Fink Remedies Fall 2013

8/9/2019 Fink Remedies Fall 2013

1/38

Fink Remedies Fall 2013I.Compensatory Damages

A. The basic principle1. All remedies can be thoght o! as either"

a# $bstittionary Remedies

%1# &i'e the plainti( something other than )hat they lost*generally money damages

%2# +o do not get the )idgets yo ordered* yo get moneyinstead

b# $peci,c Remedies%1# &i'e yo )hat yo )anted%2# +o get the )idgets yo )anted in the ,rst place

2. All remedies can be thoght o! as either beinga# -itable Remedies/ or

%1# &enerally something other than damagesb# egal Remedies

%1# &enerally money damages3. nited $tates '. atahley

a# Isse "%1# o) to calclate some damages/ )here the goods are

nie* there is pain s(ering to be acconted !or* and alarge class o! plainti(s.

b# Reasoning "%1# The horses are specially trained and not a'ailable on the

market* so the lo)er cort based the cost on )hat it )old taketo breed and train a ne) batch o! horses.

%a# The higher cort thinks that there is enogh

testimony in the case to base a 'ale.%2# The lo)er cort thoght the loss o! se cold be broadly

set* co'ering all plainti(s.%a# igher cort thinks the loss o! se amont mst be

based on each indi'idal plainti(s loss.c# Rle%s#"

%1# 4ne standard !or damages" restore the plainti( to theposition that they )old ha'e been in bt !or the )rong!lcondct o! the de!endant.

%2# +o cannot assme eal hardship bet)een se'eral

plainti(s5. The general problem !rom atahleya# Trying to make the a)ard indi'idali6ed* bt not speclati'e*

across mltiple plainti(s.b# 7ossible soltions to atahley8like scenarios

%1# Cold grop them into di(erent categories and a)ard eachcategory a di(erent amont


2/38

%2# Cold de'elop some kind o! !ormla and then de'elop ana'erage

9. :ale as the measre o! the right!l position1. In re $eptember 11th itigation

a# Isse"

%1# The o)ners o! the leasehold at the ;TC )ant to se theairlines !or not pro'iding better secrity

%2# They )ant the !ll 'ale o! the strctres they lost as anie bilding pls all the rent they lost )hen the ;TC )asdestroyed

b# olding "%1# The bilding

%a# At one time the ;TC )as a nie property* bt bythe time it )as destroyed it )as sed as a !airly typical%thogh prime# commercial property

%b# ;TC7 can only reco'er the destroyed market 'ale

as it )old cost !ar more to bild another one%2# The rent

%a# The airlines are not responsible !or contracts that;TC7 is stck )ith* and there!ore )ill not ha'e to pay them!or lost rent.

%b# ;TC7 cannot reco'er lost rent in addition to the'ale o! the bilding* since this )old allo) ;TC7 toreco'er t)ice )hat is essentially the same thing.

2. The la) o! economic )astea# Fndamental principle" 7 is entitled to be made )hole* bt D is

entitled to ha'e 7 made )hole in the least e


3/38

!# Repair or replacement cost !or $pecial 7rpose property%1# Trinity Chrch '. ohn ancock =tal i!e Ins. Co.

%a# Isse

i#;hether the chrch can seek damages nder a

takedo)ntheory. The harm has not occrred yet in

sch a )ay that they )ill do anything to repair the )all*bt it has been contribted to by the de!endant.

%b# oldingi#+es* the chrch ali,es as a special prpose property*

remo'ing it !rom the general analysis o! !air market'ale and repair or replacement cost.

ii# 9ecase the chrch has no !air market 'ale* andbecase there is no real )ay to replace it* e'en thissome)hat speclati'e damage* they pro'ed )ith somespeci,city )hat the damage )ill be in the !tre.

3. imits on the right!l position rle

a# 7ermanent disability%1# 7er diem >dgements

%a# Take the s(ering s(ered per day* and pt a dollaramont on that.

%b# Then mltiply by the e


4/38

%c# 7eople like minors and retired people 8 pro'iding lessspport to others* are* nder the la)* )orth less tosr'i'ing lo'ed ones.

%2# Factors in determining otcomes %on similar !acts#%a# $ocio8economic

%b# risdiction%c# Bality o! la)yeringC. -


5/38

3. $mith '. 9ollesa# Isse "

%1# ;hether a party may reco'er all they )ere promised*)here the de!endant made !radlent claims abot thein'estment the plainti( )as making.

b# Rle%s# "%1# Reco'ery is generallythe di(erence bet)een the contract

price and the reasonable market 'ale* i! the property had beenas represented to be* or i! the property is )orthless stock* thenits 'ale is )hat it )old ha'e been )orth i! it had been asrepresented by the de!endant.

c# olding "%1# The plainti( is entitled to the money he paid ot based on

those !alse representations pls interest* pls any incidentalcosts that natrally and pro


6/38

%2# The cort )ill limit the damages to pro


7/38

ii# ?o. I! the limit on remedy !ails o! its essentialprpose* the e


8/38

!#C4?$-B-?TIA DA=A&-$%1# 7lainti( s(ered the initial damage* and then natrally

Ko)ing !rom that damage* there )ere other damages as )ell.%2# 7lainti( has a dty to mitigate* or lose those

conseentials

%3# Its still limited to conseentials that )ere pro


9/38

%1# $hold they get medical costs )hen she ends p a crippleG%makes the srgery asi8electi'e#

%a# o) risky )as the srgeryG%b# Religios belie!sG%c# ;hat is the sccess rate o! the srgeryG

%d# Do they ha'e insrance that )ill co'er the costs o!the srgerG%e# o) mch research did the plainti( do be!ore

making their decisionG. T- 4FF$-TTI?& 9-?-FIT$ R-

a# Fact pattern" plainti( is harmed* bt also bene,ts some)hat !romthe )rong!l condct/ plainti( acires some bene,t they mightnot other)ise ha'e. %?e) >ob is a bene,t that the plainti( )old

not ha'e gotten i! they hadnt been ,red.%1# The 'ale o! the bene,t o(sets the reco'ery they can get.%2# I! getting a ne) >ob allo)s yo to recop yor lost )ages*

that goes a long )ay to)ards ptting yo back in yor right!lposition.

%3# R-" o(set only like against like. ;ages not )eighedagainst pains(ering etc.

%5# Also does ?4T apply to 'olme sellers* since )e )illassme that they )old ha'e made the sale any)ay* and thattheir right!l position is selling 2 and not >st 1

b# 4den '. Chemng Conty Indstrial De'elopment Agency%1# Isse" )hether disability bene,ts o(set lost )ages%2# olding" 9ene,ts not paid in lie o! lost )ages* bt as

pension. -conomic damages shold be broken do)n into

categories* and each damage related back to )hat it )ill o(set.. C4AT-RA $4RC- R-

a# 7lainti( can reco'er damages that )ill inclde amonts he hasalready been compensated !or i! that comes !rom a sorcecollateral to the de!endant.

%1# &enerally insrance.%2# I! applied* yo get to keep insrance pls )hat the

de!endant o)es. MCold mean doble reco'eryM

%3# Rationale" sholdnt re)ard de!endant >st becase the

plainti( )as prepared. 7lainti( may ha'e to reimbrse theinsrance company )hen they get the damages. %commoncontract pro'ision" sbrogation clase#

%5# =any < ha'e done a)ay )ith the collateral sorce rle*along )ith other tort re!orms.

. The $cope o! iabilitya# &-?-RA+"

%1# ;e may kno) that the de!endant did something )rong


10/38

%2# ;e may also kno) that the plainti( )as harmed as areslt.

%3# 9t this de!endant* or this harm is preclded !rom liability.%5# 7ritt 8 the liability has to be limited some)here or it )ill

sno)ball

%a# Those conseences are !oreseeable %generally# bt)ithot speci,c !oreseeability its preclded.%# Intiti'e certainty

%a# Amont o! harm to reasonable certaintyb# 7ritt '. Allied Chemical Corp.

%1# Isse"

%a# )hen do 7s harms become so attenated that they

cannot reco'erG%2# olding"

%a# iability )ill end at the )aters edge* only ,shermencan reco'er* and no one else.

%3# Rle%s# "

%a# 9 N 7 dge earned ands statement onnegligence" principal prpose o! tort la) is to maryrle#. Cts o( e'en !oreseeable losses.

%2# Doesnt apply to legal malpractice* antitrst* or

inter!erence )ith contract claims 8 all intentionaltorts.

c# -'ra Corp '. $)iss bank Corp.

%1# Isse" ;here de!endants !ailre to trans!er !nds in a

timely !ashion cases the plainti( to lose a E2 =il @* shold thede!endant be liable !or the conseential damagesG

%2# olding" Applies adley '. 9a


11/38

%3# 7olicy" Costs shold be borne by the party able to a'ertconseences at the least cost* and )ho !ailed to do so.

d# 9igelo) '. Rko Radio 7ictres%1# Isse" ;hether the theater can really pro'e )hat they

)old ha'e made on the mo'ie o'er time.

%2# olding" The estimation is reasonably accrate* and theonly reason the damages are so mrky is becase o! the

de!endants )rong!l condct. +o need sbstantial certainty*

bt de!endant cannot be allo)ed to stymy the plainti(s caselike this.

%3# Dissent " Fran!rter de,nitely )ants a more sophisticatedargment !rom the plainti( in terms o! certain damages.

%a# There are 2 aspectsi#Intiti'e damages 8 pro'e the amont o! loss to a

reasonable degree.

ii# Connection )ith the de!endants )rong!l condct 8

can yo connect the receipts or )He yo ha'e to the)rong done by the de!endant.

O. The certainty reirement

a# In 9igelo)* )e kno) theyre liable and that the plainti( )as hrt.

b# 9t the cort said it )asnt enogh in!ormation* becase yo

ha'e to pro'e yor damages.

%1# 7 mst pro'e to a reasonable degree o! certainty that Ds

condct )as the case o! damages%a# -


12/38

%1# 7tting the sr'i'ors into their right!l position%a# Fneral e


13/38

%3# Rle%s#"%a# Restatement Rle"

i#Imptation o! maliciosconct to a corporate

de!endant reires"%1# The principal athori6ed the doing and the

manner o! the act* 4R%2# The agent )as n,t and the principal )as

reckless in employing him* 4R%3# The agent )as employed in a managerial

capacity and )as acting in the scope o! employment*4R

%5# The principal or a managerial agent o! theprincipal rati,ed or appro'ed the act.

%b# Da)es Rlei#=alicios may inclde not only condct that is targeted

at harming another person* bt also a conscios

disregard o! the probability that the actors condct )illreslt in in>ry to others.

%c# -gan '. =tal rlei#Corporation may be !ond liable !or its

maliciosHreckless decisions )here"%1# The decision )as made by managerial

employees )ith the athority to makedecisions that

)ill ltimately determine corporate policy.%d# Toole Rle

i#=alice in !act* scient to spport a)ard o! pniti'e

damages* may be established by sho)ing thatde!endants )rong!l condct )as )ill!l* intentional*and done in reckless disregard o! its possible reslts

%1# &rimsha) cort belie'es this shold read asprobable not possible reslts.

%2# 9t in the &rimsha) case* they didnt !eel the)ordage pre>diced the de!endant.

%e# FACT4R$ I? C4?$ID-RI?& A 7?ITI:- DA=A&-A;ARD 4? A77-A

i#Ratio to compensatoryii# Aggra'ating circmstances

%1# The degree o! reprehensibilityiii# ;ealth o! the de!endanti'# 7ro,t making ability o! the de!endant'# =agnitde o! the pniti'e a)ard

%1# Inclding the amont it e


14/38

%!# C4?$TITTI4?A &ID-74$T$ F4R 7?ITI:-DA=A&- A;ARD$

i#Reprehensibleness%1# Factors"

%a# The harm cased )as physical as opposed to

economic%b# The tortios condct e'inced an indi(erence toor a reckless disregard !or the health or sa!ety o!others/

%c# The target o! the condct had ,nancial'lnerability/

%d# The condct in'ol'ed repeated actions or )asan isolated incident/

%e# And the harm )as the reslt o! intentionalmalice* trickery* or deceit* and not mereaccident.

ii# Ratio%1# &enerally stated as a single digit ratio bet)een

the pniti'e a)ard and the compensatory a)ard.iii# A'ailability o! ci'il and criminal penalties.

%1# I! there are criminal penalties that might ha'eco'ered this condct* )hat )ere the pnishmentsthey imposedG

%2# I! its similar to the amont o! pniti'edamages* then it pts the de!endant on notice o! thekind o! liability this condct might incr.

c# 7hilip =orris

%1# Isse " )hen is it permissible to break )ith the normalrlesG

%2# olding" Cannot se the pniti'e damages to pnish thede!endant !or condct harming strangers to the litigation/ canse condct to)ards third parties in assessing the

reprehensibleness o! the de!endants condct. Cannot se

ratios o'er single digit* e'en )hen there are a lot o! people thatha'e been harmed.

%3# Comment" Cort lays do)n a be)ildering rle here. Theysay that harm done to other parties not participating in the sitcannot be sed to calclate the pniti'e damage a)ard. I! it

)ere so* it )old 'iolate de process becase there )as nonotice to the de!endant that this )as the liability de!endant!aced. o)e'er* they also think that harm done to non8participating parties canbe sed in determining thereprehensibleness o! the condct* )hich is one o! the rele'ant!actors in considering a pniti'e damage a)ard. $o theres aninconsistency.

d# -


15/38

%1# Isse" )hether a ratio o! 1"10 compensatory to pniti'e isallo)able

%2# olding" ?ope* and there is some serios concern abotthe enormos pniti'e damage a)ards* ct. o)ers the pniti'eto a 1"1 ratio

2. The Constittiona# $tate Farm =tal Atomobile Ins. Co. :. Campbell%1# Isse%2# olding

III. 7re'enting arm" the measre o! in>ncti'e relie!A. &etting an In>nction" the analysis

1. 7lainti( has to sho) that money damages )ont be an adeate

remedy2. 7lainti( has to sho) that there is a ripe threat o! harm

a# That the de!endant has some propensity to take an action that)ill* )ithot an in>nction case a

3. Irreparable in>rya# A legalremedy* sch as damages* is not as good a remedy !or

plainti( as an in>nction.b# $omething like damage to property that cannot be replaced or

repaired )ith money.9. The scope o! in>nctions

1. In>nctions that pre'ent WrongfulActsa# ;hat is an in>nctionG

%1# 4rder !rom the cort to do something or re!rain !rom doingsomething. It is en!orceable )ith a contempt o! cort i! yobreak the order.

%2# ;hy not isse an in>nction ordering e'eryone to abide thela)G

%a# Too diclt to en!orce%b# ;aters do)n an in>nction to be basically the same

as a statte%c# The po)er o! the in>nction is that it is indi'idali6ed

b# ;hat to consider be!ore ordering an in>nction%1# Alternati'e remedies that might be a'ailable%2# Timing%3# Are they likely to do this againG a'e they done it be!oreG

%a# Its important to nderstand ho) big a deal thein>nction is spposed to be.

%b# Its an e


16/38

%a# Cort )ont isse an in>nction )here there is onlyspeclation that the harm might occr.

%# $cope o! the harmG%a# In>nction mst be tailored to ,t the harm that is

anticipated.

%b# =arshall '. &oodyear Tire Rbberi# Isse/ )here the harm is isolated* is it an abse o!

discretion !or a cort to isse an in>nction nation8)ideGii# olding" +es* this is to broad* and needs to e

narro)ed. This cold crate problems !or &oodyear %1#problems )ith hiring %2# strategic tying yor handsproblems %3# this cort order cold make them berparanoid abot hiring yong people* ,ring old people.%5# its hard to coordinate that across so manyemployees. -ssentially* this is too brdensome on thede!endant.

c# nited $tates '. ;.T. &rant Co.%1# Isse" Can plainti( get an in>nction )here the harm has

ceasedG%2# olding" Trial cort held the point moot* bt the appellate

cort re'ered saying that it )as not moot yet. It )ill only bemoot )here there is no likelihood at all o! the condct beingrepeated. %or no cogni6able danger o! recrrence.#

%a# e )oldnt agree to not 'iolate them again

%b# e )oldnt promise not to do it again%c# Cort )ill consider as e'idence

i#9ona ,de intent not to retrn to the condct%1# 9asically* do they belie'e himGii# ;as the 'iolation intentional or accidentalG

%1# 4b'iosly an intentional 'iolation indicates anindi(erence to the la).

C. In>nctions and Disco'ery1. $imply

a# 4ne side asks !or docments* other side gi'es themb# 4n one side* bnch o! considerations like con,dentiality* ethics*

ho) mch to gi'e.

c# 4n the other side yo can ne'er be certain o! )hat yo ha'ent

been gi'en* cold be missing something really important.d# Ad'erse in!erence

%1# 4nly copy o! some material docment disappears%a# ry may assme that the plainti( is telling the trth

abot the docments the de!ense spposedly lost.%2# mble 4il Re,ning Co. :s. arang


17/38


18/38


19/38

2. olding" =andatory otas are terrible* bt its a starting point.4ne8race schools in miect to strictscrtiny.

3. Comment %s#"a# De Facto discrimination is constittional

b# De>re segregation by state la) H policy is nconstittional.c# $trctral in>nction" restrctre instittions that aresystematically 'iolating the la) or )hose strctre is nla)!l.

%1# Really >st a long series o! pre'enti'e and reparati'ein>nctions in a comple< case.

-. ?otes on strctral in>nctions and school desegregation1. De re segregation is deliberately case by state athorities it

'iolates the constittion and mst be remedied.2. De !acto segregation is !rom all other cases e


20/38

%2# They mst be designed as nearly as possible to restore the7 to the position they )old ha'e had bt !or the discriminatorycondct.

%3# They mst take into accont the interests o! state localathorities in managing their o)n a(airs.

:. Choosing RemediesA. $bstittionary or $peci,c Relie!G1. Irreplaceable losses

a# ;here money cannot by a replacement good.%1# This may sometime mean* )hen linked to land* that the

nieness is inherent to the natre o! the god.%a# Replacement )ood can be boght to co'er the loss

o! a !orest*%b# 9t old trees once ct do)n cannot be replaced

otside o! planting ne) ones and )aiting.%2# For a corporation* ingredients in a good may be nie i!

tailored to the prpose.%3# In a shortage* there is a scarcity o! a good that means

money damages are seless to the plainti(.b# 7ardee '. Camden mber Co.

%1# Isse" ;hether the de!endant shold be en>oined !rom

remo'ing trees !rom plainti(s land )here the de!endant has

already done so repeatedly%2# olding" The pre'ios cort thoght that money damages

)old be adeate since the trees are not all that special*ho)e'er* this cort holds that the trees are nie enogh thatthey cannot be eated )ith money. There!ore there is a ripe

irreparable harm.c# Campbell $op '. ;ent6

%1# Isse " )hether the plainti( can claim carrots as a nieand irreplaceable good in the midst o! a shortage.

%2# olding" +-$. The carrots are nie !rom the perspecti'eo! the plainti(* becase they are the only 'ariety they se intheir sop. 9ecase there is a shortage* the same carrotscannot be prchased else)here.

%3# Rle%s#" Items no longer a'ailable become nie !or theprpose o! in>ncti'e relie!* and damages are made inadeate.

d# :an ;agner Ad'ertising Corp. :. $= -nterprises

%1# Isse" ;hether plainti(s can get speci,c per!ormance on alease agreement they ha'e !or ad'ertising signage on abilding abot to be torn do)n.

%2# olding" ?o* For 2 main reasons. %1# a leasehold is not likea !ee simple* yor rights are more Keeting as a lessor. %2#becase the contract speci,ed the price and dration that thelease )as spposed to last* it is in !act 'ery easy to calclatedamages.


21/38

%3# Test " ;here the nieness o! land is being considered"

%a# Its more than >st physical nieness/ yo need toconsider"

i#Can )e really 'ale this property )ith some accracyG%b# $peci,c per!ormance is !or )here the economic

nieness is so encti'erelie!

%1# o)e'er* i! the de!endant is an intentional )rongdoer* thecort may ignore the brden to the de!endant and reire thathe set matters strait e'en at great personal cost.

b# ;hitlock '. ilander Foods* Inc.

%1# Isse" ;hether an intentional )rongdoer may be en>oinedto remo'e a )all o! his bilding at great enctionso long as there )as harm done to 7 and the cort canremedy some o! it by ordering an in>nction.

c# Co84perati'e Insrance $ociety td. :. Agyll $tores %oldings#td.

%1# Isse" Can a cort order a speci,c per!ormance in>nctionto en!orce a 3 year lease )here de!endant is not making apro,tG

%2# olding" ?o* !or a !e) reasons"%a# It )old be too hard to en!orce.

i#The cort )old ha'e to constantly check and see i!theyre doing the thing theyre reired to do.

ii# Its also a little sb>ecti'e%1# There cold be all kinds o! disptes o'er ho)

mch they ha'e to do to comply )ith the in>nction.

iii# Cort also doesnt )ant to pnish someone !or

closing an npro,table bsiness.


22/38

i'# +o also cannot reire someone to )ork !or another

person* thats hostilender the 13th amendment.3. 4ther reasons !or Choosing Damages or In>ncti'e Relie!

a# -bay inc. :. =ercenction. $ppCort thinks both lo)er corts are )rong* ,nding that thetraditional 5 !actor test is )hat shold apply* e'en thogh thecort has discretion* it does not go so !ar as de'eloping

categorical rles that limit their o)n discretion going !or)ard.%3# Rle%s# " to get an on a permanent basis* the scope o! the

harm mst be perpetal. ook !or things in the !acts to sggestthat the harm )ill be continosly ripe or that D )ill repeat theharm!l condct.

b# ;illing '. =a66ocone%1# Isse"

%a# ;hether the permanent in>nction is prohibited by

the states right to !ree speech

%b# ;hether the permanent in>nction ali,es as a priorrestraint on !ree speech.

%2# olding"%a# Re'ersed and remanded on constittional gronds

%3# Comment"%a# The sperior cort modi,ed the in>nction to make it

,t the scope o! the harm%b# The lo)er cort reasoned that damages are not

adeate becase the )oman had no money to paydamages any)ay.

%c# The ma>ority o! corts adhere to the 'ie) that )ithan insol'ent de!endant* money damages may be 'ie)ed asinadeate remedy at la).

%d# 7rior restraint 8 pre'ents speech in ad'ance* cortsare pretty skeptical that these kinds o! in>nctions are goingto 'iolate ,rst amendment rights.

9. 7reliminary or 7ermanent Relie!1. The sbstanti'e standards !or 7reliminary In>nctions

a# 5 FACT4R T-$T F4R 7R-I=I?AR+ I??CTI4?$%1# That the party is likely to scceed on the merits


23/38

%2# That the party is likely to s(er irreparable harm in theabsence o! preliminary relie!.

%a# This is all harm that occrs be!ore trial on the merits%b# This is di(erent !rom the irreparable damage rle

generally applied.

%3# That the balance o! eities tips in the partys !a'or%a# -ities 7osner" P< HpQ %18P# < Hd

i#arm to the plainti( i! it is erroneosly deniedii# arm to the de!endant i! it is erroneosly granted

%5# An in>nction is in the pblic interest.b# ;inter '. ?atral Resorces De!ense Concil* Inc.

%1# Isse" ;hether the na'y shold be en>oined be!ore a trialon the merits on a case o! action alleging only that they mstprodce an en'ironmental impact report be!ore contining theirradar training.

%2# olding" ?o. The lo)er cort nderstated the brden on

the de!endant* and sholdnt ha'e granted a preliminaryin>nction. Frther* the in>nction is otside o! the scope o!harm becase it goes to the practice* and not the prodction o!the report.

2. 4btaining a TR4 e< parte %)ithot notice#a# There )ill be some immediate harm i! there is notice

%1# Immediate as in bet)een no) and the cort date !or thein>nction

b# a)yer mst certi!y that an attempt )as made* or there is goodreason )hy not to attempt to gi'e notice

c# They are only short termd# Coyne8Delany Co. :. Capital De'elopment 9oard

%1# Isse" ;hether a contractor may recei'e a TR4 halting acontract bidding period* )here their nderlying action concernsparticipation in that bidding. %they )ere blackballed#

%2# olding" The TR4 is granted* bt a bond mst be posted toco'er the costs i! the TR4 )as erroneosly granted to theplainti(

3. The 7rocedre !or 4btaining 7reliminary Relie!a# Carroll '. 7resident o! 7rincess Anne

%1# Isse" ;hether a city may be granted a TR4 )here thenderlying case regards barring the de!endant !rom holding apblic e'ent.

%2# olding" +es.%3# Rle%s#"TR4 itsel! is not appealable* the preliminary

in>nction that isses a!ter is )hat is appealable.b# $ampson '. =rray


24/38

%1# Isse" ;hether a TR4 can be appealed )here it has beene


25/38

What if D ignores? A.D is in contempt

B.Res judicata in

subsequent suit

A.in practice, declaratory judgment acts like

injunction.

B.In reality, D not in contempt; P must follow

on w/ request for injunction

C.Res judicata in subsequent suit

0.1. $omeone rns into cort* and asks the cort to grant an in>nction

a# I! theyre !ond to be in the right* the other party is reired tocomply

2. -ither party may* ho)e'er* Ask the cort !or some declaratory relie!.a# That is to say* it may be sed by the accsed )rongdoer to ickly

clear their name.3. Declaratory relie! '. In>nctions

a# -ither )ay its a!ter a trial on the meritsb# For an in>nction

%1#a'e to sho) that damages are not enogh

%2#?ot nde brden on the de!endant%3#?ot nde brden on the cort

c# For declaratory dgement

%1#+o dont ha'e to sho) irreparable in>ry

%2#Cort doesnt care abot the brden on the de!endant.%3#And its hard to imagine ho) the declaration )old brden the

cort%5#9e care!l to note that there mst be an actal dispte !or the

cort to rle* other)ise it )ont ha'e >risdiction nder theconstittion.

d# Impact o! these t)o remedies%1#I! it )as an in>nction 8 something like dont ta< the rail)ay

something that directs the state to not take some speci,caction

%2#I! it )as a declaratory >dgement 8 something likethis ta< is

nconstittional as a matter o! la)i! the state decides toignore the declaration* theres no real recorse. 9T the rail)aycan take the declaration back to the cort and ask !or thatin>nction again.

%3#T/DR" Declaratory >dgements are easier to get becase they

arent coerci'e* ho)e'er they may still e(ect the de!endantscondct going !or)ard becase no) they kno) their rightsaccording to the cort.

5. ?ash'ille* Chattanooga $aint ois Rail)ay '. ;allace

a# Isse" ;hether a caseor contro'ersynder article 3 2 incldesdeclaratory >dgment nder the declaratory >dgement act.


26/38

b# olding" Changes in !orm are not enogh to preclde the cort!rom rling. $o long as the essentials o! an ad'ersarial proceeding

it meets to reirements o! Article 2 3

9. Biet Title and the ike1. Asks the cort to resol'e title to dispted property

a# Traditionally only applies to real propertyb# 9t also can apply to personal property* as in ?e)man.

2. ?e)man =achine Co. :. ?e)mana# Isse" ;hether iet title actions may be sed to settle disptes

as to the o)nership o! property other than real.b# olding" +es* becase there is no real di(erence bet)een real and

personal property any)ay* and i! they preclded that action hed

be le!t )ithot recorse.C. Re!ormation

1. ;hen parties come to an agreement* bt by !rad or mistake )rite itdo)n in some !ashion that does not trly reKect their contract* eity

)ill re!orm the )riting to make it reKect the partiestre intention.

2. and '. Dayton8dsona# Isse" 7lainti( )ants the original contract plainti( athored %and

thoght it e


27/38

Restitution Mechanism Distinguishing Characteristic

Equitable Lien D has some connection to Ps property, but does not

want the property, or cannot have the property assigned.

P is given the right to force the sale of the property tosettle the debt.

0.A. Its completely di(erent !rom e'erything else

1. Its not all abot ho) the plainti( has been harmed2. Its all abot the bene,t to the de!endant

a# ;hat n>st enrichment has the de!endant recei'edGb# The idea o! restittion

%1#Cannot let people pro,t !rom )rongdoing

%2#Its simply not !air to let the de!endant keep )hat they'e

gained )rong!lly.%3#Theres also an opportnity cost to the plainti(* that

opportnity* i! not stolen a)ay !rom them b the de!endantmight ha'e lead to e'en greater gains.

9. Restittion !rom Innocent De!endants 8 And $ome ;ho are Treated asInnocent1. =istake

a# 9le Cross ealth $er'ices* Inc. :. $aer%1# Isse" Can 9le Cross recei'e restittion )here there )as a

mistake on their end that )as e


28/38

%2# olding" +es. The de!endant mst pay the mechanic his !eebecase to do other)ise )old allo) him to recei'e !reeser'ice* and he )old be n>stly enriched.

%3# Rle%s# " Basi8Contract 8 ?ot applied )here there )as a realcontract/ cort )ill only imply a contract.

%a#7arty is entitled to recei'e the reasonable 'ale o! theser'ices she pro'ided%b#?ot the increased 'ale o! the property that )as impro'ed%c#Distingished !rom $ommer'ille.

C. Reco'ering =ore Than 7lainti( ost1. Disgorging !rom Conscios ;rongdoers

a# 4l)ell '. ?ye ?issan Co.%1# Isse" ;hether a plainti( may recei'e a reasonable rental !ee

!or eipment sed )ithot the partys permission !orcommerce* reslting in the n>st enrichment o! the intentional)rongdoer %these are also C4?$-B-?TIA &AI?$#

%2# olding" Restittion is complicated to apply in this case sincethe machine )as only part o! a larger operation. Cort implies acontract nder a asi8contract theory. They gi'e plainti( theamont o! sa'ed labor cost he gained by sing the machine*thereby disgorging his conseential gains in !ll.

2. C4?$-B-?TIA &AI?$

a# I! yore an nintentional )rongdoer 8 yo dont ha'e to pay

conseential gains

%1#Tie p yor boat at someone elses dock 8 yo dont o)e themthe boat their dock sa'ed.

b# I! yore an intentional )rongdoer 8 yo ha'e to pay allconseential gains.

%1#Tie p yor boat at someone elses dock 8 yo o)e them theboat* becase yo kne) this )as a trespass.

c# =aier 9re)ing Co. :. Fleishmann Distilling Corp.%1# Isse" ;hether a plainti( can get a !ll acconting !or pro,ts

)here they cannot sho) actal loss on a trademarkin!ringement claim.

%2# olding" +es. 9ecase they )here intentional )rongdoers andthe prpose o! the anham act is deterrence.

3. =easring the 7ro,ts

a# $heldon '. =etro8&old)yn 7ictres Corp.%1# Isse" o) to di'ide the total to disgorge n>st gains )hile

lea'ing the >st gains )ith the de!endant )ho right!lly earnedthem.

%2# olding" -


29/38

%3# Rle%s#" The only st(o! the de!endants rele'ant to theanalysis is the kind o! st( that can be boght and sold.4ther)ise the argment it too speclati'e. iring !amosactors ths contribtes to the o'erall pro,ts* and pro,tsattribtable to those actors are not n>st gains. 9t the

stdios prestigeG The argment is too speclati'e.b# amil America* Inc. :. &FI

%1# Isse" o) to accont !or de!endants o'erhead costs )hile

selling a good that in!ringes on the plainti(s copyright.

D-F-?DA?T$ 4:-R-AD C4$T$ :$. ?$T &AI?$

%2# olding" De!endant may dedct !rom their gross pro,ts thingslike labor* tilities* marketing* and then there is an allocation")hat percentage o! o'erhead is attribtable to the in!ringingproperty/ and dedct that.

5. 9reach o! Contract

a# Disgorging the pro,ts !rom an 4pportnistic 9reach%1# $nepp '. nited $tates

%a# Isse" ;here the pro,ts are not attribtable to the the!t o!anything* bt the act that creates the pro,ts is a breach o!!aith )ith the plainti(* )hat portion o! the pro,ts shold bedisgorged* and )hat shold be le!t to de!endantG

%b# olding" The cort )ill treat 100 o! the pro,ts as )rong!lbecase de!endant en>oyed a special degree o! trst %)HCIA# and his actions breached that trst. In theory at least*

he coldnt ha'e )ritten the book )ithot breaching thetrst he shared )ith the CIA. ;-R- 100 4F 7R4FIT$ AR-

;R4?&F 9-CA$- 4F A 9R-AC 4F TR$T%2# =ay '. =ro(

%a# Isse" ;here a deal is made* and the seller o! land secretly

remo'es ,ll!rom the land thereby damaging the land to

be sold* shold the plainti( be de restittionG%b# olding" +es. ere as in $nepp* the de!endant is a conscios

)rongdoer attempting to gain at the e


30/38

i# Those contracts )here one party has the option tocancel the contract%1#This incldes"

%a#nilateral mistake o! !act%b#Fradlent condct

%c#Dress%d#nde inKence%e#ack o! capacity%!# Failre to comply )ith the state o! !rads

%3#Also sometimes a'ailable )here the contract is still en!orceablebt there has been a signi,cant breach o! contract.

%5#7lainti(s )ill* )here the contract is 'oidable and not 'oid ha'ethe option o! either standing on the contract and sing !orcompensatory damages or 'oiding the contract and sing !orrecision.

%# =tal 9ene,t i!e Ins. Co. :. =R -lectronics Corp.

%a# Isse " ;hether the misrepresentation )as material andallo)s the insrrer to cancel the contract

%b# olding "The policy )ill be en!orced* bt only !or the amontthat )old ha'e been prchased )ith the money ACTA+

paid !or a smokers premim.

%c# Rle%s# " the prpose o! the materiality iniry is not topermit the >ry to re)rite the terms o! the insranceagreement to con!orm to the ne)ly disclosed !acts bt tomake certain that the risk insred )as the risk co'ed by thepolicy agreed pon.

%#osing Contracts )here the 9ene,t Cannot be Retrned

%a# 9oomer '. =iri# Isse" ;here the contract nder8compensates plainti(

!or the )ork that has already been done nder itsterms* can the cort rescind the contract to pre'ent the

plainti(s lossG

ii# olding" +es. $ince the )ork has already been done*and the de!endant kne) all along this )as going to beo'er the agreed pon amont* it )old lea'e de!endantn>stly enriched to not gi'e plainti( restittion.

D. Restitionary Rights in $peci,c 7roperty1. C4?$TRCTI:- TR$T$

a# A trst is imposed by the cort on eitable gronds againstsomeone )ho has obtained some property by )rongdoing topre'ent the )rongdoer to be n>stly enriched by the )rong doing.%1#Reires

%a#A speci,c piece o! property linked %see tracing# to theplainti(


31/38

%b#A sho)ing that the property )as acired throgh somekind o! !rad on the plainti(.

b# 7aloni '. &oldstein%1# Isse " )hether to create some kind o! constrcti'e trst

prchased by the orchestrator o! a 7on6i scheme.

%2# olding " +es. The money )as obtained throgh !rad and that!radlent money )as linked throgh the in'estmentpresmption %see belo)# to the prchase o! the condo. %gy)as completely insol'ent at that point so a right!l )ithdra)alpresmption )old ha'e netted them 6ero dollars and 6erocents.#

c# Rn '. Rn%1# Isse " ;hether a constrcti'e trst may be ordered )here" a

deadbeat e


32/38

%1# Isse" ;here money I le!t )ith de!endant and co8mingled )ith

de!endants !nds* ho) shold the cort di(erentiate the

plainti(s money !rom the de!endantsG%2# olding" 4nce liability is ot o! the )ay* the plainti( )ill ha'e

the po)er to choose )hich tracing presmptions to se*

ma


33/38

1. A money damages a)ard* !or instance is >st a piece o! paper.;ithot some action that cold be taken to !orce payment* there

)oldnt be enogh le'erage !or plainti(s to actally get their money.

2. C4?T-=7T is a po)er o! the cort* sed to coerce compliance )ithin>nctions.

3. All ancillary remedies* by de,nition* come a!ter a trial on the merits*and a!ter the initial remedies ha'e all be decided and calclated.

9. -n!orcing Coerci'e 4rders" The Contempt 7o)er1. Types o! Contempt

a# International nion* nited =ine ;orkers '. 9ag)ell%1# Isse" )here the cort has ordered an in>nction and the

de!endant has not complied* ho) mch coercion is too mchcoercionG

%2# olding" Depends on )hat cort yore in. +o get greater

protection in criminal contempt hearings* so here it comesdo)n to )hether the sanctions )ere criminal in natre. They

)ere* there!ore it )as an abse o! discretion.b# Criminal '. Ci'il Contempt

%1# In ci'il sanction%a#+o ha'e the ability to end the sanctions by >st doing )hat

they told yo to do.%b#Fines are coerci'e %and not merely pniti'e# i!"

i# 7er diem" ,ne per day ntil yo comply

ii# 7rge clase" its going to be some speci,c amont per'iolation bt yo can prge the amont %not ha'e topay it# i! the parties can settle the matter.

%2#In criminal sanctions%a#Its all already happened and theres nothing yo can do to

change yor liability no).%b#;e a(ord greater protections here since yo ha'e no choice

ging !or)ard that can help yo.

2. Risk o! Abse's. 4'ercoming De,ancea# Anyan) '. Anyan)

%1# Isse" ;hether the contempt* in this case >ail time* shold beli!ted becase the de!endant has not yet cracked.

%2# olding" +es. The rele'ant iniry here is not )hether its been

long enogh bt )hether the contined incarceration )ill lead

to compliance. I! the cort doesnt !eel there is a sbstantial

likelihood o! de!endant complying becase o! the >ail time anytime soon* then the de!endant mst either be released* or thesanction mst become a criminal contempt sanction.

b# I$$-$ R-AT-D T4 T- $- 4F C4?T-=7T T4 4:-RC4=- AD-FIA?T 7ART+


34/38

%1#;hat i! the party is telling the trth* and they cannot comply

)ith the corts orderG%2#;hat i! no amont o! >ail time )ill change his mindG

%a#;e dont )ant to gi'e the impression that yo cannegotiate yor )ay ot o! contempt

%b#e might e'entally gi'e in and comply%3#;ere not >st looking at the time yo'e been there

%a#;e are asking i! there is a sbstantial likelihood thatcontined incarceration )ill lead to compliance.i# I! not* then its got to be stopped* or s)itched o'er to a

criminal sanction. %)ith all the encti'e order that is later re'ersed on

appeal !or error may be held in criminal contempt !or disobediencein spite o! the re'ersal.%1#It pre'ents a litigant !rom attacking the 'alidity o! an in>nction

in the collateral matter o! a de!ense to criminal prosection.%2#+o mst make a direct appealo! the order granting the

in>nction* and shold not attack something like theconstittionality o! the la) nderly the in>nction.

%3#Right or )rong* no man can be a >dge in his o)n case.%a#?ote" this comes p )here people disobey cort orders

dring an appeal o! the order* e'en i! yore in the right*

+4 =$T C4=7+.%5#-


35/38

%2# olding" The bank shold ha'e gotten that contract )ithde!endant sooner* becase it )as la)!lly sei6ed by the sheri(.

%3# Rle%s#"%a#To edgement

%c#There are a bnch o! state8speci,c e


36/38


37/38

i# Thats the same as actal damages i! yore doing itright.

%b#=ltiplied by a !ee %also reasonable#

i# There may be hge Kctations in )hat attorneyscharge

ii# The a'erage may 'ery depending on )hether theattorney is at a large ,rm* small ,rm* etc.

J. R-=-DIA D-F-?$-$A. As opposed to liability de!enses

1. In a liability de!ense* yo attack some material elementa# +o )in* and yo get to pay nothing.

2. In remedial de!enses* yo o(er a de!ense that bars certain remediesa# -itable remedial de!enses inclde

%1#aches%2#nclean hands

b# egal remedial de!enses inclde

%1#7rocedral nconscionability%2#$bstanti'e nconscionability

9. aches1. a'e to sho)

a# nreasonable delay%1#;ill be declared )here based on the !acts the plainti( cannot

gi'e a good edice cased by the delay

%1#+o ha'e to sho) yo )ere harmed.

%2#That cold case de!ense pre>dice%a#$omething like spoliation.%3#4R -conomic pre>dice

%a#;aiting to se !or so long might mean really high costs tothe de!ense i! there is an in>nctioni# ;e )ill only say the plainti( delayed in sing )here the

plainti( had notice or constrcti'e kno)ledgeC. nclean ands

1. ;here the plainti( comes to the case ha'ing done something)rong!l. A?Da# I! that )rong!l condct has something to do )ith the litigation.

%1#They may be barred !rom relie!2. ?ot a hard and !ast rle* )ont apply )here )rongdoing )as

nrelated to the claimD. nconscionability

1. 7rocedrala# ;as there something )rong )ith ho) the contract )as createdG

Too one8sidedG


38/38

%1#=ay preclde contract damages )here applicable* !orcingasi8contract* restittion

%2#+o )in* it bars any sch remedy 8 nder the agreement2. $bstanti'e

a# ooks at )hether the terms are n!air

b# $ort o! a smell test* are the terms one sided* are there reallystrong limitation o! remedies clasesG

(1)I! yo )in* it bars any sch remedy 8 nder the agreement

Documents

Fink Remedies Fall 2013