IV. Res
I. Jurisdiction II. Erie III. Joinder
Judicata
1. Subject Matter 1.
Jurisdiction Joinder of Claims
Permissive Joinder of 1. Res Judicata
Parties (Claim Preclusion)
2. Personal Compulsory Joinder of
Jurisdiction Parties
2. Collateral
3. Due Process Estoppel
2.
Counterclaim (Issue Preclusion)
4. Service of Crossclaim
Process (Notice) 3rd Party Claims
3. Parties
Who is subject to
5. Venue claim or issue
3.
preclusion?
Intervention
Interpleader (Not on
6. Removal Final)
Class Action
7. Waiver
-1-
I. Jurisdiction Checklist
Is There
Subject Matter
Jurisdiction?
United States Constitution, Article III: Federal Courts Are Courts of Limited Jurisdiction:
1 2 3 4 5
Federal Diversity Alienage Admiralty Disputes Between
Question 18 U.S.C. §1332 18 U.S.C. §1333 18 U.S.C. §1333 States, Counsels, and
18 U.S.C. §1331 Ambassadors
Does the π’s well pleaded complaint allege a state law cause of action
Yes in which federal law is an essential element?
Don’t rely too much on this. I derived this rule from Smith
Yes v. Kansas City Title and Merrell Dow v. Thompson.
Aronovsky says the COA are still split and the SC has not There is
There is FQJ ruled. So, in some circuits this would work but don’t treat it NO FQJ.
as a hard and fast rule.
-2-
Is There
Subject Matter
Jurisdiction?
United States Constitution, Article III: Federal Courts Are Courts of Limited Jurisdiction:
5
1 2 3 4 Disputes Between
Federal Question Diversity Alienage Admiralty States, Counsels, and
18 U.S.C. §1331 18 U.S.C. §1332 18 U.S.C. §1333 18 U.S.C. §1333 Ambassadors
1 2a 5
2 3 4
Federal Supplemental Disputes Between
Diversity Alienage Admiralty
Question (Pendant & States, Counsels, and
18 U.S.C. 18 U.S.C. 18 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. Ancillary) Ambassadors
§1332 §1333 §1333
§1331 18 U.S.C. §1367
-4-
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Flowchart
18 U.S.C. §1367
No This is a basic
Same case or No SMJ
controversy? requirement of
§1367(a).
Yes
Diversity Only
∆
§1367(b) limitation
Claim by π or ∆ ? SM does not apply to
J claims brought by ∆ .
20(π), 23
-5-
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
1. Cause of Action: Where did the cause of action 1. Burden on the Parties: Economic, time, relative
arise? burdens.
2. Activities: Scrutinize these activities in the forum 2. Law: What forum’s law?
state: 3. Interest of the State: in providing a forum for &
a. Systematic & Continuous = General protecting its citizens.
Jurisdiction 4. Multiplicity of Suits: Will they all be resolved?
b. Sporadic = Specific Jurisdiction
c. Direct vs. Indirect 5. Forum: Alternative forum available? Fair &
d. Dangerous activity? convenient?
3. Purposeful Availement: Has ∆ purposefully 6. Evidence: Where is the bulk of the evidence?
availed itself of the benefits & protections of
7. Witnesses: Where are the witnesses?
forum’s laws? Hanson v. Denkla.
-6-
VENUE:
Underlying Policies: Judicial Efficiency; Limit Forum Shopping;
Venue Rules: 28 U.S.C. §1391 Transfer of Venue: 28 U.S.C. Forum Non Conveniens
-8-
§1441(c)
§1441(a) Court May Keep
Court Must Or
Hear Court May
Remand
-9-
Waiver
Consolidation of
What May NEVER Be Waived? What May Be Waived? Defenses
Rules 12(g) and 12(h)
- 10 -
Erie Doctrine Flowchart
The discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable
administration of the laws
Fed. Outcome
Countervailing determinative
Interests (for fed test (for state
law) law)
(always have If outcome would be
uniformity, but different depending
weak on its own. on which law
Byrd was judge/jury applies (i.e. statute
relationship which of limitations is very
outweighed determinative if its
outcome run in state and not
determinacy) fed)
- 11 -
III. Joinder
Joinder of Claims
3 Sentences at most on exam:
1. In federal practice a π can join any claims he
or she has against the ∆ .
2. In a state following the FRCP, a π can join
any claims he or she has against the ∆ because
those are the Federal Rules.
3. If state X follows the more traditional rule of
- 12 -
Joinder- Big Picture
Must satisfy both FRCP and SM Jx.
Π
party asserts no whether the action should proceed among the parties before
parties. either of the original it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus
3rd Parties: a party claim and who
asserts no claim
action or of a regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered
by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment
∆
brought into the counterclaim therein
against the party, rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to the
action by a current or relating to any person or those already parties; second, the extent to 3rd
and may order
∆.
separate trials or
property that is the
subject matter of the
which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the
shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be ∆ Part
3rd Party claims:
claim by ∆ acting
make other orders original action.
lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in
the person's absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the
Π y
to prevent delay or plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is
as 3rd Party Π , to prejudice. dismissed for nonjoinder.
join a 3rd party.
- 13 -
Counterclaims, Crossclaims, and 3rd Party Claims
(Impleader)
Counterclaims
1. Compulsory: Rule 13(a); use it or lose it. Underlying policy concerns: efficiency and economy. A counter claim
is compulsory if it “arises out of the same transaction or occurrence” that is the subject matter of the π ’s claim
(counterclaim must be pleaded)
2. 4 Part Transaction & Occurrence Test to define when a claim or counterclaim arises from the same
transaction: (from Plant v. Blazer Financial Services) State Courts will usually respect Rule 13(a); but it is not
guaranteed. I.e., if you fail to pursue your compulsory counterclaim in federal Court, state Court will probably
not allow a new suit on the same facts.
a. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
b. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on ∆ ’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
c. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute π ’s claim as well as ∆ ’s counterclaim?
d. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?
3. Permissive: Rule 13(b); everything else.
4. Exam Tip: Rule 13 pretty much allows a ∆ to counterclaim against a π for anything he wants. Remember
Pugsley said the title “plaintiff” doesn’t mean squat in Tort law; it just means you filed first.
5. Diversity Actions: If your compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) is could not be plead alone (<$75k or no
diversity), invoke §1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction and be sure to use the buzzwords:
a. Common Nucleus of Facts
Cross-Claims
Rule 13(g) (∆ vs. ∆ )
1. Always Permissive
2. Can invoke §1367 if claim won’t stand alone.
3. Exam Tip: When in doubt, examine Transaction & Occurrence; it’s pretty much the basis of everything in
CivPro, so if you’re blanking out, start writing about T&O.
Negligence or
π Tort ∆
π Negligence or ∆
Tort Permissive
Counterclaim for
Compulsory Negligence or
Counterclaim Tort
for
- 15 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS
π Negligence or ∆
∆
Tort Negligence or
π (3rd Party
Negligence or Tort
Crossclaim π )
Tort
Joinder of Additional
Parties (Not In
Original Action) 3rd Party
∆
In this example, an
original ∆ crossclaims
against another original
∆ AND joins a 3rd party
∆ as well. 3rd Party
(Newly Joined)
- 16 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS
Rule 14(a) S6 – TPD Can Assert Claim Rule 14(a) S7 – π Can Assert Claim
Against π Against TPD
∆
∆
π π (3rd Party
Negligence or Tort (3 Party π )
rd
Negligence or Tort
π )
Claim m
mnity ai
Inde cl
n or ss
ibutio ro
Contr C
Requires same Transaction
or Occurrence as π ’s claim Counterclaim
against 3rd Party π
3rd Party ∆ 3rd Party ∆
- 17 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS
∆ Negligence or
Negligence or (3rd Party π Tort ∆
π Tort
π )
Breach of
Contract
Contribution
or Indemnity
Claim
3rd Party
∆
Contribution
or Indemnity
Claim
3rd Party
∆
- 18 -
JOINDER OF PARTIES DIAGRAMS
Negligence or Negligence or
π Tort ∆ Tort ∆
π
Negligence or Negligence or
Co - π Tort Tort Co-∆
Permissive Joinder of Parties: 2 Prong Test Permissive Joinder of Parties: 2 Prong Test
1 ¶ at most on exam. 1 ¶ at most on exam.
TO + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder TO + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder
Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction; Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction;
AND AND
There is a common question of law or fact binding There is a common question of law or fact binding
the parties. the parties.
- 19 -
Interpleader Rule 22, 28 U.S.C. §1335
“You all figure out who I need to pay if I am liable (which I
may not be)”
Interpleader Basics
Defined: Interpleader is an equity device designed to protect persons in possession of property (stakeholders) the
ownership of which is or may be claimed by more than one party. It is a device to resolve at one time the claims of
many persons to one piece of property or sum of money, such as a bank account claimed by more than one person.
Policy Objective: So that the stakeholder will not have to pay the same claim twice.
Practical Application: Interpleader is a π ’s tool to join all claimants at once; but may be employed by a ∆ through
use of cross-claim [Rule 13(g)], compulsory counterclaim [Rule 13(a)], or permissive counterclaim [Rule 13(b)].
- 20 -
Intervention Rule 24
“I wasn’tRemember, youI need
invited, but PJ over all
am coming the
anyway”
claimants in order for Rule 22
interpleader to work!
- 21 -
Rule 24(b¹): Limited Purpose
Intervention FlowchartIntervention
Judicial Expansion of Rule 24(b):
1. Limited Purpose Intervention: Courts my grant intervention for limited purposes, such as contesting scope
Step 1:
of protective orders and confidentiality agreements.
2. Example: Environmental lawyers intervene to contest ANALYSIS
STATUTORY Oil Co. settlement agreement ordering destruction of
discovery documents which may show broader pattern of abuse, suppression of which arguably would be
contrary to public policy.
Does a Federal Statute grant Yes
MUST Grant
unconditional right of
This is Rule 24(a).
intervention?
MAY Grant
Does a Federal Statute grant Yes This is Rule 24(b)
conditional right of
intervention? Court will consider delay or
prejudice to original parties.
Step 2:
CAN’T SOMEONE ELSE DO IT?
Step 3:
CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND PUBLIC POLICY.
- 24 -
PET M NIL
IV: RES JUDICATA
Same Primary rights Issue Necessary to the
involved? “Go Away, Leave Me Alone, I Don’t Want first action?
Same Evidence? To Talk About It Anymore!” Identical Issues?
Same Transaction or
23(B) TYPES OF CLASSES
Was it valid? No
Proper court with subject matter and personal
jurisdiction?
§1738 “Full Faith & Credit” valid state court decisions
Yes
are binding in federal court unless state court lacked
competency.
NO CLAIM PRECLUSION - 26 -
CLAIM PRECLUSION
RJ won’t apply if the matter hasn’t
Entire claim is precluded, including matters that were
been finally and validly decided by a
or should have been litigated.
proper Court!
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
- 27 -