Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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.
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
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.
Law Court (Common Pleas, Kings Bench) Remedy: money or other object. Fact finder:
Jury
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
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
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
the lawyou cant go to equity until you have a judgment at law Grupo Mexicano
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.
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
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.)
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
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
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.
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
11
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
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
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
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
Individual: Domicile testyour domicile is your permanent abodeplace you live with
intent to staywhere you are registered to vote Baker
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
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
1441(a) 1332(a)(2)
15
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
17
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
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
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
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
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
This is a bad
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
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.
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
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