CivPro Tyler F2007-Outline

8/10/2019 CivPro Tyler F2007-Outline

1/106

CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINETyler, Fall 2007

I. Introduction

a. The Importance of Procedure (Capron,Des Moines)........................................................................1II. Peronal !uridictiona. The Traditional Rule and Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction (Pennoyer,Harris).........................................3". Presence, Consent, and Minimum Contacts (Hess,Shoe,McGee,Hanson).....................................c. !on"#arm $tatutes (Rule )................................................................................................................%d. $tream of Commerce (Volkswagen)...................................................................................................&e. $tream of Commerce' and the Internet (Calder,Keeton,Asahi,Millennium).................................. eneral Jurisdiction (Perkins,Helicopteros, Gator).......................................................................1$. Minimum Contacts and Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction (Shaffer)..........................................................1*%. Transient Jurisdiction (urnham)....................................................................................................13i. +otice and $erice of Process (Rule ,Mullane)............................................................................1-&. enue (/1301,ates).......................................................................................................................1'. Transfer of enue and 2orum +on Coneniens (/1, Gil!ert,Piper).........................................1%

III. (u"&ect )atter !uridiction

a. iersit4 Jurisdiction (/133*,Mas,A"#"A" $ours)""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" *1". 2ederal Question Jurisdiction (/1331,Mottley,Planters% ank).....................................................*c. $upplemental Jurisdiction5 6ri"ins (Gi!!s,Aldinger,#inley,Kroger)...........................................*d. $upplemental Jurisdiction5 oerned 74 $tatute (/13%,&ahn,'((on Mo!il)..............................31e. Remoal and Remand (/11, Caterpillar)....................................................................................33

IV. Decri"in$ and De#inin$ t%e Di*ute

a. $tatin" a Claim (Rule &, $wom!ly)..................................................................................................3%". $pecial Pleadin" Re8uirements (Rule 0, Stratford,Dura Pharm")..................................................3&c. Pre#9ns:er Motions and 9ns:ers (Rule 1*, Rule &,&elinski,)ngraham).....................................30d. ismissal and 9mendment (Rules 1, 1-,eeck, *ashington)......................................................3e. Responsi;ilities of the Pleader (Rule 11,Mattel)............................................................................-

V. O"tainin$ In#or+ation #or Trial

a. $cope and Mechanics of iscoer4 (Rules *, 3#3-, -)..............................................................0

". 9ttorne4


2/106


3/106

T-o ty*e o# &uridiction

$u;Aect#matter Aurisdiction ($MJ)

o Is this the =ind of case the court has po:er to hearG

o Collateral attac= on $MJ not allo:ed (Des Moines) Territorial (personal) Aurisdiction

o 9re the parties su;Aect to the Aurisdiction of the courtG

I.e., Po:er of the court to enter Aud"ment a"ainst a specific person

o 2ederalism concerns inoled in decidin" :hether thereBs personal Aurisdiction

o Collateral attac= on personal Aurisdiction allo:ed (Pennoyer)

*


4/106


5/106

o +eff finall4 learns of ori"inal suit and sale of land, sues Penno4er to "et his land

;ac= Collateral attac= on ori"inal case for lac= of personal Aurisdiction (land not

attached at ;e"innin" of ori"inal suit)o Holding5 6R lac=ed personal Aurisdiction oer +eff in the prior case ;ecause he

:asnBt in 6RE could not later assert Aurisdiction oer the propert4 +eff purchased;c the propert4 :asnBt attached at the ;e"innin" of the prior case (couldnBtcircument Aurisdictional re8uirements)

o Collateral attac= allo:ed on personal Aurisdiction "rounds (remem;er not allo:ed

on $MJ "rounds Des Moines)

Quasi in rem&uridiction Harris v. Ba!8

Jurisdiction oer propert4 permissi;le so lon" as propert4 is :ithin the state (een if itBs

intan"i;le) :a4 to "et around ri"idPennoyer rule throu"h 4uasi in remAurisdiction

Harris v. Ba!, U( (C, 4A0B ;andout 28

o Harris (+C) o:es 7al= (+C) N1&E 7al= (+C) o:es >pstein (M) N3

o Harris "oes to ME >pstein (M) sues 7al= (+C) in M :hile Harris (+C) is in

M and :ins N1& ;4 "arnishin" the N1& Harris o:es 7al=o Harris returns to +C and is immediatel4 sued ;4 7al= for the N1&

o Holding5 MBs Aurisdiction oer 7al= :as proper ;ecause Harris :as in M

(7al= could hae sued Harris in M, too)E +C must respect MBs rulin" $ho:s potenc4 and limits of 4uasi in remAurisdiction (>pstein "ot some of

his mone4 ;ac=, ;ut onl4 some of it)

@. T%e Tranition to )ini+u+ Contact

De1elo*+ent o# t%ePennoyer rule

Pennoyer;ecame increasin"l4 pro;lematic as transportation and interstate commerce

increased

T:o :a4s court tried to :or= :ithin thePennoyerframe:or=5

o Presence concept5

Pennoyerplaced "reat emphasis on DBs presence in the state D had to

;e present in the state for the court to hae Aurisdiction (Mii!en rule)5 6ne is al:a4s deemed present :ithin oneBs o:n state

(state of domicile), :hether or not one is actuall4 present !ater eLpansion of rule5 Corporations al:a4s present in state of

incorporation and principle place of ;usinesso Consent concept5

Pennoyersaid (1) person :ho oluntaril4 entered state could ;e sered

:ith process and (*) person doin" ;usiness in state could ;e authoried toappoint an a"ent to receie process on his ;ehalf

$o states ;e"an to pass la:s sa4in" driers :ho :anted to drie in their

state either (1) had to formall4 appoint an a"ent to receie process or (*)automaticall4 consented to serice of process upon enterin" the state


6/106


7/106

o Holding5 $hoe su;Aect to


8/106

Holding5 2! lac=ed Aurisdiction oer > ;an= ;ecause less than minimal

contactsE onl4 contacts ;et:een onner and D mailed correspondence,chan"e of trust

2!Bs contacts :ith D result of unilateral actionK on part of onner

Dissent5 2! a "ood forum ;ecause all parties lied there and 2! had stron"

interest in alidit4 of onnerBs trust chan"e The unilateral action of one part4 in the forum state is insufficient to

su;Aect the other (if nonresident) to Aurisdiction in the forum state if theother part4 did not purposefull4 aail himself of the la:s of the forumstate

Put ;ra=es onMcGee

o (u!o v. "uperior Court, U( (C, 4A75 *.4098

diorced D (+) and moed to C9

D (+) ;u4s plane tic=et for children to "o lie :ith C9

@ (C9) sued D (+) in C9 to modif4 child#support a"reement (no: that

children liin" :ith in C9) Holding5 D did not purposefull4 aail himself of ;enefits of C9 la:, so no

C9 Aurisdiction (:ould iolate notions of fairness and Austice) Merel4 causin" a noncommercial, noninAurious effectK :ithin a state,

a;sent purposeful aailment of that stateBs la:s, is insufficient "rounds forpersonal Aurisdiction

>ffects testK applies onl4 to (1) :ron"ful actiit4 outside the

forum state that causes inAur4 :ithin it and (*) commercial actiit4affectin" state residents, proided such application :ould not ;eunreasona;leK


9/106

o 1. oes the applica;le lon"#arm statute reach the DG

o *. If 4es, is eLercise of Aurisdiction consistent :ith due processG

Three#part in8uir4 for federal courts5

o 1. !oo= to 2RCP Rule (=)5

(=)(1)(9)5 su;Aect to Aurisdiction if he :ould ;e su;Aect to "eneral

Aurisdiction in the state in :hich the district court sits. $o if 4ou could "etstate Aurisdiction, then 4ou can "et federal $erice of summons or filin" a:aier of serice

>Lceptions5 6n certain issues (e."., antitrust) Con"ress allo:s nation:ide

serice, ;ul"e rule (Aoinder of parties less than 1 miles fromcourthouse), if D cannot ;e reached ;4 an4 state court ;ut has sufficientcontacts :ith nation as a :hole

o *. oes the applica;le lon"#arm statute reach the DG

o 3. If 4es, is eLercise of Aurisdiction consistent :ith due processG

B. Re#inin$ t%e )ini+u+ Contact nalyi3 Vo!swagen)ini+u+ contact and >trea+ o# co++erce?

$tream of commerceK test (Volkswagen)5


10/106

o Jones (C9) sues +ational >n8uirer (2!) in C9 for li;elE >n8uirer challen"es

Aurisdictiono Holding5 >n8uirer :rote stor4 that knowinglyinflicted harm on a C9 resident

sufficient for personal Aurisdiction in C9o n8uirer all oer the countr4 (6ones)

)ini+u+ contact, >trea+ o# co++erce ,? and #airne #actor

sa#i Meta Industry Co. v. "uperior Court, U( (C, 4A57 *.4478

o urcher inAured in motorc4cle accident in C9 caused ;4 fault4 tire

o Tire tu;e made ;4 Tai:an co. (Chen" $hin), tire ale assem;l4 made ;4

Japanese co. (9sahi) 9sahi =ne: some of its assem;lies sold ;4 Chen" in C9

o Chen" files indemnification claim a"ainst 9sahi in C9 courtcan C9 eLercise

personal AurisdictionGo Holding5 Court sa4s no, ;ut no maAorit4 rulin"

o >en if nonresident D had minimum contacts, if suit :ould ;e unfair then forumstate has no personal Aurisdiction

Holdin" rests on fairness "rounds "urden on #orei$n !a*anee8

(pro;a;l4 decidin" factor in this case), C9 lac=s stron" interest, caseinoles international companies

o $tream of commerce plusK s. stream of commerce5

$6C' (6BConnor pluralit4)5 The placement of a product into the stream of

commerce, :ithout more, is not an act of the D purposefull4 directedto:ard the forum state. +ot enou"h that nonresident D merel4 =no:sproducts :illma4 end up in forum state

9sahi did nothin" to purposefull4 aail itself of C9 mar=et

>Lamples of somethin" more5 mar=etin", sales reps, sericecenters

$6C (7rennan pluralit4)5 Placement of a product into the stream of

commerce is ;4 itself sufficient for Aurisdiction. >nou"h that nonresidentD =no:s product :illma4 end up in forum state.

9s lon" as a D =no:s a product is ;ein" mar=eted in a forum state,

he should ;e su;Aect to Aurisdiction (;ecause he =no:s a la:suitBs a

0


11/106

possi;ilit4 and is aailin" himself, thou"h indirectl4, of the stateBsla: that facilitate commercial actiit4)

9sahi =ne: its products :ould end up in C9

Pro;lems :$6C (:o ')5 6pens to suit almost an4:here

$teens5 $u""ests if feet held to fire heBd a"ree 9sahi had minimum

contacts :ith C9o $o, is mere puttin" of product into stream of commerce enou"h, or does

nonresident D hae to do somethin" moreG Issue remains unresoled

(Volkswagen still the la:G)

)ini+u+ contact and t%e internet

Mere pu;lication of an interactie :e;site accessi;le in the forum state ;4 a nonresident

D is not sufficient to esta;lish minimum contacts :ith the forum state. eli;erate andrepeated contactsK re8uired such that D purposefull4 aailedK itself of forum stateBs;enefits (Millennium).

Miennium -nterprises v. Miennium Musi%, U( Dit. Ct. #or OR, 4AAA ;andout 68

o 6R and $C music#sellin" cos. hae similar namesE 6R co. sues $C co. for

trademar= infrin"emento $C co. sells mainl4 in store, ;ut also has :e;site that ma=es a small num;er of

sales :e;site clearl4 directed to:ards $C residents

o Holding5 $C co. made no sales and no deli;erate actionsK to:ards 6R :ith its

:e;site, so no 6R Aurisdiction oer $C co.

ippo slidin"#scaleK test5

o Acti/e:e;sites5 9ctiel4 conduct ;usiness :ith residents of forum state

(nonresident D doin" lots of ;usiness :ith forum state throu"h :e;site)

9lmost al:a4s personal Aurisdictiono )nteracti/e:e;sites5 $ites that permit user to eLchan"e information :ith host

computer (user can ;u4 thin"s, re"ister, etc.) $ometimes personal Aurisdiction, dependin" on circumstances

o Passi/e:e;sites5 o little more than ma=e information =no:n to those :ho are

interested Rarel4 personal Aurisdiction

T4ler5 7ut :hat if >n8uirer had posted $hirle4 Jones stor4 on its :e;siteG

o Releant concerns5 2airness to D, leel of actiit4 conducted :ith forum state

throu"h site T4ler thin=s this test is sill4

Re1ie- o# +ini+u+ contact doctrine u* to t%i *oint

Shoe5 7enchmar= test is minimum contacts, so lon" as personal Aurisdiction :ould not ;e

unfairunreasona;le

Asahi5 !oo= at contacts first if there are minimum contacts, reasona;lefairness factors

can still eto eLercise of personal Aurisdiction

1


12/106

Hanson (also V*)5 To determine if there are minimum contacts, loo= at nonresident DBs

ties :ith forum stateo Hanson3 V*3 andKulko5 +onresident DBs ties to forum state cannot ;e esta;lished

;4 unilateral act of third part4 must ;e some "esture (purposeful aailment) ;4

D directed to:ards forum state

$6C s. $6C'5o $6C (V*3 Asahi)5 Personal Aurisdiction if nonresident D inAected product into

stream of commerce, =no:in" product :ill end up in forum stateo $6C' (Asahi)5 $omethin" more than mere inAectionK needed action ;4 D

directed to:ards the state re8uiredo Technicall4, controllin" lan"ua"e on the issue is still V$

7.


13/106

ifference fromPerkins5 InPerkins, DBs ;usiness conducted from 6H

here, DBs ;usiness conducted from Colom;iao Dissent (7rennan)5 irect relationship ;et:een crash and DBs actions in TO (pilot

trained in TO, DBs deal :ith Consorcio ne"otiated in TO) i"nores Bs

concession of no specific Aurisdiction

Causes of action can arise fromK or relate toK DBs contacts :ith forumstate

There should ;e personal Aurisdiction :heneer cause of action relates

toK nonresident DBs contacts :ith forum state (:hen cause of action arisesfrom actions ;4 D that aresimilar to, ;ut not necessaril4 same as, DBscontacts :ith forum state)

o .essons (T4ler)5 (1) 9 court :onBt deal :ith an issue the parties donBt raise (here,

:hether or not TO had personal Aurisdiction), (*) "ood to pla4 nice and ma=esome concessions, ;ut notthe central aspect of 4our case

&ator.%om Corp. v. '.'. Bean, In%., At%Cir., 200@ ;andout B8

o ator (>) ma=es pop#up !! 7ean (M>) doesnBt li=e

o !! 7ean does a lot of mail#order and internet ;usiness in C9

o ator see=s declarator4 Aud"ment in C9 that its popups :ere le"al

o Holding5 !! 7ean (M>) does so much ;usiness in C9 that is has somethin" a=in

to a ph4sical presence thereo If nonresident D does so much ;usiness in forum state that it approLimates a

ph4sical presence there (li=e inPerkins), forum state has "eneral Aurisdiction T4ler5 Thro:;ac= toPennoyerand presenceK re8uirementG

(u++ariGin$ t%e Cae o Far

5.Harris v. Ba! Re1iited

Ty*e o# a**earance

1*


14/106

General appearance5 D su;mits full4 to court Aurisdiction (open oneself up to personal

lia;ilit4)

Special appearance5 D appears onl4 to challen"e Aurisdiction (canBt "et into merits of

case)

.imited appearance5 la: sa4s DBs :hose propert4 has ;een attached (se8uesteredK) mustma=e "eneral appearance (su;mit to personal Aurisdiction) in > ;efore the4 canliti"ate case on the merits D canBt ma=e a limited appearance

I.e., D can either ma=e "eneral appearance of forfeit his attached propert4

o Holding5 DBs stoc= not the su;Aect of the suit, and mere o:nership of stoc= not

sufficient contacts, so no > Aurisdiction T4ler H9T>$ this holdin"5 (1) eer4thin" DBs do as directors of

re4hound has an effect in >, (*) DBs enAo4ed ;enefits of > la: asdirectors of re4houd, (3) DBs pro;a;l4 had lots of contacts :ith >, andthe reason the court didnBt see an4 :as ;ecause this particular issue :asnBtliti"ated

o 0easoning5 Jurisdiction oer propert4 essentiall4 isAurisdiction oer the

propert4Bs o:ner (in remproceedin"s are reall4 proceedin"s a;out the propert4o:nerBs ri"hts is#U#is the propert4)

7FT, Shoe test rests on traditional notions of fair pla4K isnBt 4uasi in

remAurisdiction a traditionG Marshall5 Tradition isnBt decisie

o Concurrence7Dissent(7rennan)5 > has stron" interest in adAudicatin" the suit

and DBs enAo4ed ;enefits > affords to corporate officers (oluntaril4)

13


15/106

Implications of Shaffer5

o 7rea=s do:n traditional distinction ;et:een in personam, in rem, and 4uasi in

remAurisdiction Tests for determinin" :hether in personamand 4uasi in remAurisdiction

lie is no: eLactl4 the same

)n remAurisdiction :ill al:a4s lie under the minimum#contacts test (inremcases inole determinin" :ho o:ns a particular piece of propert4)

o $ituation in :hich 4uasi in remAurisdiction mi"ht appl45 If stateBs lon" arm

statute :onBt reach the nonresident D

A.Pennoyer Re1iited3 Peronal (er1ice Hit%in t%e

!uridiction

Tranient &uridiction

$ransient ,urisdiction5 Jurisdiction oer a part4 ;ecause he is in the forum, een if foronl4 a short time

Burn#am v. "uperior Court, U( (C, 4AA0 *.4908

o @ and D a"ree to separate and that D :ill moe to C9 and file diorce there

o


16/106

o 7rennan pluralit45 Shoe and Shaffer mean that e/ery assertion of state#court

Aurisdiction, een one as traditional as transient Aurisdiction, must comport :ithcontemporar4K notions of due process transient Aurisdiction is fair in this case

In determinin" fairness of Aurisdiction, court should loo= at all the releant

factors, not Aust DBs contacts :ith the forum state

0easoning5 9ssertion of transient Aurisdiction fair in this case ;ecause5 (1)

eer4one =no:s a;out transient Aurisdiction, so D should hae ;eenon notice, (*) D had aailed himself of ;enefits of C9 durin" 3da4s he :as there, and (3) ;urden on D li"ht ;ecause of adancesin transportation

oesnBt li=e $caliaBs sin"le#minded reliance on historical pedi"ree

o $ake away5

Rulin" applies onl4 to indiiduals and not corporations

$calia finds transient Aurisdiction sufficient ;ecause thatBs the :a4 :eBe

al:a4s done it (and ShafferdidnBt chan"e that) sees minimum contacts

as a sort of surro"ateK for ph4sical presence 7rennan thin=s Shafferdidchan"e the :a4 :e thin= a;out transient

Aurisdiction, ;ut that there are sufficient contacts here for Aurisdiction to ;efair

T4ler5 7oth are :ron" ;ecause tradition isnBt al:a4s determinatie (e.".,

Shaffer) 4et 7rennanBs approach :ould allo: Aurisdiction oer Aust a;outan4 out#of#state D

!uridiction "y conent

Consent to personal Aurisdiction can ;e implied (Hess)

Consent to Aurisdiction can ;e an eLpress part of a contractual a"reement (Carni/al

Cruise .ines) contract had clause a;out :here adAudication :ould ta=e place)o $uch clauses are almost al:a4s upheld

!uridiction to Decide !uridiction

In su;mittin" to courtBs Aurisdiction for the limited purpose of challen"in" Aurisdiction,K

D a"rees to a;ide ;4 (1) courtBs decision re5 Aurisdiction and (*) the manner in :hich thecourt determinesK the issue (includin" the orderin" of discoer4 re5 minimum contacts)()nsurance Co" of )reland)

40 = 40. T%e )ec%anic o# Notice = T%e Reuire+ent o#

Notice a an *ect o# Due Proce

Rule #or er1in$ *roce FRCP 68

(c)(1)5 $ummons sered to"ether :complaint

(e)5 $erice can ;e made to an indiidual either (1) accordin" to the releant stateBs rules

(in federal court, option of follo:in" applica;le stateBs rules) or (*) ;4 hando Releant state V state in :hich district court sits or in :hich serice is effected

1-


17/106

o 74 hand V to D, to person of suita;le a"e and discretionK at DBs house, or to DBs

authoried a"ent

(h)5 $erice can made upon a corporation either (1) accordin" to the releant stateBs la:

or (*) ;4 hand delier4 to an officerdirector of the corporation

(d)5 Lception5 pu;lication notice usu. accepta;le in in remproceedin"s

Muane v. Centra Hanover Ban! 1 2rust Co., U( (C, 4AB0 *.45@8

o D ;an= had pooled trust fundE settled trust and made notice ;4 pu;lication in +

ne:spaper for :ee=so

Trust settlement (accountin") preented ;eneficiaries from protestin" DBsdecisions re5 the trust oer the past 4earo Holding5 Court diided ;eneficiaries into t:o "roup5 those :ho could ;e easil4

identified (D had their addresses) and those :ho could not ;e (interests toocontin"ent). Pu;lication notice :as sufficient for un=no:n ;eneficiaries ;utinsufficient for =no:n ones.

44. Venue

1


18/106

Venue

+ot a constitutional matter defined ;4 statute (*& F$C /1301)

Method for allocatin" :or= amon" the s4stem to promote efficienc4 and conenience

If court has (1) Aurisdiction and (*) thereBs ;een notice, then as= if enueBs proper

enue o;Aections are :aia;le must ;e made in the first document D files

Se4 8uestion re5 enue5 :hich court :ould ;e most conenient and fair location for

parties to adAudicate the disputeG

Rule #or 1enue 25 U(C J4@A48

enue selected doesnBt hae to ;e !estenue onl4 releant factor is :hether enue

meets re8uirements of //1301(a) and (;)(ates)

/1301(a)5 iersit4 cases ma4 ;e ;rou"ht in Audicial district5

o (a)(1)


19/106

o If state has more than one district, corporation resides in an4 district :here D has

enou"h contacts for personal Aurisdiction if that district :ere a stateo (c) informs(a) and (;) loo= to (c) to determine :here corporation resides and

then appl4 to (a) or (;)

/1301(d)5 9n alien ma4 ;e sued in an4 district (;ut there still must ;e serice of process)

/1301 (f)5 enue rules for suit a"ainst forei"n state

42. Tran#er o# 1enue and #oru+ non con1enien

Tran#er o# 1enue

/1(a)5 2or (1) conenience of parties and :itnesses and (*) interests of Austice, ciil

action ma4 ;e transferred to another district :here it mi"ht hae ;een ;rou"hto T:o 8uestions to as= here5

1. Could suit hae ori"inall4 ;een ;rou"ht in the transferee districtG

(Hoffman5 this means could suit hae ;een ;rou"ht ;4 in transferee

district at the outset of the action) *.


20/106

Foru+ non con1enien

#orum non con/eniens5 The discretion of a court to refuse to hear a suit, een :hen the

court has Aurisdiction, :hen there is another more appropriate forum for ;oth partieso Jud"e#made (common#la:) doctrine

o Idea is to preent from harassin" D ;4 filin" at place most inconenient to D

o If applied, case dismissed and can ;e refilled ;4 in the more conenient forumo Rarel4 ino=ed, ;ecause itBs eLtremeonl4 used :hen pu;lic and priate factors

:ei"h heail4 in faor of dismissal (:hen choice of forum is eLtremel4 unfair)o @Bs forum choice usu. "ien su;stantial :ei"ht less :ei"ht :hen is forei"n

(seePiper) 2lipside ofAsahi5 court less faora;le to forei"n Bs than forei"n DBs

(contrast :Asahi) ;c :orried a;out forei"n Bs forum#shoppin" in F$ ;cof F$Bs more faora;le la:s (seePiper)

Gil!ert test for forum non coneniens determinations (seePiper)5

o Priate factors5 (1) eidenceproof location, (*) aaila;ilit4 of :itnesses, (3) cost

of "ettin" :itnesses, () Aur4Bs a;ilit4 to ie: premiseso Pu;lic factors5 (1) court con"estion, (*) local interest in decidin" local

controersies at home,K (3) forum familiarit4 :ith su;stantie la:, () unfairnessof ;urdenin" citiens :ith Aur4 dut4 for cases unrelated to forum

Piper ir%raft Co. v. Reyno, U( (C, 4A54 *.@6A8

o Plane manufactured ;4 D Piper (P9) crashes in $cotland, =illin" eer4one

on;oard (all $cottish citiens)o @ (ictimsB relaties) ;rin" :ron"ful death suit in C9 ;c of more faora;le strict

lia;ilit4 tort la: than in $cotlando DBs :ant to liti"ate in $cotland ;c (1) co. that operated plane ;ased in FS (:ants

to implead plane operator crash resulted from pilot error) and (*) $cotland

doesnBt hae strict lia;ilit4o Holding5 Fsin" Gil!ert test, :ould ;e more conenient for parties and :itness to

liti"ate case in $cotland, so case dismissed under forum non conenienso 0easoning5 9ll the eidence is reall4 in FS, Bs lie in FS, FS interest stron"er

than 9merican interest, so case should ;e liti"ated there Possi;ilit4 that a enue chan"e :ill result in a less faora;le application of

la: for not "ien su;stantial :ei"ht if possi;ilit4 of less faora;le

application of la: were"ien su;stantial :ei"ht, forum non coneniens:ould ;ecome a non#issue ;ecause almost al:a4s files suit in forum:ith most faora;le la:s

Court :orried a;out forum#shoppin" in F$ ;c of F$Bs more faora;le

la:s

10


21/106

C;OO(IN< T;E FORU)3

(U!ECT/)TTER !URI(DICTION

Ty*e o# (u"&ect/)atter !uridiction ()!8

Central 8uestion re5 $MJ5 Ho: do 4ou determine :hich court has the po:er to hear the

t4pe of case 4ou haeG

2ederal courts are courts of limited $MJ

o F$ Const. 9rt. III /*5 0 heads of federal Aurisdiction5

9ll cases, in la: and e8uit4, arisin" under the Constitution, the la:s of the

F$, and treaties made under F$ authorit4 9ll cases affectin" am;assadors, other pu;lic ministers, and consuls

9ll cases of admiralt4 and maritime Aurisdiction

Controersies to :hich the F$ shall ;e a part4

Controersies ;et:een t:o or more states Controersies ;et:een a state and citiens of another state

Controersies ;et:een citiens of different states

Controersies ;et:een citiens of the same state claimin" lands under

"rants of different states 7et:een a state, or the citiens thereof, and forei"n states, citiens, or

su;Aectso F$ Const 9m. 11 denies federal Aurisdiction to cases commenced or prosecuted

a"ainst one of the states ;4 citiens of a different state, or ;4 citiens or su;Aectsof an4 forei"n state

;riginal ,urisdiction5 9uthorit4 to hear a case at its inception

o 2ederal courts hae much ;roader $MJ than the F$ $C (F$ $upreme Court)

under *& F$C // 1331 and 133*

Appellate ,urisdiction5 9uthorit4 to reie: the decision of lo:er courts

o F$ $C has er4 ;road appellate Aurisdiction

o F$ Const. 9rt. III /* "ies F$ $C appellate Aurisdiction oer the 0 heads of

federal Aurisdiction, su;Aect to rules and re"ulations imposed ;4 Con"ress

Concurrent ,urisdiction5


22/106

certainin$ i# t%ere #ederal court ()!

2ederal courts must al:a4s ensure that at the outset of the case the4 hae $MJ(Mottley)

o $MJ is so important thatMottleycourt raised $MJ concernsua sponte

$MJ cannot;e :aied (parties cannot ;4 consent create $MJ (as opposed to personalAurisdiction, :hich can ;e :aied)

o >en the :ho chooses the forum can challen"e $MJ on direct appeal (Capron)

et, :hile 4ou canBt :aie $MJ, 4ou can:aie 4our ri"ht to appeal if 4ou

:ait too lon"o et, $MJ not su;Aect to collateral attac=E $MJ of first proceedin" cannot ;e ar"ued

in second proceedin" (Des Moines) The interests of finalit4 must at some point ta=e precedence

T:o 8uestions to as=5

o oes the Constitution proide federal courts :ith this t4pe of $MJ (see F$ Const.

9rt. III /*)Go Has Con"ress ta=en the additional step in *& F$C of "rantin" the federal courts

$MJ oer this t4pe of caseG The Constitution "ies Congressrather than state courts po:er to

determine federal court $MJ Just ;ecause the F$ Const. sa4s federal courts caneLercise $MJ in a

certain t4pe of case does not mean Con"ress cannot limitthat $MJ (e.".,N%-, ac re8uirement in diersit4 cases)

T:o most important $MJ "rants Con"ress has made to federal courts5 (1)

diersit4 Aurisdiction and (*) federal 8uestion Aurisdiction)

The ;ul= of federal court cases come from federal 8uestion cases

(%#&W)E *#3W come from diersit4 Aurisdiction cases

4@. Di1erity !uridiction

Rule #or Di1erity !uridicition 25 U(C J4@@28

2ederal courts hae ori"inal Aurisdiction in cases (1) that meet the 9rt. III re8uirements of

diersit4 of citienship and (*) in :hich the amount in controers4 (ac) eLceeds N%-,o iersit4 Aurisdiction allo:s federal courts to hear cases in :hich claims arise

solel4 understatela:, so lon" as constitutional and statutor4 re8uirements aresatisfied

o $tateK includes C, PR, and F$ territories (F$ $C in $idewatersaid this is

constitutional)o ap in the statute5 9 person :ho moes to 2rance cannot ;rin" a diersit4 suit

iersit4 of citienship5

o eneral rule (Straw!ridge /" Curtis)5 Complete diersit4 of parties usu. re8uired

for a federal court to eLercise diersit4 Aurisdiction (i.e., no part4 on one side ma4;e from the same state as an4 part4 on the other side)

*1


23/106

Con"ress does, ho:eer, in some cases permit diersit4 suits :hen thereBs

onl4 minimal di/ersity(:here at least one is a citien of a different statethan at least one D)

>."., Class action cases in :hich there are oer %- deaths or claims

in eLcess of N- million

Corollar45 iersit4 of citienship must ;e present at the time thecomplaint is filed, and chan"es in citienship su;se8uent to the filin" ofthe complaint do not affect the diersit4 Aurisdiction (Connolly)

9mount in controers45

o If Aud"ment is for less than N%-,, Aud"e has po:er to assess penalties on the

Idea is to discoura"e Bs :ith mea"er cases of filin" for N%-,' Aust to

"et into federal court

Deter+inin$ citiGen%i*

2or indiiduals (domicile)5

o Mas v. Perry, Bt%Circuit, 4A76 *.2BB8

@Bs :ere married "rad students liin" in !9E hus;and :as from 2rance,

:ife from M$ @Bs accused D landlord (from !9) of peepin" on them no federal anti#

peein" la:, so for case to ;rou"ht in federal court it had to ;e ;rou"ht ondiersit4 "rounds

at end of trial moed to dismiss on $MJ "rounds (lac= of diersit4), said

no complete diersit4 ;ecause :ife :as from M$

6;Aections ;ased on $MJ ma4 ;e raised at an4 time (not :aia;le,

unli=e personal Aurisdiction) Holding5 Thou"h :ife had moed to !9, she :as still a citien of M$

;ecause she lac=ed the re8uisite intent to sta4 in !9 to chan"e herdomicile from M$ to !9. $o, case can "o for:ard.

2or diersit4 Aurisdiction purposes, citienshipK means domicileEK mere

residence does not e8ual citienship 9 chan"e of domicile re8uires (1) ta=in" up residence in a ne: state (*)

:ith the intention to remain there indefinitel4

Courts determine domiciliar4 intent ;4 loo=in" to a host of factors

2or corporations5

o *& F$C /133*(c)(1)5 9 corporation (for purposes of diersit4 Aurisdiction) is

deemed to ;e a citien of an4 state :here (1) itBs incorporated or (*) has itsprincipal place of ;usiness

>Lception5 9n insurer is also deemed to ;e a citien of an4 state in :hichan insured is a citien

o Tests for determinin" corporationBs principal place of ;usiness5

+ere center test

6peratin" assets test

Total actiit4 test (this is the test the case;oo= prefers)

**


24/106

2or unincorporated associations (e."., partnerships, la;or unions, charita;le or"aniations,

etc.)5o Courts "enerall4 consider citienship (domicile) of each of the or"aniationBs

mem;ers rather than treatin" the unincorporated association itself as an entit4:ith citienship in a particular state(s)

Thus, itBs er4 hard to "et diersit4 Aurisdiction oer lar"e unincorporatedassociations ;ecause the4 hae mem;ers in so man4 states

2or representatie actions5

o Citienship of representatie "oerns (en Hur), unless representatie is eLecutor

or "uardian, in :hich case citienship of represented part4 "oerns (/ 133*(c)(*)) Thus, appointment of an administrator for a decedent, infant, or

incompetent can neither in and of itself create nor destro4 diersit4 ofcitienship (;ecause depends on citienship of person for :homadministrator is appointed)

2or aliens5

o 2or purposes of diersit4, an alien admitted to the F$ for permanent residence is

deemed a citien of the state in :hich that alien is domiciled (*& F$C /133*)

In determinin" diersit4 Aurisdiction, a federal court loo=s onl4 to the citienship of the

realK parties to the action disre"ards citienship of nominalK or formalK parties

o 0eal party(as to D)5 a part4 :ho, ;4 the su;stantie la:, has the dut4 see=s to

enAoin or enforceo 2ominal party5 a part4 :ho, in a le"al sense, has no interest in the result of the

suit or no actual interest or control oer the su;Aect matter of the liti"ation

Deter+inin$ t%e a+ount in contro1ery aKc8

The sum claimed ;4 the in "ood faith in the complaint is ta=en to ;e the ac in

controers4 unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is reall4 for less than thestated ac (St" Paul Mercury )ndemnity Co" /" 0ed Ca! Co",A#A $ours)

o Very#friendl4 doctrine

o .4. 2ours, In%. v. $#it%#ur%#, 2ndCircuit., 4AA4 *.2928

D :or=ed for tour compan4 for man4 4ears, then 8uit and used Bs client

list as a ;asis for findin" ;usiness @ ;rou"ht diersit4 suit for misappropriation of trade secrets, as=in" for

dama"es in an amount not presentl4 ascertaina;le, ;ut :hich is ;elieedto eLceed the sum of N-,K and punitie dama"es of not less thanN*-,K

2ederal trial court dismissed case on "round it :ould not ;e possi;le for

to proe dama"es amountin" to more than N-, (ac re8uirement at thetime)

Holding5 DBs profits from Bs client list couldeLceed N-,, and the

record does not foreclose the possi;ilit4 that could recoer punitiedama"es. Thus, itBs not a le"al certaint4 that Bs claim is less than acre8uirement, so trial court :as :ron" to dismiss

9""re"ation to meet the ac re8uirement5

*3


25/106

o 9 sin"le can a""re"ate claims a"ainst a sin"le D to meet the ac re8uirement

o If there is a sin"le, indiisi;le harm, multiple Bs ma4 a""re"ate a"ainst a sin"le D

o >Lcept for special statutor4 eLceptions, multiple Bs ma4 not a""re"ate a"ainst a

sin"le D if the4 hae separate and distinct claims in order to meet the ac Generally, t:o Bs ma4 not a""re"ate their claims to "et oer the ac

hurdle enerall4, if the ac re8uirement is met either from the Bs ie:point (ho: much the

stands to "ain) or the DBs (ho: much the D stands to lose), then he ac re8uirement has;een satisfied

Ece*tion to di1erity &uridiction

>en if the re8uirements of diersit4 Aurisdiction are met, a federal court "enerall4

decline to hear, and instead dismiss for lac= of $MJ, cases related to5o Pro;ate (sale of an estate)

o omestic relations (in cases inolin" the issuance of diorce, alimon4, or a child

custod4 decree)

F$ $C has held that Con"ress in the diersit4 statute did not intend to "ie federal courts

Aurisdiction oer these t:o t4pes of cases (;ut could hae if it had :anted to)

(%ould -e %a1e di1erity &uridiction

6ri"inal Austifications for diersit4 Aurisdiction5

o To aoid discrimination a"ainst out#of#state residents in state courts

o To afford some measure of securit4 to inestors deelopin" the frontier sections

of the countr4 (;ac= :hen that :as releant)

es5

o ies DBs the choice to remoe cases if case filed in forum D doesnBt li=e

o iersit4 Aurisdiction leads to cross#pollination (dialo"ue) ;et:een federal andstate court, and thatBs a "ood thin"

+o5

o iersit4 Aurisdiction ma=es federal courts too con"ested

o iersit4 cases hae hi"h transaction costs (;ecause federal courts appl4 state la:

in diersit4 suits)5 Re8uire Aud"es to "ain close =no:led"e of state la:

istract federal Aud"es from doin" their primar4 Ao;, that is, appl4in"

federal la:o


26/106

o 2oac re8uirement

Important5 enerall4, if a has a federal 8uestion, case, he can "o eitherto federal or to

state court (federal 8uestion Aurisdiction usu. not eLclusie)

Is federal 8uestion Aurisdiction a "ood thin"G

o Ma4;e federal Aud"es are ;etter than state Aud"es

o Ma4;e leads to "reater uniformit4 ;c F$ $C doesnBt hae time to tr4 all cases,and is more li=el4 to hear circuit splits than state court splits

o It depends on ho: much :e trust the state courts

Deter+inin$ -%et%er a cae arie under a #ederal uetion3 T%e Hell/Pleaded Co+*laint

Rule8

*ell1Pleaded Complaint 0ule5 9 case ;rou"ht in federal court under /1331 (i.e., on

federal 8uestion "rounds) must in its complaint state a cause of action ;ased on a federalla:, a treat4, or the F$ Constitution. 6ther:ise, the federal court must dismiss for lac=of $MJ.

'ouisvie 1 Nas#vie R. Co. v. Mottey, U( (C, 4A05 *.27@8

o @ inAured due to D RR ne"li"ence, "ien free passes for rest of their lies

o In 10% Con"ress passes la: to preent RRBs from distri;utin" free passes, and D

RR refuses to rene: Bs passeso @Bs sue in federal court on federal 8uestion "rounds (no ;asis for diersit4 suit),

;asin" federal claim on ar"ument that D :ill rel4 on 10% la: in its defenseo Holding5 Court dismisses for lac= of $MJ, een thou"h a federal 8uestion is

implicated, ;ecause the federal 8uestion implicated relates to an anticipateddefense, not to the cause of action itself

o 0easoning5 This is reall4 a ;reach#of#contract claim, and ;reach#of#contract

claims are "oerned ;4 state la: (thereBs no federal ;reach#of#contract statute)

o The federal 8uestion must ;e implicated in the cause of action itself (:ell#pleadedcomplaint rule). It is not sufficient that a federal 8uestion li=el4 :ill ;eimplicated in the defense.

Contrast 5s/orn v. Ban! of 6"

o 7an= of F$ sues to preent 6H from colletin" a taL on the 7an= of the F$

o Holding5 >en thou"h the taL collection itself is not a federal 8uestion (rather, itBs

a state matter), there is federal 8uestion Aurisdiction ;c5o 0easoning3

7an= of the F$Bs claim is that 6HBs taL collection is unconstitutional (i.e.,

the federal 8uestion implicated is one of unconstitutionalit4) Con"ress has passed a statute allo:in" the 7an= of the F$ to sue and ;e

sued in federal court (the statute ;ein" the 7an= of the F$Bs charter) Contrast alsoBan! of 6" v. Panters7 Ban! of &eorgia*.2728

o 7an= of F$ sues PlantersB ;an= for refusin" to honors its notes essentiall4, sues

for ;reach of contracto Holding5 2ederal $MJ eLists (under federal 8uestion Aurisdiction)

*-


27/106

o 0easoning5 The 7an= of the F$ eLists solel4 as a creation of federal la: thus,

eer4 suit inolin" the 7an= of the F$ implicates the federal la: under :hichthe ;an= :as esta;lished

o 9 federal 8uestion arises under the Constitution (i.e., federal courts hae federal

8uestion Aurisdiction) :heneer the underl4in" cause relates to a federal la:

istinction ;et:eenMottley andPlanter%s5o ThePlanter%scourt is interpretin" F$ Const. 9rt. III /*, :hereas theMottley

court is interpretin" *& F$C /1331 ThePlanterscourt reads F$ Const. 9rt. III /* 8uite ;roadl4 (sa4s as lon"

as the underl4in" cause relatesto a federal la:, thereBs federal 8uestionAurisdiction)

TheMottley, in contrast court reads *& F$C /1331 more narro:l4 (sa4s

federal 8uestion Aurisdiction lies onl4 if a federal 8uestion is implicated inthe ori"inal complaint

r$u+ent #orKa$aint t%e Hell/Pleaded Co+*laint Rule

2or5o Pra"matic reasons5

Cut do:n on the liti"ation ;ein" ;rou"ht to federal court

$o that federal Aud"es donBt hae to ;e eLperts of state la:

9dministratiel4, itBs much easier to decide at the outset that thereBs a

federal 8uestion than to fi"ure out of do:n the line there mi"ht ;e afederal 8uestion implicated

I.e., it ma4 loo= li=e a federal 8uestion :ill ;e implicated, ;ut

ma4;e in actualit4 it :onBt ;e should court reall4 speculate

a;out :hat :ill happenG

o 2ederalism reasons5 To =eep liti"ation in state courts (let state courts decide their issues)

9"ainst5

o Questions of federal la: determined in state court rarel4 "et reie: ;4 the

$upreme Court (i.e., state courts determine man4 8uestions of federal la:) Fnder *& F$C /1*-% the F$ $C ma4 reie: state court rulin"s that turn

on 8uestions of federal la: (:ell#pleaded complaint rule doesnBt appl4),;ut this rarel4 happens

I.e., een :hen a cause of action arises under state la:, F$ $C can reie:

as lon" as the case actuall4 turns on a 8uestion of federal la:)o Fndermines uniformit4 to hae man4 courts decidin" 8uestions of federal la:

4B. (u**le+ental !uridiction at it Ori$in

(u**le+ental &uridiction3 T%e #oundation

6ften an inAur4 inflicted on a part4 :ill "ie rise to ;oth a federal and a state claim

*


28/106


29/106

9n4 "roup of Bs or DBs :ishin" to ;e Aoined in one action ma4 do

so if the cause of action arises out of the same transaction,occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences or if an48uestion of la: or fact common to all these persons :ill arise inthe action

9 Aud"e ma4 preent permissie Aoinder in order to preent dela4or preAudice on the part of a part4 on the other side of the parties:ishin" to ;e Aoined

Deter+inin$ -%en u**le+ental &uridiction lie t%e &i//s >Contitutional Cae? tet8

6nited Mine $or!ers of meri%a v. &i//s, U( (C, 4A99 *.2A48

o :as hired to open a mine usin" non#FM< la;or

o Mem;ers of the local FM< chapter forci;l4 preent from openin" the ne:

mineo ;rin"s claim a"ainst FM< under ;oth federal (!MR9) and state la: (T+

conspirac4 and ;o4cott la:)

$ince FM< is an unincorporated association :ith mem;ers in T+ and is a citien of T+, canBt ;rin" the state claim on diersit4 "rounds

can onl4 ;rin" the state claim in federal court ;4 see=in" pendent $MJo Holding5 The federal court ma4 eLercise pendent Aurisdiction oer the state claim

;ecause the state claim meets the ;elo: testo 0easoning5Fnder F$ Const. 9rt. III /*, federal Audicial po:er eLtends to all

casesK arisin" under federal la: thus, the 8uestion ;ecomes5 :hat is a caseK

under 9rt. IIIG 9 state#la: claim is part of the same constitutional caseK as a federal

claim under 9rt. III (i.e., is a ride#alon" or pendent claim) :hen5

ThereBs a su;stantial federal claim at the root of the state claim The state and federal claims derie from a common nucleus of

operatie factKo Common nucleus of operati/e fact5


30/106

o


31/106

Pendent1party ,urisdiction5 Jurisdiction oer parties not named in

an4 claim co"nia;le ;4 the federal court ;rin"in" in non#

dierse parties on a state claim arisin" from the same nucleus offact as a federal claim

Holding5 canBt ;rin" state claim a"ainst count4 ;c Con"ress had

specificall4 said that counties :erenBt amena;le to suit under /1301 Pendent#part4 Aurisdiction does not lie :hen a claim a"ainst the pendent

part4 ma4 ;e ;rou"ht in state court

Court su""ests that if federal court had ;een the onlyplace :here

could hae ;rou"ht the federal claim (i.e., if federal courts had heldeLclusie Aurisdiction), the case :ould hae come out differentl4turns out not to ;e true in#inley

o 4iney v. 6", U( (C, 4A5A *.2AA8

@ sues F$ on 2T99 claim for death of her hus;and and children in plane

crash @ :ants to Aoin $an ie"o and utilit4 compan4 under state claims, ;ut ;c

federal courts hae eLclusie Aurisdiction oer 2T99 claims a"ainst theF$, in order to sue eer4one in one proceedin" has to sue them all infederal court

@ canBt sue $an ie"o and utilit4 compan4 in federal court on

diersit4 "rounds ;c sheBs not dierse from them, so can onl4 sue;4 attachin" pendent state claim a"ainst them

Holding5 7c Con"ress in the statute sued the 299 under referred to

claims a"ainst the F$K and no one else, cannot attach $an ie"o andthe utilit4 compan4 as pendent parties on state claims

0easoning5 2or federal courts to hae $MJ, the Constitution must hae

"ien the court the capacit4 to ta=e it and Con"ress must hae suppliedthat po:er.

Re"ardin" Aurisdiction oer additional parties (as opposed to oer

additional claims), $C :ill not assume that the full constitutionalpo:er has ;een ;roadl4 authoried, and :ill not read Aurisdictionalstatutes ;roadl4K

Fnless a statute passed ;4 Con"ress eLpressl4 "rants supplemental

Aurisdiction oer a t4pe of claim, courts ma4 not eLercise supplementalAurisdiction oer those t4pes of claims

9 "rant of Aurisdiction oer claims inolin" particular parties does

not itself confer Aurisdiction oer claims ;4 or a"ainst different

parties $yler5 This is a reinin"#in of supplemental Aurisdiction, a reaction to Gi!!s

$calia sa4s that if the teLt of the statute doesnBt "rant it, courts

should not eLercise pendent Aurisdiction (teLtualist approach)

T4ler li=es Gi!!s, not $calia

9ncillar4 Aurisdiction follo:in" Gi!!s5

o 5wen -0uipment 1 -re%tion v. (roger, U( (C, 4A75 *.2A78

3


32/106

@ (I9) ;rin"s diersit4 suit a"ainst utilit4 compan4 (+>) on state claim

Ftilit4 compan4 (+>) then impleads D, and ;rin"s state claim a"ainst D,

too Case a"ainst utilit4 compan4 (+>) dismissed ;c 6:en impleaded

It turns out 6:enBs from I9, so no diersit4 an4more

Holding5 Court dismisses Bs case a"ainst I9 for lac= of $MJ 0easoning5 9llo:in" to maintain claim a"ainst D no: that thereBs no

diersit4 :ould allo: end#run around the diersit4 statute (/133*)

@ could simpl4 sue dierse D and :ant for the D to implead a

nondierse D this :ould flout the con"ressional command of

/133*

$impl4 suin" dierse DBs and :aitin" for those DBs to implead

nondierse DBssuch a result :ould flout the con"ressional

commando 2ollo:in" Gi!!s,to determine :hether ancillar4 Aurisdiction la4, courts :ould

"enerall4 as= (1) if Aoinder rules allo:ed it, (*) if it :as constitutional under theGi!!stest, and (3) if it :as a "ood idea

4B. (u**le+ental !uridiction


33/106

o The district court has dismissed the anchor claims (i.e., the claims oer :hich it

had ori"inal Aurisdiction)o There are eLceptional circumstances that :arrant declinin" supplemental

Aurisdictiono If the district court declines to eLercise supplemental Aurisdiction for these

reasons, the supplemental claims are dismissed :ithout preAudice and can ;e;rou"ht in state court

Inter*retin$ 25 U(C J4@97 -88on Mo/i8

a#n(pre#/13%)

o 9 class of 1 Bs :ho lie on the ;an=s of a rier sue a polluter on diersit4

"roundso The named Bs hae meet the ac re8uirementE the others do not

o Holding5 +o diersit4 Aurisdiction oer the unnamed Bs

o Rule the court adopted (oerturned ;4'((on Mo!il)59 district court cannot

eLercise supplemental Aurisdiction oer the parties that donBt meet the ac

re8uiremento Court here interpreted /133* (/13% not adopted 4et)

-88on Mo/i Corp. v. apatta# "ervi%es, In%.=Maria de Rosario 5rtega v. "tar)

(ist 4oods, In%., U( (C, 200B *.9628

o '((on Mo!il facts5 $imilar to&ahn5 In diersit4 suit, some Bs meet ac

re8uirement and some donBto Maria del 0osario ;rtega5 In diersit4 suit, "irl (for hand inAur4) meets ac

re8uirements, ;ut famil4 (for emotional distress inAuries) doesnBto )ssue5 Can a federal diersit4 court eLercise supplemental Aurisdiction oer

additional Bs :hose claims do not satisf4 the ac re8uirement ;ut are part of the

same case or controers4 as the claims of Bs :ho doalle"e a sufficient acGo Holding5 /13% oerruled&ahn, so, 4es, federal diersit4 court caneLercise

supplemental Aurisdiction oer additional Bs :ho donBt meet ac re8uirement:hen one or more ori"inal Bs do (and all Bs are dierse from all DBs)

o /13% authories supplemental Aurisdiction oer all claims ;4 dierse parties

arisin" out of the same 9rt. III case or controers4, proided at least one of theclaims meets the minimum ac re8uirement

o 0easoning5

Kennedy(maAorit4)5

efines ciil actionK in /13%(a) as ;ein" the ori"inal claim that

meets the ac re8uirement

In this case, the additional Bs not meetin" ac re8uirement see= toAoin ride#alon" claims under Rules * and *3

o /13%(;) ;ars claims a"ainst DBs Aoined under Rule *, ;ut

sa4s nothin" a;out claims ;4


34/106

>en ifle"islatie histor4 indicates Con"ress didnBt intend /13%

to oerturn&ahn, the statuteBs clear, so thereBs no need to loo= atle"islatie histor4

$ummar45

o ra:s distinction ;et:een diersit4 and ac re8uirements

o Contamination theor4 :or=s for diersit4 re8uirement(:hen parties no lon"er completel4 dierse, no need to ;ein federal court in the first place), ;ut not ac re8uirement(if onl4 some parties meet ac re8uirement, doesnBteliminate need to ;e in federal court in the first place)

o 7enefit of Senned4Bs ar"ument5 Coheres ;etter :ith a plan

readin" of the statuteo Pro;lem :ith Senned4Bs ar"ument5 oesnBt :restle enou"h

:ith the meanin" of ciil actionK in // 1331 and 133*.9lso, Senned4Bs readin"shouldallo: non#dierse Bs tocome in as ride#alon" Bs under Rules * or *3 under

/13%(a). Thus, if 4ou ta=e Senned4Bs opinion to itsfurthest reaches, 4ouBe Aust oerruled Straw!ridge(complete diersit4 re8uirement)

Gins!erg(dissent)5

efines ciil actionK in /13%(a) as ;ein" the :hole case to"ether

(the ori"inal andthe additional claims) so, /13%(a) does

nothingto upset the prior definitions "ien in&ahn(merel4oerrules#inley)

/13%(;) codifies the result inKroger(preents an end#run around

the diersit4 statute), so /13%(;) allo:s Aurisdiction oerancillar4, ;ut notpendent claims

$ummar45

o /13%(a) allo:s pendent Aurisdiction in federal 8uestion

o /13%(;) allo:s ancillar4 Aurisdiction in diersit4 cases

after initiation of an other:ise proper diersit4 action;utdoes not allo: pendent AurisdictionE rather /13%(;) merel4addresses instances of ancillar4 Aurisdiction in diersit4cases

o ins;er"Bs a purposiist5 Thin=s con"ressional purpose

here :as to oerrule#inleyand codif4Krogero Pro;lem :ith ins;er"Bs ar"ument5 CanBt account for the

distinction ;et:een /13%(a) and /13%(;) $yler5 /13% is a disaster

o /13% displa4s a lac= of foresi"ht and sho:s the pro;lems inoled :hen

Con"ress tries to interpose itself eLclusiel4 in an area :here there :as a "reatdeal of Aud"e#made la:

49. Re+o1al and Re+and

33


35/106

Re+o1al

Purposes of remoal5

o ies one adanta"e to D, :ho after all didnBt as= to ;e sued

o @Bs al:a4s ma=e strate"ic pla4s in decidin" :hether to ;rin" suit in state or

federal courtE remoal Aust "ies D opportunit4 to ma=e a strate"ic pla4 ;4 etoin"Bs chosen forum

DBs loe ;ein" a;le to remoe cases

Re+o1al rule 25 U(C8

/11 (actions remoa;le "enerall4)

o /11(a)5 ffect of citienship on remoal

9 federal 8uestion case is remoa;le :ithout re"ard to the citienship of

the parties 9 diersit4 case is not remoa;le if the D (or an4 of the DBs) is a citien of

the state in :hich the action is ;rou"ht (i.e., onl4 a non#resident D ma4remoe diersit4 cases)

o /11(c)5 If a separate and independent federal#8uestion claim or cause of action

is Aoined to other:ise non#remoa;le claims, then the entire case ma4 ;e remoed(thou"h district court has discretion to remand a"ain)

/1* (federal officers sued or prosecuted)

/1 (procedure for remoal)

o /1(a)5 If case is remoa;le at its inception, D has 3 da4s from time case is

filed to remoeo /1(;)5 If case not ori"inall4 remoa;le, D has 3 da4s from time case !ecomes

remoa;le (e."., if amends complaint and adds federal 8uestion, raises ac, ordrops non#dierse D) to remoe

>Lception5 In diersit4 cases, D cannot remoe if more than 1 4ear haspassed since case ori"inall4 filed (een if case ;ecomes remoa;le after 14ear has passed)

6ldest tric= in ;oo= ;4 see=in" to aoid remoal file suit

a"ainst nondierse D, then dismiss a"ainst nondierse D after 4earand a da4, =eepin" claim a"ainst dierse D

/1% (procedure after remoal "enerall4)5

3


36/106

o /1%(c)5 If at an4 time ;efore final Aud"ment it appears that the district court

lac=s $MJ, the case shall ;e remanded has 3 da4s to file for remand once case has ;een remoed

o /1%(d)5 Technicall4, an order for remand is not reie:a;le, thou"h hi"her

courts often allo: appeal for fairness reasons

o /1%(e)5 If after remoal see=s to Aoin additional DBs :hose Aoinder :oulddestro4 $MJ, the court ma4 den4 Aoinder, or permit Aoinder and remand the actionto the state court

Caterpiar, In%. v. 'ewis, U( (C, 4AA9 ;andout 78

o ! (S) sues C (>) and < (S) in state court on a state#la: claimE !M (M9)

interenes :ith a state#la: claim a"ainst C and er4thin" starts :ith the filin" of the complaint

o 2ilin"Bs not enou"h, thou"hE 4ou still hae to sere process on D

9t a minimum 4ouBll see a complaint and a response from D (ans:er, motion to dismiss,

repl4, etc.)


38/106

47. (tatin$ a Clai+

Rule #or (tatin$ a Clai+

2RCP & ("eneral rules of pleadin")5o Rule &(a)5 9 pleadin" settin" forth a claim for relief shall contain5

(1) 9 short and plain statement of the "rounds upon :hich the courtBs

Aurisdiction depends, (*) 9 short and plain statement of the claim sho:in" that is entitled to

relief, and (3) 9 demand for Aud"ment for the relief the pleader see=s (relief in the

alternatie or of seeral different t4pes ma4 ;e demanded)o +ote that these re8uirements are prett4 minimal (seeDigiardiostandard is onl4

that has to state a claim upon :hich relief can ;e "ranted,K notfacts sufficientto support a cause of actionK)

ou can "et to discoer4 prett4 8uic=l4 (:hich ma=es discoer4 muchmore costl4)

This is "ood for ;ecause it ma=es discoer4 er4 eLpensie increases

Bs ;ar"ainin" position re5 settlin" 7efore $wom!lylast term, the standard :as that pleadin" merel4 had to

"ie D sufficient notice of Bs claim (noticeK standard)

2wom/y and t%e ratc%etin$ u* o# *leadin$ reuire+ent

Be tanti% Corporation v. 2wom/y, U( (C, 2007 (u**le+ent *.BAB8

o @Bs ;rin" claim a"ain I!C (maAor telephone companies) for iolations of the

$herman 9cto @Bs assert (1) DBs had en"a"ed in parallel conduct and (*) refrained from

competin" :ith each other, ;ut did not alle"e the specifics of a conspiratoriala"reement (:ho, :here, ho:, :hen)

o Fnder the $herman 9ct, conspirac4 cannot ;e proed ;4 mere inference from

parallel conductE an a"reement must ;e sho:no Holding5 Court dismissed for failure to state a complaint for :hich relief can ;e

"ranted. The complaint needed to "o ;e4ond merel4 allegingthere :as ana"reement, needed to "ie some additional details so as to "ie DBs notice of thefoundation of Bs claim.

o 2or a complaint to "ie a D fair notice of :hat the claim is and :hat "rounds the

complaint rests upon, it must containsufficient factual allegation to ma=e theclaim not onl4 conceia;le, ;utplausi!le (i.e., must contain sufficient facts toraise the ri"ht to relief a;oe the leel of mere speculationK)

9 ;are aerment or formulaic recitationK of the elements of a cause of

action :ill not suffice to pass the pleadin"s re8uirementE the claim forrelief must ;e ;ac=ed up :ith specific factual alle"ations

9 complaint must contain enou"h factual matter to raise a reasona!le

e(pectation that discoer4 :ill reeal eidence of improper conduct ;4 D

3%


39/106

o 0easoning5 Court concerned a;out lettin" the complaint stand on polic4 "rounds,

:orried a;out allo:in" discoer4 that :ould ;e massie and hu"el4 eLpensie >en if D not "uilt4lia;le, D mi"ht ;e drien to settle case at outset rather

than fund the eLpenses of discoer4o Dissent($teens)5 Court is re:ritin" Rule &, as=in" the complaint to proe

eer4thin" at the outset (to state :hat :ouldnBt normall4 find until discoer4) The solution to the maAorit4Bs concerns a;out the eLpense of discoer4 is

to deal :ith the pro;lems of our discoer4 s4stem (e."., ;4 limitin"discoer4 or hain" discoer4 in phases), not ;4 ratchetin" up thepleadin" re8uirements

o $yler5 The $wom!lycourt has ratcheted up Rule & to some eLtent, :ith the

conse8uence that conspirac4 cases (;4 their nature) hae no: ;ecome much moredifficult to proe

$wom!lyportends a raisin" of the ;ar of the re8uirements at the outset of a

case

If 4ou ratchet up Rule &(a), 4ou sift out more ;ad claims, ;ut also

li=el4 sift out some le"itimate claims, too If 4ou ma=e the Rule &(a) re8uirement lo:er, 4ou ma=e it easier to

"et to discoer4, and thus ma=e DBs much more li=el4 to settle (inorder to aoid cost of discoer4)

IMP6RT9+T unstated current in this case5


40/106

0easoning5 DBs counterclaim fails to "ie notice of precisel4

:hich of Bs statements D claims are false.o 9 fraud claim re8uires specificit4 ;c more is at sta=e

(punitie dama"es, Bs reputation)

$yler5

o


41/106

Pre#ans:er motion5

o Conse8uences5 ela4s ans:er, decision on issue raised ;4 motion if nothin"

else, stops the cloc= :hile D can :or= on an ans:ero Rule 1*(;)() motion5 Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for :hich

relief can ;e "ranted

This is called a demurrer(tests the le"al sufficienc4 of Bs claim) 6nl4 8uestion as=ed is :hether the complaint itself states a le"all4

sufficient claim

oes not resole factual issues (pleadin"s eilK)

In rulin" on a 1*(;)() motion, the court must resole an am;i"uities in the

pleadin"s in faor of the nonmoin" part4o +ormall4 :ill ;e "ien an opportunit4 to amend a complaint dismissed under

Rule 1*(;)()

9ns:er

Pre/n-er )otion

2RCP 1*

o Rule 1*(;)5


42/106

If D asserts lac= of personal Aurisdiction as a defense in his ans:er, the

defense is presered and D ma4 re8uest a preliminar4 hearin" under Rule1*(d)

o Rule 1*(h)(*)5 2ailure to state a claim upon :hich relief can ;e "ranted (Rule

1*(;)() motion) is a more dura;le o;Aection, and 4ou donBt hae to raise it up

front. +ot:ithstandin" an4 earlier motions (see 1*(h)(*)), after 4ouBe filed 4ourans:er, 4ou can ma=e a motion for Aud"ment on the pleadin"s under Rule 1*(c),:hich can ;e ;ased on failure to state a claim.

Plus, 4ou can al:a4s moe for summar4 Aud"ment later.

Rule 1*(h)(*) tells us :hich defenses are not easil4 :aia;le (can ;e made

prett4 much an4 time)5 (1) failure to state a claim upon :hich relief can ;e"ranted, (*) failure to Aoin a part4 indispensa;le under Rule 10, and (3)failure to state a le"al defense to a claim

o Rule 1*(h)(3)5


43/106

o 9 part4 ma4 offer ageneral denialof eer4thin" the opposin" part4 aers

eneral denials disfaored toda4

eins!i v. P#iadep#a Piers, In%., E.D.P, 4AB9 *.B648

@ alle"ed a for=lift (1) o:ned, (*) operated, and (3) controlled ;4

D (PPI) ne"li"entl4 struc= and inAured him

D made "eneral denial, :hich :as accurate ;ut misleadin" ;c D infact ownedthe for=lift, ;ut :asnBt operatin" or controllin" it

@ didnBt learn for=lift :asnBt operated or controlled ;4 D until t:o

4ears into the liti"ation, ;4 :hich point the $! had run on Bspotential claim a"ainst CCI (the operator and controller of thefor=lift)

Holding5 D PPI estopped from raisin" defense at trial that the4

neither operated nor controlled the for=lift

0easoning5 Court :orried that the insurance compan4 runnin" the

defense (:hich insured !othD PPI and true o:ner and operatorCCI) had made a "eneral denial in ;ad faith in order to mislead so :ouldnBt realie his mista=e until the $! had run

$yler5 7FT, does all the pleadin" fault in this case reallylie :ith

DG $houldnBtsomeof it lie :ith Go ou couldsa4 erred in draftin" the pleadin" ;4 includin"

multiple assertions in a sin"le para"raph should hae

made alle"ations of (1) o:nership, (*) operation, and (3)control separatel4

o IMP6RT9+T !>$$6+5 In pleadin" 4ou need to ;e er4

careful a;out ;rea=in" out 4our specific alle"ations anddenials

o Affirmati/e defense5 9 defense that doesnBt meet the merits of the complaint, ;utinstead sa4 re"ardless of :hether the alle"ation in the complaint are true, this is aseparate reason :h4 D should preail

Rule &(c)5 9ffirmatie defenses shall ;e included in the ans:er, or the4

ris= ;ein" :aied

If, ho:eer, a part4 has mista=enl4 desi"nated an affirmatie

defense as a counterclaim (or a counterclaim as a defense), thecourt ma4, if Austice so re8uires, treat the pleadin" as if there had;een a proper desi"nation

Ingra#am v. 6", Bt%Cir., 4A57 *.B698

o 9fter :on Aud"ment, D (F$ "oernment) :anted to

reduce the dama"es a:arded under a TO dama"es cap la:that it had not raised at trial

o Holding5 D not allo:ed to raise TO la: to reduce dama"es

;ecause to do so :ould constitute an unfair surpriseK to ,;c had =no:n the statute :ould ;e applied, :ouldhae made "reater efforts to proe dama"es that :ere notsu;Aect to the statutor4 limit

*


44/106


45/106

9mendment polic4 under 2RCP is 8uite laL (since 2RCP deemphasies pleadin"s, it

allo:s amendments durin" discoer4)

2RCP 1- (amended and supplemental pleadin"s)

o Rule 1-(a) (amendments)5 9 part4 ma4 amend the part4Bs pleadin"s (1) once as a

matter of course (matter of ri"ht) at an4 time ;efore a responsie pleadin"s is

sered. 9fter a responsie pleadin" is sered, a part4 ma4 amend its pleadin" (*)onl4 ;4 leae of court or ;4 :ritten consent of the aderse part4E and leae shall;efreely gi/en :hen Austice so re8uires

9mendments are 8uite fre8uent ;c man4 parties :ill learn additional facts

(e."., that the4 hae additional claims) durin" discoer4o Rule 1-(;) (amendments to conform to the eidence)5 If eidence is raised at trial

not :ithin the pleadin"s, the pleadin"s ma4 ;e amended to include that eidence:hen (3) the other part4 "ies eLpress or implied consent or () oer the o;Aectionof the other part4 :hen leae to amend :ould su;sere the merits of the actionand thus not ;e preAudicial to the other part4

Constructi/e amendment5


46/106

Relation ;ac= (deals :ith issue :hen a part4 :ants to amend their claim to add a ne:

par4 after the $! has run on that claim)5o Rule 1-(c) (relation ;ac= of amendments)5

Rule 1-(c)(1)5 Relation ;ac= occurs if permitted ;4 the la: that proides

the $! applica;le to the action

Rule 1-(c)(*) (addin" a ne: claim a"ainst the same D)5 If 4ouBre notaddin" a ne: part4 ;ut merel4 addin" a ne: claim a"ainst the same Dafter the $! has run (must ;e part of the same conduct, transaction, oroccurrenceK as the ori"inal claim), the ne: claim :ill ;e treated as hain";een filed on the same date as the ori"inal pleadin"

Rule 1-(c)(3) (addin" a ne: D)5

9n amendment of a pleadin" relates ;ac= to the date of the ori"inal

pleadin" :hen the amendment chan"es the part4 if5o (1) The claim a"ainst the part4 to ;e added arises out of the

same conduct, transaction, or occurrence,K ando (*)


47/106

20. Re*oni"ilitie o# t%e Pleader

Re*oni"ilitie o# t%e Pleader FRCP 448

T:o "oals5

o >nsure truthful pleadin"so eter friolous liti"ation

Rule 11 applies to allpapers filed (and only si"ned papers filed)

o C#ristian v. Matte, In%., At%Cir., 2002 ;andout A8

sued Mattel for cop4ri"ht infrin"ementE case patentl4 friolous ;c a

cursor4 eLamination of the doll :ould reeal Mattel cop4ri"hted their doll;f claims she cop4ri"hted hers

Bs attorne4 mis;ehaed ;adl4 durin" depositions, meetin"s :ith Mattel

(thre: 7ar;ies across the ta;le), at oral ar"uments, etc. istrict Court leied Rule 11 sanctions, notin" all of Bs attorne4Bs

misconduct in its sanctions decision Holding5 $anctions acated and case remanded ;c appellate court thou"ht

it :as possi;le district court impermissi;l4 intert:inedK its conclusiona;out the complaintBs friolit4 :ith Bs attorne4Bs other misconduct

Rule 11 sanctions are limited to papers si"ned in iolation of the Rule.

Conduct in depositionsE discoer4 meetin" or counsel, oral representationsat hearin"s, and ;ehaior in prior proceedin"s do not fall under the am;itof the rule.

o oes notappl4 to discoer4 actions

o Doesappl4 to Rule 11 motions themseles(X)

Rule 11(;) (the standard)5

o 9n attorne4 or unrepresented part4 certifies :hen filin" a pleadin" :ritten motionor other paper that5

(1) It is not ;ein" filed for an improper purpose (e."., dela4, harassment, or

needlessl4 increasin" the cost of liti"ation) (*) The le"al contentions therein are :arranted ;4 eListin" la: or ;4 a

non1fri/olous ar"ument for a chan"e in the la: (3) The factual contentions therein hae eidentiar4 support or are li=el4

to hae eidentiar4 support after further inesti"ation () The denials of factual contentions are :arranted ;4 the eidence, or, if

specificall4 so identified, are reasona;l4 ;ased on a lac= of information or;elief

o


48/106

o Rule 11 imposes dut4 on to stop, thin=, inesti"ateK ;efore filin" pleadin"

la:4ers need to do their home:or= ;efore filin" claims Continuing o!ligation5 Rule 11 doesnBt impose dut4 to correct pleadin"s

4ou later learn are erroneous, ;ut does impose o;li"ation not to adocatedefense after realiin" itBs false

Rule 11Bs safe har;orKo Rule 11(c)(1)(9)5 9 motion for sanctions must ;e sered firstE then can onl4 ;e

filed :ith the court *1 da4s later if the alle"ed offendin" part4 fails to :ithdra: orcorrect the su;mission at issue

7asicall4, for *1 da4s part4 is allo:ed to :ithdra: the pleadin" essentiall4

:o penalt4 Ta=es a "reat deal of the force out of Rule 11

Criticism ($calia)5 This allo:s a to file a totall4 friolous claim :ith no

penalt4, :hile D has to inest time, mone4, ener"4 filin" a Rule 11 motionon :hat ma4 later admit is a friolous claim

o 7FT, Rule 11 (c)(1)(7)5 Lception5 In areas :here Con"ress has specificall4 said sanctions are

mandator4, li=e securities liti"ation (*& F$C /%&u#, :hich re8uiresmandator4 court reie: all documents filed to ensure Rule 11 complianceand ma=es sanctions mandator4 if an4 iolations found)

Ma4 ;e monetar4 or non#monetar4 and should ;e limited to :hat issufficient to deter repetitionK of the offendin" conduct or compara;leconduct

o Purpose5 To deter ;ad conduct, not to compensate the other part4 (so no lon"er

presumption of attorne4Bs fees) Bridges v. Diese "ervi%e, In%., E.D.Pa, 4AA6 ;andout A8

@ filed claim under 99

Case la: re8uires that ;efore suin" under 99, has to hae filed

claim :ith >>6C

didnBt do this ;c his la:4er didnBt do the re8uisite leel of

research

Holding5 Rule 11 sanctions not appropriate ;c not necessar4 todeter future misconduct. @Bs la:4er has learned his lesson.

C6MP9R> $a!er v. Norwest Corp., 5t%Cir., 4AA7 ;andout A8

;rou"ht diersit4 suit that lac=ed re8uisite diersit4

D notified diersit4 :as lac=in", ;ut Bs attorne4 did nothin"

%


49/106

Holding5 It :as Bs counselBs responsi;ilit4 to plead the citienship

of the parties. He didnBt do this, een after notice that his pleadin":as defectie. Therefore, sanctions :ere appropriate.

o ItBs the la:4er, not the part4, :ho "ets sanctioned (unless the part4 shares some

fault)

o Jud"es rarel4 a:ard sanctions under the current iteration of Rule 11o Rule 11 :as supposed to complement the laL pleadin" re8uirements as a stic= for

the court to use to deterpreent friolous la:suits

Rule 11 in practice5

o Rule has proed less effectie ;c Aud"es toda4 are reluctant to impose Rule 11

sanctionso The result is decisions li=e $wom!ly, :here the court ratchets up the pleadin"s

re8uiremento +onetheless, the stron"er Rule 11 is, the "reater the chill on potentiall4

meritorious li"itation

Tactical issues5

o $yler5 ItBs onl4 appropriate to moe for Rule 11 sanctions :here other part4 has

committedflagrantiolations of the Rule ;c5 Jud"es donBt li=e to hear Rule 11 motions or a:ard sanctions


50/106

OTININ< INFOR)TION FOR TRIL

24. T%e (co*e and )ec%anic o# Dico1ery

Dico1ery

6nce a parties "et past the initial pleadin" sta"e, the4 Aump headlon" into discoer4

6ur pleadin" re"ime leaes factual reelation for the discoer4 phase

It follo:s that discoer4 in our s4stem is er4, er4 ;road

iscoer4 :or=s :ell in most casesE itBs onl4 in ;i", compleL cases that it "ets out of

hando Ma4;e :e should hae a loser pa4sK re"ime to deter parties from ;rin"in"

friolous suits in the first placeo Ma4;e :e should hae phased discoer4 in cases :here discoer4 is a pro;lem

(i.e., in the ;i", compleL cases) Jud"es hatedealin" :ith discoer4 disputes, so ;e careful :hen "oin" to the Aud"e :ith a

discoer4 dispute

T%e (co*e o# Dico1ery

2RCP *(;) (discoer4 scope and limits)5

o Rule *(;)(1) (in "eneral)5

Parties ma4 o;tain discoer4 re"ardin" an4 matter, not priile"ed, that is

rele/ant to the claim or defense of an4 part4 0ele/ant5 Releant information need not ;e admissi;le at the trial if the

discoer4 appears reasona;l4 calculated to lead to the discoer4 ofadmissi;le eidenceKo Rule *(;)(*) (limitations)5

Rule *(;)(*) allo:s for some de"ree of proportionalit4 in the scope of

discoer4

Ino=es cost#;enefit principles that tr4 ;oth to achiee an optimal

leel of discoer4 ;e4ond :hich discoer4 :ould not ;e cost#effectie, and restricts discoer4 :hen the dollar amount or aluesat sta=e are lo:

Considerations include5 (1) ac, (*) partiesB resources, (3)

li=elihood that discoer4 :ill uncoer useful information

iscoer4 of electronic documents ma4 ;e limited if searchin" :ouldproe an undue !urden on the part4

o Rule *(c) (protectie orders)5 Court :ill issue protectie order if thereBs "ood

causeK to do so


51/106

T%e )ec%anic o# Dico1ery

iscoer4 is lar"el4 part4 drien parties are encoura"ed to :here possi;le do

discoer4 :ithout inolin" the courto Rule *(c)5 Part4 canBt o;tain protectie order unless itBs first conferred :ith the

other part4o Rule *(f)5 Re8uires pre#trial conference to set discoer4 plan

9lso re8uires parties to confer to consider the possi;ilities for a prompt

settlement or resolution of the caseo The parties are al:a4s supposed to confer to tr4 to resole discoer4 disputes ;f

"oin" to the Aud"e

Mandator4 disclosure5

o Rule *(a) (re8uired disclosures)5

7oth parties no: re8uired to ma=e initial disclosure to the other sides

Mandator4 disclosure doesnBt necessaril4 re8uire the documents

themseles, onl4 descriptions of cate"oriations of the documentsup to the other part4 to o;tain the documents desired throu"h

specific re8uests (Comas /" +nited $elephone of Kansas) Rule *0(a)(1)5 Part4 are re8uired to turn oer (or at least descri;e) four

t4pes of information :ithin 1 da4s of the Rule *(f) conference5

9 list of releant :itnesses (includin" eLpert :itnesses) and ho:

the4 ma4 ;e contactedo >Lception5 ou donBt hae to turn oer :itnesses 4ouBre

li=el4 to use to impeach the other sideBs claims

ocuments supportin" 4our positions, esp. documents (eLhi;its)

4ouBre li=el4 to use to support 4our claims or defenses

o IMP6RT9+T5 Parties donBt hae to turn oer documentsdama"in" to their position, onl4 thosesupportingit

Computation of dama"es

9n4 releant insurance policies (not admissi;le at trial)

o Purpose5 Idea is to "ie ;oth parties a realistic appraisalK

of the caseo Rule *(a) operates as thou"h there are standin" re8uests for this information

Re8uests for admission (2RCP 3)

o T4pciall4 used for rarel4 mundane trial matters, to "et opposin" side to admit to

rather mundane thin"s (e."., place of incorporation, authentication of a

photo"raph)o 9 part4 that admits somethin" cannot later chan"e its position unless the other

part4 :ill not ;e preAudiced there;4

ut4 to supplement

o Rule *(e)5 ou must correct errors or omissions in later disclosuresresponses

(1) isclosures and (*) responses to interro"atories, (3) re8uests for

production, and () re8uests for admission must ;e supplemented if thepart4 learns that in some material respect the information disclosed is

-


52/106

incomplete or incorrectK and if the updated information has not other:ise;een made =no:n to the other parties

o ut4 to supplement does not appl4 to depositions (eLcept eLpert depositions)

o If a part4 fails to ma=e a material supplementation as re8uired ;4 this Rule, he can

;e sanctioned (seeRule 3%)

>Lpert :itnesses5o T:o =inds of eLpert :itnesses5

Those 4ou en"a"e and plan to use at trial

Rule *(a)(*)(7)5 In initial disclosures 4ou must (1) identif4 the

eLperts 4ou plan to use at trial, (*) disclose their resumes, (3) sharethe data the4 used, and () proide an eLtra report

The other side has the a;ilit4 to depose the :itness ("ies other

side chance to see :hat =ind of :itness the eLpert :ill ;e at trial) Those 4ou en"a"e ;ut donBt plan to use at trial

Rule *(;)()(7)5 Permits discoer4 of facts and opinions from an

eLpert emplo4ed in anticipation of trial ;ut :ho :ill not ;e calledto testif4 onl4 upon a sho:in" of special circumstances

o 9llo:s 4ou to ;ur4 an eLpert :ho disa"rees :ith 4ou :ith

4ou other part4 canBt "et at the report eLcept under

eLceptional circumstanceso ood strate"45 Hire eLpert :hom 4ou =no: disa"rees :ith

4ou so other part4 canBt use him

Dico1ery de1ice

Interro"atories (2RCP 33)

o )nterrogatories5


53/106

6nce part4 o;Aects to an interro"ator4, itBs up to the propoundin" part4 to

"o to court to compel a response 9lternatiel4, if a part4 doesnBt :ant to o;Aect it can "o to court and "et a

protecti/e order(thou"h it has to confer :ith the other part4 first underRule *(c))

o Rule 33(d) (option to produce ;usiness records)5 If ans:ers to interro"atories can;e "leaned from ;usiness records, the interro"ated part4 can turn oer the recordsrather than actuall4 "oin" throu"h and findin" the ans:ers itself

The interro"ated part4 must, ho:eer, proide the propoundin" part4 :ith

a road map for ho: to ans:er the 8uestion (document dumpin" notallo:ed)

ocument re8uests (2RCP 3)

o ocument re8uests merel4 identif4 cate"ories rather than specific documents

o Rule 3(;) (procedure)5 9 part4 must respond to a document re8uest :ithin 3

da4s (unless parties come to some other a"reement) If a document re8uest is oerl4 ;urdensome, the part4 can "o to court to

hae the re8uest 8uashedo Rule 3(;)(i)5 9"ain, part4 cannot ma=e document dumpK must turn oer

documents as the4 are used in the ordinar4 course of ;usinesso ocument re8uests are the ;est method for uncoerin" smo=in" "unK

documents, :hich are not turned oer in initial mandator4 disclosures ;ut can ;ere8uested throu"h document re8uest

epositions (2RCP 3#3*)

o Rule 3 (oral depositions)

o Rule 31 (:ritten depositions)5 9lmost neer done

o Deposition5 9llo:s 4ou to ta=e lie :itness testimon4

Most interestin" and useful form of discoer4

+o opportunit4 at deposition to reflect and carefull4 shape the

information "ien Fnless full cooperation of nonpart4 is certain, su;poena is adisa;le

9re pu;lic eents (an4one can attend)

Corporate deposition5 Part4 supplies corporation :ith su;Aect matter of

deposition, and corporation sends a deponent :ith =no:led"e of thatsu;Aect matter

o Purpose5

iscoer4 (o;tainin" information)

Impeachment at trial of :itnesses :ho testif4 differentl4 at trial than at

deposition (most common use of deposition at trial) 9t trial, thereBs "reater lee:a4 to enter depositional testimon4 from the

other part4 7road rules a;out :ho can ;e deposed (an4 person, not Aust a part4

an4one :ho meets re8uirements of Rule *(;)(1))o !imitations5

-*


54/106

Rule 3(a)(1)(9)5 The limit for each side 1 depositions, :o leae of

court Rule 3(d)(*)5 9 deposition cannot eLceed one da4 of % hours

o 6;Aections5

Rule 3(d)(1)5 6;Aections must ;e made in a non#ar"umentatie and non#

su""estie manner 9n attorne4 can o;Aect, ;ut the :itness still has to ans:er the

8uestion unless it "oes to priile"ed material (i.e., unless thereBs anapplica;le priile"e)

Fsu. course is for an attorne4 to o;Aect to a 8uestion, for the :itness to

then ans:er, and for the part4 to re#raise the o;Aection at trial if the otherpart4 see=s to introduce the o;Aected#to material

Counsel interposes o;Aections at deposition to presere their ri"ht

to o;Aect to another part4Bs use of deposition transcripts at trial

counsel must o;Aect at deposition or the4 :aie the o;Aection if the"round for the o;Aection is one that can ;e corrected at the time ofdeposition

o eposition strate"4

Preparin" a :itness for 4our side to ;e deposed ;4 the other side5 ie

short ans:ers, :ait for the other attorne4 to dra: out 4our ans:ers, donBt"ie the other attorne4 help


55/106

o Rule *(;)(3) (trial preparationE materials)5 *ork1product doctrine5 9 part4 ma4

o;tain discoer4 of documents prepared in anticipation of liti"ation or for trial(i.e., of :or= product) onl4 upon a sho:in" that (1) the part4 see=in" thediscoer4 has su;stantial need of the preparator4 materials and (*) the part4 isuna;le without undue hardship to o;tain the su;stantial e8uialent of the

materials ;4 other means

Purpose5 To protect attorne4s from hain" to turn oer their le"al strate"4

If attorne4 :or= product is notprotected, attorne4s ma4 ;e loathe

to do inesti"ations or put an4thin" do:n in :ritin"

ThereBs also a concern a;out turnin" the attorne4 into a :itness

MaAor concern5 Protectin" the adersarial nature of our le"al

s4stem Central tension5 Ho: much need must a part4 sho: to "et at the other

part4Bs :or= productG

Rule onl4 spea=s to (1) documents and tan"i;le thin"s (*) prepared inanticipation of liti"ation for trial

If la:4er ma=es no notes of conersation :ith :itness, rule

doesnBt coer

9disor4 committee notes sa4 that notes ta=en in ordinar4 course

of ;usiness are not coered unless in certain circumstances Rule mentions articles prepared ;4 clientBs attorne4 or someone :or=in"

for the clientBs attorne4 (so, can appl4 to non#la:4ers as :ell as la:4ers) Rule sa4s :e need to ;e especiall4 "uarded a;out turnin" oer material

that reflects an attorne4Bs thou"ht processes (mental impressions,

conclusions, opinions, or le"al theories of an attorne4) Hi%!man v. 2ayor, U( (C, 4A67 *.5008

o Tu";oat sin=sE o:ner emplo4s attorne4 to prepare for liti"ationE attorne4

interie:s the suriors and other :itnesses in order to ascertain :hat happenedo @, in interro"atories, as=s (1) :hether an4 statements :ere ta=en, (*) for the

:ritten statements themseles, (3) and if there :ere oral statements, for the detailsof the oral reports

o 9ttorne4 turned oer names of the :itnesses, ;ut not the :ritten statements or

oral reportso Holding5 9ttorne4 doesnBt hae to turn oer documents ;c has man4 other

options for inesti"atin", includin" the suriorsB testimon4 ;efore a pu;lic

hearin" and ;4 interie:in" the suriors and other :itnesses themseles.


56/106


57/106

The person to :hom the communication :as made (a) is a mem;er of the

;ar or his su;ordinate and (;) in connection :ith the communication :asactin" as a la:4er

The communication relates to a fact of :hich the attorne4 :as informed

(1) ;4 his client (*) :ithout the presence of stran"ers (3) for the purpose of

securin" primaril4 either5 9n opinion on la: or

!e"al serices or

9ssistance in some le"al proceedin"s, and

+ot for the purpose of committin" a crime or tort

The priile"e has ;een (i) claimed and (ii) not :aied ;4 the client

o The priile"e is not a;solute, thou"h eLceptions are rare

Ho:eer, :hen the priile"e applies a court cannot compel disclosure no

matter ho: compellin" the needo


58/106

If the receiin" part4 disclosed the information ;efore the claim of

priile"e or protection :as made, it must ta=e reasona;le steps to retrieeit

The producin" part4 must presere the information until the claim is

resoled

6p3o#n Co. v. 6", U( (C, 4A54 *.5408o D discoered certain of its oerseas officials :ere ma=in" ;ri;es, had its "eneral

counsel send 8uestionnaires to emplo4ees as=in" a;out the ;ri;eso IR$ files su;poena for those 8uestionnaires andan4 notes or memoranda the

"eneral counsel had made in tal=in" to emplo4ees and former emplo4eeso 9ppellate court holds that a#c priile"e doesnBt appl4 under the control "roup

testK Control group test5 efines clientK as the compan4Bs control "roup,K so

restricts aaila;ilit4 of a#c priile"e to those officers :ho pla4 asu;stantial roleK in decidin" and directin" a corporationBs le"al response

o Holding5 6erturns appellate rulin". ReAects control "roup test. $a4s a#c

priile"e applies to all emplo4ees of D. IR$ canBt "et documents ;c didnBt sho:su;stantial need for them.

o 0easoning5

Pro;lems :ith control "roup test5

Hard to define :hat precisel4 the control "roupK is (uncertain)

efeats purpose of a#c priile"e. !a:4er needs to =no: all

releant information from his client in order to =no: ho: todefend his client, ;ut control#"roup doctrine applies a#c priile"eonl4 to :hat happens afteran attorne4 has "athered info from hisclient

9#c priile"e eLists to protect not onl4 "iin" of professionaladice, ;ut also "iin" of information to the la:4er to ena;le himto "ie sound and informed adice

o Control#"roup doctrine frustrates this purpose ;4

discoura"in" the communication of releant info ;4emplo4ees of the client to attorne4s see=in" to render le"aladice

The IR$ canstill"o to the emplo4ees and as= the 8uestions themseles

Ma4;e, if accounta;ilit4 should ;e mer"ed, then priile"e should ;e

mer"ed alsoo 9#c priile"e applies ;et:een a ;usinessBs attorne4 and all emplo4ees of that

;usiness. PR67!>M5


59/106

Ma4;e this su""ests compan4Bs should hae an o;li"ation to

su""est to their emplo4ees that the4 "et their o:n la:4erso 9#c priile"e applies not onl4 to "iin" of professional adice, ;ut also to the

clientBs "iin" of information to the la:4er to ena;le the la:4er to "ie sound andinformed adice.

o 9#c priile"e onl4 protects disclosure of communications, not disclosure of theunderl4in" facts

I.e., ;ecause 4ou told somethin" to a la:4er doesnBt ma=e the underl4in"

facts priile"ed (onl4 the communication itselfis priile"ed)o IMP6RT9+T5 $tates donBt hae to follo: +p,ohnin their o:n state la: (and

man4 donBt)

Dicloure o# +e+oranda o# oral tate+ent +ade "y -itnee

+either theHickmannor +p,ohncourts rule out disclosure of notes of oral statements

made ;4 :itnesses to an attorne4 ifa sho:in" of necessit4 could ;e made, ;ut doesindicate court is /eryreluctant to turn oer that sort of :or= product

22. Dico1ery (anction

FRCP @7 #ailure to +a'e or coo*erate in dico1ery anction8

Ma=es sanctions mandator4, and presumption is in faor of attorne4Bs fees (thou"h court

has er4 ;road discretion as to :hat t4pes of sanctions to a:ard)o $anctions ratcheted up :hen 4ou moe from pleadin"s sta"e to discoer4

Rule 3%(;)5 If part4 fails to produce compelled discoer4, court ma45

o 6rder that matter re"ardin" :hich the order :as made ;e esta;lished in

accordance :ith the claim of the part4 o;tainin" the ordero Refuse to allo: diso;edient part4 to support or oppose desi"nated claims or

defenses of introduce desi"nated matters into eidenceo $tri=e out pleadin"s, sta4 further proceedin"s until order complied :ith, dismiss

action or an4 part of it, etc.o In addition, hold part4 in contempt of court

o 6rder part4 to pa4 reasona;le eLpenses to other part4 caused ;4 the failure

(includin" attorne4 fees), unless court finds the failure :as (1) su;stantiall4Austified or (*) that other circumstances ma=e an a:ardi

Documents

CivPro Tyler F2007-Outline