Civil Procedure - Schaffner - Fall 2010_3.doc

8/20/2019 Civil Procedure - Schaffner - Fall 2010_3.doc

1/81

Civil Procedure I OutlineTable of Rules

1. US Constitution Article IV, § 1 – Giving Full Fait an! Cre!it to "u!icial #rocee!ings of oter states

$. US Constitution A%en!%ent &IV, § 1 – 'ue (rocess Clause )to states*

+. FRC( )-* – stablises (/ over !efen!ant 0o is serve! in state )0it su%%ons or 0aiver*

. FRC( – Su%%ons – o0 to Serve (rocess on 'efen!ant

a. FRC( 2 – Service an! Filing of (lea!ings

b. FRC( 3 – Ti%e for 4otion (a#ers

2. US Constitution Article III, § $ – Constitutional grant for 'iversit5 )bet0een citi6ens of !ifferent states* an!

Fe!eral 7uestion )arising un!er*

3. $8 U.S.C. § 1++$ – Statutor5 grant for 'iversit5 /uris!iction

a. $8 U.S.C. § 1+29 – (arties collusivel5 "oine! to !efeat !iversit5

:. $8 U.S.C. § 1++1 – Statutor5 grant for Fe!eral 7uestion /uris!iction

8. $8 U.S.C. § 11 – Actions Generall5 Re%ovable

9. $8 U.S.C. § 13)a*)b*)!* – (roce!ure for Re%oval

1;. $8 U.S.C. § 1: – (roce!ure after Re%oval )Re%an!*

11. $8 U.S.C. § 18 – (rocess after Re%oval

1$. FRC( 81 – )c* as rules for Re%ove! Actions1+. $8 U.S.C. § 1+91 – Venue Generall5

1. $8 U.S.C. § 1; – Cange of Venue )0en original venue for court is #ro#er*

12. $8 U.S.C. § 1;3 – Cure or b"ections, 4otions, (lea!ings

1:. FRC( : – (lea!ings Allo0e!

18. FRC( 8 – General Rules of (lea!ings

a. FRC( 9)b* – (lea!ing Frau! or 4ista-e

19. FRC( 1; – For% of (lea!ings

$;. FRC( 12 – A%en!e! an! Su##le%ental (lea!ings

$;. FRC( 1 – 'is%issal of Actions$1. FRC( 11 – Signing (lea!ings an! 4otions – tical i%#lications

$$. FRC( 18 – /oin!er of Clai%s

$+. FRC( $; – (er%issive /oin!er of (arties

$. FRC( $1 – 4is"oin!er?=on@"oin!er of (arties

$2. FRC( 1+ – Counterclai% an! Crossclai%

$3. FRC( $)b* – Se#arate Trials

$:. $8 U.S.C. § 1+3: – Su##le%ental /uris!iction

←


2/81

I. Introduction – Buffalo Creek

2


3/81

←

Goals of Civil (roce!ure are to #rovi!e accurac5, consistenc5, fairness, efficienc5, an! finalit5

• Substantive vs. (roce!ural a0 )rie !octrine* – Statute of i%itations is substantive la0

• =>T a Co%%on a0 sub"ect – foun!e! in Constitution, Statutes, FRC(

• File an! Serve a Su%%ons?Co%#laint to a !efen!ant. Su%%ons is a court !ocu%ent, Co%#laint tells

te court 0at is allege!, 0at a##ene!, an! 0at is being sougt

• Tree for%s of relief – Co%#ensator5, (unitive, In"unctive

o

After co%#laint, !efen!ant can file %otions an!?or ans0er b5 a!%itting?!en5ing, raisingaffir%ative !efenses

• Su%%ar5 /u!g%ent – no genuine issue as to an5 %aterial fact an! terefore as a %atter of la0, te

%oving #art5 %ust B0in on tis issue >R te case soul! not go to trial )if tis is !enie!, issue goes to

a "ur5 to !eter%ine it*

II. Personal Jurisdiction – Where to Sue• In 0at state)s* can ( sue 'D Fe!eral?State !oesnEt %atter, court as to ave (>


4/81

• A secon! court is su##ose! to give Bfull fait an! cre!it to te "u!g%ent of te first court. Te Fe!eral

court in te secon! case nee! not give full fait an! cre!it to te state court in te 1st case because

te 1st court lac-e! #ersonal "uris!iction

• =eff 0asnEt a0are of te first case because e a! no notice. 4itcell !i! not ATTAC te #ro#ert5 as

reuire! b5 te >regon Co!e.

o If 4itcell a! attace! te #ro#ert5, =eff still %igt not ave a! actual notice but it 0oul! be

legall5 sufficiento ver5 !efen!ant %ust ave notice against te% an! an o##ortunit5 to be ear!

• Te oter reuire%ent is tat of "ower. =o one is sub"ect to "uris!iction of a state unless te5 )1*

a##ear in court )giving consent*H )$* serve! 0itin te state or agent is serve! 0itin state )#resence

general "uris!iction*H )+* resi!ent of state )!o%icile! in foru% General (/*H )* ave #ro#ert5 in

state tat is attace!

o Service or attac%ent is !e%onstration of stateEs #o0er

o Serving =eff in CA 0oul! not el# #o0er an! 0oul! onl5 overste# >REs boun!s. is #ro#ert5

%ust be attace!. If state co!e #rovi!e! for service in oter states, tis 0oul! violate 1t

a%en!%ent

• Case $ is fin!ing 0o as title to #ro#ert5, in rem )using #ro#ert5 as a %eans of securing (/ an! case

involves #ro#ert5*H first case 0as over %one5 – in personam

← Milliken v. Meyer – u#el! (/ over a citi6en not in te state – te autorit5 of a state over one of its citi6ens

is not ter%inate! b5 is absence fro% te state

• For in rem, 5ouEre onl5 0orrie! about te #ro#ert5 an! 5ouEre li%ite! to onl5 te eJtent of tat

#ro#ert5H in personam is over te #erson

←

← Hess v. Pawloski )19$:* – Given gro0t of auto%obile an! trans#ortation, states %a-e statutes #rovi!ing

tat te '4V is out of statersE agent of #rocess, sa5ing out of staters give i%#licit consent to be sue! in a state

0ile using teir roa!s

• Consistent 0it Pennoyer because itEs service of #rocess in state on 'Es agent

• J#an!s consent to i%#lie! consent

← International Soe v.


5/81

← ← Gives #ise #elated

$nrelated

← Continuous%Sste&

atic

← es ←

4a5beD

← Sin'le%Isolated ← 4a5beD ←

=o

←

• L. Co%#are 4ini%u% Contacts 0it =otions of Fair (la5 an! Substantial /ustice – Lenefits?obligations

is a fairness #rinci#le

o If contacts are continuous?s5ste%atic – court as G=RA (/

o If contacts "ust give rise – court as S(CIFIC (/

• /ustice Llac- concurring – 0orrie! Fair (la5 an! Substantial /ustice coul! be stretce! too far an! is

vague

o =oting in te Constitution about Bfair #la5 an! Breasonableness

o


6/81

• Statute 0as 0ritten after International Shoe believing tat !efen!ant 0oul! still benefit fro% te state

since te car 0as use! tere

• Fair (la5 an! Substantial /ustice anal5sis – )1* Lur!en on !efen!ant, )$* stateEs interest, )+* #laintiffEs

interest, )* interstate efficienc5, )2* sare! state #olic5 – RAS>=AL=SS FACT>RS

o Lur!en not so severe ere, so no (/ because of lac- of %ini%u% contacts

• 'efen!ants %ust see- out te benefits tat give rise to te obligations – #ur#oseful avail%ent. 'egree

of #re!ictabilit5 tat allo0s !efen!ants to structure teir #ri%ar5 con!uct 0it so%e %ini%u%

assurance as to 0en tat con!uct 0ill?0ill not ren!er te% liable to suit

o It nee!s to be foreseeable tat !efen!ants coul! get sue! in tat foru%

o ere, #laintiff !rove car to >N, not !efen!ants

o Contrar5 to Grey , >io co%#an5 #ut #ro!uct togeter for %ar-eting in Illinois )te5 -ne0 it

0as sol! tere*

• =o "uris!iction because !efen!ant !i! not #ur#osefull5 avail te%selves of >N

• Brennan !issent – Car is inten!e! to be %ove! aroun!, tereEs not %uc bur!en on !efen!ant

• (a5 attention bet0een use of rules Hanson )unilateral activit5 of one #art5 canEt attribute contact to

!efen!ant* over Grey )Strea% of Co%%erce Test* an!

• 4ini%u% Contacts Anal5sisK )1* Continuous?S5ste%atic vs. Single?Isolate!H )$* Gives Rise?Unrelate!H

)+* (ur#oseful Avail%ent

← Keeton and alder )198*

• (/ u#el! since !efen!ants 0ere targeting ar% in CA )effects test*

• ou can ave %ini%u% contacts b5 %a-ing an effect in te foru%. ou !onEt nee! #5sical #resence

←

← Lurger Ning v. Ru!6e0ic6 )1982* )/ustice Lrennan*

• First case in Fe!eral CourtM

o Fe!eral Court loo-s to F ong Ar% Statute via FRC( )-*)1*)A*, going to Fe!eral Court !oesnEt

cange te (/ anal5sis

o 2t A%en!%ent #rotects !ue #rocess b5 Fe!eral Govern%ent, 1t eJten!s it to states –

Fe!eral courts in a given state ave te sa%e reac as state courts un!er te fe!eral rules

• Tis case is about evaluating (/ un!er a breac of contract. 4erel5 aving a contract 0it a F citi6en

!oesnEt %a-e 5ou liable to be sue! in F

• ou %ust ave a relevant contact before fairness is even asserte!. ere, te contact 0as eas5 because

te5 %a!e contract )availe! te%selves of F la0* in Flori!a

o =TRACT TST

6

Unrelated

Gives Rise

Single/IsolatedPurposefulAvailment

Continuous andSstemati!


7/81

• >n Fairness – bur!en on ' to so0 tat foru% is unconstitutional – so gravel5 inconvenient tat 5ouEre

at a severe !isa!vantage in te litigation. EConnor*

• Strea% of Co%%erce uestion – if 5ou %a-e so%eting an! sell it to State L, co%#an5 in state L uses

5our #art in teir #ro!uct an! sells it to states C, ', . Can 5ou be sue! in C, ', D

• All "u!ges eJce#t Scalia agree on Reasonableness – unreasonable to litigate against Asai in CA )too

eav5 a bur!en of as-ing a foreign !efen!ant to litigate in US an! #laintiff is Tai0anese – not a CA

citi6en*

• ven Lrennan fin!s tis unreasonable since A of te factors are against CA litigating tis suit

• Strea% of Co%%erce?4ini%u% Contacts anal5sisK

o Brennan sas all ou need is awareness for strea& of co&&erce. e believes

>EConnorEs anal5sis is a !e#arture fro% "orldwide #olkswa$en 0ere te court !istinguise!

bet0een strea% of co%%erce )5es (/* an! so%eone else bringing it to state )no (/* since

#utting so%eting in strea% of co%%erce gets 5ou econo%ic benefits

o O)Connor @ A0areness tat it %igt go to foru% !oesnEt %ean #ur#oseful avail%ent,

defendant &ust have "ur"osefull directed act to the foru& state )an intent to serve

foru% state*H

=> >=ES STRA4 >F C>44RC A=ASIS I'S A 4A/>RIT >F /U'GS S>

C>URTS US L>T TSTS )#ur#osefull5 !irecte! vs. a0areness*

Transient (resence

Lurna% v. Su#erior Court of California )199;* )/ustice Scalia*

• J@usban! is serve! b5 is eJ@0ife in CA 0en eEs visiting. >nl5 0a5 tis 0or-s is if CA as General

"uris!iction

• Is #resence an! being in te state groun!s to assert (/D S

• 7uestion beco%es !o te Pennoyer tra!itional bases of #o0er live or 0ere te5 re#lace! b5

International Shoe factorsD Anoter s#litM

o Scalia – (resence 0en serve! is o- on itEs o0n – no nee! for Int’l Shoe %ini%u% contacts

anal5sis because of Pennoyer’s istorical #e!igree

Shoe itself i%#lie! tis 0oul! be o- on itEs o0n because of #resence in te state

Lelieves Shaffer )belo0* sai! tat 0ere te !efen!ant is not #resent, International

Soe soul! a##l5 – ere, ' is #resent

o Lrennan – istorical #e!igree !oesnEt %atter, 5ou %ust assess un!er Shoe al0a5s

"


8/81

e sai! Lurna%Es contacts 0ere sufficient to give general "uris!iction toug, so all

"ustices agree

Accor!ing to Lrennan, an5one 0o as ever set foot in California for + !a5s is sub"ect

to general "uris!iction tere )receive! benefit of CAEs roa!s, fire, etc.*

General (/ an! Consent

• General (/ is Continuous?S5ste%atic 0en itEs unrelate! to te clai%

• Perkins is clearl5 General (/ since (er-ins a! offices in >io an! #resi!ent of co%#an5 0as tere – it

0as a te%#orar5 7s

• (urcases fro% a foru% !o not rise to general (/ level, sales %igt because tere %a5 be an

o##ortunit5 to fin! tat a seller avails itself of foru% because getting revenue )%osen&er$ v. 'rtis*

Helicopteros v. Hall )Llac-%un*

• Continuu% bet0een unrelate! an! giving rise, te %ore relate! it is, te less contacts 5ou nee! )an!

vice versaO%ore contacts less relate!*

• General /uris!iction !eals 0it continuous P s5ste%atic aJis versus gives rise?unrelate!

o General (/ is Continuous?S5ste%atic 0en itEs unrealatea! to te clai%• Court sa5s no General (/ for elico#teros in TeJas because ten an5one coul! sue elico#teros for

an5ting in T& 0ic is unfair

←

Constitutional *nalsis –

@'oes one of te Pennoyer tra!itional bases a##l5D If 5es, go to te ('rnham s#lit. 4a5be #resence is goo! on its

o0n or %a5be 5ou nee! to !o Shoe %ini%u% contacts anal5sis.

@If 5ou !o nee! to go to %ini%u% contacts anal5sisK

• )1* relevant contact bet0een !efen!ant an! foru% – )a* contact fro% #ur#oseful avail%ent an! )b*

forseeabilit5 – %ust be foreseeable tat !efen!ant coul! get sue! tereH

• )$* fairness – )a* relate!ness – 'oes #laintiffEs clai% arise fro% !efen!antEs contact 0it foru%D Tis is

assessing general or s#ecific "uris!iction, ten )b* five fairness factors )bur!en on !efen!ant* –

o )i* inconvenience for !efen!ant?0itnessesH )ii* stateEs interestH )iii* #laintiffEs interestH )iv*

interest in efficienc5H )v* interstate interest in sare! substantive #olic5 )little o#inion on )iv*

an! )v*H K'lko – =o "uris!iction because of interest in fa%il5 ar%on5*

←

← Statutor *nalsis –

• Al0a5s start 0it te statuteM

• ver5 state as statute base! on te Pennoyer tra!itional bases as 0ell as statutes tat let 5ou go after

nonresi!ents )s#ecific "uris!iction statutes, i.e., Hess %otorist statutes, long@ar% statutes*

• Statutes var5 fro% state to state – so%e ave laun!r5 list, so%e "ust sa5 "uris!iction over !efen!ant

0o Bco%%its a tort in our state

#


9/81

o oo- for a fact #attern 0ere 5ou sell so%eting in L an! it blo0s u# tere. 'i! 5ou co%%it a

tort tereD So%e sa5 5es because in"ur5 is tere, oters sa5 no because 5our negligence 0as in

state A an! te statute !oesnEt a##l5 to 5ou

o If 5ou %eet long@ar% statute, 5ouEll usuall5 ave relate!ness of clai%

• ong@Ar% statutes – Courts nee! it to autori6e suits against out of state !efen!ants. Coul! be

s#ecific or ave no li%itation at all )consistent 0it state?US constitution*

o If 5ouEre =>T 0orrie! about efficienc5, 5ouE! 0ant one 0itout li%itations because 5ou !onEt

care about ste##ing on otersE toes

In Re% an! 7uasi In Re% /uris!iction• 'ifference bet0een in@re% an! 7IR is tat 0it in re%, te suit itself is about 0o o0ns te #ro#ert5.


10/81

• Co%bination case of Beffects test an! Internet A##roac )*ippo test*

• *ippo test – Bsli!ing scale to %easure a 0ebsiteEs connection to te foru% state – (ur#oseful

Avail%ent Co%#onent

• i!ovEs article 0as #oste! on an internet site )not a ne0s#a#er* o0ne! b5 Colu%bia

• Regar!ing Colu%bia aving General (/, te5Ere !oing business with T& but not in T& – not substantial

contacts an! falls sort of te Perkins stan!ar!

• ffects Test – ar% not !irecte! at Revell in T& because te !efen!ants !i!nEt even -no0 e 0as in T&.

ven if te5 !i!, ar% still 0oul! not ave been felt tere

← @Lefore 0e a! Strea% of Co%%erce Test ) !sahi *, ffects Test )alder *, an! Contract test )('r$er Kin$*,

tis gives us Qi##o test to !eter%ine interactivit5 of a 0ebsite

• (assive to %ore interactive )%a-ing sales, etc.*

← @'iffering #ers#ectives on (/, %a5be Internet nee!s its o0n International Shoe@li-e test

← @4an5 foreign countries ave a %uc broa!er (/ a##roac

←

%&


11/81

← III. (otice← Governe! b5 Fe!eral Rule K

• 'efinitionK (rocess consists of a su%%ons an! a co#5 of te co%#laint

o Su%%ons is a s5%bol of courtEs #o0er over 5ou – )a*)1*

• Service can be %a!e b5 an5 =>=@#art5 0o is at least age 18

• To serve an in!ivi!ual, Rule )e*. )e*)$* gives tree alternativesK

o )A* (ersonal Service

o )L* Substitute! service at !efen!antEs !0elling )usual abo!e* A=' 5ou %ust serve so%eone of

suitable age )it !oes =>T sa5 age 18* an! !iscretion 0o resi!es tere

o )C* Serve !efen!antEs agent

• Re%e%ber )e*)1* @ ou can use %eto!s for serving #rocess allo0e! b5 state la0. State 0ere

fe!eral court sits A=' 0ere service is effecte!

• To serve a business, )*)1* – Serve an officer or %anaging or general agent – so%eone of significant

res#onsibilit5 given te "ob !escri#tion

o )e*)1* a##lies ere too. ou can use state %eto!s

• T service b5 %ail, itEs 0aiver of service b5 %ail

o Sen! to !efen!ant #rocess )co%#laint* an! a 0aiver for% an! a SAS. If se returns it b5 +;

!a5s, ten 0e !ee% it 0aiver of service

o If se !oesnEt %ail it in +; !a5s, ten 0e ave to serve #rocess for%all5 0it !efen!ant #a5ing

te cost of !oing so

o Lenefit of 0aiver to !efen!ant is it gives 3; )or 9; !a5s outsi!e of US* to file an ans0er

• >nce te co%#laint is file!, 5ou ave 1$; !a5s to serve te !efen!ant

• Statute of i%itations en!s in so%e states 0en 5ou file te co%#laint, in oters 0en 5ou serve te

!efen!ant

o It starts running at ti%e of in"ur5 or -no0le!ge of in"ur5

Constitutional Reuire%ents← =otice an! service is #rovi!ing notice, not as a %eans to get (/ over !efen!ant, but to let !efen!ant -no0

tat an action is being brougt against i%

• =otice an! (/ callenges co%e u# togeter %an5 ti%es

← M'llane v. entral Hanover (ank )192;* – Criteria for %ini%u% notice

%%


12/81

• Leneficiaries %ust be notifie! to see if te5 ave an5 ob"ections to 0at is being !one 0it te %one5

• =otice an! (/ callenges co%e u# togeter %an5 ti%es – 4ullane raises bot

• Sa5s !ue #rocess is being !e#rive! because itEs beneficiariesE #ro#ert5

• Constitutional 4ini%u% soul!nEt !e#en! on in re%?in #ersona%

• Cost v. Lenefit anal5sis – o0 %uc 0oul! it cost to #rovi!e better notice an! 0atEs te benefit of te

a!!e! noticeD

o =otice %ust be reasonabl5 calculate! to a##rise intereste! #arties of te #en!enc5 of te

action. 4eans e%#lo5e! %ust be !esirous of actuall5 infor%ing te absenteeo (ublication is a!euate 0en beneficiaries are un-no0n )cost of fin!ing te% is ig an!

benefit of te% is s%all since %an5 !onEt ave actual interest in trust*

o Nno0n Leneficiaries 0it A!!resses %ust be serve! b5 %ail or #ersonall5 – (RS>=A

SRVIC IS T 4A&M

If b5 %ail, so%eone in te class of beneficiaries 0ill li-el5 res#on! an! s#rea! te

0or!. Cost of #ersonal service on eac beneficiar5 is too ig

• 4ail is a!euate ere, =>T in all?%ost cases

• If itEs one beneficiar5, #ersonal service is %ore a##ro#riate

← +ones v. ,lowers )$;;3* – If ( beco%es a0are tat notice 0as not receive!, se %a5 ave to #ursue oter

%eans

• ere, state beca%e a0are ' 0asnEt getting service because %ail -e#t getting returne!. Court reuire!te% to %a-e service b5 oter %eans

Statutor5 Reuire%ents← )ational Dev. o. v. -riad

• Nasoggi as %an5 ouses an! is serve! in =. e sa5s tere can onl5 be one B!0elling or usual

#lace of abo!e for service

• Court sa5s a #erson can ave Bt0o or %ore abo!es #rovi!e! eac contains sufficient indicia of

"er&anence

• Court loo-s to %one5 e s#ent on refurbising #lace, liste! it as resi!ence in bail a##lication, an! e

0as B#resent at ti%e of service

• (reviousl5 !istrict court sai! itEs not !0elling for service but e got actual service

• Circuit sa5s =>. Actual notice !oes not suffice to cure a voi! service. Allo0ing recei#t of su%%ons to

suffice un!er%ines Rule .


13/81

← I+. Su-ect atter Jurisdiction – Federal vs. State

Court

%3


14/81

• Fe!eral courts ave li%ite! S4/, te5 can onl5 ear certain -in!s of cases #rescribe! b5 Constitution

an! statute

• 4ost cases )92* file! in fe!eral court can also be file! in state court since states ave concurrent

"uris!iction. For 2 of cases, fe!eral courts ave eJclusive "uris!iction )ban-ru#tc5, #atent, securities,

etc.*

o

J#ertise factor of certain issues• S4/ can =VR be given b5 consent of #arties an! can =VR be 0aive! )Rule 1$)*)+**

• (laintiff %ust #lea! tat fe!eral "uris!iction eJists. Rule 8)a*)1* – sort an! #lain state%ent of groun!s

for courtEs "uris!iction

• Courts ave S4/ via Constitution an! Statute

o Fe!eral 7uestion $8 USC §1++1

o 'iversit5 – Bbet0een citi6ens of !ifferent states $8 USC §1++$

• Statutor5 #o0er is nee!e! because onl5 court create! b5 Article III 0as SC>TUS

← 'iversit5 /uris!iction

• $8 USC §1++$ – )1* A case bet0een citi6ens of !ifferent statesH )$* a%ount in controvers5 %ust

eJcee! :2N

• $2 of civil fe!eral filings

• Foun!ers create! tis to give an i%#artial fe!eral foru% to encourage out of state invest%ent an!

econo%ic eJ#ansion

• 4ain #ur#ose is to avoi! local bias – fe!eral foru% is vie0e! as unbiase!

o Critics sa5 local bias as gone a0a5 0it increase! co%%unications an! it onl5 affects te

"u!ge 0o #resi!es, not te la0 a##lie!

o (ro#onents igligt tat so%e state "u!ges are ver5 biase! an! nee! to #lease local

constituencies because te5Ere electe! )sub"ect to #olitical 0i%*, 0ereas fe!eral "u!ges are

a##ointe! an! insulate!. Also gives la05ers o#tions an! "uries are !ra0n fro% 0i!er areas

• Tin-ing bac- to "orld"ide #olkswa$en, te Robinsons a!!e! te seller an! !istributor to te case. If

te case 0ere -e#t in state court, te local count5 a! #laintiff@frien!l5 "uries. Since Robinsons 0ere

citi6ens of =, -ee#ing seller an! !istributor )also fro% =* on te case !estro5s !iversit5 an! -ee#s

te case in state court

← Co&"lete

• Constitution – Article III § $ @ /u!icial (o0er sall eJten! to all Cases, in a0 an! uit5, arising un!er

tis Constitution, te a0s of te Unite! States, an! Treaties %a!e, or 0ic sall be %a!e, un!er

teir Autorit5H to Controversies bet0een Citi6ens of !ifferent States

• Statute – $8 USC § 1++$)a*)1* @ Te !istrict courts sall ave original "uris!iction of all civil actions

0ere te %atter in controvers5 eJcee!s te su% or value of :2,;;;, eJclusive of interest an! costs,

an! is bet0een citi6ens of !ifferent StatesH

← Straw&rid$e v. 'rtis )18;3* – Co%#lete 'iversit5 Rule

• 'iversit5 onl5 if A #laintiffs are of !iverse citi6ensi# fro% A !efen!ants

%4


15/81

• TereEs a nee! to control fe!eral !oc-et because a ig #ercentage of cases 0ere fe!eral in nature. If

eiter si!e as citi6ens of te sa%e state, ten te bias of state court argu%ent is ren!ere! %oot

• Straw&rid$e inter#rets te original statute, 0ic rea! Bte suit is bet0een a citi6en of a State 0ere

te suit is brougt, an! a citi6en of anoter state

o Statute 0as cange! to "ust citi6en of a state an! citi6en of anoter state

• Stra0bri!ge inter#rets §1++$, not te Constitution. So te Fe!eral Inter#lea!er Act, for eJa%#le,

0ic reuires %ini%al !iversit5 )not co%#lete* can still be Constitutional• 'es#ite sa5ing essentiall5 te sa%e ting, Constitution an! statute are inter#rete! !ifferentl5 since

Constitution as 0i!er reacing effects.

o Inter#ret Constitution broa!l5, inter#ret statute narro0l5

←

← Individual Citi/enshi"

← Mas v. Perry )19:*

• /ean (aul 4as is fro% France, is 0ife is fro% 4ississi##i. Te5Ere living in ouisiana an! sue (err5, a

vo5eur, in ouisiana. e callenges !iversit5

• Sentence after )a*)* – alien consi!ere! citi6en of State of !o%icile is a!!e! AFTR tis case

o e as "uris!iction via )a*)$* @ citi6ens of a State an! citi6ens or sub"ects of a foreign stateH

• Citi6ensi# 'o%icile )=>T resi!ence* true, fiJe!, an! #er%anent o%e an! #rinci#leestablis%ent, an! to 0ic e as te intention of returning

• To cange !o%icile, 5ou %ust )1* ta-e u# resi!ence?#5sical #resence in a !ifferent !o%icileH )$* 0it

intention to re%ain tere #er%anentl5

o ou onl5 ave one !o%icile at a ti%e

o Robinsons in ""#" a! intention to cange !o%icile to AQ but te5 0erenEt #5sicall5 tere,

so te5Ere citi6ens of = still

o To !eter%ine intent to re%ain #er%anentl5, 5ou loo- at all evi!ence – !riverEs license, ban-

accounts, g5% %e%bersi#, voting, etc.

o 4rs. 4as 0as a citi6en of 4ississi##i, so tereEs !iversit5

• Usuall5, te 0ife ta-es on te citi6ensi# of er usban! but ere tat !oesnEt %a-e sense because it

0oul! be 0eir! to give er Frenc citi6ensi#. Se !oesnEt lose er US citi6ensi# b5 %arr5ing an alien

an! for !iversit5 #ur#oses, se asnEt cange! or !o%icile or state citi6ensi# 0iter

o Un!er te ne0 )a*)* rule, 0oul! se ta-e u# ouisiana !o%icileD

• Citi/enshi" is deter&ined at the ti&e the clai& is FI01!, oter0ise, #eo#le %a5 %ove !uring

trial. a05ers use tis rule to teir a!vantage

• In tis case, itEs !esirable for fe!eral court to ave "uris!iction over bot (Es clai%s since te !istrict

court a! "uris!iction of 4r. 4asE action an! te clai%s 0ere inter!e#en!ent

← @If one ( coul! not so0 !iversit5, Rule $1 gives !istrict courts te autorit5 to !is%iss te non@!iverse,

non@in!is#ensible #arties fro% te suit

← @In 199;, Congress a%en!e! §1++$)a* to a!! a sentence after )* #rovi!ing tat an alien a!%itte! for

#er%anent resi!ence is !ee%e! a citi6en of te state se is !o%icile! for !iversit5 #ur#oses

%5


16/81

• :t Cir. sai! #er%anent resi!ent alien is consi!ere! bot an alien an! a citi6en of te state of te

!o%icile

• +r! Cir. sai! #er%anent resi!ent alien is !ee%e! to be a citi6en of te state 0ere !o%icile! an! =>T

an alien

• If a US Citi6en as !ual citi6ensi# 0it anoter countr5, %ost courts !onEt allo0 foreign citi6ensi# to

create alienage "uris!iction 0ere !iversit5 0oul!nEt eJist

o So%e courts inter#ret co%#lete !iversit5 to %ean tat if a #art5 as !ual citi6ensi#, oter

0ise! %ust be !iverse fro% L>T citi6ensi#s

← @If a #laintiff tries to %anufacture !iversit5 b5 assigning er clai% to so%eone else, courts %ust assess

0eter te assign%ent violates 2 3456 – Collusion*

• A !istrict court sall not ave "uris!iction of a civil action in 0ic an5 #art5, b5 assign%ent or

oter0ise, as been i%#ro#erl5 or collusivel5 %a!e or "oine! to invo-e te "uris!iction of suc court.

• Tis a##lies to collusive creation of "uris!iction, not to a #art5 #ro#erl5 canging teir !o%icile

follo0ing te ste#s in Mas

• §1++$)c*)$* sa5s courts loo- to citi6ensi# of !ece!ent, %inor, inco%#etent an! not to citi6ensi# of

re#resentative in !eter%ining !iversit5

← @'o%estic Relations an! (robate Jce#tions – Fe!eral courts refuse to ear !o%estic relations cases

)!ivorce, ali%on5, cil! custo!5* – State courts are better suite!• =arro0 eJce#tions, !oesnEt %ean Fe!eral Courts 0ill never ear cases involving con!uct of estate

a!%inistrators )see Anna =icole S%it case*

←

←

←

← Cor"orate Citi/enshi"

• )c*)1* Citi6en of A= state in 0ic it as been incor#orate! an! of T state 0ere it as its #rinci#le

#lace of business )nerve center*

o A cor#oration coul! in teor5 be incor#orate! in %ulti#le states but tatEs rare

• Cor#orate citi6ensi# use! to be onl5 for state of incor#oration 0ic !efeats #ur#ose of avoi!ing out of

state bias – )c*)1* re%e!ie! tis

← %andao v. /a$le0Pitcher Ind'stries1 Inc. ).'.(a. 198:*

• (re!is#osition is tat Fe!eral courts '> =>T ave "uris!iction so Rule 8 sa5s ( %ust so0 groun!s 05

it eJists. If e !oes not, court 4UST !is%iss te co%#laint

• §1++$)c*)1* sa5s citi6en of an5 state it as been incor#orate! an! T state 0ere it as its ((>L.

o (Es attorne5 0rote cor#oration is Borgani6e! an! eJisting un!er te la0s of 'ela0are 0it a

registere! office in (ila!el#ia

• /u!ge sai! tis 0as insufficient an! !is%isse! te co%#laint s'a sponte because to consi!er te case

0oul! be unconstitutional

%6


17/81

← Hert o. v. ,riend )$;1;*

• ert6 is being sue! in state court b5 for%er e%#lo5ees. Te5 re%ove! it to fe!eral court an! (laintiff

callenge! it, sa5ing te5 0ere citi6ens of California.

• Co%#eting argu%ents – ert6 sa5s teir ((>L is in =/ because tatEs 0ere teir 7s is )nerve

center*. 9t Circuit #rece!ent itEs 0ere te #luralit5 of business occurs )%uscle center*

•

SC>TUS resolves te s#lit an! !eci!es tat ((>L is 0ere cor#orationEs ig officers !irect, control,an! coor!inate te cor#orationEs activities – te =erve Center

• Reasoning – Cor#orate citi6ensi# use! to be base! on sareol!ersE citi6ensi# 0ere it 0as

incor#orate! incor#oration ((>L =erve Center because itEs easier tan gross inco%e test an!

ever5 business as a ((>L

o (ublic often consi!ers a co%#an5Es %ain 7s its ((>L

o Foolis for ((>L in a state 0ere %ost of its business occurs "ust because a state as a big

#o#ulation

o asier to a!%inister an! #ro%otes greater #re!ictabilit5 )"u!icial econo%5, #re!ictabilit5,

unifor%it5*

o egislative istor5 – Re%ove! BGross inco%e to cange it to ((>L for clarit5

• Court a!%its its not #erfect. If a cor#oration as its 7s in = but !oes %ost of its business in =/,tere can still be out of state bias b5 tr5ing in =

o In vie0 of necessit5 of aving a clearer rule, tere %ust be ano%alies

• If allege! Bnerve center is reall5 "ust a %ail !ro# boJ, courts soul! instea! ta-e nerve center as #lace

of actual !irection, control, an! coor!ination

(on7Cor"orate Business Citi/enshi"

• (artnersi#s an! oter non@incor#orate! business associations are not seen as entities se#arate fro%

te #eo#le 0o run te%

• §1++$)c*)1* !oes =>T a##l5 to non@incor#orate! businesses – te business is te citi6en of A states

of 0ic its %e%bers are citi6ens

o Tis %eans tat te Tea%sters Union is a citi6en of all 2; states an! canEt be brougt into

fe!eral court on !iversit5 %atter alone

← (elleville aterin$ o. v. hampai$n Market Place1 LL ):t Cir. $;;+*

• It 0as allege! tat ( is incor#orate!?((>L?in!ivi!ual #laintiffs are fro% 4issouri. 'efen!ant is a

'ela0are C 0it ((>L in Illinois. 'efen!ant never researce! te citi6ensi# of ever5 %e%ber of te

C to !eter%ine its citi6ensi#. 'uring oral argu%ent, it 0as !eter%ine! tat ( 0as incor#orate! in

Illinois rater tan 4issouri

• Case !is%isse! because bot si!es ave Illinois so no !iversit5

• First off, o0 can an C be incor#orate! in 'ela0areD ou nee! to loo- at for%al %e%bers of C an!

!eter%ine teir citi6ensi#

• =eJt, tis is an a!%itte! Rule 11 violation because (laintiff soul! ave -no0n its o0n state of

incor#oration an! tus soul!nEt ave file! in fe!eral court

• Ans0er soul! ave #ointe! out tat 'Es la05ers a! to fin! te legal status of an C. Trial court

soul! ave inuire! ere as 0ell

• ' ten sa5s 0ell since it alrea!5 0ent to trial, canEt 0e "ust go 0it te "u!g%ent an50a5D /u!ge

SA4S tis argu%ent an! sa5s its unconstitutional – 5ou canEt #rocee! once 5ou -no0 tis fatal fla0

• 'is%isse! an! costs for furterance of te %atter soul! be on attorne5s 0o %esse! u#

%"


18/81

←

← *&ount in Controvers

• A%ount in controvers5 is not Constitutionall5 reuire!. ItEs tere to so0 tat fe!eral courts are not

s%all clai%s courts @ :2N reuire! is !esigne! to cut !o0n te nu%ber of cases file! )!oc-et

control*

• A%ount of controvers5 is !eter%ine! b5 #laintiff in goo! fait, unless it a##ears to a legal certaint5

tat clai% is reall5 for less tan "uris!ictional a%ount )li-e in a breac of contract case, statutor5 ca#*o ItEs for clai% alone, not clai%s costs of litigation

o In Mas1 !efen!ant callenge! a%ount in controvers5 because 4r. 4as got 2N )less tan

reuire! 1;N*. /u!g%ent a%ount is irrelevant as long as a%ount clai%e! b5 ( is %a!e in goo!

fait

• §1++$)b* – If so%eone gets less tan "uris!ictional a%ount ):2N*, te court 4A or!er te #laintiff to

#a5 !efen!antEs fees, as 0ell as teir o0n.

o If tis 0as a case for re%oval, it !oesnEt -ic- in for !efen!antEs si!e. Te a%ount in

controvers5 is 0ere #laintiff originall5 file! te clai%

• Aggregation of Clai%s – TUS, §1++1 0asnEt #asse! until 18:2

o =o a%ount in controvers5 reuire%ent un!er §1++1 )tere 0as, but it 0as abolise! in 198;

because none of te s#eciali6e! grants a! it

← Lo'isville 2 )ashville %% v. Mottley )19;8*

%#


19/81

• RR refuse! to onor #asses after statute against te #asses 0as #asse!

• Court ere loo-s to te "uris!ictional issue – 0at is Barising un!er

• Court sa5s tereEs no F7/ because Barising un!er #art 0oul! be a !efense, not in #laintiffEs co%#laint

o Co%#laint 0as for a breac of contract 0ic is a state la0 clai%. Te fe!eral issue co%es u#

0en te #laintiff is listing #otential !efenses )te5Ell sa5 te Congressional la0 bans

recognition of te #asses*

• Well7Pleaded Co&"laint #uleK >nl5 loo-ing at factors?ele%ents to a!!ress te clai% tat te

#laintiff a!. An5 oter issues are not 0ell #le!

o An5 counterclai% is #art of 'Es ans0er an! =>T #art of co%#laint. If (Es clai% !oesnEt invo-e

F7/, counterclai% arising un!er fe!eral la0 0ill not #rovi!e F7/

o As- 5ourself – Is #laintiff enforcing a rigt un!er fe!eral la0D

• (ro#onents sa5 it lets courts !eter%ine fro% outset )b5 te co%#laint* 0eter or not te5 ave S4/.

fficienc5 argu%ent

o >##onents sa5 it !oesnEt funnel fe!eral issues to fe!eral court – also ar! to a##l5 for

!eclarator5 "u!g%ents

• Mottley eventuall5 got bac- into fe!eral court 0en SC>TUS revie0e! it but tis 0as troug §1$2:,

not §1++1.o §1$2: allo0s for a##ellate "uris!iction over state court "u!g%ents in 0ic a fe!eral statute or

constitutional #rovision is !ra0n in uestion


20/81

• Court ten !iscusses istor5 of si%ilar actions

• !merican "ell "orks )1913* – State tra!e libel la0 clai%. ol%es @ A suit arises un!er te la0 tat

creates te cause of action

• Smith v. K -itle 2 -r'st )19$1* – Cor#orate Fun! Invest%ent is illegal accor!ing to 4issouri ban-ing

la0 because te fe!eral Far% oan act 0as unconstitutional

o oo-s li-e !merican "ell "orks because itEs a state clai%, no fe!eral cause of action, fe!eral

issue as to be raise! to su##ort te clai%

o =everteless, court sa5s te5 ave S4/ because te case !irectl5 involve! te construction of a

fe!eral act an! te Constitution

Too %an5 fe!eral la0s tat e%be! te%selves in state statutes tat not giving S4/

0oul! be funneling too %an5 fe!eral issues to state courts

• Moore )19+* 4 State statute incor#orate! #art of Fe!eral Safet5 A##liance Act

o Court !irectl5 contra!icts Smith as te court !i! not gran! F7/, sa5ing FSAA 0as not sufficient

in State la0

• In Gra&le, te clai% is 7uiet Title an! te Fe!eral issue is te taJ statute #rovi!ing for certain -in!s of

notice – court ta-es cert to !eci!e circuit s#lit base! on Merrell Dow )1983*

• Merrell Dow – Clai% 0as negligence #er seH fe!eral issue 0as %islabeling in F'CA Court sai! )2K* =o

F7/ because F'CA !i! not create a #rivate cause of action. Te tort la0 gave cause of action an! 0e

co%bine it 0it fe!eral statute to get negligence #er se. Te5Ere inter#reting it as a %atter of la0 ten

a##l5ing it to te facts of te case. =o enforce%ent because tereEs no #rivate cause of action

o Court sa5s if no #rivate cause of action, no F7/. Courts are ten s#lit as to 0eter Merrell

Dow is !is#ositive or onl5 a factor in evaluating F7/

• Lac- to Gra&le1 courts ave been rea!ing Merrell Dow too broa!l5 but 0e still 0ant to be careful 0it

0at gets into fe!eral court.

• #ule: !oes a state law clai& necessaril raise a dis"uted and sustantial federal issue that

does not distur federal%state res"onsiilities

Grable Merrell Dow

(ecessaril =otice fro% taJ statute is

!is#ositive issue

Tere 0ere oter groun!s

besi!es F'CA to so0 co%#an5

0as negligent

!is"uted 'is#ute as to fe!eral la0

violation

'is#ute as to fe!eral la0

violation

Sustantial )FactorsK 'i!

Congress create a #rivate cause

of actionD 'oes it go to

govern%ent interest*D

TaJ la0s are i%#ortant to

national interest, notice is

i%#ortant 0en sei6ing #ro#ert5

F'CA is not as i%#ortant to te

#revailing national interest as

taJ la0s

Federal%State #es"onsiilit

)'i! Congress inten! for tis

-in! of issue to be funnele! into

fe!eral courtD*

7uiet Title clai%s !onEt funnel

cases into fe!eral court as %uc

as negligence clai%s

If tis 0ere a fe!eral uestion,

%an5 %ore negligence %atters

0oul! funnel into fe!eral court

2&


21/81

• To%as in a concurring o#inion sa5s "uris!ictional rules soul! be %ore clear an! ere te5 are not.

eE! be 0illing to loo- %ore eJ#ressl5 at te ol%es rule in !merican "ell "orks

←

← Re%oval•


22/81

• (laintiffs cannot re%ove, onl5 !efen!ants can

• ( %a5 tr5 to t0art re%oval b5 sa5ing er clai% isnEt above :2N. Fe!eral court %ust assess situation

as it eJiste! at re%oval. If original clai% 0as 0ort %ore tan :2N, re%oval 0as #ro#er. ( canEt

!efeat "uris!iction b5 scaling bac- te clai%

• In ""#" , Sea0a5 an!


23/81

← +: +enue and ;ransfer

• Venue !eter%ines 0ere within a court s5ste% a case can be brougt. (ri%aril5 a %atter of

convenience an! efficienc5

o 'eter%ine! b5 statute – no Constitutional Co%#onent

o (/ sa5s state as autorit5 over 5ou – venue allo0s 5ou to #ic- 0ere 0itin te state

← Venue P Transfer← Venue

• Lot (/ an! Venue restrictions eJist si!e b5 si!e in Fe!eral Court an! bot %ust be %et

• 9 Fe!eral 'istricts all 0itin state boun!aries eJce#t for '. =, )b* non@!iversit5

7ualifies )a* an! )b* 0it eJce#t as #rovi!e! b5 la0 because tere are s#ecific statutes

base! on certain issues

ou can sue in an5 !istrict 0ere !efen!ant resi!es, if all resi!e in sa%e state.

4eaning if itEs cor#orate )IncK = an! ((>L =/* an! in!ivi!ual )=* !efen!ants, =/ is#ro#er venue since te5 bot resi!e in sa%e state )=* – LUT itEs unli-el5 court 0ill

ave (/ over te in!ivi!ual !efen!ant in =/

o )c* !efines cor#orate !efen!ant resi!ence – an5 !istrict in 0ic it is sub"ect to (/ at te ti%e

te action is co%%ence!.

=o #rovision for in!ivi!ual !efen!ants

Tis is a##lie! to non@incor#orate! associations

o Courts ol! tat Bresi!es is s5non5%ous 0it !o%icile for venue #ur#oses

o #esidence is for +enue, Citi/enshi" is for SJ

o

4ain !ifference bet0een )a* an! )b* is fallack "rovision of )+* – not -no0n 05 Congress

se#arate! !iversit5 an! non@!iversit5 %atters

4a5be )b*)+* a##lies onl5 0ere !efen!ant is #5sicall5 #resent an! #rovision cannot

be use! 0ere ' is absent but oter0ise sub"ect to "uris!iction on basis of is contacts

4a5be )a*)+* eJclu!es cases 0ere te sole basis for "uris!iction is in@state service

)li-e ('rnham* because in suc a case te !efen!ant is not sub"ect to (/ at te ti%e

te action is co%%ence! )co%#laint file!*

o §1+91 not for re%ove! cases because it can onl5 be re%ove! to te fe!eral court e%bracing

te #lace 0ere suc an action is #en!ing

o )!* – An alien can be sue! in an5 !istrict.

It !oesnEt %atter for venue #ur#oses if e 0as a!%itte! for #er%anent resi!ence

)§1++$)a*@ol!ing 5ouEre !ee%e! a citi6en of te state 0ere 5our !o%icile!* because

venue is about convenience, not out@of@state bias rationale tat 0e ave for (/

← (ates v. 2 S !d5'sters1 Inc. )$! Cir. 199$*

23


24/81

• Lates incurre! !ebt 0ile a resi!ent of


25/81

o 'oesnEt a##l5 to §1;3 since venue 0asnEt #ro#er to begin 0it

• §1;)a* sa5s in !eci!ing 0eter to transfer, court soul! consi!er convenience of #arties?0itnesses

an! interest of "ustice.

o 'istrict court as 0i!e !istraction 0eter to grant a cange of venue

←

← Foru% =on Conveniens•

'ifferent fro% transfer. Tis is 0ere court !is%isses because tereEs anoter court tatEs te center of gravit5

o 'is%iss because transfer is legall5 i%#ossible )in a !ifferent "u!icial s5s5e%*

← Piper !ircraft o. v. %eyno )1981*

• io*. Se files in US because strict liabilit5 la0s

are %ore favorable to er tan Scottis la0s

• = (i#er re%ove! to Fe!eral Court )C.'. Cal*. art6ell trie! to !is%iss 0ic court tecnicall5 grante!

but !eci!e! not to because te5Ere a%enable to #rocess in (A, 0ere te5 can be serve! 0it #rocess

•


26/81

o A##ellate court reverse! !is%issal because te5 sai! 0enever alternative la0 is less favorable

to #laintiff, !is%issal is not a##ro#riate

F=C %ust retain fleJibilit5 as eac case turns on its facts – it canEt "ust be inconvenient

because foreign la0 is unfavorable to (

o SC>TUS re"ects tat because if so, ever5 foreign ( 0oul! tr5 to ave te case ear! in US

• F(C !octrine is court &ade lawA Lefore §§1;, 1;3, tere 0as no transfer. Lecause courts

coul!nEt transfer, te5E! !is%iss if it %a!e no sense for te% to ave te case. =o0 tat 0e avetransfer, F=C is onl5 use! if case belongs in front of a !ifferent sovereign

• Gilbert *nalsis –


27/81

← Rule 1$ Jercises

• 4otion %ust be %a!e before #lea!ing. >nce 5ou file an ans0er, tere are no %ore 1$)b* %otions to

%a-e

o 1$)b*)$*@)2* %otions nee! to be %ove! on before an ans0er or brougt u# in an ans0er 0itin

$1 !a5s 5ou effectivel5 0aive te%


28/81

• Lal!0in sue! ' in 4issouri, ' !irectl5 callenges (/ sa5ing te5 ave no #resence in 4issouri an!

#erson serve! 0as not an agent for service. Court refuse! to !is%iss – 0in!s u# in a !efault "u!g%ent

o Te5 originall5 callenge! service ten callenge! (/ – tis 0oul!nEt be allo0e! un!er FRC(

since te5 0oul! ave file! a 1$)b*)* %otion

• Lal!0in ten %ove! to enforce "u!g%ent in Io0a. ' asserte! sa%e (/ !efense an! court rule! for

!efen!ant 0ic 0as affir%e! b5 Circuit Court

o Lal!0in ob"ects to collateral attac- since it 0as a retrial of issue fro% first suit

• If 5ou !isagree 0it courtEs !eter%ination of (/ after a !irect attac-, 5ou a""eal it, not callenge it

collaterall5H >R !onEt callenge !irectl5 an! raise it collaterall5 – itEs one or the other

• =oteK te a%ount 5ouE! get in a !efault "u!g%ent is te a%ount allege! in Rule 8)a*)+*

← Callenging S4/

• So%e #arties raise S4/ callenges strategicall5 – ( if te lose on te %erits, ' after state Statute of

i%itations runs

• ou canEt raise lac- of S4/ in a collateral suit – courts ave "uris!iction to !eci!e teir o0n "uris!iction

2#


29/81

+I. Pleadin's Jud'&ents Based on the Pleadin's

• Pleadin$s are !ocu%ents file! b5 litigants, setting fort clai%s?!efenses

• Res#onse to #lea!ing is an answer

• Functions of #lea!ingsK )1* (uts #arties on noticeH )$* stating facts eac #art5 believes it can #roveH

)+* narro0ing sco#e of issues at trialH )* #rovi!ing a uic- %eto! for resolving ba! clai%s?!efenses

• (lea!ing reuire%ents are a gate-ee#er to "u!icial %aciner5

• ere 0eEre focuse! on 8)a*)$* – A sort an! #lain state%ent of clai% so0ing tat #lea!er is entitle!

to relief

•


30/81

• Factual Sufficienc5 – Liggest ga# bet0een Co!e an! FRC( (lea!ing – Bsufficient !etail

o Co!e – reuire! stating of ulti%ate facts but not in too %uc !etail )evi!ence* or to little !etail

)conclusions of la0*.

(rece!ents 0ere available in eiter !irection, %a-ing a la05erEs "ob a no@0in

o Fe!eral Rules @ 8)a*)$* avoi!s Bfacts altogeter.

← Dio$'ardi v. D'rnin$ )$! Cir. 19*

• Italian i%%igrant !isclose! clai%s 0ic are vali!. e soul! ave is !a5 in court

• ( soul! get la05er to el# i% oter0ise itEs li-el5 eEll lose on Su%%ar5 /u!g%ent

• Goal is to deter&ine case on &erits, not "enali/e liti'ants for "rocedural error

o Affir%s notice #lea!ing

← (ell !tlantic orp. v. -wom&ly )$;;:*

• T0o%bl5 0ants to so0 an antitrust violation on te #art of local #one carriers. To !o so, te5 %ust

so0 conscious #arallelis% )'s a0are of eac oterEs con!uct an! engage! in activities not to co%#lete

te%selves* an! an agree%ent a%ong te% – te5 sa5 agree%ents are to be inferre! fro% con!uct

• Factual issue –


31/81

• Court !oesnEt acce#t tis #lea!ing – te5 sa5 !ra0 #lausible inferences. ou can infer FLI arreste!

Arabs after 9?11 – #olic5 0as a##rove! but intent bein! it cannot be !eter%ine! if its to !iscri%inate

or #ro%ote national securit5

o Un!er iger stan!ar!s, (s never get a cance to gater evi!ence to see if ' !i! so%eting

0rong

o 'iscover5 is eJ#ensive – 5ou !onEt get tere auto%aticall5

• I%%unit5 Issue –


32/81

• Rule 8)!*)$* – A #art5 %a5 set out $ or %ore state%ents of a clai% or !efense alternativel5 or

5#oteticall5. (lea!ing is sufficient if an5 state%ent?!efense is sufficient

← Mcormick v. Kopmann )Ill. Ct. A##. 1929*

• T -no0n. ere, te gu5 0o 0oul! -no0 is !ea!

o Rule 11 reuires a reasonable inuir5 un!er te circu%stances

• If te rule !i!nEt allo0 alternative #lea!ings, one 0o trie! it 0oul! run te ris- of aving is case

!is%isse!

• ItEs to #laintiffEs a!vantage to ave alternative teories in sa%e case since "ur5 is li-el5 to fin! itEs one

or te oter. If 5ou brea- it a#art in t0o cases, 5ou !onEt ave t0o alternatives an! 5ou coul! geto##osite "ur5 conclusions an! ( loses bot ti%es

←

← Voluntar5 'is%issal

• A #laintiff can !is%iss te case via Rule 1)a*

• Voluntar5 !is%issals are t5#icall5 0itout #re"u!ice, %eaning ( can refile

• Court focuses on a co%#leJ set of factors in !eter%ining 0iter to allo0 ( to !is%iss 0itout #re"u!ice

– #re"u!ice to be suffere! b5 ' if ( refiles, !ela5, lac- of !iligence b5 te (, eJtent to 0ic case as

#rogresse!, a!euac5 of (Es eJ#lanation for nee! to !is%iss

←

← Involuntar5 'is%issal

• Involuntar5 !is%issals are usuall5 0en ( as !one so%eting 0rong accor!ing to te court )Rule

1)b**

o 'is%issal un!er tis rule eJce#t for lac- of "uris!iction, i%#ro#er venue, or failure to "oin a

#art5 o#erates as a!"u!ication on te %erits

A!"u!ication on %erits 0it #re"u!ice

B%erits %ean 0e ave !eci!e! te un!erl5ing case – #art5 a! o##ortunit5 to get to

te %erits but ble0 it

o Courts can sa5 itEs 0itout #re"u!ice but tatEs no te !efault rule

• Court can or!er tis sua s#onte – Link v. "a&ash %. o. )193$*

32


33/81

o Case lingere! on, (Es attorne5 !i!nEt a##ear at #retrial

o Issue is ten tat client is #unise! – Llac- sa5s its unfair to te client but te %a"orit5 sai! e

cose is attorne5 voluntaril5 an! (laintiff soul! -no0 so%etingEs u# 0en te case never

goes to trial

o a05ers can be re#ri%an!e! un!er Rule 11 an! can be sue! for %al#ractice

• Rule 8+ allo0s !istrict courts to a!o#t local rules #rovi!ing for involuntar5 !is%issal if no action is

so0n of recor! 0itin a state! ti%e – "u!geEs !iscretion

←

← 'efen!antEs >#tions – Callenging te Co%#laint – 4otions• A rule 1$)b*)3* %otion tests legal sufficienc5 an! factual sufficienc5 of clai%

• Coul! also bring a %otion for Su%%ar5 /u!g%ent un!er Rule 23

• Also for a %ore !efinite state%ent un!er Rule 1$)e* =>T for failure to state a clai%

• 4ove to stri-e un!er Rule 1$)f* – Clai% for relief not available as a %atter of la0

• >ften ti%es tese %otions !ela5 te filing of an ans0er

←

'efen!antEs >#tions – Res#on!ing to te Co%#laint – Ans0er• A!%itting, 'en5ing or sa5ing 5ou !onEt ave enoug infor%ation to a!%it?!en5 ever5 s#ecific clai%

)Rule 8)b**

• Allegations not !enie! are !ee%e! to be a!%itte!. If an allegation is !enie!, itEs "oine! an! can be

a!"u!icate!

o 'oing noting a!%ission

o ac- of infor%ation is !ee%e! a !enial )8)b*)2** onl5 to be !one 0en 'efen!ant !oesnEt ave

access to infor%ation?itEs not #ublic

• Rule 8)$*)b* – A !enial %ust fairl5 res#on! to te substance of te allegation – -ee# it si%#le

o 'onEt #lea! contrar5 facts an! !onEt sa5 BI !i! not negligentl5 !rive %5 car an! ri!e over te

#laintiff because itEs i%#lie! 5ou !rove negligentl5 at anoter ti%e

← Affir%ative 'efenses

• 8)c*)1* lists 19 affir%ative !efenses tat are =>T eJaustive

• *ffir&ative !efenses vs. 1le&ents of a Clai&

• 7uestion beco%es o0 !o 5ou !eter%ine if an issue falls on (Es bur!en to #lea! )in co%#laint* or on

'Es bur!en )affir%ative !efense in ans0er*

33


34/81

• Lur!en of #roof bur!en of #lea!ing, #ro!uce, #ersua!e

o le%ent of cause of action )i.e., for negligence itEs !ut5, breac, causation, etc.* is bur!en for (.


35/81

• #ule 35

• Rules li%it to 0at !egree (s an! 's can cange teir #lea!ings

• ou can a%en! 0itin $1 !a5s of serving te #lea!ingH after tat 5ou nee! oter #art5Es consent or

courtEs leave )Given 0it "ustice so reuires*

o Court loo-s to un!ue !ela5, ba! fait?%otive, re#eate! failure to cure !eficiencies in #revious

a%en!%ent, un!ue #re"u!ice to o##osing #art5

o =o ti%e li%it but te longer 5ou 0ait to a%en! te %ore #re"u!ice tere is for te oter #art5

to clai%

• Ja%#le of !6'aslide 0ere #art5 sue! a sli!e %anufacturer 0o a!%itte! te5 0ere te %anufacturer

an! !enie! ever5ting else. After te So ran, te5 !iscovere! te5 0erenEt te %anufacturer an!

sougt to a%en!.

o Court loo-s to 05 te5 got it 0rong in te first #lace )!ue !iligence*, #re"u!ice re. So –

ulti%atel5 !eci!e! to allo0 te a%en!%ent because itEs ar! to see o0 5ou can #rocee! 0en

5ouEre suing te 0rong #erson

o Stan!ar! for allo0ing a%en!%ent is %ore liberal so tereEs a bigger bur!en on te #art5

o##osing a%en!%ent

• Reasons for a%en!%ent – Fairness, Accurac5 )!ecision on %erits*, fficienc5 )case 0ill be longer

toug*

o


36/81

← tical i%itations – Rule 11 P >ters

• Rule 11 la5s out 5our #rofessional res#onsibilit5 to te court, o##onent, oter #arties – raise! at an5

ti%e for an5 #a#er, not "ust co%#laint

• ac stateEs bar as its o0n rules of (rofessional Res#onsibilit5

•

Rule 11 governs in Fe!eral CourtH Rules of (rofessional Res#onsibilit5 govern 0erever 5ou are• =on@frivolous argu%ents for eJten!ing te la0 are o- – 5ou nee! to ave evi!entiar5 su##ort or be

able to get it in !iscover5

o Rule 11 usuall5 involves %onetar5 sanctionsH bar rules coul! !isbar 5ou

• Rule 11 eJiste! since 19+8 but 0asnEt #ai! %uc attention toH 198+@199+, Rule 11 i%#ose! fairl5

ars sanctions – no safe arbor rule an! sanctions 0ere %an!ator5

o =o0, even if tereEs a violation, te court !oes not nee! to i%#ose sanctions. Also, fine #ai! to

court, not to o##onent

← (rid$es v. Diesel Service1 Inc.

• Lri!ges sue! un!er te A'A. Court !is%isse! 0itout #re"u!ice for failure to eJaust a!%inistrative

re%e!ies since e a!nEt file! 0it >C before starting te action. 'efen!ant %oves for Rule 11

sanctions

• Rule 11 i%#oses an obligation on counsel to sto#, loo-, an! listen. (Es la05er !i! not !is#la5 a

co%#etent level of legal researc.

• 4onetar5 sanctions not necessar5 to !eter future %iscon!uct as attorne5 i%%e!iatel5 ac-no0le!ges its

error an! atte%#te! to rectif5 it

• Rule 11 soul! be reserve! for eJce#tional circu%stances 0ere clai% is frivolous, ere tis 0as "ust a

#roce!ural %ista-e

← Sanctions

• In (rid$es – >bvious violation because e !i!nEt file 0it >C first )11)b*)$* violation for failure to !o

reasonable inuir5 before filing co%#laint*

o =o sanctions but tis is a #ublise! o#inion, tatEs ba! ne0sM

o Court errs on si!e of %ore li%ite! sanctions

• For a "art @ 11)c*)1* – If Rule 11)b* as been violate!, court %a5 i%#ose an a##ro#riate sanction on

an5 attorne5, la0 fir%, or #art5

o Sanction #art5 base! on 0ic 11)b* violation it is )!onEt sanction i% in (rid$es because itEs a

la05er error* – no %onetar5 sanctions on #art5 for violating 11)b*)$* – see 11)c*)2*)A*

• For a law fir& – Absent eJce#tional circu%stances, la0 fir% 4UST be el! "ointl5 res#onsible

o ncourages self@#olicing 0itin a fir%

• =on@%onetar5 #enalties – Court coul! %a-e attorne5 !o 0or- over again 0itout carging client, tell

client 5our error an! certif5 it to court, reuire C cre!its

• ouE! sanction so%eone %ore 0illful tan negligent, #attern of con!uct vs. isolate! inci!ent, o0 ba!

te #roble% is, eJ#erience of attorne5

36


37/81

← Safe arbor (rovision )11)c*)$**

• 4otion for sanctions %ust be %a!e se#aratel5 fro% an5 oter %otion an! %ust !escribe con!uct tat

violates Rule 11)b*. IT %ust be serve! but not file! to te court if te callenge! #a#er is 0it!ra0n

or correcte! 0itin $1 !a5s after service. If 0arrante!, te court %a5 a0ar! to te #revailing #art5 te

reasonable eJ#enses, inclu!ing attorne5Xs fees, incurre! for te %otion.

o Serve o##osing si!e, !onEt file until $1 !a5s after service if o##osing #art5 !i!nEt

a%en!?0it!ra0

←

%ector v. !pproved ,ederal Savin$s (ank • Rector %a!e a frivolous clai%. A##rove! %ove! for Rule 11 sanctions. At no ti%e !i! Rector raise te

issue of te $1 !a5 safe arbor #rovision until it 0as on a##eal

• Issue is 0eter te $1@!a5 safe arbor #rovision of Rule 11 is a non@0aivable rule of "uris!iction

o If itEs "uris!ictional, te court loses its autorit5 over te Rule 11 %otion is te safe arbor

#rovision is =>T follo0e!

o If itEs not "uris!ictional, ten itEs 0aivable b5 te !efen!ant

o S4/ is one ting court ave in!e#en!ent autorit5 to cec- out

• Court euates Safe arbor (rovision to Statute of i%itations – a court still as "uris!iction if ( files

clai% after So. Court onl5 a!!resses te So if ' raises it. ' can 0aive it b5 failing to raise it

• Argu%ent is tat it IS "uris!ictional because 5ou B%ust serve 0itin $1 !a5s before filing. Court sa5s

tere are %an5 tings tat B%ust be !one 0ic if not !one !onEt en! "uris!iction – li-e (/ since if 5ou

!onEt raise a (/ !efense, 5ou forgo it an! essentiall5 consent to "uris!iction of te courto Its u# to non@%oving #art5 to raise it at te beginning oter0ise itEs 0aive!. If te5 bring it u#

in court, court %ust tro0 te %otion out

←

3"


38/81

← +II. Joinder and Su""le&ental Jurisdiction

← /oin!er b5 (laintiffs• Lenefits to /oin!erK (rivate – Avoi!s !u#licative litigation an! te eJ#enses incurre!

o (ublic – Re!uce! bac-log in court s5ste%s, avoi!s inconsistent results

• 'etri%ents – (ac-aging %a-es litigation %ore co%#leJ, can confuse "ur5, %an!ator5 #ac-aging %a5

overri!e (Es abilit5 to cose foru%• Lalance bet0een (Es autono%5 an! efficienc5

• /oin!er !oesnEt alter te reuire%ents of (/, S4/, an! Venue

o ver5 clai% in fe!eral court %ust ave a basis of Fe!eral S4/H clai%s can get in un!er

su##le%ental "uris!iction if te5 arise out of te sa%e transaction or occurrence

• ;wo factors for 'ettin' a clai&, "art in: %ust

ave suffere! so%e in"ur5 before e can sue*

← Clai&

← (roce!ural As#ects

• #ule 3E – A #art5 asserting a clai% %a5 "oin as %an5 clai%s as it as against o##osing #art5

• Clai%ant can assert VR clai% against o##onent, even if not transactionall5 relate!

• 18 is #er%issive but tere are #reclusion rules tat %a5 F>RC to "oin several assertions of liabilit5 in

a single case

• 18 #ertains to Ba #art5 asserting a clai% – =>T /UST (AI=TIFFS

← /uris!ictional As#ects

• 18 is te #roce!ural %ecanis% for getting te clai% in. ou still nee! a "uris!ictional basis if te clai%

!oes =>T ave an in!e#en!ent basis of S4/ )F7 or 'iversit5*

• =otion of su##le%ental "uris!iction eJ#an!s courtEs autorit5 of F7/?'iversit5. If 5ouEve alrea!5 set te

bar so ig un!er te Mottley arising un!er stan!ar!, tereEs less fear for letting anoter clai% in

o Alternative is s#litting u# te clai%s in state?fe!eral court – inefficient

• Court as te #o0er to -ee# state clai%s but it nee! not eJercise it. 'octrine of !iscretion

o 'riving factors soul! be "u!icial econo%5, convenience, fairness

o Reasons to 'is%issK

3#


39/81

If fe!eral clai% is !is%isse! before trial

If case loo-s li-e a state case )li-e in ('ffalo reek 0ere e !ebates attacing

=avigable


40/81

o For an5 case to invo-e F7/, fe!eral issue %ust be substantial

← §1+3: – Su##le%ental /uris!iction

• )a* gives courts statutor5 autorit5 to ear su##le%ental clai%s to an Bancor clai% )gives S4/ for

nonfe!eral clai%s*. Clai%s are Bso relate! to clai%s in te action 0itin suc original "uris!iction

o Fin! ancor clai%. If courts ave original "uris!iction over tat clai% )F7 or 'iversit5*, ten

te5Ell ave su##le%ental "uris!iction over all clai%s tat for% sa%e case or controvers5

o Te5 use Constitutional language instea! of Gi&&s C=>F but te5 %ean te sa%e ting

• )b* is onl5 relevant for cases foun!e! on !iversit5 )§1++$*

• )c* 'istrict court as !iscretion to !eci!e to ear su##le%ental clai%s

o )c*)1* an! )c*)* #er%it courtEs !iscretion in t0o circu%stances never !iscusse! b5 Gi&&s –

novel?co%#leJ issue of state la0 an! eJce#tional circu%stances

← Per&issive Part


• Rule 18 is "oin!er of clai%s – Ver5 broa!H Rule $; is /oin!er of (arties – =ot as Lroa! because te

#arties %ust arise out of sa%e transaction?C=>F• Rule $; – )a*)1* is for "oining (laintiffsH )a*)$* is for "oining 'efen!ants

o Rule is #er%issive, ( isnEt reuire! to "oin all te #arties

• T0o 0a5s to get te% #arties in @ )1* Arising out of sa%e transactions, )$* Co%%on uestion of la0 or

fact

o )$* is te easier #rong to %eet because if 5ou arise out of te sa%e transaction, itEs a co%%on

uestion of la0?fact


41/81

ou can "oin for #retrial un!er "oin!er rules, tis corrects it to allo0 for se#arate trials

• Te%e – /oin!er rules are broa! in allo0ing "oin!er of clai%s )18*, less liberal in allo0ing "oining

#arties )$;*, but court as corrective %ecanis%s )$;b, $*

• #ule >3 – 4is"oin!er of #arties is =>T fatal. >n %otion or sua s#onte, court can a!! or !ro# a #art5

or sever an5 clai% against a #art5

←

Schwart v. Swan• 'orot5 in t0o car acci!ents 1; !a5s a#art. First one 0as 0it er sister@in@la0, secon! one 0as 0it

er usban!. Se 0ants to sue te !rivers fro% bot acci!ents in one case 0it er usban!Es loss of

consortiu% clai%

o er sister in la0 file! a se#arate clai% against te !rivers fro% te first acci!ent

• 'orot5 an! er usban! clearl5 %eet Rule $; since is clai% is !erivative of er in"uries

• Issue is about suing te bot !efen!ants in one case

• Court sa5s tat te !istrict court abuse! its !iscretion b5 forcing 'orot5 to sue #arties se#aratel5

• To se#arate te cases 0oul! reuire a fin!ing of reasonable %e!ical certaint5 0o cause! 0at in"ur5.

Since 5ou cannot, te #arties arise out of te sa%e transaction

o ItEs a co%%on uestion of la0 or fact 0o 0as res#onsible for te in"ur5

• 'efen!ants %a!e te sister@in@la0 consoli!ate un!er Rule $← /uris!ictional As#ects

•


42/81

o Scenario + – (+)4'* 0ants to sue ')4'* for a clai% Y :2ND

SC>TUS sa5s no – Co%#lete 'iversit5 Rule %ust be treate! !ifferentl5 fro% a%ount in

controvers5 reuire%ent

• §1+3: 0ill allo0 circu%vention of a%ount in controvers5 reuire%ent but =>T for !iversit5 of

citi6ensi#

o (ro @ A%ount in Controvers5 0as a!!e! for !oc-et control an! not in te Constitution

o

Con @ §1+3:)a* sa5s Bin an5 civil action 0ere !istrict courts 0oul! ave original "uris!iction –ere, te5 0oul!nEt ave original "uris!iction

If itEs a fe!eral clai%, ten itEs a §1++1 civil action 0ic #rovi!es fe!eral ancor

← /oin!er b5 'efen!ants• #ule 34 – Counterclai& and Crossclai&

• ( )4'* sues ' )VA* for state clai% Y:2N. Can ' "oin a negligence counterclai% against (D

o Te clai% is allo0e! an! %an!ator5 – Rule 1+)a* Co%#ulsor5 Counterclai%

• Rule 18 )"oin!er* is a B%a5 ruleH Rule 1+ is a B%ust rule

o ' nee!s to bring all clai%s against ( but ( !oesnEt nee! to file all clai%s against '. Tis isuntrue !ue to Clai% #reclusion 0ic #reclu!es (Es fro% bringing clai%s if te5 arose fro% fro%

sa%e transaction

o Rule 18 Clai% (reclusion Rule 1+

← Co%#ulsor5 Counterclai%s @ (roce!ural As#ects

• >##osing #art5 %ust state a counterclai% if it arises out of sa%e transaction of te o##osing #art5Es

clai%

• If te ' !oesnEt file an ans0er, !o te5 0aive te rigt to a counterclai%D

← arteret v. +ackson

• 'efault "u!g%ent against ' because e !i!nEt file a counterclai%. e no0 0ants to bring u# te

counterclai%

• ' sa5s tat since te5 serve! no #lea!ing in te first case, te rule never -ic-e! in

• Court 0oul! agree if #lea!ing a! never been reuire! but ere it is because te rule sa5s Ba #lea!ing

%ust state as a counterclai% an5 clai% tatOat te ti%e of its serviceOte #lea!er as against an

o##osing #art5

• 'efault a##lies to 0atever te #art5 soul! ave #lea!e!

o Rule 1+ is to #revent %ulti#le cases

42


43/81

o 'efen!ant 0as su##ose! to file an ans0erH itEs not li-e e !i!nEt ave ti%e to fileM

• If 'Es #osition 0ere acce#te!, a !efault "u!g%ent 0oul! ave no certaint5. Court sa5s itEs !ifferent

0en tereEs consent because tereEs a settle%ent

← Dindo v. "hitney – Sa%e /u!ge as arteret

• 'in!oEs case settle! an! e never tougt of filing a la0suit.

• 'oes te co%#ulsor5 counterclai% a##l5 ereD

•

If 5ou settle before an ans0er as to be file!, ten Rule 1+ never -ic-s in an! te counterclai% coul!be brougt

• (ur#ose of rule is to #revent %ulti#le actions an! acieve resolution in a single la0suit of all !is#utes

arising out of te co%%on %atter

• If case a! been trie!, #rotection of court?#arties sa5s tere soul! be no furter litigation. If itEs

settle!, court as not been bur!ene! so "ustice see%s obtainable

← T0o !ifferent 0a5s of inter#reting Rule 1+Es fun!a%ental #ur#oseK

• uitable Rule – 'Es usuall5 0aive! clai% but 5ou loo- to a caseEs #articular facts to see if it 0oul! be

unfair to #reclu!e ' fro% filing a secon! action )Dindo*

o Court as !iscretion

• Rule of (reclusion – 4ore of a brigt line rule. If 5ou !i!nEt bring co%#ulsor5 counterclai% an! !i!nEt

ans0er 0it ti%e to !o so ten 5ouEve 0aive! rigt to counterclai%

o ost courts read #ule 34 like this – we don)t want &ulti"le "roceedin's F

C=>F is Constitutional Inter#retation so it as te broa!est sense. AST is narro0er

)rule inter#retation*

• T

#reclu!e!

o Congress is 0orrie! about ( %ani#ulating §1+3: to get aroun! §1++$. ' as no rule in

%ani#ulating S4/

• Holmes v. #ornado )$;;$* – =o !iversit5. ( tries to invo-e F7/ but it !oesnEt arise un!er. ' asserts a

co%#ulsor5 counterclai% tat !oes invo-e F7/. =o S4/ because of 0ell@#lea!e! co%#laint rule – loo-

to co%#laint onl5, not counterclai%

43


44/81

←

← (er%issive Counterclai%s

• #ule 34F is

broa!er, 5ou can still get te clai% in via §1+3:)a* if tereEs no in!e#en!ent basis for S4/

o #e&e&er to look if there)s an inde"endent asis of SJ for clai&A

o +ones v. ,ord Motor redit – ou nee! a loose factual connection bet0een te clai%s

← #e&e&er – ou &ust also have PJ and +enue over the clai&s

• TereEs a s#lit in courts on 0eter (/ soul! be eJ#an!e! 0it res#ect to a!!itional clai%s against te

sa%e !efen!ant

o /oin!er rules are broa! – 18 an! 1+ – 5ou coul! easil5 ave (/ over one clai% but not over a

secon! clai%

• (en!ant (/ – Courts suggest tere %a5 be an o##ortunit5 to %assage (/ 'octrine an! allo0 te

assertion of certain t5#es of clai%s against !efen!ant. =o (/ over co%#letel5 unrelate! clai%o Ja%#le – Clai% 1 is a Fe!eral Statute )nation0i!e service – -* Clai% $ is a state clai% )not

covere! b5 long@ar% statute*. If itEs relate! )Arise out of sa%e transaction* S>4 courts 0ill

allo0 it.

Te5 alrea!5 ave to litigate in tat court so tereEs no ar!si# in litigating secon!

case

←

← Crossclai%s

• #ule 34 an! ' are "oine! un!er Rule $;)a**. > asserts a

(R4ISSIV counterclai% )!oesnEt AST as original clai%* against (. > can ten assert a crossclai%

against ' if it arises out of te sa%e transaction as er #er%issive counterclai%

o >nce > as a clai% against ', te5 can assert an5 oter clai% )Rule 18* against '. '

can?%ust assert an5 counterclai% against > )1+)a* an! )b**

o >nce 5ou ave tat initial lin-, te s-5 is te li%it in ter%s of clai%s

• /uris!ictionall5 –

o Clai%s bet0een ' an! > ave S4/ un!er §1+3:)a* – Arise out of sa%e transaction

44


45/81

o Clai%s eJe%#te! un!er §1+3:)b* are clai%s b5 ( an! are not eJe%#te! ere because tese

are clai%s b5 '

o Te unrelate! Rule 18 clai%s asserte! bet0een 's are unli-el5 to %eet §1+3:)a* "uris!iction

• Can non@!iverse (s crossclai% one anoter if te5Ere bot suing te sa%e ' 0o counterclai%s one of

te%D

o Rule 1+)g* sa5s cross@clai%s bet0een co@#arties so #roce!urall5 itEs fine

o /uris!ictionall5, itEs (1 tr5ing to sue ($. If te ancor clai% is !iversit5, un!er §1+3:)b*, tis is

a clai% b5 a #laintiff against a #erson %a!e a #art5 un!er Rule $; – Te court 0oul! =>T ave

"uris!iction

If ancor clai% 0as F7/, ten itEs fine

←

← A!!ing (arties

• Rule 1+)* allo0s 's to a!! oter #arties

o Rule sa5s tat 19 an! $; govern te a!!ition of a #erson as a #art5 to a

counterclai%?crossclai%

• If '1 as clai% against '$ an! clai% arises fro% sa%e transaction as '1Es counterclai% against (, ten

'1 can attac '$ to tat counterclai% as long as it %eets Rule $;o It as to relate to crossclai% or counterclai%

• 1+)* lets 5ou a!! #art5 0en Rule $; !escribes relationsi# to crossclai% or counterclai% tat #art5

as asserte!

o ou ave to %a-e te connection or a!! te #art5 first, ten 5ou can label oter clai%s

• /uris!ictionall5 tis is fine because if itEs !iversit5, §1+3:)b* !oesnEt bloc- it )itEs a clai% b5 a ', not a

(*H also §1+3:!oesnEt inclu!e 1+)* in its list of clai%s over 0ic su##le%ental "uris!iction is

#reclu!e!

←

← (art5 I%#lea!er• Tis is a %eto! to overri!e te #laintiffEs #art5 structure, cosen b5 te% in $;)a*

• Rule 1+)* – ' can onl5 a!! anoter #art5 if te5Ere relate! to a clai% e alrea!5 as in te case

• If ' !oesnEt ave one of tose clai%s against an original #art5, #ule 3@ co&es in. *ddin' third7

"art defendants

o =arro0, #er%itting "oin!er of one B0o is or %a5 be liable to te !efen!ing #art5 for all or #art

of te clai% against it

Generall5 for clai%s for contribution )if state tort la0 allo0s it* or in!e%nification

)relating to N la0*

o Clai%s against a tir! #art5 !efen!ant 4UST be !erivative of te original clai% ( as against '

• ( sues '. ' as a rigt to in!e%nit5 for te clai% fro% T so ' i%#lea!s T. An5 "u!g%ent for ( against

' can be !eflecte! to T. If ' coul! not i%#lea! T, ' 0oul! ave to sue T in a se#arate #rocee!ing

45


46/81

o I%#lea!er #ro%otes efficienc5M


←

← Markvica v. (rodhead0Garrett o. 4 'ifference bet0een contribution an! in!e%nification

• Ni! got urt in so# class, te5 sue te %anufacturer. 4anufacturer i%#lea!s te scool for i%#ro#er

%aintenance an! ina!euate su#ervision, see-ing in!e%nit5

• In!e%nit5 – nables one tortfeasor to sift entire bur!en of "u!g%ent to anoter

o Usuall5 0en one as been reuire! to #a5 because of a legal relationsi# )res#on!eat

su#erior, vicarious liabilit5* to sift bur!en to actual cul#rit*

• Contribution – Lase! u#on co%%on liabilit5 of t0o or %ore actors for te sa%e in"ur5. uali6es

bur!en on 0rong!oers b5 reuiring eac to #a5 is o0n #ro#ortionate sare

• Court sa5s in!e%nit5 0ill not be allo0e! 0en bot #arties ave been negligent

• Rule 1)a* #er%its "oin!er of a #art5 0o is or %a5 be liable to a !efen!ing #art5 for all or #art of (Es

clai%. F un!er §1+3:)a*D

o I%#lea!er clai% reuires TL' to be liable to ' for (Es clai% – 5es

o U#slo#iong?'o0nslo#ing clai%s see% to %eet it since te5 can onl5 be asserte! if te5 AST as

te un!erl5ing !is#ute

o U#slo#ing 1)a* clai%s raise concerns – Kro$er )!eci!e! before §1+3:*

←

46


47/81

← 3wen /6'ipment v. Kro$er )19:8*

• NrogerEs 0i!o0 )Io0a* sue! >%aa (o0er 'istrict )=ebras-a* alleging negligence 0en a #o0er line

-ille! er usban!. Case 0as foun!e! on !iversit5

• >((' i%#lea!s >0en ui#%ent since teir crane it te #o0er lineH >((' gets S/ on its clai%, Nroger

a%en!s co%#laint to sue >0en. At tir! !a5 of trial, >0en sa5s teir ((>L is in Io0a, !estro5ing

!iversit5• Nroger coul!nEt ave originall5 asserte! its clai% against >0en, te5 a! to 0ait until >((L brougt

te% in to assert teir clai%.

o 'issent tin-s tis is >N because te ( !oesnEt bring te T(' into te la0suit so tereEs no

!eliberate circu%vention of !iversit5 reuire%ent

o 4a"orit5 sa5s no because 5ou still nee! in!e#en!ent basis for S4/

• §1+3: co!ifies Kro$er b5 !en5ing clai%s b5 (s against #arties "oin!er un!er Rule 1

• Follo0ing te !is%issal of te case in fe!eral court, Kro$er file! in state court an! te court rule! tat

er clai% 0as =>T barre! b5 te statute of li%itations. After Kro$er , Congress a!!e! §1+3:)!* 0ic

tolls te statute of li%itations 0ile clai%s are #en!ing in fe!eral court• If >0en brougt a clai% against Nroger an! Nroger co%#ulsor5 counterclai%e!, %ost courts 0oul! still

sa5 tis is eJe%#te! b5 "uris!iction because itEs still a clai% b5 a ( against a #art5 "oine! b5 Rule 1

)§1+3:)b**

o So%e courts sa5 itEs o- !ue to last clause of §1+3:)b*

4"


48/81

Rules an! Statutes

← #ule @ – Su&&ons

←


49/81

o )C* be acco%#anie! b5 a co#5 of te co%#laint, $ co#ies of a 0aiver for%, an! a

#re#ai! %eans for returning te for%H

o )'* infor% te !efen!ant, using teJt #rescribe! in For% 2, of te conseuences of

0aiving an! not 0aiving serviceH

o )* state te !ate 0en te reuest is sentH

o

)F* give te !efen!ant a reasonable ti%e of at least +; !a5s after te reuest 0assent O or at least 3; !a5s if sent to te !efen!ant outsi!e an5 "u!icial !istrict of

te Unite! States O to return te 0aiverH an!

o )G* be sent b5 first@class %ail or oter reliable %eans.

• = Failure to Waive. If a !efen!ant locate! 0itin te Unite! States fails, 0itout goo!

cause, to sign an! return a 0aiver reueste! b5 a #laintiff locate! 0itin te Unite!

States, te court %ust i%#ose on te !efen!antK

o )A* te eJ#enses later incurre! in %a-ing serviceH an!

o )L* te reasonable eJ#enses, inclu!ing attorne5Es fees, of an5 %otion reuire! to

collect tose service eJ#enses.

•


50/81

• )$* if tere is no internationall5 agree! %eans, or if an international agree%ent allo0s but

!oes not s#ecif5 oter %eans, b5 a %eto! tat is reasonabl5 calculate! to give noticeK

o )A* as #rescribe! b5 te foreign countr5Xs la0 for service in tat countr5 in an

action in its courts of general "uris!ictionH

o )L* as te foreign autorit5 !irects in res#onse to a letter rogator5 or letter of

reuestH oro )C* unless #roibite! b5 te foreign countr5Xs la0, b5K

)i* !elivering a co#5 of te su%%ons an! of te co%#laint to te in!ivi!ual

#ersonall5H or

)ii* using an5 for% of %ail tat te cler- a!!resses an! sen!s to te

in!ivi!ual an! tat reuires a signe! recei#tH or

• )+* b5 oter %eans not #roibite! b5 international agree%ent, as te court or!ers.

←


51/81

• = *'enc Cor"oration Officer or 1&"loee Sued in an Official Ca"acit. To

serve a Unite! States agenc5 or cor#oration, or a Unite! States officer or e%#lo5ee sue!

onl5 in an official ca#acit5, a #art5 %ust serve te Unite! States an! also sen! a co#5 of

te su%%ons an! of te co%#laint b5 registere! or certifie! %ail to te agenc5,

cor#oration, officer, or e%#lo5ee.

•


52/81

o )L* eJercising "uris!iction is consistent 0it te Unite! States Constitution an!

la0s.

←


53/81

• E $.S.C. 23@@3. *ctions #e&ovale Generall

← )a* An5 civil action brougt in a State court of 0ic te !istrict courts of te Unite! States

ave original "uris!iction, %a5 be re%ove! b5 te !efen!ant or te !efen!ants, to te !istrict court of

te Unite! States for te !istrict an! !ivision e%bracing te #lace 0ere suc action is #en!ing.

← )b* Actions arising un!er sall be re%ovable 0itout regar! to citi6ensi#. An5 oter re%oval

can occur onl5 if none of te !efen!ants are citi6ens of te state in 0ic te action is brougt

←

← >E $.S.C. 23@@


54/81

← )b* Te notice of re%oval of a civil action or #rocee!ing sall be file! 0itin tirt5 !a5s after

te recei#t b5 te !efen!ant, troug service or oter0ise, of a co#5 of te initial #lea!ing setting

fort te clai% for relief u#on 0ic suc action or #rocee!ing is base!, or 0itin tirt5 !a5s after te

service of su%%ons u#on te !efen!ant if suc initial #lea!ing as ten been file! in court an! is not

reuire! to be serve! on te !efen!ant, 0icever #erio! is sorter.←

← If te case state! b5 te initial #lea!ing is not re%ovable, a notice of re%oval %a5 be file!

0itin tirt5 !a5s after recei#t b5 te !efen!ant, troug service or oter0ise, of a co#5 of an

a%en!e! #lea!ing, %otion, or!er or oter #a#er fro% 0ic it %a5 first be ascertaine! tat te case

is one 0ic is or as beco%e re%ovable, eJce#t tat a case %a5 not be re%ove! on te basis of

"uris!iction conferre! b5 section 1++$ of tis title %ore tan 1 5ear after co%%ence%ent of te action.

←

← )!* (ro%#tl5 after te filing of suc notice of re%oval of a civil action te !efen!ant or

!efen!ants sall give 0ritten notice tereof to all a!verse #arties an! sall file a co#5 of te notice

0it te cler- of suc State court, 0ic sall effect te re%oval an! te State court sall #rocee! no

furter unless an! until te case is re%an!e!.←

← >E $.S.C. 23@@. Procedure *fter #e&oval Generall

← )a* In an5 case re%ove! fro% a State court, te !istrict court %a5 issue all necessar5 or!ers

an! #rocess to bring before it all #ro#er #arties 0eter serve! b5 #rocess issue! b5 te State court

or oter0ise.

← )b* It %a5 reuire te re%oving #art5 to file 0it its cler- co#ies of all recor!s an!

#rocee!ings in suc State court or %a5 cause te sa%e to be brougt before it b5 0rit of certiorari

issue! to suc State court

← )c* 4otion to re%an! te case on basis of an5 !efect oter tan lac- of S4/ %ust be %a!e

0itin +; !a5s after filing te notice un!er 13)a*. If at an5 ti%e before final "u!g%ent it a##ears

te !istrict court lac-e! S4/, te case sall be re%an!e!.

← )!* An or!er re%an!ing a case to te State court fro% 0ic it 0as re%ove! is not revie0able

on a##eal or oter0ise, eJce#t an or!er re%ove! #ursuant to §1+

← )e* After re%oval if #laintiff see-s to "oin a!!itional !efen!ants 0ose "oin!er 0oul! !estro5

S4/, te court %a5 !en5 "oin!er or #er%it "oin!er an! re%an! to State court

←

← >E $.S.C. 23@@E. Process *fter #e&oval

← In an5 case re%ove! 0ere one or %ore of te !efen!ants as not been serve! 0it #rocess,

suc #rocess or service %a5 be co%#lete! or ne0 #rocess issue!. Tis sall not !e#rive an5

!efen!ant u#on 0o% #rocess is serve! after re%oval of is rigt to re%an! te case

←

← Fed. #. Civ. P. E3 – *""licailit of the #ules in General #e&oved *ctions

← )c*)$* After re%oval, re#lea!ing is unnecessar5 unless te court or!ers it. A !efen!ant 0o

!i! not ans0er before re%oval %ust ans0er or #resent oter !efenses or ob"ections un!er tese rules

0itin te longest of tese #erio!sK

← )A* $1 !a5s after receiving O troug service or oter0ise O a co#5 of te initial #lea!ing

stating te clai% for reliefH

← )L* $1 !a5s after being serve! 0it te su%%ons for an initial #lea!ing on file at te ti%e of

serviceH or

54

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001332----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001332----000-.html


55/81

← )C* : !a5s after te notice of re%oval is file!.

←

← 2 3463. +enue 'enerall

←


56/81

• = a substantial #art of te events or o%issions giving rise to te clai% occurre!, or a

substantial #art of #ro#ert5 tat is te sub"ect of te action is situate!, or

•


57/81

←


58/81

o )A* if te court !enies te %otion or #ost#ones its !is#osition until trial, te

res#onsive #lea!ing %ust be serve! 0itin 1 !a5s after notice of te courtEs

actionH or

o )L* if te court grants a %otion for a %ore !efinite state%ent, te res#onsive

#lea!ing %ust be serve! 0itin 1 !a5s after te %ore !efinite state%ent is

serve!.

←


59/81

• = 0i&itation on Further otions. Jce#t as #rovi!e! in Rule 1$)*)$* or )+*, a #art5

tat %a-es a %otion un!er tis rule %ust not %a-e anoter %otion un!er tis rule raising

a !efense or ob"ection tat 0as available to te #art5 but o%itte! fro% its earlier %otion.

←


60/81

←

← #ule E. General #ules of Pleadin'

←


61/81

o illegalit5H

o in"ur5 b5 fello0 servantH

o lacesH

o licenseH

o #a5%entH

o

releaseHo res "u!icataH

o statute of frau!sH

o statute of li%itationsH an!

o 0aiver.

• = istaken !esi'nation. If a #art5 %ista-enl5 !esignates a !efense as a

counterclai%, or a counterclai% as a !efense, te court %ust, if "ustice reuires, treat te

#lea!ing as toug it 0ere correctl5 !esignate!, an! %a5 i%#ose ter%s for !oing so.

←


62/81

←


63/81

)i* receive! suc notice of te action tat it 0ill not be #re"u!ice! in

!efen!ing on te %eritsH an!

)ii* -ne0 or soul! ave -no0n tat te action 0oul! ave been brougt

against it, but for a %ista-e concerning te #ro#er #art5Xs i!entit5.

• = (otice to the $nited States.


64/81

← )1* before a res#onsive #lea!ing is serve!H or

← )$* if tere is no res#onsive #lea!ing, before evi!ence is intro!uce! at a earing or trial.

←


65/81

Freer ecture

← Tere is no rigt ans0er to (ersonal /uris!ictionM ou nee! an anal5tical fra%e0or-

← I. (ersonal /uris!iction )(/*

← II. =otice

← III. Sub"ect 4atter /uris!iction )S4/*

← IV. Venue

←

← I@IV – Coosing a Foru%, are 0e in te rigt courtD

←

← V. rie 'octrine –


66/81

• Te la0 to!a5 is an a%alga% of all te #revious cases, starting 0it Pennoyer

• Pennoyer v. )eff )18:8* – Court as #o0er over ever5ting, ever5bo!5 in te state.

o Gives us four tra!itional bases for in #ersona% "uris!ictionK )1* serve! 0it

#rocess in te foru% )#resence General /uris!iction*H )$* !efen!antEs agent isserve! 0it #rocess in te foru%H )+* !efen!ant is !o%icile! in te foru% )general

"uris!iction as 0ell*H )* consent – 5ou can al0a5s consent to "uris!iction

o Tis %a-es it ver5 toug to go after a nonresi!ent, so court eJ#an!e! te

tra!itional bases

• Hess v. Pawloski )19$:* – 'efen!ant fro% (A, !rives to 4A an! gets into a car acci!ent.

4assacusetts a! a statute tat sai! if 5ou !rive a car in our state an! 5ouEre in a 0rec-,

5ou ave a##ointe! a state officer as an agent for service of #rocess

o Tis is consistent 0it Pennoyer because 0e ave service of #rocess in te foru%

on te !efen!antEs agent

o Tis o#inion eJ#an!s consent to i%#lie! consento ver5 state as a nonresi!ent %otor veicle statute

• International Shoe )192* – Court as "uris!iction if !efen!ant as suc %ini%u%

contacts 0it a foru% so tat eJercise of "uris!iction !oes not offen! tra!itional notions of

fair #la5 an! substantial "ustice

o Tis is ver5 fleJible an! a! le! to an eJ#ansion of "uris!iction

o L5 tis ti%e, itEs clear 0e can serve #rocess on te !efen!ant outsi!e of te foru%

– 5ou !o not ave to serve insi!e of te foru%

o T0o #arts – %ini%u% contacts an! fairness )fair #la5?reasonableness*

o =o0ere !oes it overrule Pennoyer M Court sa5s tis is te test >= if te

!efen!ant is not #resent – it i%#lies te tra!itional bases are correct

• McGee )192:* – T& insurance co%#an5 sol! one contract in CA. 'oes CA ave "uris!iction

even if tere 0as "ust one contactD esM

o 'efen!ant solicite! tat contract

o Relate!ness – (laintiffEs clai% arose fro% !efen!antEs contact 0it te foru% – for

breac of ver5 contract tat brougt !efen!ant to foru%

o StateEs interest – Cal a! an interest in #rovi!ing a court for its #eo#le

• Hanson v. Decka )1928* – Court finall5 sai! no on (/M


67/81

• "orldwide #olkswa$en )198;* – =o "uris!ictionM Robinsons in = sue in >N – !o te5 ave

"uris!iction over te regional !istributor )


68/81

o ffects Test – ou can ave %ini%u% contacts b5 aving an effect tere

• ('r

Documents

Civil Procedure - Schaffner - Fall 2010_3.doc