal effect

Absence of subject matter may make a judgment void, such total want of jurisdiction
must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction

A court has the power to determine its own jurisdiction, and an error in that
determination will not render the judgment void

US v. Beggerly
Beggerly is an independent action(survives as the only alternative to R60): rare to have one, even
more rare to win

Ancillary jurisdiction: a motion or independent action will be in the jurisdiction of the Dist. Ct.
because the settlement was in Fed. Ct. the new action stays in Fed. Ct.
Rule: An independent action must be reserved for those cases of injustices that are deemed
sufficiently gross to demand a departure from rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata and
allow a case to be reopened after a decision has been rendered.

The doctrine of independent action could be used to circumvent the time limits and
establish jurisdiction, but an independent action can be sustained only to prevent a grave
miscarriage of justice.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE (Service of Process)


FRCP: 4, 4.1, 5, 12(b), 12(g), 12(h)
Maine Long Arm Statute p. 231
Delaware Long Arm Statute
Oklahoma Rule for Service of Process
Texas Rules for Service of Process

A court needs all 3: jurisdiction, venue, and process, for their judgment to be valid
Personal Jurisdictionthe ability of a court that has Subject Matter Jurisdiction to
exercise power over a particular D or item of property
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit, as
opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law and facts
involved in the suit.
In Personam: power over the person
D is present in forum state and personally served with process
D is domiciled in forum state
D consents to jurisdiction
Ds conduct brings him within states long arm statute
In Rem: in-rem jurisdiction refers to the power of a court over an item of real or
personal property. The "thing" over which the court has power may be a piece of land or

10

even a marriage. Thus, a court with only in-rem jurisdiction may terminate a marriage or
declare who owns a piece of land. In-rem jurisdiction is based on the location of the
property and enforcement follows property rather than person
Quasi in Rem: The power of a court to hear a case and enforce a judgment against a
party, even if the party is not personally before the court, solely because the party has an
interest in real property or Personal Property within the geographical limits of the court.
International Shoe
A state cannot obtain Personal JDX based merely on ownership of property in the state if
property is not the subject of litigation. Quasi-in rem is dead Schaffer
Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process Burnham
D must manifest an intent to willingly submit itself to the benefits and protections of that
states laws by: (merely placing an item into the stream of commerce is not enough)
McIntyre
1. Explicit intent
2. Presence in State at time of service of process
3. Citizenship or domicile(principle place of business for corporation)
4. Purposeful availment
Venue: where a case can be heard based on personal and subject matter JDX, assures
suits are tried in a place that bears sensible relationship to claims or parties
Covered by statute or rule of court
Service of Process: Rule 4Summons + complaint = process
Service can be to:
Someone 18+
Personal service
Left at Ds home with suitable party
Service to authorized agent of D

International Shoe: (Minimum Contacts)


Rule: Defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the state so that exercising JDX
over defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a judgment
in personam, due process requires that he have certain minimum contacts with the forum
such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice
R4 service on a corporation needs to be on someone with some distinction/power within
the corp.
Shaffer v. Heitner: (Minimum Contacts)
Rule: Minimum contactsstock in Delaware corp. not enough to satisfy minimum contacts.
Quasi in rem jurisdiction may only be asserted when the interests of the persons in the
property seized have sufficient contacts, ties, or relations to the state.

11

McIntyre Machinery (Purposeful Availment)


Rule: company must purposefully avail itself to benefits of the forum state

For a defendant to be subject to a states personal jurisdiction, it must purposefully avail


itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the
benefits and protections of its laws.

Specific JDX: the state is alleged to have jurisdiction over a defendant because the defendant's
activities in that state gave rise to the claim itself,
General jurisdiction: exists where a court in a given state has jurisdiction over a defendant in
that state irrespective of the nature of the claim
Daimler v Bauman
Rule: P cannot sue nondomestic corporations for wrongs that allegedly committed beyond U.S.
shores that did not adversely affect the P in this nation
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Power or authority of the court to adjudicate the matter before it. Court can have SMJ
without having proper venue. Can be raised at any point in litigation. Can never be
waived.
1. Must be complete diversity between opposing parties
2. Amount in controversy must exceed (not equal) $75K
3. R 12(b)(1) and 1332

DIVERSITY: Dont need complete diversity in Interpleader cases (a suit pleaded between two
parties to determine a matter of claim or right to property held by a third party) and Class Actions

Jurisdictional Amount: matter in controversy must exceed $75K

P v D: P may aggregate all of Ps claims against a single D to reach amount


req.

P v Ds: cannot aggregate, must meet amount requirements against each D


individually

Ps v D: Ps may not add claims together where neither party meets the amount
alone

Ps can aggregate claims only if they are suing on a shared right or undivided
interest, e.g. both Ps are parties to the same contract
12

Ps cannot aggregate if they have distinct claims


R17 & 1359

If unliquidated and not a legal certainty that its recoverable, then court should not
prejudge the $ value and dismiss on that basisquestions of fact are for the jury
Deutsch

Based on the actual amount in controversy on the day the complaint is filed; if
amount can be established with legal certainty that it is below required amount
good faith is irrelevant and case is dismissed on lack of subject matter JDX
Tongkook

Aggregation and Abstention: Real parties in interest can aggregate multiple claims
to satisfy the amount in controversy Rule 18 Allstate

Abstentionwhen Fed court chooses not to exercise JDX. Appropriate


when:
1. Limited cases that involve a federal constitutional issue
2. Cases that present difficult question of state law bearing on
policy problems of substantial public import and
3. Where federal JDX has been invoked to restrain state criminal
proceeding

Tongkook America v Shipton (1994)


Rule: when clear to a legal certainty that amount in controversy cannot be satisfied, case must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter JDX
Real amount in controversy must exceed statutory provision at time of filing
All-State Ins v Hechinger
Rule: a subrogee becomes the real party in interest for both claims, and as owner of both claims
may aggregate damages
Complete Diversity

Human citizenship domicile

Where your stuff is, absent and present intent to movefloating intent to leave is
insufficient to negate domicile

Factors to consider register to vote, actually voted, drivers license, pay taxes, community
involvement

13

There is only one domicile, not 2 not 0 can have multiple residences but only one
domicile

DOMICILE OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Individual: Domicile testyour domicile is your permanent abodeplace you live with
intent to staywhere you are registered to vote Baker

American citizens who reside in a foreign country dont qualify for


diversity. Subject matter JDX can be litigated any time before a case is
final. (even on for the first time on appeal) R60(b)relief from judgment
for lack of subject matter JDX Bissell

Organizations: CorporationsNerve Center Testprincipal place of business refers


to the place where the corporations high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the
corporations activities. Headquarters

In limited partnerships diversity of citizenship is determined by that of


each and every one of its general and limited partners

Diversity is determined at the time the complaint is filed. Post-filing


change in citizenship doesnt cure lack of jurisdiction which existed at the
time of filing
Caterpillar Exception to perfecting diversity after it has been filed:

When you can drop the entire party, then you can perfect diversity
and retain jurisdiction in federal court. R21
Baker v Keck (1936)
Rule: what matters for domicile purposes is intent to remain, floating intention to return to Ill.
or his strategic move does not negate domicile. Intent/reason for moving doesnt matter, its
about present intent
Domicile/citizenship same
Bissell v Breakers by the Sea (1998)
Rule: can raise subject matter JDX any time before there is a final judgment (can even be
brought on appeal)
Hertz Corp. v Friend (2010)
Rule: Principal place of business is where direct control and coordination of corporations
activitiesaka nerve center. Thus Corporation is a citizen of Principal place of business(where
head haunchos are), place of incorporation.
28 USC 1332(a)

14

Carden v Arkoma Associates (1990)


Rule: Limited partnerships (all non-corporate entities), all general or limited partners
(even if not parties to suit) citizenship will be considered in determining diversity
Grupo Dataflux v Atlas Global (2004)
Takeaway: Diversity is determined at the time of filing. If not diverse at time of filing, not
diverse at all.

Challenges to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time prior to final judgment
shortly after filing, after trial, even for the 1st time on appeal

Change in partner is different that a change in parties (names parties of suit)

Change in parties can save diversity

Change in partners cannot

Court of Appeals has the authority to cure a jurisdictional defect by dismissing a


dispensable non-diverse party

1441(a) 1332(a)(2)

15

FEDERAL QUESTION AND REMOVAL

Arising Under 1331 The district courts shall have original


jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.

A case arises under federal law if P is alleging a right or interest that is


substantially founded on federal law (common law, Constitution, statutes, treaties,
administrative regulations). Federal question must appear in Ps cause of action as
set out in complaintP need to prove that the federal issue is imbedded in the
state law claim and is essential to its resolution

Removal: 1441
a. Generally. Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the
district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place
where such action is pending.
b. Removal Based on Diversity of Citizenship.
1. In determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the
jurisdiction under section 1332 (a) of this title, the citizenship of defendants
sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.
2. A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under
section 1332 (a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in
interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in
which such action is brought.

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule: Federal issue must constitute part of Ps claim and
appear on the face of the complaint. The existence of a federal defense, even one that will
be the primary issue litigated, will not confer federal question JDX

a rule of procedure that federal question jurisdiction cannot be acquired over a case unless
an issue of federal law appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint NOTE: The
well-pleaded complaint rule is not satisfied by a defense based on federal law, including
a defense of federal preemption, or by anticipation of such a defense in the complaint.
Modern Implied Remedy doctrinedetermine if fed law implies a cause of action
1. Is the P part of a class that Congress meant to protect?
2. Did Congress intend to create such a remedy?
3. Is it consistent with the statute to apply such a remedy?

16

4. Is the issue traditionally of state or federal jurisdiction?

Louiville and Natl RR v Motley (1908)


Rule: For a suit to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, giving a federal
court jurisdiction to hear the case, a plaintiff must allege a cause of action based upon those laws
or that Constitution.
Franchise Tax Board v CLT (1983)]
Takeaway: D can remove to Federal Ct. but only if P could have originally filed in Fed. Ct.
RULE: A federal court may only hear a case in which the complaint has established that federal
law creates a cause of action, or the plaintiffs right to relief is dependent on the resolution of a
question of federal law.
Kaleidescope: you know it when you see it Fed. or State
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v Thompson
Takeaway: No arising under JDX because jury could have removed case without addressing
federal statute. Congress did not explicitly call for a federal cause of action. You cant remove
for diversity JDX if you are already at home (sued in own state, the only way to get to Fed. ct.
would be under a Fed. issue) 1442(b). Plaintiffs right to relief must necessarily depend on a
substantial question of Federal Law.
Elements for whether a federal cause of action lies:
1. The Ps are not part of the class for whose special benefit the statute was passed
2. The indicia of legislative intent reveal not congressional purpose to provide a private
cause of action
3. A federal cause of action would not futher the underlying
R13, R14
Grable v. Darue (2005)
RULE: A federal court may have jurisdiction over a state cause of action, if the action has a
substantial federal component in actual controversy, and federal jurisdiction would not disrupt
the balance of labor between state and federal courts.
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND REMOVAL

17

Pendant JurisdictionPendent jurisdiction, as this form is commonly called, exists


whenever the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are
such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.
Ancillary Jurisdictionancillary jurisdiction, is the doctrine allowing federal courts to
acquire jurisdiction entirely of a case presenting two federal issues, although it might properly
not have had jurisdiction of one of the issues if it had been independently presented.

A court may decline Subject Matter Jurisdiction under 1367 when:


1. Novel or complex issues of state law
2. State claims substantially predominate
3. D.C. has dismissed all other claims over which is had jurisdiction
4. Exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction

TEST: Broadly authorizes the Fed. Cts. To assert jurisdiction over state law claims when:
1. State and Federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative
fact (the evidence is virtually identical for all claims)
2. P would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding
3. Federal issues are substantial

Even if there is the same set of operative facts, the court cannot express jurisdiction if
they do not have statutory authority. Complete diversity is required between P and D.

When well pleaded complaint has at least one P that satisfies the amount in controversy
and there are no other jurisdictional defects then Subject Matter Jurisdiction is met. As
long a one P meets the amount in controversy requirement, others may join in as Co-Ps
even if they are claiming less.

Removal: Allows Ds to remove an action brought in state court to a federal court if the
federal court would rather have had original jurisdiction over the action

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)


RULE: A federal court can exercise pendent jurisdiction over state and federal claims if the
federal and state claims are the type that would be expected to be heard at a single hearing and
are derive[d] from a common nucleus of operative fact.
Gibbs factors

18

1. Justice
2. Fairness and Efficiency
3. Convenience
4. Judicial economy
1367 has codified Gibbs factors
Talk about Gibbs factors but analyze under 1367
Owen Equipment v. Kroger (1978)
Rule: Complete diversity is requiredP may not evade or defeat the statutory requirement of
complete diversity simply by suing only diverse defendants and waiting for them to implead the
non-diverse defendants.
RULE: Diversity jurisdiction exists only where each defendant is a citizen of a
diferent state from each plaintif.
Can you implead as a defendant a 3rd party from the same state as the P and not destroy
diversity?
Apparently yes
Executive Software v. U.S. District Court (1994)
Rule: 1367. Whether or not Federal Judge has JDX over state claims, based on statute and not
mere discretion.
RULE: Under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(4), if a court declines supplemental
jurisdiction of a pendent claim, the court must specify why the circumstances
are exceptional, while also explaining that a balancing of the Gibbs values
provides compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction
1367 (c)
1. Novel or complex issues of state law
2. State claim substantially predominates over federal claim
3. District court has dismissed all claims over which it has original JDX
4. Exceptional circumstances
J. needs to articulate reasoning
Judicial economy does not qualify as exceptional circumstances

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah

19

Rule: Only one member of a group has to meet the amount in controversy, more than $75,000,
others may join with lesser claims. [Class Action Clause (R 23) 1331(d)] Still have to have
complete diversity.
RULE: Where other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least
one named plaintif satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, the
court may exercise jurisdiction over other plaintifs who might otherwise be
properly joined but who do not allege damages which reach the jurisdictional
amount.
1367(a)
Rule: If one P in action satisfies the amount in controversy (arising from the same claim) 1367
authorizes supplemental JDX over the other parties claims. Still all parties must be diverse.
When all parties are diverse, only one of the Ps needs to meet the amount in controversy.
1367(b)look at this

20

APPLICABLE LAW
FEDERAL GENERAL COMMON LAW

Judiciary Act of 1789; Conformity Act of 1872; Rules Enabling Act 1872; and 1345
and 1346 Federal Courts have original jurisdiction when the U.S. is P or D
21

Established FGCLfederal judges, sitting in diversity actions are free to ignore the
common law of the state where the federal court is located

Overrules Swiftmust apply state law. There is no general federal common


law/transcendental body of law.

Goals: to discourage forum shopping and inequitable administrations of the laws

Apply the state law in which the injury occurred

Outcome Determinative Testoutcome of the litigations in federal forum should


be substantially the same as the outcome if tried in the state court (if yesfederal court
can apply its own rules/ if nostate law applies)

Swift v. Tyson (no longer good law) (1842)


RULE: Under the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. 1652, federal courts are
not bound to apply state common law doctrines.
See Cisero and Lord Mansfield: Transcendental Body of Law
Erie RR Co. v Thompkins (1938)
RULE: Swift v. Tyson is unconstitutional and therefore a federal trial court
exercising diversity jurisdiction must respect and enforce state law
Holmesthere is no transcendental body of law

Guaranty Trust v York (1945)


Takeaway: Outcome determinative rule: should not get a different outcome dependent on
whether you are in state or federal court
RULE: A federal court, exercising jurisdiction based strictly on diversity of
citizenship, must abide by any state legal rule that would be outcome
determinative if held in state court.

STATE LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS

Federal judges shouldnt do anything different than what the state court would do on that
day. Step into state court shoes. If there is clear dicta, particularly in a state where there is
little opportunity to address certain issues, the Federal court should take head and follow
even the dicta.

The very nature of diversity jurisdiction leaves open the possibility that a state court will
subsequently disagree with the federal courts interpretation of state law. Just because it
22

was decided wrongly does not mean you can get relief from the judgmentnot enough
under 60(b)
Mason v Emery Wheel (1957)
Rule: You can use dicta from the states highest court to go against a states highest court current
ruling if the dicta is strong and indicates how they would decide today

Federal court should act

Trend, plus clear dicta from Supreme Court can be considered

RULE: A federal district court may infer from dicta what a diferent state
court would hold if it were presented with a similar issue.
DeWeerth v Baldinger (Part II) (1994)
Facts: Painting stolen from castleBFP purchasesshe wants it back
Takeaway: NY had considered and rejected and rejected due diligence requirementCOA did
not apply applicable NY law in requiring due diligence

Too far stretch from Mason

This is a bad

Guggenheim Foundation v Lubell (1991)the REAL LAW IN NY


Rule: A cause of action for replevin against the good-faith purchaser of a stolen chattel accrues
when the true owner makes demand for return of the chattel and the person in possession of the
chattel refuses to return it
(1) Due diligence in locating stolen property is one element to be considered by a trial court
when determining the merits of a laches defense to a replevin claim.
(2) A federal courts interpretation of state law, handed down when sitting in diversity, is
vulnerable to being overruled by that states highest court.

FEDERAL COMMON LAW

Federal Common Law does existsome issues are so federal that state law cannot be
used. Also establishes federal rule that late notice by the government is actionable if the
earlier notice would have made a difference

If federal interest is not involved, aka: private transactionapply state law when it
doesnt matter to the government what the outcome of the case will be

Once federal interest is implicated, state law will be displaced only where a significant
conflict exists between federal interest and the operation of state law

23

Narrows the federal courts ability to stretch the common lawonly when statute speaks
directly to the question of law. States still have this ability

Federal Common Law


There is no general federal common law, but there is common law
Question to Consider
1. Is this a federal interest question?
2. If so, what is the federal answer?
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States (1943)
RULE: If the federal government takes an action that is authorized by federal
statute or another source of federal law, then federal law dictates the
outcome of disputes arising from that action.
Bank of America v. Parnell (1956)
Takeaway: Erie applied because action between private parties (Contra Clearfield) and not a
sufficient federal interest. Although federal law determines the rights and duties created by
government bonds, it does not necessarily supply the substantive law regarding all disputes over
government bonds. This case involves a dispute between private parties.
RULE: While federal law governs the rights and duties created by
government bonds, state law governs other issues in disputes between
private parties over such bonds.
Boyle v. United Technologies Inc. (1988)
Takeaway: Federal Law displaces state law when there are unique federal interests resulting from
significant conflict between state law and federal interest.
FACTS: Displacement of state law only occurs where a significant conflict
exists between a federal policy or interest and the operation of state law, or
where the application of state law would frustrate specific objectives of
federal legislation.
American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (2011)
Takeaway: SCOTUS Clean Air Act displaced the federal common law of nuisance for green
house gases, therefore federal common law should not apply.
RULE: A federal statute that addresses an issue central to a federal lawsuit
preempts application of federal common law.

THE RULES ENABLING ACT AND THE ERIE DOCTRINE

24

Rules Enabling Act: (REA) A federal statute that delegated comprehensive procedural
rulemaking power to Supreme Court and resulted in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Erie Doctrine: A Federal Court in a diversity action must apply the substantive law of
the state in which it sits. There is no body of general federal common law as earlier cases
held. Substantivewhen state law must be applied. Proceduralwhen federal law
must be applied

In diversity jurisdiction case federal procedure trumps state when the issue is procedural
the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law
(discovery, filing dates, filing rules) The rules are not acts of Congress and cannot be
treated as such

Erie doctrine does not apply to rules of procedure pertaining to service of process. Use
Federal rule for service of process in diversity case?

Do the rules conflict or can they coexist? In a diversity action, when a state rule is not in
directs conflict with a federal rule, both apply; IF they were in direct conflict in this case
then the state rule would apply because it was SOLthere is no federal rule of SOL

SOL is an affirmative defense. SOL is not substantive but they are outcome
derivative.

If someone files a suit after SOL and there is no affirmative defense raised, then it
can go forward

In a diversity case where the state procedural law is so important that it is bound up
with the substantive law the two principles of Erie allow the federal law to be displaced
(ignored) by the state substantive law. When procedural law is functioning as a
substantive law

It is not the substantive or procedural nature of the Federal Law. The validity of a federal
rule depends entirely upon whether it regulates procedure.

Sibbach v Wilson (1941)


Takeaway: Federal Procedural rule that effects substantial and important right does not
necessarily exceed rule making authority under the rules enabling act.
RULE: Under the Rules Enabling Act, all rules made by the Supreme Court
that deal with procedure are valid.
Hanna v Plummer (1965)
RULE: For service of process in federal diversity actions, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(e)(2)(B) is the appropriate standard of process because the rule
does not exceed congressional authority or constitutional boundaries of
jurisdiction.
Walker v Armco Steel (1980)
25

RULE: Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not toll a state
statute of limitations or preempt state tolling rules.
PROCEDURAL v. SUBSTANTIVE

If it only affects litigants its procedural

If it affects a person driving down the street, its substantive

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities (1996) (worst opinion in course)


RULE: Federal courts, when asked to measure the alleged excessiveness of a
jurys verdict in a cause of action governed by state law, must apply state
law standards of excessiveness, even if they conflict with federal standards.
R59makes room to apply state law
Scalia dissent: The courts holding today is prohibited by the Seventh Amendment. CPLR
5501(c) allows appellate courts to determine whether a jury verdict is inadequate or excessive by
engaging in fact finding. There is a long history of Seventh Amendment jurisprudence that
suggests that appellate courts should not be involved with this kind of analysis. Furthermore, in a
case that addresses a state law cause of action in a federal court, although it is state law that
determines what kinds of injuries are compensable, it is federal law that determines what level of
compensation is reasonable.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Ass. v. Allstate Ins. (2010)
RULE: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 provides that a class action may be
maintained provided that all of the rules criteria are satisfied
State law 901(b)prohibited class action seeking statutory penalties (interest fees), but
didnt prevent Ps from seeking actual damages
If Rule 23 did not authorize class actions across the board, the exceptions would not be
necessary. Rule 23 permits all class actions that meet its requirements and a state cannot limit
that permission by structuring a state law to track Rule 23 on one hand and enact a part on the
other that imposes additional requirements. Under the Rules Enabling Act, Congress authorized
the Court to create procedural rules so long as they do not abridge, enlarge, or modify any
substantive right. 28 U.S.C. 2072(b). If a court-created rule governs only the manner and the
means of enforcing litigants rights, it is valid. If the rule alters the rules of decision by which
[the] court will adjudicate [those] rights, it is invalid. Utilizing the test, the Court has found that
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 falls within 2072(b)s authorization and is valid in every federal court. It is
not the substantive or procedural nature or purpose of the affected state law that matters. What
matters is the substantive or procedural nature of the Federal Rule. The validity of a Federal
Rule, including Rule 23, depends entirely upon whether it regulates procedure. If it does, which
is the case at bar, it is authorized by 2072 and is valid in all jurisdictions regardless of statecreated rights.

26

Ginsberg dissent: The majority only focuses on whether the class action may be maintained
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and fails to address the concern of New York to keep certain
monetary awards reasonably bounded. There is no inevitable collision between Rule 23 and
901(b). A court is able to address both equally. Plaintiffs may still pursue a class action under
both laws if they forgo statutory damages and instead seek actual damages or injunctive or
declaratory relief. Any putative class member who objects can opt out and pursue actual damages
if available. Congress envisioned fewer, not more, class actions overall.

27

Вам также может понравиться