Glannon Civ Pro Notes v3

Civil Procedure: Glannon CH 1 PERSONAL JURISDICTION: THE ENIGMA OF MINIMUM CONTACTS.........................................................................................................4

CH 2 STATUTORY LIMITS ON PERSONAL JURISDICTION...................................................................................................................................5

2 STEP ANALYSIS OF P. JURISDICTION...........................................................................................................................................................................5LONG ARM STATUTES:.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

CH 3 SEEKING THE HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: CHALLENGES TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION..............................................................................5

DIRECT ATTACK....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5COLLATERAL ATTACK:................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

CH 4 FEDERAL QUESTIONS AND FEDERAL CASES: CASES “ARISING UNDER” FEDERAL LAW..............................................................................6

ARTICLE III: IMPORTANT NATIONAL INTEREST PERCEIVED.................................................................................................................................................6Osburn v. Bank of US:.....................................................................................................................................................................................6

§ 1331: CONSTITUTION, LAWS, TREATIES OF THE US ARE FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION..................................................................................................6WELL PLEADED COMPLAINT RULE................................................................................................................................................................................6

CH 5 DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: WHEN DOES MULTIPLICITY CONSTITUTE DIVERSITY?.....................................................................................6

§ 1332: COMPLETE DIVERSITY AND AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY TEST MET...........................................................................................................................6§ 1332 (C) (1) : CITIZEN BOTH PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS/PLACE OF INCORPORATION.....................................................................................................6

CH 6 PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION COMPARED................................................................................................................6

4K1A RESTRICTION OF FEDERAL T. JURISDICTION TO WHERE STATE CT HAS T. JURISDICTION...................................................................................................6

CH 7 SECOND-GUESSING THE PLAINTIFF’S CHOICE OF FORUM: REMOVAL......................................................................................................7

28 USC § 1441 (A): REMOVAL ONLY IF D. CT. COULD HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER § 1332.....................................................................................728 USC § 1441(B): REMOVAL IF Δ IS NOT A CITIZEN OF STATE WHERE ACTION IS BROUGHT................................................................................................7§1441(E): SO THAT EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL SMJ COULD BE REMOVED FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURT.......................................................................................7§1441(A): ONLY TO FEDERAL COURT WHERE STATE ACTION IS PENDING.............................................................................................................................7§1404 (A) TRANSFER OF VENUE FROM ONE D. CT TO ANOTHER.......................................................................................................................................7

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) removed, then transferred then dismissed for forum non conveniens......................................................7RULE 81 (C) REMOVED ACTIONS................................................................................................................................................................................7§1447 (B)............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7§1450.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

CH 8 PROPER VENUE.......................................................................................................................................................................................8

§1391 (A) VENUE WHERE ANY Δ IS SUBJECT TO P JURISDICTION......................................................................................................................................8§ 1391 (B) VENUE WHERE ANY Δ MAY BE FOUND.......................................................................................................................................................8§ 1391 (A)(2) AND (B)(2): ALLOW SEVERAL DISTRICTS FOR VENUE...................................................................................................................................8§ 1391 (A)(3) AND (B(3): ARE FALLBACK, ONLY IF NOTHING ELSE WORKS.......................................................................................................................8§1406 REMOVAL FOR IMPROPER INITIAL VENUE...........................................................................................................................................................8

CH 9 CHOOSING THE PROPER COURT..............................................................................................................................................................8

CH 10 EASY ERIE..............................................................................................................................................................................................9

1789 RULES OF DECISION ACT (RDA),.......................................................................................................................................................................91842 Swift v. Tyson......................................................................................................................................................................................... 91938 Erie......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

FEDERAL COURT APPLYING STATE STATUTES AND LAW IN DIVERSITY JURISDICTION § 1332....................................................................................................9

CH 11 EERIE ERIE...........................................................................................................................................................................................10

Cities service Oil Co. v. Dunlap (US, 1939).....................................................................................................................................................10Guaranty Trust Co. V. York (US 1945)...........................................................................................................................................................10

CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER TO FEDERAL COURTS:............................................................................................................................................10Article III, § 1:................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10Article I, § 8:.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

PENDULUM SWING BACK [TO FEDERAL POWERS] … A LITTLE...........................................................................................................................................10Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electrical Cooperative, Inc. (US 1958).....................................................................................................................10

RULES RESCUED IN HANNA V. PLUMER......................................................................................................................................................................10

YJK Fall 2008 1 Civil Procedure| Struve

Hanna v. Plumer (US 1965)...........................................................................................................................................................................10Gasperini....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

CH 12 ERIE AND STATE CHOICE OF LAW........................................................................................................................................................10

Klaxon v. Stentor Manufacturing co (US 1941).............................................................................................................................................10

CH 13 JOINDER..............................................................................................................................................................................................11

FRCP 20(A)(1): MULTIPLE Π CAN SUE TOGETHER IF SAME TRANSACTION/OCCURRENCE......................................................................................................11FRCP 20(A)(2):Π CAN SUE MULTIPLE Δ IN SINGLE ACTION............................................................................................................................................11RULE 13(A): COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM,...............................................................................................................................................................11RULE 13(B): PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM (UNRELATED CLAIM),......................................................................................................................................11RULE 13(G): CROSS CLAIM AGAINST CO- Δ.................................................................................................................................................................1118(A): A PARTY CAN JOIN ALL CLAIMS AGAINST ANOTHER AS LONG AS PROPER CLAIM IS THERE.............................................................................................11

CH 14 JOINDER OF PARTIES UNDER RULE 14.................................................................................................................................................11

14(A): FOR Δ TO IMPLEAD NEW PARTIES AGAINST WHOM SHE HAS CLAIMS RELATED TO MAIN CLAIM;....................................................................................1114 (A)(2)(A): ASSERT DEFENSE AGAINST 3P Π............................................................................................................................................................1114(A)(2)(C): ASSERT DEFENSE AGAINST ORIGINAL Π.....................................................................................................................................................1114 (A) (1) TIMING: SUE 3P Δ WITHIN 10 DAYS OF ANSWERING......................................................................................................................................11

CH 15 ESSENTIALS AND INTERLOPERS: RULES 19 AND RULE 24.....................................................................................................................12

RULE 19(A) MUST JOIN IF FEASIBLE WHEN:................................................................................................................................................................12RULE 19(B): IF PERSON SHOULD BE JOINED UNDER 19(A) BUT CANNOT? 3 OPTIONS:........................................................................................................12YOONJEE’S JOINDER CHART.....................................................................................................................................................................................12RULE 24 INTERVENTION.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1224(A)(1) RIGHT TO JOIN IF THERE’S A STATUTE AUTHORIZING:......................................................................................................................................1224 (A)(2) RIGHT TO JOIN IF 3 CONDITIONS ARE MET...................................................................................................................................................1224(B)(1)(B): PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION, WHEN 24(A) DOESN’T WORK (THERE IS NO RIGHT),.........................................................................................12

CH 16 § 1367 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION................................................................................................................................................13

Owen equip v. Kroger....................................................................................................................................................................................13Finley v. US.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

§ 1367 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................................................................................13

CH 17 JURISDICTION VS. JOINDER.................................................................................................................................................................13

CH 18 SERVICE OF PROCESS..........................................................................................................................................................................14

RULE 4:SERVICE OF PROCESS................................................................................................................................................................................... 14RULE 4(C )(1): WHAT DOCS.....................................................................................................................................................................................14RULE 4(A) CONTENTS OF SUMMONS..........................................................................................................................................................................1412(B) (5): ATTACKS ADEQUACY OF METHOD USED IN SERVICE TO GIVE Δ NOTICE...............................................................................................................14

CH 19 MOTION TO DISMISS..........................................................................................................................................................................14

12(A) Δ ANSWERS................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1412(B) PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS....................................................................................................................................................................14

CH 20 AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS............................................................................................................................................................14

CH 21 DISCOVERY.........................................................................................................................................................................................15

RULE 26(A) AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE........................................................................................................................................................................15RULE 26 (B)(1) VERY BROAD SCOPE BUT ALSO LIMITED TO “ANY NONPRIVILEGED MATTER RELEVANT TO ANY PARTY’S CLAIM OR DEFENSE”,..................................15RULE 26(C)(1): PROTECTIVE ORDERS FROM DISCOVERY REQUESTS..................................................................................................................................15

Hickman v. Taylor, (US, 1947).......................................................................................................................................................................15RULE 26 (B)(3) WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE PROTECTING WORK PRODUCED BY COUNSEL.....................................................................................................15RULE 26(A)(2) DISCLOSURE OF TESTIFYING EXPERTS.....................................................................................................................................................15FED RULES OF EVIDENCE 702: EXPERT WITNESS..........................................................................................................................................................15RULE 26(B)(4)(B) DISCOVERY OF NON-TESTIFYING EXPERTS ONLY IN “EXCEPTIONAL CIRCS”..................................................................................................15

CH 22 BASIC METHODS OF DISCOVERY.........................................................................................................................................................16

RULE 26 (A) (1)AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE...................................................................................................................................................................16RULE 33 INTERROGATORIES..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16RULE 34 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................................16RULE 34 (B)(1)(B) OPENING FILES............................................................................................................................................................................16


RULE 34 (A)(1) SAMPLING AND TESTING....................................................................................................................................................................16E-DISCOVERY........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16RULE 26(B)(2(B):................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16RULE 26(B)(5)(B)................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16RULE 37(E) NO SANCTIONS FOR DESTRUCTION OF E-DOCS.............................................................................................................................................16RULE 30 ORAL DEPOSITIONS: TAKING TESTIMONY FROM WITNESS UNDER OATH................................................................................................................16RULE 30(C)(1)...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16RULE 30(A)(1):..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17RULE 35 PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION.............................................................................................................................................................17RULE 36(B) ISSUES ADMITTED ARE DEEMED ESTABLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF CASE..............................................................................................................17RULE 37 ORDER TO COMPEL DISCOVERY:...................................................................................................................................................................17RULE 37(A)(1), PARTY MUST FIRST CONFER IFNORMALLY..............................................................................................................................................17RULE 37(A)(3) MOVE TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OR DISCOVERY........................................................................................................................................17

CH 23 DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM CF. TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT........................................................................................18

RULE 12(B)(6) FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.................................................................................................................................................................18RULE 56 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT............................................................................................................................................................18

CH 24 JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (DIRECTED VERDICT).....................................................................................................................19

2 WAYS FOR A JUDGE TO CONTROL THE JURY’S DECISION –MAKING PROCESS:....................................................................................................................19Π’S BURDEN OF PRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................................... 19RULE 50 (A)(1)(B): MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW................................................................................................................................19RULE 50 (A)(1) JMOL STANDARD: NO LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY BASIS TO FIND FOR NON MOVING PARTY...................................................................19O RULE 50(A) FEDERAL STANDARD:.....................................................................................................................................................................20

CH 25 JUDGE AND THE JURY: WHOSE CASE IS THIS ANYWAY?.......................................................................................................................20

JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT..............................................................................................................................................................20RATIONALE FOR ALLOWING JNOV AFTER JURY DELIBERATION.......................................................................................................................................20RULE 50(B) PREREQUISITES TO RENEWED MOTION:......................................................................................................................................................20RULE 59 NEW TRIAL.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 21RULE 50 (C)(1) JUDGES FACED WITH COMBINED MOTIONS MUST RULE ON BOTH...............................................................................................................21RULE 50 (D)......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21RULE 50 (E)......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

CH 26 RES JUDICATA: LIMITS OF PROCEDURAL LIBERALITY...........................................................................................................................22

CH 27 RES JUDICATA AND RULES OF JOINDER, WHEN DOES MAY MEANS MUST?.........................................................................................22

CH 28 COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AKA ISSUE PRECLUSION.................................................................................................................................23

Parklane Hosiery Co.Inc. v. Shore (US 1979)..................................................................................................................................................23

CH 29 NON MUTUAL COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AKA NMIP...............................................................................................................................23

RESTATEMENT OF JUDGMENTS § 27: C. ESTOPPEL.......................................................................................................................................................23NON-MUTUAL ISSUE PRECLUSION:.............................................................................................................................................................................23

Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn........................................................................................................................23


Ch 1 Personal Jurisdiction: the enigma of minimum contacts

Basis for P. Jurisdiction:1. Domicile 2. Consent (waiver by appearing)3. Physical presence4. “minimum contacts” for ppl not in the state.5. In state service, Burnham v. Sup Ct (CA 1990)

Domicile Where a person lives, lived, chooses to say indefinitely.

Consent You can waive T. Jurisdiction, and appear to contest if you wish. (most Δ probably won’t)

Physical presence: aka, service in state.

Minimum contacts Established by International Shoe v. WA( US 1945) Kulko v. Superior Ct, said it also applies to individual as well as corporations Long arm limits v. min contact limits under the 14th Amendment different. Even acts outside the state may have minimum contacts. See Calder v. Jones (defamation in CA by writer in FL) Quality and nature of the contacts = purposeful availment. See Hanson v. Denkla, (1958, Δ needs to have made deliberate choice to

relate to state in some way. Unilateral π contact is not sufficient.) WorldWide Volkswagon v. Woodson (1980) Keeton v. Hustler (1984) jurisdiction from selling magazine in state even though no contacts, and sold more in other states. Stream of commerce entry into the state. See Asahi Metal v. Sup Ct (US 1987)

o Mnfct→ wholesaler→ retailer → consumero Majority: Substantial quantity of goods into stream of commerce = purposeful availmento O’Conner’s dissent in Asahi: wants clear evidence Δ seeks market through design/advertising.

Balance with…(below)

Fair Play and Substantial justice Interest of the forum state to provide redress to citizens Inconvenience to Δ Interest of π to get relief Interest of state enforcing its laws/policies

Fair to find T. Jurisdiction NOT Fair to find T. JurisdictionBurger King—juris is reasonable, Δ needs to make compelling case that he can’t given ease of transportation, choice of franchising a FL corporation.

Asahi—even though there are min contacts, unreasonable for jurisdiction over two foreign companies.


Ch 2 Statutory Limits on personal jurisdiction

2 step analysis of P. Jurisdiction 1. Is there a State statute that authorizes? Aka, is there a long arm statute?

Yes→ #2No→ too bad. Can’t bring suit here.

2. Is it constitutional under due process?Long arm statutes:

authorize jurisdiction of Δ based on specific types of contact1. Tortuous acts2. Business in state3. Property in statePurpose: call nonresident Δ back to state to defendNOTE: Not all long arm jurisdiction is within due process!

Acts out of state that cause effect in F. State fall under long arms. International shoe Burger King v. Rudzewiz Calder v. Jones Gray v. American Radiator (jurisdiction even when did not act, send goods, know or anticipate goods would end up there)

Ch 3 Seeking the Home field advantage: Challenges to Personal Jurisdiction

Direct attack1. Special appearance—appearing only to challenge jurisdiction2. Some state allow interlocutory appeals on T. Jurisdiction issue3. 12b6 motions preserves right to contest jurisdiction appeal after trial on the merits.

Collateral attack: Δ challenges forum courts judgment in enforcement in his state, not original suit.1. More convenient b/c

a. No travelb. More sympathetic to pick your own state

2. Pitfall—no chance to challenge merits IF ct finds jurisdiction, failing to appear→ waive defense on the merits. (thus, bad idea)


Ch 4 Federal Questions and Federal Cases: cases “arising under” federal Law

Article III: important national interest perceived.Risk of prejudice Between states

Citizens of different statesInternational relations

Citizens & aliensForeign ministers/consulsAdmiralty/maritime

Fed Law Federal constitutional/law issuesArise under federal law?

Osburn v. Bank of US:very broad, only requires one party to rely on federal law to estb claim or defense or at least raise federal issue in proving case

2 Questions: 1. Constitutional power?2. Actual statute power?

§ 1331: constitution, laws, treaties of the US are federal question jurisdictionWell pleaded complaint rule

ONLY if π’s claim is federal question. See Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley (US 1908).( SCOTUS decided it lacks SMJ even though Δ’s defense is a federal law.)

EXCEPTION to well pleaded complaint rule: sometimes, state claim that turns on substantial question of federal law has SMJ! See Grable & Sons v. Darne (2005).

Ch 5 Diversity Jurisdiction: when does multiplicity constitute diversity?

§ 1332: complete diversity and amount in controversy test metComplete diversity = all π and all Δ are not from the same state (can have from same state if on the same side) See Strawbridge

Citizens of a state = CL domicile People:

o Intent to reside indefinitelyo Does not have to be full time residenceo Residency necessarily not sufficient for domicile

Corporations:§ 1332 (c) (1) : citizen both principle place of business/place of incorporationo Principle place of business =

place of operations, bulk of corporate activity test nerve center, totally activity test

Ch 6 Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction Compared

**Can bring successful suit only where all 3 are met.

4k1a restriction of federal T. Jurisdiction to where State ct has T. jurisdiction.


territorial jurisdiction

subject matter

jurisdictionvenue

Ch 7 Second-guessing the Plaintiff’s choice of Forum: Removal

π gets to choose first (master of the claim), BUTΔ gets to remove some casesJurisdiction intended to protect both parties.

28 USC § 1441 (a): removal only if D. Ct. could have original jurisdiction under § 133228 USC § 1441(b): removal if is NOT a citizen of state where action isΔ brought

Eg: if NY citizen is sued by PA citizen in NY, CANNOT remove.

1789 Judiciary Act: first time congress introduced removal

§1441(e): so that exclusive federal SMJ could be removed from state to federal court.

§1441(a): only to federal court where state action is pending. Even if it’s not the right federal court, you would have ended up in if π had started in federal court.

§1404 (a) transfer of venue from one D. Ct to anotherIf, after removal, still the wrong court,

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) removed, then transferred then dismissed for forum non conveniens

Rule 81 (c) Removed Actions.(1) Applicability. These rules apply to a civil action after it is removed from a state court. (2) Further Pleading. After removal, repleading is unnecessary unless the court orders it. A defendant who did not answer before removal must answer or

present other defenses or objections under these rules within the longest of these periods: (A) 20 days after receiving — through service or otherwise — a copy of the initial pleading stating the claim for relief; (B) 20 days after being served with the summons for an initial pleading on file at the time of service; or (C) 5 days after the notice of removal is filed.

(3) Demand for a Jury Trial. (A) As Affected by State Law. A party who, before removal, expressly demanded a jury trial in accordance with state law need not renew the demand

after removal. If the state law did not require an express demand for a jury trial, a party need not make one after removal unless the court orders the parties to do so within a specified time. The court must so order at a party's request and may so order on its own. A party who fails to make a demand when so ordered waives a jury trial.

(B) Under Rule 38. If all necessary pleadings have been served at the time of removal, a party entitled to a jury trial under Rule 38 must be given one if the party serves a demand within 10 days after:

(i) it files a notice of removal; or (ii) it is served with a notice of removal filed by another party.

§1447 (b) It may require the removing party to file with its clerk copies of all records and proceedings in such State court or may cause the same to be brought before it by writ of certiorari issued to such State court.

§1450 Attachment or sequestration; securities: Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States, any attachment or sequestration of the goods or estate of the defendant in such action in the State court shall hold the goods or estate to answer the final judgment or decree in the same manner as they would have been held to answer final judgment or decree had it been rendered by the State court. All bonds, undertakings, or security given by either party in such action prior to its removal shall remain valid and effectual notwithstanding such removal. All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.


Forum non conveniens: US--> some other country!

1404 transfer: fed ct--> fed ct

1441 removal: state ct --> federal ct

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule38.htm

Ch 8 Proper venue

Venue MUST be waived or satisfied in addition to SMJ and T Jurisdiction

Purpose of venue rules: restrict where π can sue assure suits are tried where there is sensible relationship

§1391 (a) Venue where any is subject to P JurisdictionΔ1. where any Df lives if all in same state2. substantial part of events or omissions occurred (or property is located)3. where any Δ is subject to P. jurisdiction if no other place.

§ 1391 (b) Venue where any MAY be foundΔ1. same as (a)?2. Same as (a)3. Any Δ MAY be found

Focus on judicial districts/ NOT statesReside only in your domicile OR,

Reside (for venue) in several districts if many residences maintained.

§ 1391 (a)(2) and (b)(2): allow several districts for venue.§ 1391 (a)(3) and (b(3): are FALLBACK, only if nothing else works.

Privileges of Δ, may be waived (by failing to raise at response)

Forum selection clauses upheld generally (agreeing in advance on venue)See Carnival Cruise v. Shute (1991)

Exceptions to 1391 venue: Copyright Patent infringement 1400b Federal officials Interpleaders CL: local actions where land is located!

§1406 Removal for Improper Initial Venue

Ch 9 Choosing the Proper Court


Ch 10 Easy Erie

1789 Rules of Decision Act (RDA), stated that federal courts would apply the “laws of several states”

1842 Swift v. Tyson

1938 Erie

Federal Court applying state statutes and law in Diversity jurisdiction § 1332

Federal Courts apply state law by: Applying state

statutes Following state

court interpretation of statutes

Applying state laws as

ANNOUNCED or WOULD BE announced by the state’s highest court. FORK: what if state’s highest court hasn’t decided on the issue?

Court with Claim Applying State LawState trial court Mandatory authority= State’s highest court

May look at federal courts application as PERSUASIVE authority if state appellate or supreme court has not made a decision.

State appellate Court Mandatory authority= State’s highest court

May look at federal courts application as PERSUASIVE authority if state appellate or supreme court has not made a decision.

State Sup Ct Stare decisis, unless it decides to overturn previous decisionFederal District Court Mandatory authority= State’s highest court

Unless, no decision by them, then may look at what appellate courts have said, or

GUESS what state’s highest court would do.Federal COA Mandatory authority= State’s highest court

Persuasive Auth = other federal courts guessing what state’s highest court would do.

SCOTUS Mandatory authority = only itself.

Persuasive authority = state’s highest court.**if a federal court applies the law, guesses what state court would do, but a year later, state supreme court goes the other way?


1789 Rules of Decision Act

1842 Swift v. Tyson

J. Story said RDA applies only to statutes and establishes that federal cts don't have to apply state CL.Story felt federal judge's job was to figure out the "natural" law, not apply some state judges'.RATIONALE: new country, wanting to unify/standardized the countries' laws.Tyson owed Norton money, who owed Swift. Resulting suit would have been treated differently in FED and NY law.PROBLEMS: created potential for maniupluationHolme's criticism: Swift assuming there is this thing, the law, that is omnipresent, and that it's not a set of rules laid down by those w/ power.

growing split between federal and state courts.

federal courts leaning towards Corporations.Manipulative uses like Black and White taxi cab.

1938Erie v. THompson

FACTS: guy loses arm when hit by door protuding from train car while walking on foot path along traintracks. PA law said no duty b/c he's a trespasser, D. Ct says not found by PA law, decision followed Fed Law, and verdict for $30K. SCOTUS HOLD: overturn Swift b/c(1)it failed to merge into one general CL b/c state judges did their own thing, didn't follow federal law(2) federal practice of creating CL led to grave discrimination in justice, ironically, meant to protect out of stater from biased state juries, BUT created system where out of stater could subject DF to federal law --> black and white taxi cab(3)unconstitutional to have federal judges MAKE law where there is NO authority.

Post SwiftState statute

=>follow!

State claim from CL =>

figure out general common law

Post ErieState statute

=>follow!

state claim from CL=>

follow!

Can the court reopen if parties request Rule 60 (b)(6)? TENSION:

o NO—finality is important, it’s not fair to have diversity judgments never be final o YES—important not to have weird judgments out there/ it’s not fair!

Ch 11 Eerie Erie

Which issues are governed by Erie? Where there is no federal law-making power.

Cities service Oil Co. v. Dunlap (US, 1939) Which party had the burden of proof on a question of title to land? TX and feds have different burdens. COA: said no need apply TX law since it’s a procedural question. SCOTUS held, burden of proof is a ‘substantial right’ so Erie mandated application of state law.

Ironic b/c in from 1872 to 1938, Conformity Act of 1872 said federal courts applied procedures of the state and only in 1938 were the FRCP created to make one uniform federal procedure. Then the Erie decision seems to reverse that.

Guaranty Trust Co. V. York (US 1945)ISSUE: whether federal diversity court must apply state statute of limitations to a claim, or whether free to apply its own more flexible “laches” doctrine. HOLD: state SOL statute must be applied in order to implement Erie policy, “outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same so far as legal rules determine the outcome…as it would be if tried in a state court”→ “outcome determinative” test

Constitutional Grant of power to Federal Courts:Article III, § 1: congress has the power to establish lower federal courtsArticle I, § 8: and make law “necessary and peroper” for exercising that power. → there is constitutional authority to make federal procedural rules, even for diversity cases. → court in York decided that uniformity of state and federal court outcomes more important than following a separate federal rule whenever it could.NOTE: also there is statutory power since Congress reviews FRCP before taking effect, See 28 USC § 2074

Pendulum swing back [to federal powers] … a little

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electrical Cooperative, Inc. (US 1958)Whether judge or jury should determine the π’s status as an “employee” of the Δ. HELD, federal courts must honor “definition of state-created rights and obligations by the state courts”. Reaffirm, under York, federal courts apply outcome determinative state law even on procedural issues, where there is federal constitutional authority to make its own rule. BUT, also said, federal court must also consider any countervailing federal policies that arise from federal court’s status as an independent judicial system. THUS, federal policy of jury trial > Erie policy of uniformity.

Rules rescued in Hanna v. Plumer

Hanna v. Plumer (US 1965)π served process on Δ by following Rule 4(d)(1) and leaving summons and complaint at home w/ person of suitable age and discretion. MA law required in-hand service. PART 1: CJ. Warren—outcome determinative test, did not require federal court to substitute state rule for its own. PART 2: established a different analysis for cases in which official FRCP conflict with state law. Which said….

Gasperini

Ch 12 Erie and State Choice of LawKlaxon v. Stentor Manufacturing co (US 1941)Federal court must do what the state court within that state would do.


uniformitiy of outcomes in state and federal court

following a seprate federal rule whenever

constitutionally allowed.

Ch 13 Joinder

FRCP 20(a)(1): multiple can sue together if same transaction/occurrenceπ

FRCP 20(a)(2): can sue multiple in single actionπ Δ

Rationale: More efficient Consistent judgments

Joinder is NOT required, but permitted. b/c π has right NOT to sue if they don’t want to! For SMJ and P. Jurisdiction issues/concerns

Rule 13(a): compulsory counterclaim, use it or lose it! If it occurs out of the same transaction/occurrence Perhaps, brings out fair issues all at once, prevents Δ from waiting, taking it somewhere else and suing π. NOTE: SMJ and P jurisdiction in this forum is NOT an issue, b/c already has P jurisdiction over π simply by virtue of them filing claim

there.

Rule 13(b): permissive counterclaim (unrelated claim), efficiency says, settle all claims w/o separate suit.

Rule 13(g): cross claim against co- Δ . Optional, can sue separately if Δ wants to.; again, efficiency allowance.

18(a): a party can join all claims against another as long as proper claim is there. NOTE: still need SMJ over every single added claim.

Ch 14 Joinder of Parties under Rule 14

14(a): for to implead new parties against whom she has claimsΔ related to main claim;

must follow R8-R11

Impleaded 3P Δ is allowed to assert defenses against both π. 14 (a)(2)(A): assert defense against 3P π 14(a)(2)(C): assert defense against original .π

14 (a) (1) timing: sue 3P within 10 days of answeringΔ w/o Ct Permission, but generally Cts still have discretion

Factors Courts Consider: In favor of impleader Denial of Impleader

Efficiency of hearing related claimsAvoid repeated suitsAvoid inconsistent judgments

Undue delay in seekingComplication of main issuesPotential prejudice to π from impleading sympathetic 3P.

Jurisdiction Issues: 3P doesn’t count for venue 1367 a supplemental jurisdiction 3P Δ doesn’t have to be diverse from anyone.


Original Plaintiff

<-- 14(a)(2)(C)

13

counterclaims-->

3P Defendant<--14(a)(2)(A) defense 14(a) impleading -->

Defendant3P Plaintiff

Original Plaintiff(NY)

3P Defendant(NY) 14(a) impleading -->

Defendant3P Plaintiff

(PA)

Plaintiff

defendant 1defendant 2Defendant

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2

Ch 15 Essentials and Interlopers: Rules 19 and Rule 24

Rule 19(a) Must join if feasible when: 19(a)(1)(A): when ct cannot provide redress UNLESS absentee also brought in,

Eg: joint owners, and π only sues 1Eg: sue landlord who is leasing from someone else.

19(a)(1)(B)(i): Or if proceeding w/o person impairs their ability to protect their interest. 19(a)(1)(B)ii): Or if NOT joining exposes one of the original parties to multiple obligations

Rule 19(b): If Person should be joined under 19(a) but cannot? 3 Options:

TODAY: Courts Consider the factors

a) Would judgment in absence prejudicial to parties joined & not?

b) Extent protection can be used to avoid prejudice

c) Adequate w/o party?d) π gets adequate remedy (in another ct) if

dismissed?

Yoonjee’s Joinder Chart

Stage in Trial Parties Claims

Designing that lawsuit

20(a) multiple Π suing together20 (b) multiple Δs to a suitCan also use rule 20 when Δ is 13 a /13b counterclaiming…or cross claim.

18(a)--With one valid claim, can bring all kinds of claims (for efficiency)

Defensive moves after suit is filed

14 (a)-- Δ1 can IMPLEAD Δ2 who may be liable to Δ 1… but cannot implead a Δ2 if Δ2 is only liable to original Π Completely voluntary.19a--must be joined if feasible19b--what to do if not feasible.Is this a move by the Δ? Usually used for the 19b purpose, the get the claim dismissed.

13(a) compulsory counter claims13(b) permissive counter claims

Once 13 counterclaims attached, 18a, bring all your claims. 14 (a)2(A)--Δ 2 can counterclaim against Δ 112 (a)2( C )--Δ 2 can counter claim against original π

Parties that want IN(within 10 days after suit is filed)

24 (a)1-- right to join if there is statute (US govt)24(a)2--right to join IF 3 conditions MET24b1B--if 24a doesn't work.

Rule 24 Intervention

24(a)(1) RIGHT to join if there’s a statute authorizing: Eg: for govt (uS AG, trademark office, etc)

24 (a)(2) RIGHT to join if 3 conditions are met.(a) interest relating to property/transaction that is subject of

action(b) and interest may be impaired if not allowed in case AND(c) absentee’s interest not already adequately represented by

parties to the action

24(b)(1)(B): permissive intervention, WHEN 24(a) doesn’t work (there is no RIGHT), Ct has ultimate control

When: Limitations:o same question of law, o shared interest,o more efficient

o Timely under 24b3?o Will it delay resolution?o Require reopening of discovery?o Did they attempt intervention sooner?


19b:Options if party should be joined under 19a but cannot

be joined.

Go forward, craft judgment

Dismiss (to state court)

[TRADITIONAL APPROACH}

Go forward anyway w/o

absentee

Defendant: Apexcompany that holds

patent, pays royalties to Newtwon.

Plaintiff : Prima Co."invalid patent" Newton

24 (a) (2)wants to join, MY

patent, My royalties

Ch 16 § 1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction

Pendant jurisdiction: Federal claim + related state claim. See united mine workers v. Gibbs, federal LMPA + state contract intereference. Do we have power to hear claim?

o “common nucleus of operative facts” testo Federal courts have power to hear state claim, but not required. Ct can sever.

Does it make sense to hear claim together?YES→ federal courtNO→ dismiss, goes to stateFactors:

o State law claim predominates?o Senstive issues of state law?o Confuse jury?o Federal issues resolved early?

Ancilliary jurisdiction: claims by Δ over other 3P Close connection between original and added state claim → SINGLE court case Available for:

o 14(a)(1):o 13(g)o 24(a)

Deny for 13(b) permissive counterclaims.

Owen equip v. Krogero No jurisdiction b/c there is no statutory grant of SMJ

Finley v. US

§ 1367 Supplemental jurisdiction made a statute in 1990 § 1367 (a)Very broad, same as Gibbs, BUT § 1367 (b) limits on claims π makes against Δ under 14,, 19, 20, 24 (preserving limits from Kroger 3 part analysis

o Is the constitutional power Art III § 2 to hear supplemental claim? Proper claim exists within jursidciton of federal court? Related claim arises from same ooperative facts?

o Statutory grant of jurisdiction over supplemental claim? [1367 (a) and (b)] o Use discretionary factors to decide whether to do so.

Ch 17 Jurisdiction vs. Joinder


Ch 18 Service of Process

Service of process = delivery to a party or witness court orders. = service of initial notice to Δ of filing of lawsuit

Rule 4:Service of ProcessRule 4(c )(1): what docsRule 4(a) contents of summons 4 (e) and 4(d): how papers served

o 4(e)(2): serve individuals: personal delivery Leaving copies at dwelling or abode w/ person of suitable age/discretion Deliver to agent appt by Δ to receive

o 4(c) (2): after 1980: anyone over 18 and NOT a party can deliver, usually π’s lawyer hires someoneo 4(e)(1): provisions of state courto 4(e)(1) for ppl outside of state—follow state laws where Δ is.

4(h): serving corporations: o 4(h)(1) if corporation is in US→ serving officers, manager, or general agent is OK.o 4(h)(2) if corporation is outside of the US

4(m): when 4(c )(2): who must serve 4(d) waive requirement of service (get deadline extended to 60 days from 20 days)

o 4(d) waiving is sort of mandatory since 4(d)(2)B: impose cost of service to Δ if w/o good cause 4(d)(3) gives 60 days to respond if they waive. Cf to 20 days.

Defensive move:12(b) (5): attacks adequacy of method used in service to give notice.Δ

Ch 19 Motion to Dismiss

Once sued, Δ’s Options:12(a) answersΔ

o Usually, what Δs do.12(b) pre-answer motion to dismiss

Ch 20 Amendments to Pleadings

Pleadings MotionsIt’s where the parties state their claims, their defenses, what they’re going to argue!

When parties ask the court to DO somethingEg: 12(b)(6) demurrer—moving to dismiss the claim for failure

to state a claim that entitles π to relief


DF's options

12 (b)preanswer motion

to dismiss

12 (a)answer

discovery

Rule 26 broad scope

relating to claim or defense

Rule 26 (a)(2) testifying experts

Limitations

work products protected

privileges protected

attorney client doctor patient

26(b)(4)(B) non testifying experts

Ch 21 Discovery

Discovery Court mandated production of information from other

parties. Conducted by the parties, not the court Usually very important in determining outcome of the

case

Rule 26(a) automatic disclosure

Rule 26 (b)(1) very broad scope but also limited to “any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense”,

limited to “nonprivileged” information Used to be even broader before 2000. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders (US 1978) (committee recommended reining in

at the outer bounds of relevance) Purpose of broadness: designed to help define and clarify the issues Privileged info:

o Attorney-client (rationale: for effective representation need full and frank communication. Notion of client expanded to include any employee of a corporation. See Upjohn v. US, US 1981)

o Priest and penitento Doctor-patiento Husband wifeo Psychotherapist-patiento Work products = materials developed in anticipation of litigation. See Hickman v. Taylor (US 1947)

Note: courts may choose to protect info, and when they do, don’t need to disclose.

Rule 26(c)(1): protective orders from discovery requestsAfter receiving a discovery request , parties can seek a “protective order” from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

Hickman v. Taylor, (US, 1947)π ‘s attorney wanted the Δ counsel’s memories of the interviews of various witnesses in a wrongful death suit. SCOTUS concern’s:

1. about confidentiality of trial prep and de-incentivizing lawyers from writing stuff down which would lead to poor representation.2. Lawyers get to be lazy and take advantage of opposition’s work.3. Lawyers end up as witnesses in their own cases.

However, not ALL work is privileged. If the other party can show a need for written statements from witnesses not available through other means.

Rule 26 (b)(3) work product doctrine protecting work produced by counsel.“documents and tangible things…prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another rparty or its representative” only obtained in discovery if requesting party can demonstrate substantial need for materials and cannot botain equivalent information through other means w/o undue hardshipRule 26(b)(3)(B). Also, even if showing is made, “mental impression, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s attoney or other rep” shall be protected.

1. Docs prepared for litigation are barred2. Information that cannot be obtained may be ordered to be produced by court3. Opinion work products are protected

Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure of testifying expertsparties are required to disclose names of testifying experts at least 90 days before trial, with a report on opinions, qualifications, compensation, etc.

Fed Rules of Evidence 702: expert witness A person whose testimony will assist trier of fact in understanding b/c of special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or edu.

Rule 26(b)(4)(B) discovery of non-testifying experts only in “exceptional circs”Because it would be like prying into the strategy of the opposing party.


Ch 22 Basic Methods of Discovery

Mostly a self-help thing.

Rule 26 (a) (1)Automatic disclosure Created in 1993, rationale that certain info will always be requested, so mandate w/o need for a request. Amended in 2000: removing awkward obligation to disclose unfavorable witnesses and info. limited to discoverable info and witnesses the party “may use to support its claims or defense” Does not force disclosure of damaging information. If party does not intend to present at trial. Rule 26 (a)(1)(B): 8 categories of cases exempted from discovery Rule 26(f) requires parties to meet and confer about disclosure and discovery Rule 26 (d)(1) parties are barred from traditional discovery until the meeting

Rule 33 Interrogatories Questions from one party to another seeking relevant information Good because they’re cheap, but seldom answered without careful crafting→ not always the most helpful. MOST EFFECTIVE: for getting background information Also useful to force opponent to specify ground of general claims in “contention interrogatories” Responding party can Rule 33(d) allow a search through records

Rule 34 Production of documentsRule 34 (b)(1)(B) opening files allows responding party to open all files→ create burden on requesting party to go through them.Rule 34 (a)(1) sampling and testing allows production for testing and sampling, and entry on land for testing, etc.

E-discovery Changes in 2006 to allow discovery of electronic storage

Rule 26(b)(2(B): disputes over e-docs not “reasonably accessible”: court considers whether to order production, deny production, or order with restrictions. And decides who pays.Rule 26(b)(5)(B) if party inadvertently discloses info, may notify opponent who then MUST destroy, return, hold info. (Rule 16(b)(5)(B)(iv) says parties can also discuss what happens with inadvertent disclosure in scheduling conference)Rule 37(e) No sanctions for destruction of e-docs through “routine good faith operation of e-info system.” However, there may be sanctions if party failed to prevent auto-deletion of info relevant to litigation.

Rule 30 Oral depositions: taking testimony from witness under oath Both parties sit with witness and questions

Rule 30(c)(1)Witness is sworn, testimony subject to penalties for perjury Most effective means for getting detailed info from witnesses before trial

o Counsels get to SEE the party/witness; assess effectiveness as witnesso b/c required to answer spontaneously, provides better preview of testimony than interrogatorieso follow up questions allow counsel to explore detailed issueso gets deponent on record so they can’t change their story later

drawback: time and expense


Rule 26(a) automatic disclosure

for basic facts

Rule 33 interrogatories

useful in beginning for background information: names, locations, evidence, physicians, bills, etc. contention interrogatoriesanswers are usually too carefully crafted to be of much use

Rule 34 Production of Docs

illustrates FRCP premise that litigation shoudl be based on open access to all relevant informationrequires opponent to open her files.requesting parties draft broadly b/cproducing parties are like hostile librarians.requests usually include definitions

other discovery tools

Rule 35 examinationsRule 30 Depositions

Rule 30(a)(1): says “any person including the party” can be deposed. If deponent a party, end notice of time/place Rule 30 (b)(1) If deponent NOT a party RULE 45 subpoena required. Rule 30(c)(2): even if opposing counsel objects, deponent answers, objection noted→ saves time b/c the most cases don’t go to trial

and thus don’t need objections litigated prior. Unless… Rule 30(d)(2): objection is based on a privilege not to reveal info. b/c the entire point of privilege is not to produce info at all. Opposing parties have right to cross-examine. (to clarify statements, or if it’s a trial deposition instead of discovery deposition”,

opposing counsel will fully cross examine) Trial deposition = deposition used instead of witness LIVE testimony at trial. For when…witness cannot be subpoenaed to testify in

trial district, or unable to testify in person.

Rule 35 physical or mental examination Parties must obtain a court order to authorize physical and mental exams fo parties whose condition is at issue b/c of intrusive

nature, and only for “good cause”. See Rule 35 (a)(2) Rule 35(b)(1) party must provide a copy of independent examiner’s report to party Rule 35 (b)(3) party must also provide copy of exams and reports from own physicians.

Rule 36(b) issues admitted are deemed established for purposes of case. Narrowing the scope of trial by eliminating uncontested issues Party sends request to opponent to admit facts. Must admit or deny, or raise objection. But if a party makes a mistake, judges allow withdrawal of admissions b/c they would rather case be decided on merits, no on

mistaken concessions.

Rule 37 Order to compel discovery: if the opposition doesn’t comply with request for really important infoRule 37(a)(1), party must first confer ifnormally with opponent to resolve dispute without court involvementRule 37(a)(3) move to compel disclosure or discovery. Rule 37(a)(5) if the motion granted→ court MAY order paying moving party’s expenses and fees for the motion to compel.Rule 37 (a)(5)(C) protective orders defining scope of required discoveryRule 37(b) authorizes sanctions if compelled party still respond adequately.

Striking claims, taking disupted facts or claims as estb. Excluding evidence, dismissing action, ordering payment of feeds and expenses

BOTTOM LINE: even if there is a threat of sanction in the background, the difficulty/time/irritating the judge → most discovery issues get left unresolved/resolved w/o court intervention


56 motion for summary judgment

countervailing evidence?

keeps progressing (jury trial)

Insufficient / NO countervailing

evidence

sum judgment entered.

Ch 23 Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim Cf. to Summary Judgment

Rule 12(b)(6) Failure to state a claim Only question posed: whether the complaint itself states a legally sufficient claim

o Whether , if π proves allegations in the complaint, he will have estb. A cause of action entitling him to some form of relief from the court.

Court doesn’t consider other pleadings, evidence in deciding the motion BUT, court must construe the complaint in favor of the pleader DRASTIC! Because π will never

o have opportunity to present case to a jury, ORo gather evidence through discovery

SO, courts generously allow AMENDMENT (at least once) Does not weed out cases where cause of action is properly alleged, BUT π cannot prove it!

Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment

What is it? Sum judgment = entry of judgment by court in favor of a party w/o going to trial.

Purposes? Designed to allow early resolution of cases in which the π meets the burden to plead, but cannot PROVE one or more of those

elements! Intended to determine whether there are genuinely contested issues of material fact or NOT SJ avoids:

o risk of irrational decision making by the jury.o Delay and expense of trying unprovable cases.

Provides needed avenue for resolution of issues where facts are mutually agreed upon, but dispute about legal implication. 56(c ), (d) Resolve individual claims in a multi-claim lawsuit Judge’s role: determine only whether parties’ evidence reveal such a factual dispute, then send to jury.

HOW does it work? 56(c): Appropriate only if evidence demonstrates there are no disputed issues of material fact to

be tried, and moving party is entitled to judgment on the undisputed factso 56 (c ), 56 (e) Support motion with : affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

admissions, admissible docs.o These things don’t always have to be admissible at trial.

56(e): other party has to respond giving evidence why sum judgment should NOT be granted (countervailing evidence).

o Burden of opposing party: simply to show he has legally competent evidence upon which a jury could resolve the factual issues in his favor.

Motion to dismiss 12b6 56 sum judge 50 jmol New trial

Standard for success

Assuming it's all true(in the pleading), has the person presented a valid claim?

Δ can challenge those factual allegations. **you've gone through discovery, have evidence to showEffectively, the same as SUM JUDGE….

Judge Just looking at the pleadings, Cannot weigh the credibility Judge has to weigh the jury's verdict against the great weight of the evidence.

Standard of review ON APPEAL

De novo. De novo De novo **abuse of discretion.

Moving party's burdens

Δ… no.. Just based on complaint/amended pleadings

Celotex: you don't need to do anything really, Anderson: at trial, they have to prove clear and convincing evidence, but when Δ moves for sum judgment, court should take into account the nature of the burden of proof at trial!Note: that could make it easier for Δ to get sum judgement if the Π needs to meet higher burden at trial.Paradox: you’re not supposed to weigh evidenceMatsushita: not as imp. Really only for antitrust conspiracy claims.


weaker evidence for PL stronger evidence for PL

burden of production met, realm of legit different opinion--> goes to

jury.

Preponderence: where jury could find for PL

Can move for JMOL againas long as they have preserved right by moving before.

Judge enters Judgement on Verdict

Jury Verdictjury deliberates

Judge instructs jury

closing statments

either party MAY move for JMOL

DF presents evidence

DF may move for JMOLif judge grants, it's over. unlikely b/c if it's overturned on appeal, then a new trial will have be granted.

PL presents evidence

Opening statements

Line Z—where evidence is equal

Line X-burden of production; after which jury could legit find π proved each elementLine Y burden of proof; after which reasonable jury HAS to conclude PL proved case

Point W. Where there is no proof for PL

Ch 24 Judgment as a Matter of Law (Directed Verdict)

3 ways to resolve a case:

1. 12b(6) dismissal 2. Summary judgment

No jury trial is OK because there is “no genuine issue of material fact’ for jury to consider.

3. Jury trial Right to jury trial protected by constitution

2 ways for a judge to control the jury’s decision –making process:1. JMOL2. New trial

’s burden of productionπ

Rule 50 (a)(1)(B): motion for judgment as a matter of law Previously known as “directed verdict”; new name better b/c :

1. it removes any indication that jury had anything to do with the outcome.2. Emphasizes judge does not resolve factual matters, just legal judgment that evidence so lopsided no meaningful factual dispute

Made by party seeking to have judge take the case from jury on the ground that evidence is too weak to support a verdict ←how is it different from sum judgment?

TIMING: Rule 50 (a)(1) JMOL standard: no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for non moving party


Between X and Y, judge should NOT take the case from the jury.

Claim

Judge

12 b 6 dismissal

summary judgment: "no

genuine issue of material fact"

jury

verdict

What is legally sufficient?? 3 options:o A few states: scintilla of evidence to support (ANY evidence to support claim) → jury. See Brown v. Turner (AL 1986)o Judge looks at ONLY evidence that supports case for nonmoving party, assume truth, take all inferences and enter JMOL

only if evidence would not support verdict for non-moving party. See Reeves v. Sanderson Planting Products, inc (US 2000) ; Wilkerson v. McCarthy, US 1949)

NOTE: judge may not determine credibility of the witnesses; rather, if jury believed witnesses…o Rule 50(a) federal standard: Judge considers the nonmoving party’s evidence in most favorable light, BUT ALO,

consider any evidence put forward by moving party that is not impeached or contradicted→ as in considering all the evidence. See Boeing Co. v. Shipman (5th Cir, 1969).

Ch 25 Judge and the Jury: whose case is this anyway?

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict = asking judge to decide differently from what jury came up with b/c the evidence was clearly pointing one way. Not the jury’s way.

Standard is same as directed verdict. See Chapter 24. = opponent’s evidence so weak that no reasonable jury could have reached a verdict for him.

Asserting that jury acted irrationally. 1991: jnov → changed to JMOL Rule 50 (b)

Rationale for allowing JNOV AFTER jury deliberation Frequently appealed. And when appealed, the evidence

is debatable, COA may send back for jury trial and then it’s more efficient to have had the jury trial to fall back on.

Rule 50(b) Prerequisites to renewed motion: Motion must be filed within 10 days of entry of

judgment. See Rule 58, 79(a) Can only move after verdict, if preserved the right by

moving beforeo Silly historical reason: 7th amendmento b/c Rule 50 (a)(2) says party moving for JMOL

before verdict needs to state their grounds for concluding not to send to jury, and at that time, the opposing party has a chance to fix any problems (cure the defect). It’s to prevent “sandbagging” the other party by raising defects AFTER jury has been dismissed. Goes back the aspiration of the FRCP to determine suits on the MERITS not on the procedural skills.


Scenario 1: JMOL before jury trial

DF seeks JMOL at close of evidence

Judge grants, discharges jury, judgment for DF

P appeals

appellate court finds evidence legally sufficient reverses JMOL

sends back to trial court.

Bottom Line: case retried from beginning (INEFFICIENT)

Scenario 2:JMOL after jury trial


Judge denies or defers decision on motion

goes to jury, verdict for PLNOTE: usually. jury will find for DF anyway if evidence weak enough

DF renews JMOL

Judge grants renewed JMOL

P appeals

appellate ct finds evidence legally sufficient for jury, reverses JMOL

appellate ct orders judgment entered on jury verdict

Bottom Line: No need for a new trial.

Scenario 3: JMOL after jury trial AND Jury finds for DF


Judge denies or defers decision on motion

goes to jury, verdict for DF

<--weaker evidence for PL [evidence balanced] stronger evidence for PL -->

judge's assessments

judge's disposition of the case

evidence too weak to support ratioanl

verdict for PL

judge may enter JMOL for DF

verdict of PL is supportable but

against clear wieght of evidence

judge may order new trial

judge does not agree with jury, but cannot say verdict for PL is

against clear weight of evidence

judge will order entry of judgment on jury

verdict

judge and jury concur that preponderance of

evdience favors PL

judge will order entry of judgment on verdict

for PL

verdict for DF is uspportable but

against clear weight of evdience

judge may order new trial

judge concludes that evidence is so

compelling that no reasonable jury could

find for DF (rare)

judge enteres JMOL for PL

Rule 59 New Trial

2

categories where ct traditionally grant new trials:1. Errors in the trial process

a. b/c every litigant has right to due process of law (14th)b. things like improper admission/

if the losing party MOVES right away, Rule 59 allows judge to vacate and order retrial. If the losing party MOVES and judge denies, party will APPEAL and COA would reverse, and new trial.

2. Judge believes trial process was fair but the result is clearly wrong “against the ‘clear weight’, ‘overwhelming eight’ or ‘great weight of the evidence” See Goldsmith v. Diamond Shamrock co, (8th Cir,

1985) When it is “quite clear that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result” See Lind v. Schenley Ind. (3rd Cir, 1960) When new trial is “necessary to prevent injustice” See Whalen v. Roanoke County Board (4th Cir, 1985)

Evidence is strong enough to rationally support jury’s verdict but believes verdict is erroneous.Pros and Cons of a new trial:

Judge is acting like a 13th juror, it’s not as bad as JMOL b/c it’s still being decided by jury it sucks b/c USC § 1291 says grants for new trial may not be appealed b/c there is no final decision at trial level yet!

o Note: some state systems allow interlocutory appeal.Different Standards for appellate review:

1. Questions of law: reviewed de novo, from scratch, w/o deference to trial judge’s decision2. Questions of Great weight over evidence reviewed w/deference to trial judge → rare for appellate to 2nd guess grant for new trial.

FORK: OLD cases show federal courts reluctant to overturn grants for new trial; NEW trend: review them under “abuse of discretion” standard. Approved by SCOTUS in Gasperini.

Rule 50 (c)(1) judges faced with combined motions must rule on boththe JMOL (JNOV) and make conditional ruling on alternative new trial so that COA can address both at appeal.

Rule 50 (d)

Rule 50 (e)


party wins jury verdictjudge takes verdict away w/JMOL for

opposition

50 (d)winner can move for new trial within 10

days of entry of judgment

party wins jury verdict

verdict taken away by appellate court

w/JMOL for opposition

50 (e)winner at trial can move for new trial

Ch 26 Res Judicata: Limits of Procedural LiberalityRequirements:

1. Final judgment2. On the merits3. Same claim4. Same parties

Final judgment:o FORK: some allow RJ even if at appealo Others wait until time for appeal runs out.

On the merits: see chart on right.Same Claim:

o Same as federal joinder rules definition of “transaction or occurrence” b/c if π had RIGHT to bring the claim, MAKE THEM bring the claim.→ use em, or lose em!

o Not whether they used the claim, whether they had the right to use.o NOTE Fork in the Law:

Traditional: does not bar counterclaims Many juris: this includes compulsory counterclaims

o “two disease” rule: allows asbestos π to sue for later developing cancer even if previously aware of a separate injury from exposure.

o If the claim didn’t exist at time of prior action, it is NOT the same claim.

Same Parties: either in the case, or privity

Purposes: Efficiency First litigation will be their best shot

Terminology: Winning claim it MERGES with the judgment. Losing claim BARS new claim.

Ch 27 Res Judicata and rules of Joinder, when does May means MUST?

Claim theories18a: even though “may” join, RJ means that practically speaking, USE IT OR LOSE IT MUST

However, 18a does not bar claims the court could not hear b/c lack of jurisdiction.

Claim parties: more generous than claim theories. Claims against additional parties who COULD be joined not barred by RJ. b/c π is the master of the claim HOWEVER, the first suit may have some preclusive effect. b/c of C. Estoppel

One suit with joined Δs 2 separate suits


PL

DF 2DF 1

PL

DF 1

PL

DF 2

On the Merits: RJ- full trial on the merits- 12b6 failure to state a claim (since they could have amended to make a claim)f-ailure to prosecute

NOT on the merits: NOT RJ- default judgment - improper venue- lack of jurisdiction

Ch 28 Collateral Estoppel, aka Issue Preclusion

Prerequisites:1. Same issue2. Actually litigated “fully and Fairly”3. Decided on in litigation4. Necessary in prior action for Cts Judgment

FORK: ct holds on multiple theoriesa. Restatement: no estoppels b/c impossible to tell which was importantb. Estoppels to both alternative determinationsc. Middle ground: sometimes if you can tell which mattered, let it be IP.

Parklane Hosiery Co.Inc. v. Shore (US 1979)

Ch 29 Non Mutual Collateral Estoppel aka NMIP

Restatement of Judgments § 27: c. estoppelparty stopped from relitigating an issue he had litigated in a prior suit and lost.

Non-mutual issue preclusion: allows a new party to invoke IP against a party who litigated and lost on an issue in a prior issue.

Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn. First established NMIP First claim: Mrs. B → Cook, claimed funds were part of estate. Second claim: Mrs. B → BOA, for the funds given to Cook.

o Bank claimed IP b/c in Suit 1, issue of who had the right to funds had already been litigated.

Claim Preclusion Issue Preclusion

Valid and final judgment Valid and final judgment

On the merits Issue was actually litigated (full and fair opp)

Same or related claim Issue was actually determined, and determination was necessary to the judgment

Same parties or their privies Same parties or their privies, but…


Documents

Glannon Civ Pro Notes v3