1

CIV PRO OUTLINE

1. Finding The Courthouse

a) Personal Jurisdiction #) $u#%ect &atter Jurisdiction 1. ". . /. ). Federal 'uestion J( *i+ersit, J( Re-o+al J( $u00le-ental J( )! ") )! ". 1/! ". .! "2 )! " ! ""

Venue! Trans1er! and Foru- Non Con+eniens

". Co--encing the 3ction

a) *ue Process Re4uire-ents #) Pleading Re4uire-ents 2! "5 5! "6

. Finding the 7o+erning La8

a) Erie *octrine 9Vertical Choice) #) Con1licts o1 La8 9;ori<ontal Choice) 6! : 11! 1

/. No *o=O+ers
a) Clai- Preclusion #) Issue Preclusion 1"! " 1"! 1) 1)! /a ) 1)

). Po0ulating the Case

a) Joinder o1 Clai-s = Rules 15! 1 9a)! 9#)! and 9e) c) Class 3ctions 16

#) Joinder o1 Parties > Rules ":! 16! 1/! "" and " ? "5 U.$.C. 1

.. 3d%udicating the Case > Rules 1" and ).

a) Pre=Trial *is0osition #) Trial

3
RIN7$@ PJ(! $&J(! VENUEAAAA PER$ON3L JURI$*ICTION (Is there Trad. Base? Does long-arm apply? Is it constitutional?) (P ! can "e #ai$ed) CanBt a00eal PJ( or Venue! #oth get 8ai+ed. $&J( canBt #e 8ai+ed. Three t,0es o1 PJ( 1) in personam% court e!ercises po#er "y $irtue o& person "eing physically present #ithin the state's territory or "eing a citi(en there 2) in rem% court e!ercises its po#er to determine the status o& property located #ithin its territory 3) )uasi-in-rem% court renders a *udgement &or or against a person "ut reco$ery is limited to the $alue o& property that is #+in the *urisdiction (and thus su"*ect to the court's authority). Dispute may or may not "e related to the property. Traditional Cases 9need one) 1. Physical presence, e$en temporary (i& not in$oluntary)% Burnham, Pennoyer. -ite o& incorporation. 2. Domicile (stic.y, residual, su"*)% Mas, World-Wide Volkswagon 3. /onsent% 1) 0!press (Carnival &orum clause) 2) Implied (Hess), 3) 1ai$er 2. 3in. /ontacts gi$ing rise to suit 4. /ontinuous and su"stantial "usiness #+in state (5 ) 6one o& these can "e o"tained "y &raud $0eci1ic J( 9Long=3r- $tatutes12th 7mend+ Due Process doesn't actually con&er ad*udicatory po#er. 1as there an a&&irmati$e act demonstrating #illingness to su"*ect to the &orum (purpose&ul a$ailment)? 1. Interpret the long-arm statute a) some e!tend all the #ay up to constitutional limits (e.g. /7), some laundry-list approach 2. 8ong-arm statute /onstitutional? 6eed "oth% a) &INI&U& CONT3CT$ (Shoe) 1. P9:P;-0<98 7=7I8306T o& "ene&its and protections o& &orum state, such as de&. can reasona"ly e!pect to "e hailed there to de&end. (6o in Hanson, trust ne$er intended to engage #+ <8, >es in Calder, <8 #riter .ne# large maga(ine circulation in /7, plaint in /7, e&&ects #ould "e in /7 ) i. /ontract #+ su"stantial connection to &orum state (McGee), purpose&ully directed. ii. -T:073 ;< /;330:/0 &or manu&acturers (t#o $ersions, $aries #+ !) 1. >ou put the product into the stream o& commerce, you're *urisdictionally $ulnera"le Brennan's !sahi, 5ins"erg's "icas#ro) 2. -tream o& commerce isn't enough "y itsel&, must engage in speci&ic conduct directed at the &orum (;'/onnor's !sahi, ?ennedy's "icas#ro) iii. C!$%&' 0<<0/T- T0-T% &oreign act aimed at &orum that has an e&&ect there @ Purp. 7$ail. Burger (ing @ ? not enough. 6eed ?-Plus /ontact can't "e random+&ortuitous or unilateral act o& 3rd party consumer.(Volkswagen). 3ere &oreseea"ility o& causing in*ury in another state isn't enough #+o some sort o& purpose&ul a$ailment. ( Volkswagen) 8etting .ids to enter a &orum state a&ter di$orce isn't enough ((ulko). 2. :087T0D60-- BT16 /;6T7/T- 76D /79-0 ;< 7/TI;6% 3in. /ontacts rule o& Shoe applies to in rem and )uasi in rem #as #ell (Sha))er). 9nrelated property in &orum state not enough. ") F3IR PL3D 3N* $UC$T3NTI3L JU$TICE (Shoe) 1. I6T0:0-T ;< <;:93 -T7T0 in protecting its /iti(ens (Hess). 7lso interests o& Plaint and De&. 1. 7re "urdens placed on de&. unreasona"le (!sahi)? Aas to "e a severe "urden, $ery tough to sho# (Burger (ing) 2. 1ould plaint. "e unreasona"ly "urdened i& he had to "ring suit in another &orum (Hess)? 2. Interest o& Interstate *udicial system, also shared interests o& se$eral states ( Burger (ing) 3. 8ocation o& #itnesses, e$idence. 7eneral J( (#hen cause o& action doesn't arise &rom contacts) 1. De&. has continuous and systematic association #ith the &orum (Bengue# Mining). /ontacts so su"stantial or per$asi$e that they'd e!pect to "e hailed &or any claim, no incon$enience 0!tremely tough standard to meet. Past purchases, training, on-site negotiations may not "e enough ( Helico*#eros, Goodyear)

1. 7J( +s PJ(@ /ompany sells identical #idgets in -tate 7 and -tate B. >ou "uy #idget in 7, get hurt there. /an't get P ! in B
unless they sell enough #idgets to e)ual 5 !. 6eed massi$e sustained acti$ity in a gi$en &orum &or 5 !.

2
2. 7&ter %unlo*, Bengue# no longer an important case. 9ntil then the ;68> case #here -/;T9- had gi$en 5 !. But %unlo* a
much more recent case #here -/;T9- says 5 ! is o., not enough to merit it here though. Bengue# #as really a ! "y necessity case. There #as no other place than ;hio to hold the case, so -/;T9- needed a rationale to *usti&y ! there. Pro& doesn't thin. that the contacts in Bengue# #ould today "e enough to get 5 !, a&ter %unlo*. J( Cased on Pro0ert, 1. +n rem% Dispute is "ased on property 76D property is present in &orum 2. ,uasi in rem% Property doesn't ha$e to "e related to the claim. 3. 5eneral rules &or "oth% 1. :eco$ery is limited to the $alue o& the property. 2. Property must "e attached at "eginning (Pennoyer) 3. 3in. contacts, &air play+su"st *ustice rules apply (Sha))er) (*ust ha$ing tangi"le prop. in &orum usually satis&ies) Culge Joinder 1. ! on :ule 12 (3rd party) and :ule 1B (comp. *oinder) parties #+in 1CC miles o& &ed. courthouse. ;nly TPPs can use this. Challenging PJ(% 3a.e a special appearance 1) /ontinuous and systematic contacts #ith &orum 2) /ontinuous and systematic contacts #ith &orum 3) -poradic or isolated contacts #ith the &orum 2) -poradic or isolated contacts #ith the &orum /o&7 arises &rom that contact /o&7 does not arise &rom those contacts /o&7 arises &rom that contact /o&7 does not arise &rom those contacts urisdiction (+n#. Shoe) urisdiction (Perkins v. Bengue#) 3ay"e *urisdiction(Hess) 6o *urisdiction (Hansen- dicta in Shoe)

PJ narrati+e o+er ti-e@ 7 line o& &ailed cases, -/;T9- has &ailed us, not gi$en us the certainty #e need. But a great #ay to see ho# la# gro#s and changes o$er time gi$en e!ternal &actors (transportation, interstate acti$ities, etc). 5eography is no longer a ma*or &actor. This leads to the e&&ects theory o& 5rey :adiator (#hich is #hat 0urope largely &ollo#s). But then people "egin to say, that might "e &ine in a place #here there's a relati$e uni&ormity o& la#, "ut not in the 9- #here there's serious &ederalism and 4C states #+ su"stanti$ely di&& la#s, e&&ects test really doesn't ma.e sense, un&air to de& (11=). De&s don't .no# ho# to comply #+ la#, since they don't .no# #hich la# they're going to "e &aced #+. Don't #ant one state's la#s to oust another. -o #e "ac.ed o&& e&&ects, started mo$ing to#ards e&&ectsD, #ith that D encompassing the )uality o& a de&'s relationship #+ a &orum. 3in contacts, purpose&ul a$ailment, *ust #ays to calculate the le$el o& su"*ecti$e relationship "t#n de& and a &orum, to see i& its *ust to let a &orum assert po#er o$er an out-o&-state de&. Ao# do #e "alance the interests o& plaint and de& so as to "e &air to "oth? :epu"lican position (?ennedy+;'/onnor) says you need more than -tream o& /ommerce, need su"* lin.s. Pro& says #e should let her (11=) sue in ;.lahoma, then re$erse 7ll--tate+Aague and not apply ;.lahoma la#, "ut.... 6icastro% Pro& says let guy sue in 6 and apply British la#. Pro& thin.s choice o& la# changes are the #ay out, should'$e gone that route instead o& "uilding up de&enses around P . P has "een utterly incomprehensi"le &or the last 1B years, sho#s students that there are no hard and &ast rules.

4
$UCJECT &3TTER JURI$*ICTION (state court or &ederal?) (can't "e #ai$ed) Federal 'uestion J( (0numerated in 7rt. III) 7:I-I65 96D0: the /onstitution, treaties, or la#s o& the 9.-. (E1331) 0!clusi$e *!? 1. 1hen <F ? a) <ed. la# creates the cause o& action ($ast ma*ority o& <F casesG .s/orne) ") -uing to $indicate a /onstitutional right (Bivens) c) The $indication o& a right under state la# necessarily turns on some construction o& &ed. la#. Aa$e to loo. at the na#ure o& the &ed. interest% i. I& &ed. interest is considered $ery important, lo# $olume o& cases, then yes (Smi#h v. (ansas Ci#y) ii. I& not, then no <F (Moore). /omes do#n to *udge's su"*ecti$e $aluations o& #hat's important. iii. HGra/le Test% IDoes a state-la# claim necessaril, raise a stated &ederal issue, actuall, dis0uted and su#stantial! #hich a &ederal &orum may entertain #+o distur"ing any congressionally appro$ed #alance o1 1ed. and state *udicial responsi"ilities?J 2. 1088-P807D0D complaint rule, can't get <F $ia an anticipated de&ense (Mo##ley). /an't get around it #+ a Declaratory udgment (Skelly .il). Plainti&&'s complaint must directly in$ol$e a &ederal la# or right. H6oteJ% 6o *urisdictional amount re)uirement, and citi(enship is irrele$ant. 6o <F #hen action is "ased on a &ed. statute i& /ongress said no pri$ate &ed. cause o& action (Merrel %ow) -3 can't "e #ai$ed. /ases can "e dismissed &or lac. o& -3 at any point ($ouisville v. Mo##ley) *i+ersit, o1 Citi<enshi0 J( H0numerated in 7rt. IIIJ /iti(ens o& di&&. statesG citi(en suing a &oreigner (E1332) 1) /omplete Di$ersity re)uired (S#raw/ridge), on day &iled. :ule 2C. 2) /lass actions% 1. 3in. di$ersity, :ule 23, class carries citi(enship o& named plainti&&(s) ( Ben-Hur). 3) 7mount in contro$ersy must e(ceed KL4., must "e pled in good &aith. 7ggregate claims against a single de&., unless multiple plaints and their claims aren't *oined. 1. -ingle plaint. can aggregate claims against single de&, or against multiple de&s. i& they're *ointly lia"le ". 7s long as each and e$ery named plainti&& satis&ied the ! amount, doesn't matter i& the unnamed plaints don't, "+c their claims hang &rom the named ones (!lla*a##ah) (/;3P:;B7: the aggregate stu&&) J( 3&OUNT@ 7 single plaint can aggregate claims M e$en i& unrelated M against a single de& to meet *! amount, "ut 6;T against multiple de&endants. I& one plaint meets *! amount, others can tag along ("ut can't add up t#o plaints' claims to reach ! amount, one has to "e there already). (Doesn't let 2nd plaint HNL4.J "ring claims against 2nd de& (added "y :ule 2C). Aa$e to do t#o separate suits.) *ETER&ININ7 CITIEEN$;IP (#hen the action commences) 1) Indi$idual% Domicile (residence in &act D intention to remain inde&.). -tic.y, residual (Mas). 2) /orporation% (1) Place o& incorp. ($e#son) 76D (2) 6er$e center @ principal place o& "usiness &or corporation, #here decisions are made (Her#0) 3) 9n-incorp. 7ssoc% 7ccumulated citi(enship o& 788 807DI65 mem"ers D principle place o& "usiness (la"or unions, etc.) 2) /lass-7ction% /iti(enship o& named-plainti&&s (Ben Hur) 6o D ! &or cases in$ol$ing Iissuance o& a di$orce, alimony, or child custody decreeO (!ken/rand#) 3T$ % district courts ha$e original *! &or a tort "rought &or#ard "y an alien plainti&& 6ote% <or our purposes domicile @ citi(enship, #hen determining indi$idual party's citi(enship. Domicile is the test. PCQ su"*ecti$e, is this the place I really #ant to "e my place o& citi(enship? 2CQ o"*ecti$e, this is the proo& i'm domiciled here (my dri$er's license, etc.). 7gain, largely determined "y party's intent. 6atural persons can only ha$e on place o& citi(enship &or di$ersity purposes. Re-o+al J( (8ets de&s sued in state court remo$e to &ed. court, I< there's grounds &or &ed. -3 ) 1. ;nly original de&. can remo$e 1. you cannot remo$e a case "ased on a counterclaim (1221, -hamroc.). 2. I& ! "ased on Di$ersity, remo$ing de&. can't "e a resident o& the &orum state 2. :emo$al must "e sought #+in 3C days &rom #hen "asis appears (usually complaint) 3. I& ! is "ased on <ederal Fuestion, sep and indep claims may "e remo$ed as #ell, "ut may "e remanded at the court's discretion

VENUE! TR3N$FER! FNC

*eter-ining Venue clai- it or #e 8ai+ed =enue generally, allo#ed (13B1a)% 1. 1hen all de&'s reside in the same state, $enue in an *udicial district #here one o& them resides ;: 2. 1here a su"stantial part o& the e$ents occurred, or #here the property is located (pure e&&ects test) ;: 3. 1here$er de& is su"*ect to P ! (only i& other t#o &ail) -pecial :ules 1. 1hen de&. is 9- agent+agency and no real property is in$ol$ed, $enue may also "e #here plaint resides 2. :0-ID06/>% 1. <or persons% #here he is domiciled 2. <or corporations% in #hate$er district to #hich they are su"*ect to P !. 3. <or unincorporated ass'ns% #here it's located, 6;T #here it's mem"ers are (di&& &rom 1332) Trans1er ( 6o trans&er "et#een state courts ) F1/:/9a) (Thin. through P !) Destination court must ha$e original -3 !, P !, and =enue (as o& the time action #as "rought). 3eaning that it could'$e "een commenced there (Blaski). De&. can't mo$e unilaterally "y #ai$ing P*!. /onsider "oth% (1) /on$enience o& parties and #itnesses 76D (2) interest o& *ustice 12C2a% says case #as initially "rought to a legit $enue, "ut there's a more con$enient place. The la8 o1 the original +enue tra+els 8ith the case to the ne# $enue -12C2a trans1er should e(clude $oL, B9T unclear. -ome could argue that (la1on and 2ork say -o8 should "e included. F1/:. <or #hen case #as initially "rought to an illegitimate $enue. Nothing tra+els 8G the case, start all o$er again in the ne# court. Foru- Non Con+eniens (re)uires dismissal) (e!traordinarily discretionary) (usually to get cases out o& 9.-.) 7n alternati$e &orum e!ists 76D has o$erpo#ering interest. /an't use <6/ to run plainti&&s into a #all (Ii& the remedy in the alt. &orum is so clearly inade)uate or unsatis&actory that it is no remedy at all,O Pi*er !ircra)#) Gil/er# analysis% <7/T;:- #hen considering <6/% a) relati$e ease o& access to e$idence ") a$aila"ility o& #itnesses c) state #hose la# is "eing applied d) all practical pro"lems 5060:78 :980% unless the "alance is strongly in the &a$or o& the de&. (i.e. clearly "e harassed+seriously incon$enienced), the plaint's choice o& &orum should rarely "e distur"ed (#ea.er i& plaint is &oreign)

L
*UE PROCE$$ RE'$@ NOTICE 3N* OPPORTUNITD TO CE ;E3R* 6otice must "e :07-;67B8> /78/987T0D 96D0: TA0 /I:/93-T76/0- to gi$e actual notice ( Mullane3. /onsider this standard care&ully, it's #hat notice )uestions are pro"a"ly a"out. NOTICE@ The Mullane $tandard (representati$e action)% 1. Personal ser$ice is "est 2. Direct mail is accepta"le #hen you ha$e .no#ledge o& the address 3. Pu"lication #hen direct notice is not possi"le S pu"lication is not su"stantially less li.ely to "ring notice than &easi"le alternati$e. 6ote% 6otice to a class should "e reasona"ly certain to reach 3;-T mem"ers O00ortunit, To Ce ;eard /reditor-De"tor :elationship% due process re)uires 0ITA0:% De"tor has an ad$ance opportunity to dispute 0re=%udg-ent attach-entGre0le+in (4uen#es, %oehr) ;:, i& no ad$ance opportunity, /;9:T must consider the &ollo#ing (%oehr Test)% The pri$ate interest to "e a&&ected "y the pu"lic action :is. o& erroneous depri$ation Interest o& party see.ing pre-*udgment remed (most important in this test) 6o pre-*udgment #age-garnishering (Sniadach) -H6oteJ% in some states, creditor must put up a "ond "e&ore getting pro$isional remedy <actors to consider in pre-*udgment sei(ure (TA0 %.&H' T0-T) 1. 1hen determining #hat process is due #rt pre*udgment remedy statutes "t#n pri$ate parties% i. consideration o& the pri$ate interest that #ill "e a&&ected "y the pre*udgment measure ii. an e!amination o& the ris. o& erroneous depri$ation and the pro"ati$e $alue o& add'l or alternati$e sa&eguards iii. principal attention to the interest o& the party see.ing the pre*udgment remedy (here guy had no legit interest in the house, not li.e other guy #as &lee-ris.)

P
PLE3*IN7 3nal,sis@ 1. Ao# courts interpret these rules is largely "ased on #hether the parties are In&ormation -ymmetrical, or In&ormation 7symmetrical. 1. 3s,--etric@ udges much more li.ely to let in pleas in an 7- situation and gi$e a &e# #ee.s' targeted disco$ery (e.g. Pardus). ". $,--etric% udge much more li.ely to grant 12"R dismissal. IDo your A1 "e&ore putting de& through this process.O 2. Pro& "asically thin.s that pleading re)uirements are "eing imposed di&&erently in 7- settings than - settings, although i& a *udge &or #hate$er reason is "iased and #ants to thro# out a case Ich"al and T#om"ly gi$e him a trapdoor to easily do so. Federal Rule 5 Pleading P(a)(2)% complaint must contain a Ishort and plain statement o& the claim sho#ing that the pleader is entitled to relie&.O 9pshot% $ho8 -e so-e s-oHe and #e'll go in and see i& #e can &ind &ire. 6ote% 8et many suits go &or#ard #+o a su&&icient set o& &acts. 7&&irmati$ely esta"lish -3 -tatement o& &actsG cause may "e in&erred <air notice o& claim and grounds on #hich it rests (Conley, old standard% I6; -0T ;< <7/T-O .illed "y 5wom/ly) udge should% (1) construe in light most &a$ora"le to pleader, (2) resol$e all dou"ts in pleader's &a$or, (3) ta.e all allegations as true Post=Twombly 9class-action conte!t) and Iqbal 9e!tended to all ci$il cases) -tatement o& claim re)uires a complaint #ith enough &actual matter that, ta.en as true, suggests a remedia"le #rong 7re enough &acts included so as to ma.e the claim P879-IB80, not merely concei$a"le or possi"le? 5wom/ly /atch 22% 6eed disco$ery to sho# plausi"ility, "ut no disco$ery #+o plausi"ility 8egal conclusions and "are assertions o& the elements o& a claim in a complaint are not entitled to an assumption o& truth &or the purposes o& determining the complaint's $alidity. 3ust plead &acts. ( +6/al) Pleading $0ecial &atters 9Rule 6) 3ust state circumstances o& &raud+mista.e #+ particularity H udges don't li.e &raud% easy to allege, hard to pro$eJ ;eightened Pleading (5ella/s- Pri$ate -ecurities 8itigation :e&orm 7ct @ Aarder &or ci$il litigants to reco$er damages &or securities &raud) 7ccept all allegations as true /onsider sources ordinarily e!amined 3a.e in&erence o& scien#er (intent to do #rong) only i& it is cogent and at least as co-0elling as an, co-0eting in1erence that one could dra8 &rom the &acts alleged. H6oteJ -calia and 7lito #ould say it should me Imore compellingO than competing in&erences. 1"#@ /hallenge P !, -3 !, =enue, Due Process, indispensa"le 1B party, insu&&icient complaint+pleading, I&ailure to state a claim upon #hich relie& can "e granted.O /an put it all together.

VERTIC3L C;OICE OF L3I@ ERIE 3N3LD$I$ &rie o$errode Swi)# reading o& :980- ;< D0/I-I;6 7/T to say there's no general <ederal /ommon 8a#. :emem"er% *ust applies to &ed. courts sitting in di$ersity o$er state-la# claims $u#stanti+e La8 rules o& rights and dutiesG torts and property rights de&initely &all under this Federal $tatute +s. $tate Rules 1here a &ed. statute is at issue, it go$erns i& it is a $alid e!ercise o& congressional authority ( '+C.H) Federal RulesGPolic, +s. $tate Rules &rie T1I6 7I3-% Pre$ent I60F9IT7B80 7D3I6I-T:7TI;6 ;< TA0 871 Discourage <;:93--A;PPI65 (e!amples o& &orum-shopping% Blaski, Black and Whi#e) 2ork Byrd ;9T/;30 D0T0:3I67TI=0 T0-T% 1ould results "e di&&erent i& the action #ere in a &ed. court and not state? <ed court applies state la# in pursuance o& T1I6 7I3- ;< 0:I0. B7876/I65 T0-T% 1. 7re there counter$ailing &ederal interests that #eigh agains the state la#? 2. /onsider signi&icance o& state policy (legislati$e history) and &ederal consideration. Hanna7s /;88I-I;6 T0-T% (courts can use a super narro# reading to a$oid a collision i& they #ant H!rmcoJ 1) Is a <ederal :ule in$ol$ed? ") Is the <ed :ule in direct collision #+ the state la#? (i& no @T apply "oth) ) Is <: $alid under :980- 067B8I65 7/T? Does it Ia"ridge, modi&y, or enlargeO a su"stanti$e right? (yes @T apply state) /) Is <ed :ule constitutional (argua"ly procedural)? (yes @T apply &ed rule), -upremacy /lause Aarlan's P:0+P;-T-0=06T B0A7=I;: T0-T Pre-0$ent @T 3-lug, 2-lug Gas*erini I& it's partly procedural and partly su"stanti$e @T split it, accommodate "oth. (7 dead end. Too hard to apply). -calia ma*ority% Hanna is a "right line rule. -tate interest is o& no conse)uence. (Ia$oid the &rie s#ampO) -te$ens dissent% -ometimes a state procedural rule is #rapped in su"stanti$e interest.

Hanna

Shady Grove

1ritten <ed $s. 1ritten -tate @ <ed rule #ins i& collision, argua"ly procedural, and constitutional (Hanna) 9n#ritten <ed $s 1ritten -tate @ Do analysis. In 2ork they used -tate 1ritten <ed. $s 1ritten -tate @ <ed. rule #ins (Shady Grove) 1ritten <ed $s. 9n#ritten -tate @ <ed #ins (Byrd) 9n#ritten <ed $s. 9n#ritten -tate @ -tate #ins in (la1on

$tate 8ritten

Fed Iritten Hanna, Democratic tie, 0rie tests or <ed la# trumps state la# 3arshall a$oids the collision (state #ins) Byrd, Lth 7md $ no *ury decision <ed #ins

Fed Un8ritten 2ork, -tatute o& limitations (laches is common la# rule). Do analysis. Aere, outcome determinati$e, -tate #ins

$tate un8ritten

?la!ton, induces &orum shopping, state #ins

1C
-tate la# applies% -;8 (2ork) -;8 tolling, :ule 3 (!rmco) 7r"itration (Bernhard#) /hoice o& 8a# ((la1on) <ederal la# applies% 7de)uacy o& -er$ice o& Process (Hanna) 12C2a $enue ('+C.H) :ule 23 (Shady Grove) Lth 7mend *ury trial (Byrd) 6o <:/P has e$er "een &ound to $iolate the :ules 0na"ling 7ct and the /onstitution, so in practice the most important issue is #hether it directly collides #+ the state rule. That said, unconstitutionality is al#ays a possi"ility. <ed. rule can't oust su"stanti$e state la#, general rule. But -hady 5ro$e complicates things a "it, "+c -calia says you test su"stance not "y loo.ing at the state's rule "ut "y loo.ing at the &ed. rule to see i& it's procedural. 5ot 2 $otes on that opinion. -o uncertainty i& you test &or procedural+su"stance at the &ed. or state le$el. Pro& thin.s -calia is #rong, that you should test at the state le$el. /ollision test you're loo.ing &or a legitimately #ritten &ederal procedural norm. I& its a &ed statute then you don't need to #orry a"out the :ules 0na"ling 7ct. 3a*ority opinion (collision analysis) in Hanna is the dominant analysis, courts all use it. Then do a Shady Grove analysis to see i& it really collides &or their purposes. I& there's a collision, and i& <:/P is legit, then ha$e to use it under -upremacy /lause. ;nly t#o reasons #hy <:/P #ouldn't "e legit% /ongress had no po#er to legislate in this area, should'$e "een le&t to the state a"ridge...modi&y su"stanti$e rights Does it matter i& -tate rule is #ritten? 6ope, "+c Shady Grove #as #ritten state $s. #ritten &ed, and #ritten &ed .noc.ed out #ritten state. <or e!am purposes% In any one o& these cases should &eel &ree to say that the dissent #as right. Procedural $s. -u"stanti$e Post hoc la"els #e put on things, there are no clearly demarcated areas. -o #hen #e say something is procedural, #e're saying this isn't supposed to "e something that has a signi&icant outcome on cases, &rom an e!-ante perspecti$e. 0.g. ser$ice o& process "y hand $s. "y mail. 1hen #e say su"stanti$e #e're tal.ing a"out something that is supposed to a&&ect ho# people "eha$e generally 1hen deciding i& a rule is procedural or su"stanti$e, it's not so much loo.ing to some intrinsic )uality o& the rule itsel&, "ut ho# it is applied (re&racted) through the mechanics o& the *udicial system. I& a seemingly procedural rule is applied in such a #ay as to ma.e it highly impact&ul, it can "e rules su"stanti$e.

11

;ORIEONT3L C;OICE OF L3I@ $T3TE CONFLICT$ OF L3I 3scertaining $tate La8 <ed court sitting in di$ersity must apply state's con&lict o& la# rules ((la1on) 8a# tra$els #ith the trans&er o& 12C2a $enue (Van %usen) -tates ha$e huge discretion in choosing #hich la# to apply. Aas to ha$e Isigni&icant contacts or aggregation o& contacts #ith the party and transaction,O "ut in practice this is much easier to satis&y than 3/s. (Hague) -tate has to ha$e at least some contact #+ parties+transaction, so that the choice o& la# isn't entirely ar"itrary+un&air. ( Shu##s) ;pt-out &or class-action (Shu##s) Disco$ery is proceduralU (e.g. -#iss "an. case) Federal Co--on La8 -u"stantial &ederal interest Procedural la# <ederal statutes #+ Pri$ate /auses o& 7ction 7lgo algo algo (e.g. 0n$ironmental la#) 5ap-&illing in statutes

12

PRECLU$ION CL3I& PRECLU$ION (#ai$a"le i& not claimed early) ;ne chance to litigate a claim. <rom theory "ased, no# to /;33;6 8I7BI8IT> <7/T "ased, some *udges to Transaction "ased (applied more to plaints than de&s) udgement must "e (1) <I678 (2) =78ID (3) ;6 TA0 30:IT ;n the merits% *ury $erdicts, *udges opinions, 12"R dismissals &or &ailure to sho# a claim (i& not under 5wom/ly), sum. *udgment 6ot on the merits% Dismissal &or lac. o& P !, -3 !, improper $enue 9nsure% -o8 dismissals, De&ault *udgments Tradition% <orum 2 de&ers to the preclusion rules o& <orum 1. 3ore lee#ay #rt IP6, since <orum 2 has to decide #hat #as+#asn't necessarily+actually decided. Parties must "e ID06TI/78 (important di&&erence &rom Issue Preclusion) Policy% <airness (put all your chips on the ta"le at once) and 0&&iciency (ease the case load on courts) *e1ensi+e Clai- Preclusion H6oteJ% 7 "itter pill &or de&s, since don't get to pic. time+&orum. But necessary &or e&&iciency. -till, e$en though the rules are e!act same, operationally *udges are more li.ely to impose /P6 on plaint's than on de&'s. Plaint not allo#ed to split his cause o& action, &irst using it as a de&ense and later as a claim ( Mi#chell) (compro"ar #+ 0S0 V 0!. /ase 1% /ontractor sues o#ner &or payment. ;#ner says #or. #as terri"le and #ins. /ase 2% ;#ner sues &or damages &or terri"le #or.. Tries to use IP6, "ut actually /P6, same lia"ility &acts ( Varney) V 0!ception% /an #or. i& di&&erent 8ia"ility <acts, e.g. e!istence o& a ? and )uality o& goods ((urvin) B9T, al#ays a "it o& a crap-shoot. /ourts de&ine claims di&&erently. ($inderman $s. Mi#chell)

I$$UE PRECLU$ION ;ne chance to litigate a &actual or legal issue (stare decisis o&ten controls the latter) D;6'T need Identical Parties (Bernhard) Issue must'$e "een% (1) 7ctually, &ormally ad*udicated (Cromwell) (2) 6ecessarily ad*udicated 'ios, 'ussell) (3) Party IP6 is "eing #ielded against must ha$e "een a party or in pri$ity to a party in /ase 1 (2) 7d*udicatory &orum has to "e #orthy o& respect (&oreign courts? admin courts?) 6o IP6 i&% De&ault *udgment, case still in appeal, general $erdict, inconclusi$e special $erdict, only decided in dictum I& prior decision am"iguous on #hat #as actually decided, don't assert IP6. 7lso, lean a#ay &rom IP6 #rt negotia"le inst ( Cromwell)

1. Dismissal on $oL is Issue Preclusi$e. 0$en a state that says -o8 dismissals aren't on the merits has to honor #hen the 1 st state
said the -o8 started to run. But i& the 2nd state has a longer -o8, has discretion to hear suit. 2. Aa$ing t8o cases running concurrentl, is in e&&ect a race to the &inish. <irst one to &inish is preclusi$e on the merits. udges #ill pro"a"ly call each other and coordinate. *e1. J O11. N&CE - De&. 63/0@ De&. pre$enting a plaint. &rom re-litigating an issue the plaint already lost in another case against a di&&. de&endant. - ;&&. 63/0 @ Plaint. precluding a de&. &rom re-litigating an issue #hich the de&. pre$iously litigated and lost against a di&&. plainti&&. De&. 63/0 is an a"solute+automatic rule. /an't get a#ay &rom it (Blonder 5ongue). 0!% Plaint can't *ust .eep suing di&&. de&s on the same issue once lost. -o i& D1 "eats P1, then #hen P1 tries to sue D2, D2 can use De&. 63/0 to #in. ;&&. 63/0 is at the *udge's discretion. :easons not to en&orce%

13
I& plaint. could'$e easily *oined in the &irst case (&ence-sitting) I& de&. #asn't incenti$i(ed to de&end $igorously in the &ist case (e.g. small sta.es) Prior inconsistent *udgments Pro"lem #+ ;&&. 63/0% Ao# do you .no# i& /ase 1 #as an outlier? -o class actions, all the eggs in one "as.et @T lots o& settlements. 0!% P1 "eats D1. Then P2 sues D1, #anting to use ;&&. 63/0 to automatically #in the same issue. 7t *udge's discretion. 9pshot% I& you're plaint and you lose against the &irst de&., you lose against e$ery"ody. I& you on the other hand #in, the &ollo#ing de&s aren't "ound, "ecause they ha$en't had a day in court. Cinding Non0arties :980% Ia person cannot "e depri$ed o& his legal rights in a proceeding to #hich he is not a partyO ( Wilks) Doesn't matter i& #ere &encesitters (Wilks), or i& #ere I$irtually representedO (S#urgell). -/;T9-% #e're not going to treat separate parties as cohesi$e unit &or purposes o& preclusion *ust "ased on common-interests, #e're going to rely on :ule 23 (class-actions) P9PP0T37-T0: 0!ception% (#here nonparty assumes control o$er litigation in #hich they ha$e a direct &inancial sta.e, they may "e precluded &rom pursuing their o#n litigaton a&ter#ards. Mon#ana.) $tate=Federal Preclusion I& claim #as &airly litigated in state court (e$en i& criminal), it's "arred &rom assertion in &ed. court ( McCurry). Both /P6 and IP6. Federal=$tate Preclusion 7 1332 &ed court ruling #ill ha$e the claim preclusi$e e&&ect allotted "y the la#s o& the state in #hich it sits ( Sem#ek) 1. 2. 3. 2.

12

$UPPLE&ENT3L JK $u00le-ental J( (/laims are part o& the same /7-0 ;: /;6T:;=0:-> (E13RL) (%udges ha+e discretionA) 1) 1 .2a@ -hare /;33;6 69/809- ;< ;P0:7TI=0 <7/T (Gi//s) 1. ;$erturns 4inley, lets ,ou #ring in Pendent Parties in certain cases i& they're claim passes the Gi//s test% 2. 0.g. #here P has a F'J( claim against D1, "ut his claim against D2 is state-la#. I& arise &rom same &acts, can get -upp !. 1 .2#@ I& original claim &ounded solely on *J(, add'l claims "y plaints 6;T 788;10D against parties *oined "y% :ule 12% (3rd party claims) :ule 1B+2C (compulsory *oinder, *oinder o& parties) :ule 22 (inter$ention) 9680-- the 2nd claim also has di$ersity o& citi(enship, is *ust missing *! amount (!lla*a#ah) (argue "oth) 6ote% Parties *oined under those rules can still raise claims and get -upp !. /ourt may, at its discretion, D0/8I60 -upp ! i& (1 .2c)% 6o$el issue o& state la# ;riginal claims are dismissed -tate )uestion predominates 7ny other reasona"le e!planation (e.g. *udge sni&&s out &ed. claim is *ust a *! ruse to get state claim into &ed court) Allapattah% as long as you ha$e a plainti&& #ith a claim that meets the &ederal *! amount, you can hang additional claims &rom other plaints that #ould other#ise not get into &ederal court ("ecause o& the amount in contro$ersy). (/an't add up t#o claims to reach ! amount, one has to "e there already). - Doesn't let 2nd plaint (NL4.) "ring claims against 2nd de& (added "y :ule 2C). Aa$e to do t#o sep. suits. 9pshot% 13RLa% codi&ies Gi//s, creates -upp ! o$er all claims that are part o& the came case (Icommon nucleus o& operati$e &actO). 13RL"% says that under certain conditions (:ules 12,1B,2C,22) 13RLa doesn't apply. Put in to protect complete di$ersity, to ma.e sure 13RLa doesn't #ipe it out $ia a massi$e end-run around complete di$ersity, #hich #ould esta"lish a de &acto min. di$ersity rule. -o #hen do #e not care a"out the end-run? :ule 23 (class actions), "+c it's purpose is to "ring in lots o& people. :ule 12 (#hich codi&ies (roger), #hen TPP "rings in TPD, plaint can't "ring a claim against the TPD. The &ear is that the plaint #ill name only a couple o& de&s, .no#ing there's someone else out there #ho #ill "e "rought in "y the de&s #ho #ill "rea. complete di$ersity

14

JOIN*ER OF CL3I&$ J P3RTIE$ 9still al8a,s need PJ(AA) Joinder o1 Clai-s@ :ule 1P@ party may *oin any claims it has against opposition (related or unrelated) H6oteJ% :ule 22 ser$es as a sa&ety $al$e. /ourt may order separate trials &or di&&erent claims. Per-issi+e Joinder o1 Parties% :ule 2C% (only applies to *oinder "y original plainti&&s) need #oth@ -ame transaction S occurrence, or series thereo& 3N* In$ol$e a common )uestion(s) o& la# or &act H6oteJ% :e)uirements are the same &or *oining plaints or de&s (can't destroy di$ersity, need P !) /an &ile suit and *oin parties Iin the alternati$eO (not sure #hich one did it) /an *oin mult plaints against mult de&s, e$en suing under di&& theories o& lia"ility Re4uired Joinder o1 Parties :ule 1B% &ailure means dismissal &or non-*oinderG only need one -A;98D party "e *oined? /annot other#ise complete relie& among e!isting parties, ;: Party claims an interest relating to the su"*ect, and either sitting out #ould impair his a"ility to protect that interest ;: it #ould lea$e an e!isting party #+ ris. o& multiple or other#ise inconsistent o"ligations /76 party "e *oined? /annot *oin someone #ho destroys -3 ! (e.g. "rea.s complete di$ersity) or #ho can't "e *oined "+c o& P !, =enue. 16#% I& can't "e *oined, dismiss case or not? 1. a$aila"ility o& another &orum &or plaint's complaint? 2. does the court ha$e the a"ility to &ashion relie& that "oth a$oids harming the a"sent party and protects the parties in the case? Bank o) Cali)ornia) Policy% protect "oth a"sent and in-court parties &rom con&licting lia"ility+*udgments. :ule 1B used "y de&s to try and dismiss claims, "ut rarely #or.s. 1hen supplemental *urisdiction is asserted o$er third-party de&endants and indispensa"le parties, ser$ice may "e e&&ectuated "y the 1CCmile "ulge rule, i& such parties cannot "e ser$ed #ithin the state in #hich the &ederal court sits. The rule allo#s ser$ice on such added parties any#here #ithin 1CC miles o& the &ederal courthouse in #hich the action is pending. H<:/P 2(?)(1)(B)J Counterclai-s :ule 13a,",e CO&PUL$ORD counterclaims (13a)G al#ays -upp !G need #oth 1. 7rises out o& the same transaction and occurrence Test 1% -ame 8I7BI8IT> <7/T-? Test 2% 8;5I/78 :087TI;6-AIP+/;660/TI;6? (a pragmatic test) 2. Does not re)uire adding another party o$er #hom the court canWt get *urisdiction 0!ceptions% 6ot compulsory i& (1) already "eing litigated else#here ("ut still optional), or (2) counter-claim is )uasi in rem (meaning no P ! #as esta"lished) PER&I$$IVE counterclaims (13") M any other claim (al#ays needs o#n "asis &or -3 ) :13e% /ounter-claims ac)uired a&ter pleading% *udge's discretion #hether to allo# :13h% can *oin add'l parties to a counter+cross claim, under the circumstances pro$ided &or in :1B, 2C Cross=clai-s against a co=0art, :ule 13g, generally permissi$eG need one@ 7rises out o& the same transaction and occurrence (o& either "ase claim or a counterclaim) ;: :elates to property in$ol$ed in the original action H6otesJ% 1. 5enerally permissi$e, "ut once D1 asserts a single legit /ross-/laim against D2, D1 must assert all 13as and can assert any 13"s 2. Policy is to .eep la#suits leaner, #+ emphasis on plaint's claim

1R
3. $u00 J( al8a,s (same tran+occ) 2. :13h% can *oin add'l parties to a counter+cross claim, under the circumstances pro$ided &or in :1B, 2C

Third Part, clai-s Rule 1/! 0er-issi+e, I-0lead - ()uestions o& -3 , P , notice) (/ourts 39-T ha$e PJ( o+er TP*sAA) 1. 8et's de& "ecome 3rd Party Plainti&& (TPP) and sue a 3rd Party De& (TPD) ". /rucial 8imitation% De& can only only implead someone #ho is lia"le to him &or his lia" to plaint, 6;T *ust someone #ho is *ust directly lia"le to the plaint (de1 seeHing to 0ass on his lia#ilit, to so-eone elseA) i. 0!% P sues X &or assault. X says mista.en identity, > #as the one #ho assaulted you. But X canBt i-0lead >, "+c > not lia"le to X, only to P. 6o :ule 12 in 0ITA0:+;: lia"ility situations li.e this. ii. Policy% De&'s can't "ring in ne# targets &or the plaints, only targets &or themsel$es to pass lia"ility o&& on. iii. -o TPD's lia"ility o"$iously turns on the outcome o& the main claim. TPD can de&eat lia"ility either "y de&ending the main claim or de&ending the TPP's claim, so can de&end against "oth. 3. :12 impleader claim has to "e deri$ati$e o& the main suit, 6;T *ust o& the same transaction+occurrence 2. -ince :ule 12 re)uires the third-party claim to "e related to "ase claim @ $UPP J(. Doesn't matter i& TPD "rea.s di$ersity (i& it did de&'s #ould *ust "rea. di$ersity "y impleading non-di$erse TPDs) (7lso TPD doesn't &actor into +enue anal,sis) i. E(ce0tion@ I& original claim is 0urel, on *J(. Then 13RL" says no $u00 J( on clai-s L#rought #, 0lainti11sM (or :1B+22 plaints) against TP*. 4. TPD can+must then assert /ounter-/laims and de&enses against TPP, /ross-/laims against other TPDs, 76D+;: R. TPD can "ring claims against Plaint i& they're related to plaint's "ase claim against the TPP (same transaction+occurrence) or i& they're a de&ense to it. Doesn't matter i& "ase claim *ust 1332 (TPD is an in$oluntary party, so #e're not #orried a"out end-runs around di$ersity here) 2. Plaint can "ring claims against TPD i& they're related to main claim (i.e. plaint's "ase claim), doesn't matter i& state or &ederal. B9T, only -upp ! i& original claim not *ust 1332 (#orried a"out plaints ma.ing an end-run around di$ersity) i. TPD can+must then &ire "ac. under 13a, 13", or 13g. ii. 1hen Plaint &ires "ac. #+ 13a, courts 37> or 37> 6;T allo# -upp ! (split) P. TPD can raise de&enses to "oth main claim and TP claim B. TPD can also "ring in a non-party #ho may "e lia"le to him &or the claim against him 1C. all :ule 12 claims need to "e made #+in 12 days or else re)uire motion 1hen supplemental *urisdiction is asserted o$er third-party de&endants and indispensa"le parties, ser$ice may "e e&&ectuated "y the 1CCmile "ulge rule, i& such parties cannot "e ser$ed #ithin the state in #hich the &ederal court sits. The rule allo#s ser$ice on such added parties any#here #ithin 1CC miles o& the &ederal courthouse in #hich the action is pending. H<:/P 2(?)(1)(B)J 9I-0leaderN4uestions o1 $&J! PJ! notice) 9Rule 1/) M H6oteJ /anWt destroy di$ersity "et#een 3rd party plainti&& and 3rd party de&endant (though you can "et#een original plainti&& and 3rd party de&endant) De&endant (plainti&& de&ending a counterclaim) allege non-party is lia"le &or all or part M H6oteJ This is generally understood to "e under transaction and occurrence standard Third party de&endantWs de&enses (12a2) 3ust assert rule 12 de&enses 3ust assert 13a claims 3ay "ring 13" claims 3ay "ring any claim against the original plainti&& that is related to the transaction and occurrence (12a2d) 3ay "ring in additional parties under rule 12 Plainti&& may assert claims against a 3rd party that arise &rom the transaction and occurrence 3ust "ring all 13a claims 7llo#s third party to "ring 13" and 13g claims In di$ersity, original plainti&& cannot sue third party de&endant i& suit #ould .ill di$ersity ( (roger)

1L
Inter+ener (:ule 22) <or #hen someone #ants to "ust into la#suit (someone #ho plaint chose not to "ring in). :e$erse o& :ule 1B 22a% Inter$ention OF RI7;T Party has the right under statute ;: To pre$ent pre*udice o& her o#n interests (re$erse o& rule 1B) 1. Inter$ening party (I=P) must ha$e an interest in the property+transaction on #hich the suit is "ased (as such, al#ays enough to satis&y 13RLa's Gi//s test) 2. Pending action must, as a practical matter, harm your a"ility to protect that interest 3. The e!isting parties must not "e a"le to ade)uately protect your interest 2. No $u00 J( in a 1 " case (original claim), need ind. "asis o& *!. 1hen should #e allo# inter$ention "ased on an I=Ps &ear o& a harm&ul precedent? <actors% 1. Is this la#suit a"out the $ery same transaction as the inter$enor's suit? 2. 1ill the result in the pending case "e more a matter o& &indings o& &act than conclusions o& la#? (;nly the latter #ould really "e o& precedential $alue.) 22"% PER&I$$IVE inter$ener% common )uestions o& la# or &act i. 7t court's discretion can let party inter$ene ii. I=P *ust needs to sho# a Icommon )uestion o& la# ;: &actO 7s such, may or may not get -upp !. iii. /ourts can impose serious restrictions on Permissi$e inter$enors (not on inter$enors o& right), such as limitations on the claims+issues they can raise Inter0leader 9Rule "")@ -ta.eholder deposits property #ith court &or interested parties to &ight it out 1. Interpleader is all a"out "rea.ing through :ule 1B (Pimen#el) i. 0.g. Ban. has money, #hen 7 sues them they say B is :1B. 1hen B sues them they say 7 is :1B. Interpleader sol$es this. ii. B9T, Interpleader can also "e #locHed "y :1B (i& you can't get ! o$er a needed party then can't go ahead #+ the others) ". Parties must "e gi$en the "est possi"le &easi"le notice (Mullane) T#o .inds o& interpleader% 1. 1 ) Inter0leader 90redo-inant -ethod) 1. -ta.eholder has no interest. 2. /laims don't ha$e to "e identical, don't ha$e to ha$e common origin 3. sta.eholder #ho triggers &ight amongst claimants. 8a#suit treated as &ight amongst claimants only, sta.eholder doesn't care, thro#s asset into court and done #+ it. ust need min. di$ersity among the claimants (t#o #ho are di&&erent), nation#ide ser$ice o& process, and K4CC *urisdictional amount. 2. 3ost courts says 1334 interpleader can "e used ;68> #hen sta.eholder is a neutral party (e.g. a "an.), 6;T #hen the sta.eholder also has a claim on the asset. 2. Rule "" Inter0leader% 1. -ta.eholder is interested 2. la#suit "t#n the sta.eholder and the other claimants, #ith the sta.eholder "eing the plaint and the claimants the de&s. /omplete di$ersity re)uired, plaint $ de&s. 6; nation#ide ser$ice o& process unless in rem, i& in personam you don't. 1 ) 90redo-inant -ethod)

1. 2. ;nly need 3inimum Di$ersity (at least t#o claimants must "e di$erse) (don't ha$e to "e di$erse &rom sta.eholder) (court ha$e 3. 2. 4. ..
le&t it unclear i& sta.eholder's citi(enship counts &or anything) (In 5ashire -/;T9- says /onst. only re)uires min. di$ersity) 3ust deposit sta.e (or "ond &or its $alue) #+ the court There is nation#ide ser$ice o& process @T PJ( may "e asserted no matter #here claimants reside. Venue @T any *udicial district #here at 1D claimants reside. In%unctions@ 1. 23R1 authori(es in*unctions to stop state claims #hen there's a &ed. interpleader 2. Don't ha$e to #ait &or claimants to &ile suit. Imay claimO is enough (5ashire). 3. /an allo# actions e$ery#here, "ut ha$e to collect in the &ed. court (5ashire)

R""

1. 7pplies #hen party may "e e!posed to dou"le lia"ility &or the same claim 2. /laims don't ha$e to "e identical

1P
3. 2. 4. R. L. P. B.
/laims don't ha$e to ha$e common origin :22 silent on the su"*ect o& P !, ser$ice o& process, -3 !, and =enue (loo. to <:/P and statutes, e.g. 1332+1331 &or -3 !) Don't ha$e to deposit a "ond &or the amount o& the sta.e 3ust ha$e complete di$ersity (inlcuding citi(enship o& sta.eholder). Di&& &rom 1334. P !@ state's long-arm statute =enue @ 13B1a (=enue statute, the 3 places) (doesn't include sta.eholders residence) In*unction% 6o e!press authority e!ists &or in*unctions. But &ederal court can issue an in*unction Y#here necessary in aid o& its *urisdictionY to allo# an in*unction against a pending state proceeding. I& no other actions are pending, or i& the only pending actions are in &ederal court, then, as long as the court has personal *urisdiction o$er the target o& the in*unction, it can en*oin a claimant &rom initiating an action or prosecuting the &ederal action.

1B

RULE " CL3$$ 3CTION$ Choice o1 la8% 7l#ays an issue #+ class mem"ers &rom di&&erent states. Shu##s says split up "y state. Personal J(% Don't need 3/s &or non-resident class mem"ers (Shu##s). ust need ade)uate notice. *eter-ining su#%ect=-atter %urisdiction <ederal )uestion% /lass action is "ased on a &ederal claim Di$ersity H/7<7J% 3inimal di$ersity (any mem"er $. any de&endant)G 76D 7ggregated o$er K4 million M H6oteJ -ee 1332 d3,2 &or e!ceptions to minimal di$ersity (;: di$ersity #+ named-plainti&&) /onstitutional rights o& a"sent class mem"ers in damage actions (Philli*s Pe#roleum) 1ithout any a&&iliation to the action, &orum state cannot apply its o#n la#G state must ha$e contacts or aggregation o& contacts to create state interest in the litigation% 7de)uate :epresentati$e (Due P) 6otice (Mullane) ;pportunity to opt out Certi1ication (need all) There is a class (de&ina"le group) Plainti&& is a representati$e o& the class Nu-erosit, (23a1Z*oinder is impractica"le) Co--onalit, (common )uestions o& la# or &act (23a2) T,0icalit, (23a3Znamed plainti&& typical o& class) 3de4uac, (23a2Z is the la#yer )uali&ied, e!perienced) Does common )uestion predominate? 5roup identi&ication should "e Iprecise, o"*ecti$e, and presently ascertaina"leOG it shouldnWt re)uire Ie!tensi$e, &actual in)uiry to determine #ho is a class mem"erO ( Coo*er !n#i-5rus#) interlocutory appeal is permitted on certi&ication )uestions (23&) Classi1ication (:ule 23") C1Z8imited Pot class. 7nti-pre*udice class% protect &rom multiple rulings (23"1a)G protect interests o& not present (23"1") C"ZIn*uncti$e relie& class (23"2) historical class action li.e Bro#n $. Board o& 0ducation, litigating &or the shared rights o& all class mem"ers, <or#ard-loo.ing class. 6o "ig pay days "+c no damages. C Z3ass tort class (23"3), Bac.#ard loo.ing. -omething happened in the past and you #ant to put all $ictims in a single pot and mo$e them &or#ard. Big la#yer paydays. /an opt-out. Need #oth@ P:0D;3I676/0% common )uestions predom. o$er indi$iduali(ed )uestions HThin.%are &ault and causation common?J -9P0:I;:IT>Z/lass action is superior to other &orms M H6oteJ rele$ant &actors include% mem"ersW interests in indi$idually controlling the actionG the e!tent to #hich any litigation has already "egunG the desira"ility o& the particular &orumG managerial di&&iculties 0X73P80-% ?- /ity Ayatt -.y#al. (certi&y)G Dal.on -hield (certi&y)G 7gent ;range (certi&y 2nd /irG similar to Dal.on) Ay"ridZi& hy"rid, are money damages incidental or the primary purpose o& the action? Notice 6o notice re)uirement &or B1 or B2 classes, though there is a lingering constitutional )uestion <or B3, "est notice that is practica"le under the circumstances (e.g. Mullane) (23c2") --indi$idual notice to mem"ers #ho can "e identi&ied #ith reasona"le e&&orts (super- Mullane) udge may order notice at any time &or anythingG not "ound "y Mullane standard $ettle-ent I& settlement #ould "ind class mem"ers, parties must sho# it is &air, reasona"le, and ade)uate (23e2) This can "e a tough standard i& mem"ers arenWt ade)uately represented (!mchem) 23"3 class mem"ers must "e gi$en the opportunity to opt out (23e2) 7ny class mem"er may o"*ect, the o"*ection may "e #ithdra#n only #ith the courts appro$al (23e4) 3ttorne, /onsider (23g1a)% 1or. done on case 0!perience ?no#ledge :esources ;ther 7ttorneyWs &ess must "e reasona"le. /onsider% -tatutory (normal rate) 3ust represent the mar.etplace &or contingent &ee la#yers Pro#le-s 4C state la# pro"lem &or national classes goes to superiority and managea"ility

2C
/ourt can e!ercise P o$er a"sent class mem"ers #ithout minimum contacts Indi$idual )uestions o& causation can .ill [em (!gen# .range) I& class action &ails and la#yerWs ade)uacy is )uestioned, a mem"er may collaterally attac. Class 3ction Fairness 3ct o1 "::)@ Basically thrust all class actions into &ederal courts "y reducing di$ersity to a minimum re)uirement and aggregating the amount in contro$ersy to e!ceed K4 million. 5a$e de&endants remo$al po#er. -upplemental *urisdiction issues apparent in !lla*a#ah " 9C) TDPE$ OF CL3$$E$ Class 23(") (1) 23(") (2) *e1ined 3ass $ersion o& :ule 1B %oinder. /lass mem"ers may 6;T opt out and are B;96D "y the holding. 8imited to In%uncti+e or Declaratory :elie& 6o K damages /lass mem"ers may 6;T opt out K &onetar, *a-ages 3ust "e su0erior to other a$aila"le methods 3ust present common )uestions o& la# or &act. (Predo-inance o& common )uestion) "ears cost o& notice to all class mem"ers. 6otice must in&orm mem"ers may opt-out. Polic, O#%ecti+e 7$oid inconsis#en# decisions or im*airmen# o& interests o& class mem"ers. 7$oid harm to Ws and a"sentees. Protect rights #here large num"ers o& persons are a&&ected. Practical 300lication In a limi#ed )und caseG i& suits "rought indi$idually, &irst \ ta.es it all. /lass 7ction protects other \Ws. /i$il rights cases.

23(") (3)

udicial e&&iciency 7llo#s relie& #here indi$idual \Ws could not economically pursue action /ould "e only e&&ecti$e method o& deterring "eha$ior o& some Ws (many small $iolations).

/lass action &or e$eryone #ho #as o$ercharged 1C cents on e$ery can o& tuna they "ought at :alphWs. 6o one #ould sue indi$idually. But as a class it #ould ma.e sense and :alphWs #ould ha$e to react.

21

Joinder o1 Clai-s J Parties To %oin! in general@ 1. must ha$e authority under <:/P 2. -3 (and proper $enue &or "ase claims) 3. P ! Clai- %oinder! R15 1. :1P% *oin as many claims as you #ant, dont ha$e to "e related ("ut #atch out &or /P6U) 2. :22"% *udges ha$e discretion to order separate trials &or unrelated claims Part, Joinder! R": 1. :2C% Permissi$e oinder o& Parties% i. parties must sho# relatedness, unli.e :1P #rt claims (same transaction+occurrence, or series thereo&) ii. allo#s multiple plaints to sue mult de&s iii. can then allo# unrelated :1P claims against a de&

$&J( and Joinder 1. There 39-T "e some &orm o& -3 ! o$er each and e+er, clai- in the la#suit (:P2) 2. 3ain claim #ill either ha$e D ! or <F ! (remem"er, al#ays in &ed court #hen using <:/P) i. (Don't "e stupid, 7le!. ust plaints and de&s need to "e di$erse &rom each other. Doesn't matter that t#o de&s are &rom ?>, &or e!ample. 3. -upp ! (13RL)% i. codi&ies Gi//s. Isame nucleus o& operati$e &act.O ii. less &a$ora"le #hen sole-"asis is 1332 Di$. !. (see statute) iii. 1 .2a% o$erturns 4inley. 8ets you "ring in Pendent Parties in certain cases a) 788;10D% 1here P has a F'J( claim against D1, "ut his claim against D2 is state-la#. I& arise &rom same &acts, can still ha$e -upp ! ") 6;T (1 .2#)% 1here the original claim only has *J(, 9680-- the 2nd claim also has di$ersity o& citi(enship, "ut *ust not the 1332 *urisdictional amount (!lla*a##ah) (doesn't #or. in re$erse) c) Note@ 13RL" says you can't do that against parties *oined under those :ules. Doesn't say plaints *oined under those :ules (e.g. :2C) can't raise claims and get -upp *!. i$. <or cross-claims, *ust loo. in that section

3.

T#o .inds o& interpleader% 1. :ule 22 interpleader% 1. la#suit "t#n the sta.eholder and the other claimants, #ith the sta.eholder "eing the plaint and the claimants

22
the de&s. /omplete di$ersity re)uired, plaint $ de&s. 6; nation#ide ser$ice o& process unless in rem, i& in personam you don't. 2. 1334 interpleader% 1. sta.eholder #ho triggers &ight amongst claimants. 8a#suit treated as &ight amongst claimants only, sta.eholder doesn't care, thro#s asset into court and done #+ it. ust need min. di$ersity among the claimants (t#o #ho are di&&erent), nation#ide ser$ice o& process, and K4CC *urisdictional amount. 2. 3ost courts says 1334 interpleader can "e used ;68> #hen sta.eholder is a neutral party (e.g. a "an.), 6;T #hen the sta.eholder also has a claim on the asset. 7 court may not e!ercise *urisdiction o$er a de&endant that has not purpose&ully a$ailed itsel& o& doing "usiness in the *urisdiction or placed goods in the stream o& commerce in the e!pectation they #ould "e purchased in the *urisdiction. @ 6icastro In rem cases are al#ays a"out #ho has o#nership in a dispute I3inimum re)uirements inherent in the concept o& &air play and su"stantial *ustice may de&eat the reasona"leness o& *urisd e$en i& the de&endant has purpose&ully engaged in &orum acti$itiesO (Burger (ing, !sahi) IThe uni)ue "urdens placed upon one #ho must de&end onesel& in a &oreign legal system should ha$e signi&icant #eight in assessing the reasona"leness o& stretching the long arm o& P o$er national "orders.O @T -hould !sahi only apply to &oreign de&s? 7ssertion o& P re)uires some act "y #hich the de&endant Ipurpose&ully a$ails itsel& o& the pri$ilege o& conducting acti$ities #+in the &orum -tate, thus in$o.ing the "ene&its and protections o& its la#s.O (Hanson v. %enkla) e!plicit consent citi(enship presence, either physical or site o& incorporation minimum contacts P limitations deri$e &rom considerations o& due process (i.e. indi$idual li"erty), not state so$eriengty. ;ther#ise de&s #ouldn't "e a"le to #ai$e them. Iunilateral acti$ity o& another party or 3rd person is not appropriate consideration #hen determining #hether a De& has su&&icient contacts #+ a &orum -tate to *usti&y an assertion o& *urisdictionO Helico*#eros Imere purchases, e$en i& occurring at regular inter$als, are not enough to #arrant a -tate's assertion o& in personam *urisdiction o$er a nonresident corporation in a cause o& action not related to those purchase transactions.O Helico*#eros 1rt Helico*#eros, ma*ority says it's not going to assert a $ie# on the relationship+importance o& Iarising underO $s. Irelated toO causes o& action. I-tream o& commerce may "olster an a&&iliation germane to s*eci)ic *urisdiction, "ut ties ser$ing to "olster the e!ercise o& - do not #arrant a determination that, "ased on those ties, the &orum has general *urisdiction o$er a de&endantO Goodyear. 3ere purchases made in the &orum -tate, e$en i& occurring at regular inter$als, #eren't enough &or 5 in Helico*#eros, and -/;T9- says similarly mere sale o& tires sporadically in the &orum -tate through intermediaries isn't enough either, it I&alls &ar shortO in &act. Goodyear De"t tra$els #ith de"tor, and can "e en&orced #here$er he is. 3a.es creditor su"*ect to suit #here$er his de"tor happens to "e. Harris v. Balk. 8a# e$ol$ed saying yes you can ma.e theses sei(ures, "ut you ha$e to gi$e the creditor ample notice and time to come do#n and de&end. I1e there&ore conclude that all assertions o& state-court *urisdiction must "e e$aluated according to the standards set &orth in +n#7l Shoe and its progenyO (i.e. min. contacts) Sha))er. I1e ha$e re*ected the argument that i& a -tate's la# can properly "e applied to a dispute, its courts necessarily ha$e *urisdiction o$er the parties to that dispute.O Sha))er. Di&&erence "t#n de&s "ene&itting &rom a &orum -tate's la#s and Ipurpose&ully a$ailing themsel$es o& the pri$ilege o& conducting acti$ities #+i the &orum -tate.O Sha))er

8. 9:S5 "&&% M+". %+V&'S+52 5. S5!5. +"5&'P$&!%& +" .'%&' 5. '&M.V& 5. 4&%. C.:'5 6either "icas#ro;!sahi argument is "inding, can argue either one (that stream o& commerce alone is enough, or that you need more).
&ed. common la# @ en$ironmental la#, /I8, un#ritten procedural rules Swiss Bank Pro&'s arguments% 1. 1331 authori(ed him to come into court under an Iarising underO theory, saying it arose under &ed. common-la#, #hich had "orro#ed /I8, #hich co$ered the -#iss Ban.

23
2. 1332 D , had his named plaint (&rom 6>) suing a -#iss "an.. <orget the &act that L4Q o& the class #ere &rom o$erseas (alien $ alien #ouldn't ha$e #or.ed). D under Ben hur (min. di$ers). Then saying he's en&orcing &ed. common-la# #hich en&orced /I8 (customary int'l la#) #hich en&orces -#iss la#. -o he as.ed the court to apply -#iss la#. 3. 7T- (alien tort statute), &iled a di&&. complaint #+ a di&&. set o& plainti&&s. This time the named plainti&& &rom the 6etherlands, suing XXXXXXXX Pro& tried all the arguments, #hich is #hat you do. Patent clai- O 1 1 F'J(

PER$ON3L JURI$*ICTION
Pennoyer v. Ne !"#$ 1. Po#er theory o& !. I& you're #+in our physical geographic reach #e'$e got you, i& not #e don't, unless you're personally ser$ed in-state or ha$e property in-state attached "e&ore litigation. Burnham v. Superior %ourt !#"&$ 1. 7s long as you're $oluntarily present in the -tate and are duly ser$ed, they'$e got !. Doesn't matter i& it's temporary or unrelated presence. 2. Transitory physical presence is enough (i& $oluntary), don't need min. contacts i& you're personally ser$ed in-state. 'ess v. Pawloski !()$ 1. Implied consent "y dri$ing on the -tate's high#ays. 0ncouraged &urther long-arm statutes. Int*l Shoe v. +ashin,ton !(&$ 1. 3in. contacts test% doesn't o&&end Itraditional notions o& &air play and su"stantial *usticeO -ray v. Ameri.an Ra/iator !01$ 1. -tream-o&-commerce &oreseea"le e&&ects test. =ery e!pansi$e long-arm statute, tort #+ e&&ects arising in the state considered to ha$e "een committed in the state. 2. I& there's a &oreseea"le e&&ect #+in my circle, I can reach out and gra" you. +orl/2+i/e 3+ !#4&$ 1. 6eed speci&ic &oreseea"ility, some sort o& purpose&ul a$ailment. 9nilateral mo$ement "y the consumer isn't enough &or P ! 5ulko !##"$ 1. I3erely causing an e&&ect #+in the &orum state #+o purpose&ul a$ailment #ill not support *urisdictionO Bur,er 5in, !##0$ 1. 8ist o& &actors to consider #hen choosing #hether to assert P ! (state+plaint+de& interests), i& in a"undance can re)uire less sho#ing o& min. contacts. 2. Does de&. reasona"ly anticipate "eing haled into court? 3. /onsenting to la# isn't same as consenting to ! 2. ? not enough, need ?D Asahi Metal !#)0$ 6 Ni.astro !Supp. &1)$ 1. -T:073 ;< /;330:/0 &or manu&acturers (t#o $ersions, $aries #+ !) 1. >ou put the product into the stream o& commerce, you're *urisdictionally $ulnera"le Brennan's !sahi, 5ins"erg's "icas#ro) 2. -tream o& commerce isn't enough "y itsel&, must engage in speci&ic conduct directed at the &orum (;'/onnor's !sahi, ?ennedy's "icas#ro) Ben,uet Minin, !#1($ 1. De&. has continuous and systematic association #ith the &orum (Bengue# Mining). /ontacts so su"stantial or per$asi$e that they'd e!pect to "e hailed &or any claim, no incon$enience 'eli.opteros !#7)$ 6 -oo/year 8unlop !Supp. &#7$ 1. 5eneral ! standard incredi"ly di&&icult to meet. Past purchases, training, on-site negotiations may not "e enough (Aelicopteros). -tream o& commerce ne$er enough &or 5eneral urisdiction (5oodyear). 'arris v. Balk !#94$ 1. /ourts may assert *urisdiction o$er de"ts pro$ided personal *urisdiction o$er the de"tor can "e attained. 8argely #iped out "y Sha))er. Sha er !#9#$ 1. Being a"le to apply -tate's la#s doesn't @ "eing a"le to assert P ! <. +n#7s Shoe7s 3I6. /;6T7/T- T0-T applies to in rem and )uasi in rem as #ell as in personam. 1. Tangi"le 1 or 2 li.ely )uali&ier, intangi"le not so much. 'anson v. 8en.la !#4#$ 1. 1st use o& P9:P;-0<98 7=7I8306T language, Imust "e some act "y #hich de&. P7s himsel& o& the pri$ilege o& conducting acti$ities #+in the &orum state, thus in$o.ing the "ene&its and protections o& its la#s.O a) 7 -tates "eing the Icenter o& gra$ityO or most con$enient location isn't enough. 2. /ontacts must "e purpose&ul, cogniti$e, $olitional. Aere Trust ne$er intended to engage #+ <8.

22
a) Di&&. &rom McGee% no solicitation %al/er -imilar to the Austler case, e!cept here the plainti&& also sued t#o nonresident indi$iduals, the #riter and editor o& a li"elous articles -/;T9- granted P under the e&&ects test, saying also that it #as reasona"ly &oreseea"le (large circulation in &orum state, plainti&& li$ed in &orum state) that they #ould "e "rought to court there

FE*ER3L 'UE$TION = $&J(

:sborn !)0"$ 1. 3arshall% i& it is concei$a"le that a &ed. issue could arise in a case, /ongress has the po#er to put those cases into &ederal court. 0specially #here a state's interest is li.ely to con&ide #+ the &ed's "+c o& politics, thro# it in &ed court e$en i& no real &ed. )uestion. ;$erruled, o"$iously. ;ouisville v. Motley !)00$ 1. 1088-P807D0D /;3P87I6T :980% <F is esta"lished only #hen the plainti&&Ws statement o& his o#n cause o& action sho#s that it Iarises under.O Aere state tort claim at heart. <ormalistic reasoning. a) /ounterclaims+e!plicit de&enses that raise &ed. issues still aren't enoughU 2. /an't #ai$e -3 , and courts can sua sponte dismiss &or lac. thereo& at any time. 3. 1331 and 7rt. III% <ormer construed narro#ly and the latter "roadly, e$en though they literally share the same language. 7rt III designed to grant po#er, 1331 to e!ercise it. Skelly :il !14)$ 1. Declaratory udgments still can't get you around the 1ell-Pleaded /omplaint :ule, can't turn a de&ense into an o&&ense or get <F &rom an anticipated de&ense. Bivens !14"$ 1. -/;T9- says implied right o& action and remedy &or damages "+c o& importance o& 2th 7mend. 2. P:I=7T0 :I5AT ;< 7/TI;6% Isuits "rought "y pri$ate litigants against pri$ate persons allegedly acting in $iolation o& a statuteO. Shoshone Minin, !14($ 1. 7 cause o& action created "y &ed. la# doesn't al#ays con$ey <F . -/;T9- says doesn't arise under here "+c re&ers e!plicitly to local customs. Smith v. 5% !14($ 1. 1hen a complaint alleges a $iolation o& -tate la# #hich is contingent upon a $iolation o& &ederal la#, it can sometimes "e &ound to &all #+in 1331. 8egality o& &ed. "onds case. Moore !140$ 1. -tate la# claim contingent upon reading o& &ed. la# &ound outside 1331. /ontradiction o& Smi#h. Di&& "t#n Moore and Smi#h% =olume )uestion. 1331 decisions can perhaps "est "e understood as an e$aluation o& the na#ure o& the &ederal interest at sta.e. IIn Smi#h, the issue #as the constitutionality o& an important &ederal statute. In Moore, in contrast, the /ourt emphasi(ed that the $iolation o& the &ed. standard as an element o& state tort reco$ery did not &undamentally change the state tort nature o& the action. Merrill 8ow !140$ 1. /ongress. silence #rt statute and P:/;7 @ didn't intend to preempt or ma.e the la# pri$ately en&orcea"le. 8etting this case come into &ed. court as an Iarising underO case #ould "e th#arting the intent o& /ongress 2. the lac. o& a <ederal cause o& action Ycannot "e o$erstated.Y 3. (To ma.e an Iarising underO case, you need a cause o& action that allo#s &or "oth merit and remedy.) 2. /:07TI;6 T0-T% 7 Isuit arises under the la# that creates the cause o& actionO in the I$ast ma*orityO o& cases. ;"$iously e!ceptions. 4. 3D should "e read to mean that the a"sence o& a &ederal pri$ate right o& action is e$idence rele$ant to, "ut not dispositi$e o&, the Isensiti$e *udgments a"out congressional intentO that 1331 re)uires. /ourt sa# the missing P:;7 not as a missing &ederal door .ey, al#ays re)uired, "ut as a missing #elcome mat, re)uired in the circumstances, #hen e!ercising <F #ould'$e in$ited an onslaught o& other such state claims #+ em"edded &ed. issues, an enormous shi&t o& traditionally state cases into &ederal courts. -rable < Sons !1#"$ 1. the a"sence o& a right o& action is rele$ant e$idence o& congressional intent, "ut does not necessarily decide the )uestion in all cases. 2. Aere no &ed. cause o& action

24
3. Plaint. could not sue directly on the statute, "+c it e!plicitly doesn't allo# &or pri$ate /o7. But no state la# entitlement to the
land, only arg. &or entitlement "+c state la# $iolated &ed. statute. To decide a state claim ha$e to settle an antecedent &ed. )uestion (&or #hich there is no pri$ate /o7). 1. Di&&. &rom 8ouis$ille? Ao#? 2. ]]]=olume discount. I& there's a hea$y $olume o& cases that are li.ely to "e a&&ected "y a ruling, *udges more hesitant to grant <F . 4. Di&&. "t#n 3errell Do# and 5ra"le% /ongressional intent R. 6o Isingle, precise, all-em"racingO test &or <F o$er &ed. issues em"edded in state-la# claims.O L. 7ctual )uestion% IDoes a state-la# claim necessarily raise a stated &ederal issue, actually disputed and su"stantial, #hich a &ederal &orum may entertain #+o distur"ing any congressionally appro$ed "alance o& &ed. and state *udicial responsi"ilities? Empire 'ealth.hoi.e !1))$ 1. Paradigm 2.4 (re*ected)% -tate la# so pressured and molded "y &ed. la# that may"e it shouldn't "e treated in $ouisville terms, that although the claim arose purely in -tate la#, it is so shaped "y &ed. interests that &ed. courts should interpret it. -/;T9re*ects Ameri.an Ele.. Power !Supp. 7(1$ 1. >ou can "ring a 1331 action claiming Iarising underO &ederal common la#, "ut odds are high that &ed. common la# has "een ousted "y admin. norms (#hich o&ten aren't pri$ately en&orcea"le) 2. /onstitution, statutes, admin. regulations, common la# (sources o& la#, in order o& primacy) 5iobel !online$ 1. The 3lien Tort $tatute (2P 9.-./. E 134CG 3T$, also called the 3lien Tort Clai-s 3ct (3TC3)) is a section o& the 9nited -tates /ode that reads% YThe district courts shall ha$e original *urisdiction o& any ci$il action "y an alien &or a tort only, committed in $iolation o& the la# o& nations or a treaty o& the 9nited -tates.Y This statute is nota"le &or allo#ing 9.-. courts to hear human-rights cases "rought "y &oreign citi(ens &or conduct committed outside the 9nited -tates. 2. 7rticle III doesn't pro$ide &or suits "y one alien against another, only &or one alien against a 9.-. citi(en. 3. >ou ha$e to argue (in order to allo# the suit) that /I8 actually "ecomes part o& &ed. common-la# 1. Does the 7T- ha$e e!traterritorial e&&ect, does it co$er acts committed "y an alien outside the 9.-.? ?io"el trying to sue -hell (a 6etherlands corp.) &or actions that too. place in 6igeria. 2. customary international la# go$erns scope o& 7T- lia"ilityG 3. in matter o& &irst impression, 7T- does not con&er *urisdiction o$er claims against corporationsG and 2. corporate de&endants #ere not su"*ect to 7T- lia"ility, as they #ere not su"*ect to lia"ility under customary international la#. 4. corporations cannot "e held lia"le &or $iolations o& customary international la#, &inding that% (1) under "oth 9.-. -upreme /ourt and -econd /ircuit precedents o$er the pre$ious 3C years that address 7T- suits alleging $iolations o& customary international la#, the scope o& lia"ility is determined "y customary international la# itsel&G (2) under -upreme /ourt precedent, the 7T- re)uires courts to apply norms o& international la#Zand not domestic la#Zto the scope o& de&endants' lia"ilities. -uch norms must "e Yspeci&ic, uni$ersal and o"ligatoryYG and (3) under international la#, Ycorporate lia"ility is not a discerni"leZmuch less a uni$ersally recogni(edZnorm o& customary international la#Y,H31JH32J that the court could apply to the 7T-, and that the plainti&&s' 7T- claims should indeed "e dismissed &or lac. o& su"*ect matter *urisdiction. R. 9pshot% :ight no# no go &or suits against corps, "ut under -/;T9- re$ie#.

2R

*IVER$ITD JURI$*ICTION > $&J(

1. F 1 "@ *i+ersit, o1 citi<enshi0? a-ount in contro+ers,? costs
<ed. -3 in all ci$il actions #here the amount in contro$ersy e!ceeds KL4,CCC and is "et#een% i. citi(ens o& di&&. states ii. citi(en+-tate $s. &oreign states+citi(ens 2. unincorporated associations (unions) are citi(ens o& e$ery place in #hich one o& their mem"ers is a citi(en 3. Plaint /76 755:057T0 unrelated claims to reach amount, as long as against same de&. Stawbri/,e !)")$ 1. /;3P80T0 DI=0:-IT> Bank o =.S. v. 8eveau> !#(40$ 1. Aa$e to test the citi(enship o& e$ery single person in a corporation. /om"ined #+ S#raw/ridge essentially meant no D*! &or corps. ;ouisville v. ;etson !#(77$ 1. /orp. is citi(en o& the state that chartered it. Marshall v. :hio RR !#(&1$ 1. /orp. has citi(enship itsel& and also presume conclusi$ely &or 7rt III purposes that all shareholders ha$e the same citi(enship as the corp.<inally sol$ed the complete di$ersity pro"lem. 2. 6ote% In 1B4P /ongress pro$ided that a corporation should "e deemed a citi(en o& the state that incorporates it 76D o& the state that is its principal place o& "usiness. 'ert? %orp !Supp. &)4$ 1. /orp's also citi(ens o& their principal place o& "usiness (already), #hich /ourt holds to @ their Iner$e centerO, #here the high le$el o&&icers direct, control, and coordinate the corp's acti$ities. 6ot necessarily the physical location o& the head)uarters, "ut in practice almost al#ays is. 2. 6o more loophole o& s#itching incorp. site to turn D*! on+o&& li.e a lights#itch. Mas v. Perry !)"($ 1. domicile is li.e stic.y paper, you ha$e one until you su"*. gra" a ne# one and rip the old one o&&. Domicile stic.s #+ you until you really settle do#n some#here else. The :esidual Domicile. 8re/ S.ott !)(4$ 1. -hould'$e sued &rom a &ree state. Somerse#7s Case. Importance o& &rie. Ben 'ur !"(7$ 1. /lass actions% Test the citi(enship o& a class "y the citi(enship o& its named plainti&&s @ 3in. Di$ersity. a) 8eads to still unresol$ed loopholing pro"lems. Ankenbran/t !)01$ 1. Domestic-relations e!ception does e!ist to D , "ut the e!ception reaches only cases in$ol$ing the issuance o& a di$orce, alimony, or a child custody decree. 2. shrin.s the domain o& D G can't gi$e a &ed. *udge po#er to muc. around #ith the status o& a couple li$ing in a gi$en *urisd. But i& it is a tortious case, then that's a di&&. matter, should "e allo#ed to "e litigated in &ed. courts. a)

2L

RE&OV3L JURI$*ICTION
1. ;nly e!ists i& plainti&& could'$e originally "rought the case in &ederal court. 2. I& suing under state la# (e.g. state contract la#), only : i& complete di$ersity. 3. ;nly de&s can remo$e. Plaint can't remo$e upon recei$ing counter-claim.
Shamro.k :il !1&#$ 1. 7 plainti&& cannot remo$e a state court action to the &ederal courts in response to the de&endant interposing a counterclaim. 2. I7rt&ul pleadingO doctrine pre$ents plaints &rom delcining to plead necessary &ed. )uestions so as to a$oid remo$al. /orollary to the 1P/ rule. %arlsba/ Te.h !Supp. &##$ 1. 7 district court's decision #hether to e!ercise supp. ! a&ter dismissing e$ery claim o$er #hich it had original ! is purely discretionary. /an "e appealed.

$UPPLE&ENT3L JURI$*ICTION
1. I& *udges sni&& out that the &ed claim is *ust a *urisd ruse that the parties don't really care a"out, o&ten either only hear the &ed
claim and dismiss the state stu&&

2. 13RL%
1. 2. 3. codi&ies Gi//s. Isame nucleus o& operati$e &act.O less &a$ora"le #hen sole-"asis is 1332 Di$. !. (see statute) 1 .2a% o$erturns 4inley. 8ets you "ring in Pendent Parties in certain cases 1. 788;10D% 1here P has a F'J( claim against D1, "ut his claim against D2 is state-la#. I& arise &rom same &acts, can still ha$e -upp ! 2. 6;T (1 .2#)% 1here the original claim only has *J(, 9680-- the 2nd claim also has di$ersity o& citi(enship, "ut *ust not the 1332 *urisdictional amount (!lla*a##ah) (doesn't #or. in re$erse) . Note@ 13RL" says you can't do that against parties *oined under those :ules. Doesn't say plaints *oined under those :ules (e.g. :2C) can't raise claims and get -upp *!.

-ibbs !1)&$ 1. In cases #here a plainti&& has "oth &ederal and state claims against the de&endant, although there may "e no di$ersity *urisdiction, the &ederal court has discretion to e!ercise pendent *urisdiction o$er the state claim "ased upon state la# i& the state-created claim and the &ederal claim deri$e &rom a common nucleus o& operati$e &act, and are such that a plainti&& #ould ordinarily "e e!pected to try them all in one *udicial proceeding. 5ro,er !11)$ 1. 13RL"% -upp ! &or compulsory counterclaims and &or #hen the de& "rings in the 3rd party de& (indemnity claim). But the plainti&& can't sue the indemnity party #+ automatic -upp !. 2. /an't get around complete di$ersity "y suing only di$erse de&s then #aiting &or them to implead non-di$erse de&s. /an't use -upp ! as a run-around o& complete di$ersity. (roger codi&ied "y 13RL". @inley !117$ 1. unless /ongress e!plicitly says that they #ant add'l people "rought in, -/;T9- is going to say no. 6ot going to imply consent out o& silence. /reates a de&ault position. (OVERTURNE* CD 1 .29a)) Allapatta.h !11($ 1. 7s long as one plainti&&Ws claim satis&ies the minimum amount-in-contro$ersy re)uirement, the court may e!ercise *urisdiction o$er additional plainti&&Ws case that &all short o& the re)uirement, #hen all claims arise &rom the same case or contro$ersy. 2. E13RL permits supplemental *urisdiction o$er *oined claims that do not indi$idually meet the amount-in-contro$ersy re)uirements o& E1332, pro$ided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-contro$ersy re)uirements. 3. 7s long as one plainti&&Ws claim satis&ies the minimum amount-in-contro$ersy re)uirement, the court may e!ercise *urisdiction o$er additional plainti&&Ws case that &all short o& the re)uirement, #hen all claims arise &rom the same case or contro$ersy.

2P
2. (note this is supplemental *urisdiction 6;T a pure di$ersity case). Thus, under 7llapatah i& you ha$e 4C plainti&&s each #ith a 2.
suit against 0!!on and 1 plainti&& #ith a 1CC. suit against 0!!on, the trial *udge has the DI-/:0TI;6 to e!ert supplemental *urisdiction o$er all the claims. 4. :e)s% 1. 788 plaints must "e di$erse &rom 788 de&s (complete di$ersity) 2. 7t least one (1) plaint satis&ies the *urisdictional amount

VENUE! TR3N$FER
1. =enue analysis @ apart &rom and in addition to P and -3 . 3rd :ing. 2. =enue is #hen you're mo$ing cases around a political su"di$ision (e.g. the 9.-. &ederal courts) 3. :0-ID06/>%
i. <or persons% #here he is domiciled ii. <or corporations% any#here #here you can get P ! o$er them. iii. <or unincorporated ass'ns% #here it's located, 6;T #here it's mem"ers are (di&& &rom 1332) 2. =0690 -T7T9T0- 13B1" pro$ides &or 3 di&&. $enues% i. i& all de&s reside in same state, the case can "e "rought in any *udicial district in the state #here one o& them resides (13B1"1). De&s can #ai$e this, $enue is a #ai$a"le o"*ection ii. Plainti&&s can "ring the case any#here #here signi&icant &acts o& the case too. place (13B1"2). iii. I& neither o& the a"o$e is a$aila"le (de&s $enue or &act-"ased $enue), you can "ring the case any#here #here you can get in personam *urisd (13B1"3) o$er a de&. 7 sa&ety net, so that there is al#ays a $enue to "ring suit. (0!. in Pro&'s -#iss "an. case, had to use this 3rd option "+c none o& the de&s resided in 6> and no &acts o& the case too. place there). 4. T:76-<0: -T7T9T0-% i. 12C2a% says case #as initially "rought to a legit $enue, "ut there's a more con$enient place. The la# o& the original $enue tra$els #ith the case to the ne# $enue ii. 12CR% says case #as initially "rought to an illegitimate $enue. 6othing tra$els #+ the case, start all o$er again in the ne# court. Bates !1"($ 1. 13B1"2 is a pure e&&ects test, a tangi"le physical e&&ect. 6o Purpose&ul 7$ailment re)uired. (&or#arded de"t collection letter). Blaski !1(1$ 1. De&. can't unilaterally mo$e $enue *ust "y #ai$ing P . 1+o plaints consent, can only "e mo$ed $ia 12C2a to a place #here plaint could'$e originally "rought suit. I1here it might ha$e "een "roughtO @ originally, not at time o& trans&er @ can't (#+o consent o& "oth parties) trans&er case to a district that lac.s P o$er de&endant. @erens 1. In a di$ersity suit (1332 claim), the trans&eree &orum is re)uired to apply the la# o& the trans&eror court (in a 12C2a trans&er), regardless o& #ho initiates the trans&er 2. <erens #ent to another &orum (3-) #+ "etter -o8 la#s, &iled there, then 12C2a'd "ac. to P7

FORU& NON CONVENIEN$

1. <6/ almost al#ays e!ercised to get cases out o& the 9.-. to a more de& &riendly location. 2. <6/ is e!traordinarily discretionary in nature. =ery easy trapdoor &or the *udge to open.
-ul :il !10#$ 1. <7/T;:- #hen considering <6/% a) relati$e ease o& access to e$idence ") a$aila"ility o& #itnesses c) state #hose la# is "eing applied d) all practical pro"lems 2. 5060:78 :980% unless the "alance is strongly in the &a$or o& the de&. (i.e. clearly "e harassed+seriously incon$enienced), the plaint's choice o& &orum should rarely "e distur"ed. Piper Air.ra t !10)$ 1. can't ha$e a <6/ shi&t into a dead end, in #hich you run the plainti&&s into a #all (Ii& the remedy in the alt. &orum is so clearly inade)uate or unsatis&actory that it is no remedy at allO). But that i& there's a legit *udicial remedy on the other side then you can proceed under &orum non con$eniens (<6/).

2B

*UE PROCCE$ RE'UIRE&ENT$

Due Process% 1. :e)uirements% i. /ourt must ha$e *urisd o$er the parties ii. /ourt must ha$e *urisd o$er the issues "e&ore it iii. Parties must ha$e ade)uate notice o& the commencement o& the action and issues in$ol$ed in it i$. Parties must ha$e an ade)uate opportunity to present their side o& the case to the court. 2. Purposes% i. limit on ad*udicatory authority. -tate can't ta.e cases that should really "e in another -tate. In personam. ii. Due Process clause in the 12th 7mendment is a "ridge to ta.e pro$isions &rom the Bill o& :ights and ma.e them en&orcea"le against the -tate (Bo: language as such only applies to &ederal go$). iii. <undamental &airness in procedure, the meaning #e commonly use. To ma.e sure the -tate acts &airly. 3. :ationales% i. 0rror minimi(ation theory ii. Dignitary theory% "alance out the po#er o& the -tate, so as to let the indi$idual con&ront it on e)ual &ooting, #+ dignity. 2. -o #hy does Due Process (DP) ha$e a role in pri$ate litigation? B+c pri$ate litigation uses the engine o& the -tate to ad*udicate and &orce the loser to pay. It is inherently o& the -tate.

RE3$ON3CLE NOTICE
Mullane !#00$ 1. 6otice must "e Ireasona"ly calculated under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties o& the action and gi$e them an opportunity to o"*ect. 2. /an't proceed #+o using the "est &easi"le means o& notice (not the optimal notice, don't ha$e to spend a &ortune), "ut i& you ha$e the in&o and it's easy to get out there then you ha$e to ta.e reasona"le steps. 3. this case is *urisdiction "y necessity. 2. IProcess #hich is mere gesture is not due process.O 8usenberry !)40$ 1. /erti&ied mail satis&ies Due Process, don't need Iheroic e&&orts.O (-ee% 4lowers) @lowers !)40$ 1. /erti&ied mail, letter #as returned. Didn't satis&y Due Process. Aa$e to ta.e Iadd'l reasona"le steps, i& it is practica"le to do so,O li.e anyone #ho #as Idesirous o& actually in&ormingO the party (-ee% %usen/erry)

OPPORTUNITD TO CE ;E3R*
@uentes !)74$ 1. Due process under the <ourteenth 7mendment re)uires that a&&ected parties in a reple$in action must "e noti&ied in a timely manner and gi$en an opportunity to "e heard prior to a pre*udgment sei(ure. 2. -ei(ure #ithout notice and the opportunity &or a hearing is accepta"le only under limited circumstances% i. The sei(ure is necessary &or an important pu"lic or go$ernment interest, ii. There is a need &or prompt action, and iii. The sei(ure is initiated "y an agent o& the go$ernment. a) These e!cepts. #ould apply (e.g) #hen property is tainted &ood, mis"randed drugs or unpaid ta!es needed to &und a #ar. S.hia/a.h 1. ha$e to ha$e ade)uate notice + time to respond "e&ore garnishment o& #ages, #hich are a Ispeciali(ed type o& property.O +.T. -rant !)70$ 1. 7llo#ed pre*udgment se)uestration order, said pre*udgment se)uestration is a narro#er determination, and the issue o& the e!istence o& a $endor's lean is more clear cut than I#rong&ul detainmentO o& property. 7lso under the 8ouisiana statute there's an

3C
immediate post-sei(ure hearing, 8i2%hem !)&)$ 8oehr !)&7$ 2. 1hen determining #hat process is due #rt pre*udgment remedy statutes "t#n pri$ate parties% i. consideration o& the pri$ate interest that #ill "e a&&ected "y the pre*udgment measure ii. an e!amination o& the ris. o& erroneous depri$ation and the pro"ati$e $alue o& add'l or alternati$e sa&eguards iii. principal attention to the interest o& the party see.ing the pre*udgment remedy (here guy had no legit interest in the house, not li.e other guy #as &lee-ris.)

PLE3*IN7 RE'UIRE&ENT$
1. P9:P;-0%
i. Put the de&. on notice o& suit ii. ma.e sure plainti&& .no#s enough to put the de&. through the cost o& de&ending. 2. :980% i. Auge uncertainty. Di$ision "t#n -ymmetric and 7symmetric In&o cases 1. 7symmetric% 1ea. plaint, strong de&. Interpret pleading more generously to#ards #ea.er party, don't 12"R dismiss, gi$e plaint targeted disco$ery during a &e# #ee.s. 2. -ymmetric% more li.ely to thro# out on 12"R. I& you're going to put the de&. through this process+e!pense, do your home#or. &irst. %onley !&9)$ 1. -ho# me some smo.e and #e'll go in and see i& #e can &ind &ire. 6ote% 8et many suits go &or#ard #+o a su&&icient set o& &acts. 2. P(a)(2)% complaint must contain a Ishort and plain statement o& the claim sho#ing that the pleader is entitled to relie&.O Twombly !&9($ 1. Aeightened the pleading re)uirement &or <ederal ci$il cases, re)uiring that plainti&&s include enough &acts in their complaint to ma.e it plausi"le Z not merely possi"le or concei$a"le Z that they #ill "e a"le to pro$e &acts to support their claims 2. Bac.lash% 5wom/ly too e!treme, recogni(ed a pro"lem "ut "le# up the Conley rule. Pro& says "est #ay to &i! the pro"lem is phased disco$ery, "etter *ury instructions, and in the case *uries ignore them then directed $erdicts, instead o& trying to correct things at the pleading stage "y heightening the e$idence re)uirement. 3. 8ittle Bells, ury Dri&t 2. Pro& says 5wom/ly 7-, they decided it #rong. Par/us !&""$ 1. Incredi"ly, *ust 1 month a&ter -/;T9- decided 5wom/ley, they o$errule the dismissal and say the case should'$e gone &or#ard under Conley. 2. /ourt "ending o$er "ac.#ard &or a pro se plainti&&? 7- in&o. Iqbal !&"($ 1. 7-. 8egal conclusions must "e supported "y &actual allegations (#hich are ta.en as true) 2. i& a *udge &or #hate$er reason is "iased and #ants to thro# out a case Ich"al and T#om"ly gi$e him a trapdoor to easily do so. 3. T#om"ly and Ich"al are the la#, doesn't matter that they should'$e done :ule B instead o& reinterpreting :ule P, "+c it's #hat happened. Tellabs !&04$ 9securities 1raud) 1. 7 complaint #ill sur$i$e, #e hold, only i& a reasona"le person #ould deem the in&erence o& scienter (intent+.no#ledge o& #rongdoin) cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing in&erence one could dra# &rom the &acts alleged. 2. Increased the hurdle ci$il litigants must tra$erse in order to reco$er damages &or securities &raud

31

ERIE *OCTRINE 9+ertical choice o1 la8)

1. T#in aims o& 0rie%
1. Pre$ent ine)uita"le administration o& the la#s 2. Discourage &orum-shopping 2. <ederal -tatute $s. -tate :ules 1. 1here a &ederal statue is at issue, it go$erns i& it #as a $alid e!ercise o& congressional authority ( '+C.H) 3. <ederal :ules+Policy $s. -tate :ules 1. 9nder 1Cth 7mend, su"stanti$e la# &or di$ersity cases comes &rom the -tates (?) Swi t v. Tyson !74&$ 1. I8a#s o& the se$eral -tatesO in :ules o& Decision 7ct does not include state common (decisional) la#, only statutory la#. IThey are, at most, only e$idence o& #hat the la#s are, and are not o& themsel$es la#s.O Erie R. v. Tompkins !74($ 1. ;$erturns Swi)#, <ed. courts sitting in di$ersity must apply -tate common-la# (*udicial decisions) as #ell as statutory la#. 2. I6o general &ederal common la#O 3. :easons &or o$erturning% 8. Swi)# unconstitutional, led to &orum-shopping and ine). administration o& the la# ("ig ad$antage &or non-resident plaint). 2. Philosophical underpinnings o& Swi)# collapsed. 3. -tate so$ereignty separation o& po#ers% 0.g. Black and Whi#e allo#ed &ed. *udges to ma.e contract common-la# that trumped the decisions o& state court *udges. /an't let this happen under the /onstitution #+o creating serious &ederalism pro"lems. Aork !7#9$ 1. ;9T/;30 D0T0:3I67TI=0 T0-T 1. 1ould results "e di&&erent i& the action #ere in a &ed court and not state? -houldn't get tangled up in $ague discussion o& &ed. $s. procedural. 2. <ollo# -tate -;8 Byr/ !7)7$ 1. B7876/I65 T0-T 1. I/ounter$ailing considerationsO not co$ered "y the 2ork test. Aere the Lth 7mend. guarantee o& a *ury trial. (6o"ody openly uses this test, "ut in the "ac.ground) 'ana !71#$ 1. 1:ITT06+961:ITT06 /;88I-I;6 T0-T 1. I& there is a #ritten &ederal rule that con&licts #ith the -tate rule, the &ed rule #ins as long as it is /onstitutional under the :07 (doesn't a"ridge, modi&y, or enlarge a su"st. right) and is argua"ly procedural. (Pro& says mindlessly &ormalistic). 2. Ao# to tell i& collision? Depends on ho# "roadly+narro#ly you read the rule, #hich lets you &actor in policy. 3. ;utcome-Det test Inot a talismanO, should not "e applied "lindly+categorically. 2. Procedural i& reasona"le person could thin. so 2. P:0+P;-T 0=06T B0A7=I;9: T0-T 1. /oncerned #ith e!-ante+e!-pos, la#yer cra(iness. <orum shopping, "usiness policies, etc. 3. <ollo# Arm.o Steel !77)$ 1. -tate -o8 tolling applies, as does <:/P (internal cloc.). -uper narro# reading o& <:/P to a$oid collision+ Hanna test Bernhar/t 1. <ollo# ^ 7r"itration RI%:' !77($ 1. I& there a $alid, &ederal statute or <:/P on point, it applies Sibba.h

32
1. <:/P shall not Ia"ridge, enlarge, or modi&y su"stanti$e rights in the guise o& regulating procedure.O -asperini !7&7$ 1. I& it's part procedural and part su"stanti$e, can try to split the di&& and accommodate "oth. Too hard to apply, dead-end. 2. <ollo# ... Sha/y -rove !Supp. &&($ (/ourt split on this one, no hard and &ast rule.) 1. -calia ma*ority% Hanna is a "right line rule, no need to #ade into &rie7s Imur.y #aterO. -tate interest is o& no conse)uence. 2. -te$ens concurrence% -ometimes a state procedural rule is #rapped in su"stanti$e interest. 3. 5ins"erg dissent% <ormalistic tests has gotten us into trou"le here #+ the &unction &rie tests.

CONFLICT$ OF L3I 9hori<ontal choice o1 la8)

1. 1hich -tate's la# applies? 5la>on !799$ 1. <ed. courts sitting in di$ersity 39-T apply the con&licts-o&-la# rules o& the state in #hich they sit. Allstate !#47B 79"$ 1. 7 state can apply its su"stanti$e la# in a case so long as the state has signi&icant contacts or a signi&icant aggregation o& contacts #+ the parties and transaction. 2. (3uch greater Due Process restrictions on P than choice-o&-la#. Aarder to get P than /ho8) 3. 9nder Aague $. 7ll--tate, -tates ha$e huge &le!i"ility in choosing #hich -tate's la#s apply in a gi$en case, pursuant to the ma*or chec. o& P and the minimalist chec. o& the 12th 7mendment. ((la1on says loo. at the -tate to see #hich test the -tate #ould apply. -tate says do anything you #ant ( Hague). 3an 8usen !79"$ 2. 1. 9nder 12C2a trans&er, the trans&eree &ed. court should apply the la# o& the trans&eror state. 4. I& you persuade a *udge to trans&er under 12C2a to a more con$enient $enue, e$erything comes #+ the case. <ed *udge in ne# &orum pretends he's &ed *udge in old &orum #ho pretends he's the state *udge in that old &orum. R. 12CR% don't "ring anything #+ you, start ane# in the 2nd $enue, and &ed *udge as.s #hat the state in #here he sits #ould do. Shutts !"(9$ 1. -tate has to ha$e at least some contact #+ parties+transaction, so that the choice o& la# isn't ar"itrary+un&air. 2. ;pt-out &or class-action

33

CL3I& PRECLU$ION
1. <rom theory "ased, no# to /ommon-8ia"ility <act "ased, some *udges to Transaction "ased 2. ;ne chance to litigate a claim (e!ception i& &raud) 3. :980% udgment must "e%
<inal =alid ;n the merits 1. 6ot on the merits% lac. o& P !, $enue dismissal. -o8 most courts say not on merits. 2. T:7DITI;6% <orum 2 de&ers to the preclusion rules o& <orum 1. 6ot hard and &ast rule though. 3ore lee#ay #rt IP6, since <orum 2 has to decide #hat #as+#asn't necessarily+actually decided. 4. Ao# to .no# i& same claim? -ee i& /;33;6-8I7BI8IT> <7/T-. 1. Policy% Fairness@ &orce you to put all o& your chips on the ta"le at once, so a de&. doesn't put up a #ea. &ight &or a small claim then get Issue Precluded into a huge loss later on. R. 3ust "e ID06TI/78 parties (important di&&. &rom IP6) E11icienc,@ ease the case load on courts L. 0$ery party gets at least one day in court P. Preclusion may "e #ai$ed unless it's claimed early on Rush !#)&#$ 1. Plaint must raise all causes o& action arising &rom a single #rong in one la#suit 2. Plaint trusted in stare decisis, got "urned. @e/erate/ 8ep*t Stores !#)9#$ 1. /P6 is /P6 is /P6. Doesn't matter that &ormer co-parties appealed and #on. Morristown Bank !#)91$ 1. -ue &or e$erything or lose it (*ust sued &or &irst missed payment). 1hy no more automatic acceleration clauses 1. 2. 3.

*EFEN$IVE CL3I& PRECLU$ION

1. 3ore "itter pill &or de&s, since don't get to pic. time+&orum. But necessary &or e&&iciency. -till, e$en though the rules are e!act same, operationally *udges are more li.ely to impose /P6 on plaint's than on de&'s. Mit.hell !#)9"$ 1. 7 plaint is not allo#ed to split his causes o& action "y &irst using it as a de&ense in one case and as a claim in another (potato &armer tries to use IP6 to #in against "an., "ut actually loses &rom /P6) 2. /an't turn a shield into a s#ord, or ris. /P6. 3. /ommon-lia"ility &acts #ould'$e rendered the second case a mere charade. 2. /ompulsory counter-claim, &ailed to raise it. 5urvin #. /ase 1 is #hether a ? "t#n /hemical company and &armer. ). /ase 2 is #hether the &ertili(er #as "ad. 3. /ourt lets go &ors#ard, since di&&erent 8ia"ility <acts. But many *udges #ould go &urther, and "loc. on a Transactional Theory o& preclusion (gets applied more to plaints than de&s) 3arney #. /ase 1 contractor sues "uilder &or payment. ;#ner #ins, says #or. #as terri"le. ). /ase 2 ;#ner sues &or damages, tries to use IP6. But actually /P6, same lia"ility &acts ;in/erman Ma.hine !#)"4$ 1. T#o cases in$ol$ing &raudulent machines. Totally contradictory to Mi#chell, sho#s !s de&ine claims di&&erently or #on't apply /P6 #hen counter-claim not mandatory I guess.

32

I$$UE PRECLU$ION
1. ;ne chance to litigate a &actual or legal issue (stare decisis o&ten controls the latter) 2. D;6'T need Identical Parties 3. In order &or IP6, has to ha$e "een%
i. 7ctually, &ormally ad*udicated ii. 6ecessarily ad*udicated (holding $s. dictum) 5eneral $erdict @T 6o IP6, -pecial $erdict may"e iii. Party IP6 is "eing #ielded against must ha$e "een a party or in pri$ity to a party in /ase 1 i$. 7d*udicatory &orum has to "e #orthy o& respect (&oreign courts? admin courts?) 2. De&ault *udgments @T 6o IP6 4. -till in appeal @T 6o IP6 %romwell !actuall, litigated$ 1. 1hen the prior decision is am"iguous on #hat it actually decided, dou"ts should "e resol$ed against the party see.ing to assert preclusion (0$en though /oupon 1 ruled in$alid, no ruling on /oupons 2-24) 2. 6o /P6 here since policy is not to use /P6 in such a #ay as to complicate the easy use o& negotia"le instruments 3. /rom#ell's secretary treated as him in /ase 1. Pri$ity. Russell !necessaril, decided$ 1. 3ost !s% I& earlier case could'$e "een decided on multiple independent grounds, and "+c o& general $erdict you're not sure #hich one #on, there's no preclusion. 2. 1orse, i& there's a special $erdict and they chec. multiple "o!es, not preclusi$e either, "+c you're not sure #hich one they really thought hard a"out and #hich one they *ust thre# in on top as an a&terthought. -ome !s mo$ing "ac. &rom this #rt special $erdicts. Rios !Car crash case$ 1. :980% 6ot necessarily decided in /ase 1 @T not Issue Preclusi$e in /ase 2 2. P;8I/>% De& can't appeal, *urors put less thought into it Bernahr/ !.ra.ks mutuality in IPN$ 1. IIt #ould "e un*ust to permit one #ho has had his day in court to reopen identical issues "y merely s#itching ad$ersaries,O @T 6o 3.D. 2. De&. 63/0@ De&. pre$enting a plaint. &rom relitigating an issue the plaint already lost in another case against a di&&. de&endant. 3. ;&&. 63/0 @ Plaint. precluding a de&. &rom relitigating an issue #hich the de&. pre$iously litigated and lost against a di&&. plainti&&. Blon/er Ton,ue !8e . NM%E is le,it$ 1. De&. 63/0 is legit. Plaint. can't *ust .eep suing di&&. de&s on same issue once lost. -o i& D1 "eats P1, then P1 tries to sue D2, D2 can use De&. 63/0 to #in. 2. I& you're plaint and you lose against the &irst de&., you lose against e$ery"ody. I& you on the other hand #in, the &ollo#ing de&s aren't "ound, "ecause they ha$en't had a day in court. Parklane 'osiery !: . NM%E le,it sometimes$ 1. De&. 63/0 is an a"solute and automatic rule, non-#ai$a"le, can't get a#ay &rom it. But ;&&. 63/0 is allo#ed at the discretion o& the trial court, they don't ha$e to en&orce it. 2. Times not to en&orce ;&&. 63/0% 1. I& plaint. could'$e easily *oined in the &irst case (&ence-sitting) 2. I& de&. #asn't incenti$i(ed to de&end $igorously in the &ist case (e.g. small sta.es) 3. Prior inconsistent *udgments 3. Pro"lem #+ ;&&. 63/0% Ao# do you .no# i& /ase 1 #as an outlier? -o class actions, all the eggs in one "as.et @T lots o& settlements.

34

CIN*IN7 NONP3RTIE$
Montana !-ovt as puppetmaster$ 1. 1hen nonparties assume control o$er litigation in #hich they ha$e a direct &inancial sta.e, they may "e precluded &rom pursuing their o#n litigation a&ter#ards. The Puppetmaster -cenario. +ilks ! ire i,hters$ 1. Ya person cannot "e depri$ed o& his legal rights in a proceeding to #hich he is not a party,Y the #hite &ire&ighters #ere not precluded &rom challenging employment decisions ta.en pursuant to the consent decrees.Doesn't matter that the &ire&ighters #ere &ence-sitters here and chose not to inter$ene. 2. Pro& says &ire&ighters #ere an indispensa"le party, this is #hy #e need :1B. Stur,ell !virtual rep$ 1. =irtual representation isn't a real thing. <. Wilks = S#urgell > -/;T9- saying #e're not going to treat separate parties as cohesi$e unit &or purposes o& preclusion *ust "ased on common interests, #e're going to rely on :23

$T3TE=FE*ER3L PRECLU$ION
M.%urry 1. Issue preclusion can ne$er "e granted I#hen the party against #hom the earlier decision is asserted did not ha$e a '&ull and &air opportunity' to litigate that issue in the earlier case.O 2. Aere he did though. Doesn't matter that /ase 1 #as state+criminal #hereas /ase 2 #as &ed+ci$il 3. I& claim #as &airly litigated in state court, "arred &rom assertion in &ed. court

FE*ER3L=$T3TE PRECLU$ION
Semtek !#17($ 1. 1332 &ed court ruling #ill ha$e the claim preclusi$e e&&ect allotted "y the la#s o& the state in #hich it sits. This rule &alls under &ed. common la#, says -calia (&ed. common la# @ en$ironmental la#, /I8, un#ritten procedural rules)

JOIN*ER OF CL3I&$
'eywoo/ Robinson !9&($ 1. "road reading o& Itransaction or occurrenceO so as to com"ine t#o separate construction pro*ects. 2. /ourts are much more #illing to do a "road reading in door-opening settings (allo#ing &or more to "e litigated) than doorclosing settings (claim preclusion) ;ASA per In/ustria !99($ 1. Bad policy. 8et's too many claims in, creates a long )ueue to resol$e initial claim, :22 ("usting out separate trials) not ade)uate. 1e'$e opened the door too #idely, should instead do it in slices. 2. Augely "road reading o& transaction+occurrence to allo# &or a mass o& 13a, 13g, 3. :ule 12, ho# do #e #ant it to operate?

JOIN*ER OF P3RTIE$ Tanbro !9(&$ Bank o %ali ornia !9(($ Provi/ent Tra/esmen !901$ Pimentel !"41$ Ceub !"4&$ New Aork ;i e !"#0$ Revere !"))$ State @arm !")"$ @ibreboar/ !(##$ Smu.k !"17$ Martin v. +ilks !"74$ 'ansberry !"""$ Am.hem v. +in/sor !"09$

3R
+al2Mart !Supp. &"($ Shutts !"(9$ Eisen !""4$ %ooper !(#0$ 3*JU*IC3TIN7 T;E C3$E TRI3L