Anda di halaman 1dari 27

Civil Procedure Review

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

Federal Question Basics: 28 U.S.C. §1331


 Does the claim arise under the constitution, treaties, or laws of the U.S.?
 Is the complaint well plead? E.g., does NOT plead possible defenses as basis for FQ?
 Remember, NO $ Amount limit: Can have SMJ over a $1 dispute.
 Federal Jurisdiction may be exclusive to federal court (e.g., patent or copyright claims); or
 Federal Jurisdiction may be concurrent with state court jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights or federal
employment liability act (FELA) claims), subject to the right of removal.

Federal Question Flow Chart


Does the π’s well pleaded complaint allege an express or implied
Yes federal cause of action? No

Does the π’s well pleaded complaint allege a state law cause of action
Yes in which federal law is an essential element?

Does the federal law that is an element authorize a private right of


action? No

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

DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BASICS


1) COMPLETENESS: Diversity must be complete. There cannot be anyone on the left of the “v” and the right. All π’s must be
different from all ∆ ’s.
2) DATE: Diversity is calculated as of the date the action was instituted.
3) CITIZENSHIP (Domicile)
a) PERSONS: Where you were born and continues through your life unless:
i) You physically change your state; and
ii) You have the intention of remaining in the new state for the indefinite future.
iii) If person has multiple homes in different states, look of that person’s center of gravity by looking at:
(1) Where does the person live?
(2) Where is the family?
(3) Where does the person pay taxes?
(4) Where does that person work?
(5) Where are the cars licensed?
(6) Where does the person vote?
b) CORPORATIONS:: Every corporation has two domiciles:
i) state of incorporation; and
ii) its principle place of business (usually where the corporate headquarters is located. Two tests for principle place
of business:
(1) Nerve Center Test – place where corporate decisions are made; or
(2) Muscle (Plurality) Test - place where the corporation does most of its manufacturing or service providing.
c) UNINCORPORATED Associations (e.g., labor unions, partnerships): Cumulate domiciliary state of each member. So, a
national labor union like the Teamsters could never pass the federal diversity test because it has members in all 50
states.
d) PARTIES IN REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS (e.g., representative of a child, probate, or derivative actions or class action suits:
i) Classical Rule for Derivative Actions & Class Actions: diversity is based on the citizenship of the representative.
ii) Modern Rule for Probate and All Others: diversity is based on the citizenship of the represented party.
4) AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: must be over $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs but inclusive of punitive damages.
5) AGGREGATION RULES:
-3-
Is There
Subject Matter
Jurisdiction?

Supplemental Jurisdiction Created by Judicial Interpretation and Codified in 28


U.S.C. §1367

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

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION BASICS


1) Pendant & Ancillary Jurisdiction: United Mine Workers v. Gibbs – state tort claim added to federal employment
question. Supreme Court ruled that federal court could assume jurisdiction over state claim because they all emanated
from the same set of facts. This ruling, called the pendant doctrine, expanded the definition of case and controversy
under Article III.
a) Ancillary claims doctrine allowed π’s to bring a case and allowed ∆ ’s to assert jurisdictionally insufficient compulsory
counter-claims, cross-claims, and 3rd party claims.
2) §1367: After some restrictions in Owens and Finley, Congress codified Gibbs in §1367.
a) §1367(a): Matters originating from a common nucleus of operative facts are now considered part of the same case or
controversy for Article III purposes.
b) §1367(b): Codifies Kroger but rejects Finley. limits reach of jurisdiction only in diversity only cases — exercise of
jurisdiction must be consistent w/§1332 (diversity statute) §1367(b) applies
Remember,
i) No supplemental jurisdiction; must have independent jurisdiction
ONLY if diversity claims by Π against persons made parties by:
for sole
is the
(1) Rule 14 (Impleader) basis for being in federal court.
(2) Rule 19 (Compulsory Joinder of Parties)
(3) Rule 20 (Permissive Joinder of Parties)
(4) Rule 24 (Intervention)
c) §1367(c) — gives Ct discretion to hear cases (like Gibbs — but not clear whether list is illustrative or exhaustive)
i) Says that the Ct may decline to exercise j if:
(1) Claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law
(2) The claim substantially predominates over the claim(s) over which the dc has original jurisdiction
(3) The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction
(4) In exceptional circumstances – other reasons

-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

Federal Question Fed. Ques.


§1367(b) limitation
or SM does not apply to Fed
Diversity? J Ques.

Diversity Only

§1367(b) limitation
Claim by π or ∆ ? SM does not apply to
J claims brought by ∆ .

14 19 20 (∆ ) 24 This is the §1367(b)


Party added under No SMJ
what Rule? limitation.

20(π), 23

The literal language of §1367 lets the


claim in. But the legislative history
indicates that Congress wants the claim
TROUBL
to stay out. The Courts of Appeal are
E!
split. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari in 2000, Justice O’Connor

-5-
PERSONAL JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL BASES: STATUTORY BASIS MODERN SERVICE


Rule 4 (a-e, h, n)
14 AMENDMENT
TH
ARTICLE IV, §1: State Federal
DUE PROCESS FULL FAITH & CREDIT CLAUSE Long Arm Rule 4(k) Reasonably Calculated
REQUIREMENT Statute (2) Under the Circumstances to
Notice And Full Faith and Credit Give Notice
Can Restrict Constitutional
Opportunity to Be Will Be Given in Each Mullane v. Central
Personal Jurisdiction But
Heard State Hanover Bank
Traditional Bases of Personal
Jurisdiction
Consent
Express: Carnival Cruise Lines Domicile Physical Presence in State
Gordon v. Steele: Kid at Tag Jurisdiction Lives!
Implied: Hess v. Pawloski
College Burnham v. Superior Court
Waiver: Insurance Corp of Ireland
Milliken: WY Domicile Served Ex-Husband Served While Visiting
Contract / Agent Appointment / Shows up in CO Kids
to Litigate
Modern Basis of Personal Jurisdiction
∆ must have sufficient minimum contacts within the forum state such that
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington

SUFFICIENT MINIMUM CONTACTS FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE


(CAPFI) (BLIM FEW)

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; 

Possible Exam Questions

Venue Rules: 28 U.S.C. §1391 Transfer of Venue: 28 U.S.C. Forum Non Conveniens

Federal Courts NEVER transfer Public vs. Private Factors -


Venue in diversity cases. § to State Courts. Use FNC in such
case. Balancing Test
1391(a).
Private Interest Factors
1. Any dist. where any ∆ resides, if State Courts NEVER transfer to 1. Access to sources of proof
all ∆ ’s reside in the same state. federal Courts or to different 2. Ability to compel attendance of
2. Any dist. Where a substantial States. Use FNC in such case. witnesses
part of the controverted events 3. Convenience to voluntary
occurred or where the disputed witnesses
§1404 Balancing Test
property is located. Can have 4. Difference in substantive law that
venue in multiple locations. Convenience of parties & witnesses will be applied in new forum is
+ Interests of justice must not decisive in dismissing on
Venue in all other cases. § substantially outweigh π’s interest grounds of FNC, but could be
in choice of forum. relevant if the law in the
1391(b).
alternative forum were
Choice of Law: Diversity Cases
1. Same as in diversity cases, completely inadequate. Piper.
above. Only
Public Interest Factors
2. Same as in diversity cases,
Laws of the transferring state apply 1. Local interest in having disputes
above.
unless venue was improper, in resolved locally
3. Where any ∆ can be found only
2. Court congestion
Venue of corporate ∆ ’s §
Venue Exam Tricks
1391(c).
Transferring Court can only send a General Rule
1. Anywhere corp. is subject to PJ. case to a court where the “action FNC is tough on π’s, especially in
could have been commenced or light of statutes of limitation and
Venue for aliens 28 U.S.C. § initiated.” Therefore, the receiving Pers. Juris. Courts know this and
Court must have all 3, even if the won’t grant FNC unless:
1391(d). transferring Court doesn’t:.
1. There is an alternative forum;
1. Any alien, incl. alien corps., can 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 2. ∆ waives statute of limitations
2. Personal Jurisdiction defense; -7-
3. Venue
Removal: 28 U.S.C. §1441
STATE Court FEDERAL Court

4. State to Federal ONLY; 1. Completely Discretionary


5. ALL ∆ ’s must consent; 2. Must have been qualified to grant
6. ORIGINAL ∆ ’s only; no original jurisdiction.
counterclaim ∆ ’s 3. May grant supplemental
jurisdiction as long as at least one
separate and independent federal
No Removal for In-State claim eligible for removal.
Defendants in Diversity-
Only Cases
Federal Question Claims Non- Federal Question Claims
Pass Through Federal Question Pass Through Supplemental
Filter Jurisdiction Filter
28 U.S.C. §1331 28 U.S.C. §1367

Federal Question Flow Chart Same Case or

Does the π’s well pleaded complaint Common Nucleus of


Yes allege an express or implied federal N
cause of action? o
Meets Supplemental
Does the π’s well pleaded complaint Jurisdiction
allege a state law cause of action in Requirements under
Yes which federal law is an essential §1367?
element?
Yes No
Does the federal law that is an
element authorize a private right of
action? No §1441(a) Not Part of Same
Court May Exercise Constitutional
or Decline Per Case
Yes Authority Granted
under §1367(c) Separate &
There is Independent
There NO FQJ. Claim?
is FQJ

-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)

SMJ Is A Constitutional Issue and Cannot Be Personal Jurisdiction


Waived. Notice
Parties to an Action May NEVER Consent to Service of Process
Waiver of SMJ Venue

- 10 -
Erie Doctrine Flowchart
The discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable
administration of the laws

Is state law Possibly/N


N Fed Rule on Point? o Do BOTH
substantive /
O (look at twin aims of (Grey
black letter
Erie before deciding) Area)
law?
YES Byrd Test
Hanna Dicta
Is state rule bound up
Analyze in light of
Hanna Holding with (implementing
YES twin aims of Erie.
Apply Fed Rule if it’s of) state created
1. Forum Shopping?
valid. rights& obligations?
2. Inequitable admin.
Does it regulate
of the laws?
State law primary behavior?
applies (f/ Erie
Valid if reasonable Y N Y N
& RDA)
person would consider
it procedural State Rule of State
form & Fed law
law law
mode.
BALANCE

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

Permissive Joinder of Parties: 2 Prong Test


1 ¶ at most on exam.
T&O + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder
1. Claims or defenses stem from the same
transaction; AND
2. There is a common question of law or fact

Compulsory Joinder of Parties


Rule 19(a)
1. Who is necessary and should be joined if
possible?
a. Will parties be injured by failure to join
outsider?
b. Will outsiders be prejudiced by result?
Exam Tip: Probably only situation in which
outsider is not compulsory is tort action. Joint
tortfeasors are NOT compulsory; π may only
want or need to sue the rich ∆ .
2. Can you join the outsider? If not, why not?
Exam Tip: look out! Reason could be SMJ
and/or PJ. If so, be ready to perform the entire
analysis.
3. I can’t join this guy; what do I do now?

- 12 -
Joinder- Big Picture
Must satisfy both FRCP and SM Jx.

FRCP Subject Matter Jx


AND
§1332- Diversity
§1331- Federal §1367-
Π
Joinder by 20(a) Permissive Joinder by ∆ Questions
and $ Amount Or Supplemental Jx
Joinder. All persons Or - District courts shall Where DC has
$75,000.01
may join20
in one have original Jx arising original Jx, they
AClaims
party asserting
18 (a)
a claim to relief as
Parties (a)
action as plaintiffs
Claims 13 (a, b, g)
(a) Compulsory O Parties 14, 19
14(a) When Defendant May under the Constitution
minimum
& shall have supp.
Counterclaims - A etc. Jx over all other
an original claim, if they assert any
right to relief …
pleading shall state r
Bring in Third Party. At any
time after commencement Note: this is not COMPLETE
claims that are
counterclaim, as a counterclaim of the action a defending exclusive JX Diversity
arising out of the party, as a third-party related to the
cross-claim, or any claim it has plaintiff, may cause a original claim
same transaction, Amount claimed in
third-party claim, against any opposing summons and complaint to “Arising Under” In good faith is when they are
may join, as occurrence, or be served upon a person not order to invoke federal
party, if it arises out relevant, not part of the same
many claims as series of a party to the action who is court jurisdiction the amount the court
of the transaction or or may be liable to the third- claim or
the party has transactions or federal issue must be a awards, UNLESS to
occurrence that is party plaintiff for all or part
sufficient or central part EXCEPT- when
controversy.
against an occurrences and if of the plaintiff's claim a legal certainty Π
the subject matter of of theWelldispute.
Pleaded they original
opposing party. any common against the third-party cannot recover
the opposing party's 14(b) When Plaintiff
plaintiff. May Complaint Rule- For a claim arises
question of law or Bring in Third Party. When a litigant to invoke federal $75k. Claim must
claim and does not exceed 75,000 not SOLELY under
fact common to all counterclaim is asserted question jur. It is
require for its against a plaintiff, the necessary both that the actual award. §1332 the DC
these persons will Diversity must
adjudication the plaintiff may cause a third case “arise under” the WILL NOT have
arise in the action. party to be brought in under constitution or some exist at the time
presence of third circumstances which under other aspect of federal Jx over claims
parties of whom the the complaint is
All persons may be
19(a) Persons to be
this rule would entitle aJoined if law and that this fact
filed with the made by Π ’s
court cannot acquire Feasible.
defendant A person
to do who
so. is appear on the face of a
joined in one action subject to service of process well pleaded complaint. clerk. It need not against persons
jurisdiction. But … and whose joinder will not under RULE 14,
as defendants if (b) Permissive If a substantial issue is exist at the time
(see exception). deprive the court of 19,
there is asserted Counterclaims. A jurisdiction over the subject
not raised as a
of trial or when The DC20,
mayor 24.
also
legitimate part of the
against them any matter of the action shall the cause of seesupp.
decline §1367(b)
Jx if:
pleading may state plaintiffs own claim for
right to relief … be joined as a party in the relief there is no federal 1) A novel or
as a counterclaim action if action arose complex state law
Definitions arising out of the any claim against an (1) in the person's absence
question jurisdiction A plaintiff can often
under the statute. Issue
cure the lack of issue
same transaction, opposing party not complete relief cannot be that the D raises in the 2) Claim dominates
Real Party in interest: occurrence, or accorded among those answer or that the diversity problem
arising out of the already parties, or the claim which
one who will benefit series of plaintiff anticipates are by dismissing non- original Jx was
transaction or (2) the person claims an irrelevant
Merrell for
Dow-A
from action, one who transactions or interest relating to the diverse parties. based.
occurrence that is jurisdictional purposes.
complaint alleging a
has a substantial occurrences and if subject of the action and is 3) Dc has
the subject matter of so situated that the
violation of a federal
dismissed claims
interest. any common
20(b) Separate the opposing party's disposition of the action in
statute in a state cause
of action, when congress under DC’s original
Original claims: question
Trials. Theof law
courtor claim.
(g) Cross-claim the person's absence may :
(i) as a practical matter
has determined that Jx.
claims by Π ’s fact
may common
make suchto all Against Co-Party. A there should be no 4) Other
impair or impede the
against ∆ ’s. these persons
orders as willwill pleading may state person's ability to protect
private, federal, cause of
compelling
action for the violation
Counterclaims: arise in the
prevent action.
a party as a cross-claim any that interest or
does not state a claim reasons.
(ii) leave any of the Original Claim
made by ∆ ’s from being claim by one party persons already parties
“arising under” the
embarrassed, Constitution or Laws of Counter Claim
against Π ’s, it is an against a co-party subject to a substantial risk
the United States. Cross Claim
independent cause delayed, or put to arising out of the of incurring double, multiple,
or otherwise inconsistent 3rd party Claim
of action. expense by the transaction or obligations by reason of the Claim by 3rd P
19(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not
Cross-claims: inclusion of a party occurrence that is claimed
Feasible. If a interest.
person as described in subdivision (a)(1) - (2)
claims between co- against whom the the subject matter hereof cannot be made a party, the court shall determine

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.

3rd Party Claims (Impleader)


Rule 14
1. Adding New Parties: Theoretically, an infinite number of parties may be added to the action, from retailer to
manufacturer, to each-and-every supplier involved along the way.
2. Exam Tip: Remember that every party added means you must establish personal jurisdiction over all these
parties. Big exam points here.
3. Can invoke §1367 if claim won’t stand alone.
4. 3rd party ∆ ’s counterclaiming back will probably be compulsory because permissive counterclaims are usually
transactionally related and therefore NOT subject to supplemental jurisdiction.
5. Rule 14(a) Amendment: original π may amend complaint to directly assert claim against newly impleaded 3rd
party ∆ .
6. Kroger Rule: Original π cannot assert supplemental §1367 claim against parties brought under Rule 14 (third
party practice); Rule 19 & 20 (Basic Joinder Rules); and Rule 24 (Intervention). It does NOT say anything about
Rule 13 (counterclaim and cross-claim).
- 14 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS

Rule 13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim Rule 13(b) Permissive Counterclaim

Negligence or
π Tort ∆
π Negligence or ∆
Tort Permissive
Counterclaim for
Compulsory Negligence or
Counterclaim Tort
for

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)
4 Part Test to define when a claim or counterclaim Rule 13(g) Crossclaims
arises from the same transaction: (from Plant v. Blazer
Financial Services) Negligence or
1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the ∆
π Tort
claim and counterclaim largely the same?
Negligence or Crossclaim
2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit
Tort for Product
on ∆ ’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim
rule? Liability
3) Will substantially the same evidence
support or refute π ’s claim as well as ∆ ’s Existing Co-∆
counterclaim? (Party to Original
Action)

- 15 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS

Rule 13(h) Joinder of Additional Parties to Crossclaims or Counterclaims


Rule 14(a) S1 – Adding Third Party Defendant

π Negligence or ∆

Tort Negligence or
π (3rd Party
Negligence or Tort
Crossclaim π )
Tort

Existing Co-∆ Contribution


(Party to Original or Indemnity
Action) Claim

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 ∆

Requires same Transaction


or Occurrence as π ’s claim TPD MUST assert all
against 3rd Party π defenses available
under Rule 12 and
counterclaims and
crossclaims under
Rule 13.

- 17 -
JOINDER DIAGRAMS

Rule 14(a) S9 – TPD Joining Another Third


Party Defendant Rule 18(a) Joinder of Claims

∆ 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

Rule 20(a) S1 Joinder of Parties - π ’s Rule 20(a) S2 Joinder of Parties – ∆ ’s

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)].

Issue 28 U.S.C. §1335 Rule 22


Subject Matter
Jurisdiction
- Diversity Minimal diversity; determined between Complete diversity; stakeholder on one
claimants. (At least 2 claimants diverse) side and claimants on the other
- Amount $500 in controversy $75,000+

Personal Jurisdiction Nationwide service of process Need personal Jurisdiction; service


and under Rule 4
Service of process
Venue Residence of one or more claimants Residence of any claimants (if all from one
state); district where dispute arose; district
where property is; district where any
claimant found if no other basis for venue
Injunctions Statutory authority for injunctions (28 USC Only basis is provision in 28 USC §2283 for
§2361) stay “where necessary in aid of . . .
jurisdiction”
How to Invoke: Post a bond with the Court to cover value of Deposit controverted property with the
stakeholder invokes controverted property. Court.
and is called π

- 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!

Rule 24(a): Intervention of Right


Automatic, uncontestable right if:
1. Unconditional Right Granted by Federal Statute; OR
2. Applicant has interest in transaction or property + disposition will impair his interest - no existing party can
adequately represent his interest

Rule 24(b): Permissive Intervention


At discretion of Court if:
1. Conditional Right Granted by Statute; OR
2. Common Question of Law or Fact; OR
3. Limited Purpose Intervention: Courts my grant intervention for limited purposes, such as contesting scope
of protective orders and confidentiality agreements. Example: Environmental Lawyers intervene to contest Oil
Co. settlement agreement ordering destruction of discovery documents which may show broader pattern of

- 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?

Is there a party to the case


who will adequately
represent the applicant’s Yes MUST Grant
legitimate interest in the
This is Rule 24(a).
controverted matter?
(Can an existing party cover
your ass? )

Step 3:
CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND PUBLIC POLICY.

Is there: MAY Grant


A common question of law or fact? Yes This is Rule 24(b) - 22 -
- or -
A limited purpose that would Court will consider delay or
serve public policy? prejudice to original parties.
- 23 -
Class Actions Rule 23: “We Were All Screwed Over!”

23(A) CLASS PREREQUISITES (CEN C TAB) JURISDICTION


Federal Question: Normal Rule Applies
1. CLASS: is roughly definable and π is a member;
2. ECONOMY: Judicial Economy is Served; Diversity: Class action is a representative action.
3. NUMEROUS: Potential π ’s too numerous for joinder;  Diversity is based on the representative. Just make
sure you pick a π from another state.
4. COMMON LEGAL THEORY: Claims have a Common legal  Amount in Controversy cannot be aggregated.
theory or arise out of the same transaction or
 If it’s classified as a 23(b)(2) injunctive claim, you
occurrence;
would value the injunction and that could get you over
5. TYPICAL: Claim of named π must be Typical of the the $75k
class;  Or you could file it in state court.
6. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION: Named parties must  But in a 23(b)(3) case you’d have a big problem if your
Adequately represent the class; individual claims were not each over the $75k
7. B RULE 23(B): Action must fall within one of three requirement.
categories of Fed Rule 23(b)
Personal Jurisdiction: Not the Shoe, Denkla, VW test.
 Identifiable Class Focuses mostly on notice.
 Named π s (or ∆ s) are members of the For 23(b)(3) damages case, requires:  Adequate
class representative  Notice Right to opt out. Not required for
 Numerosity 23(b)(1) or (2) cases.

- 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

Class Defined Collateral


Policy Objective MutualityApplication
Practical of Estoppel
Res Judicata
23(b)  Mass version of Rule 19 joinder. Estoppel
Avoid inconsistent decisions or(Who or which
In a parties
limited are subject
fund case; if to claim
suits or
brought
(Claim Preclusion)
(1)  Class members may NOT opt out (Issue Preclusion)
impairment of interests of class issue preclusion?
individually, first π takes it all. Class
and are BOUND by the holding. members. Avoid harm to ∆ ’s and Action protects other π’s.
absentees.
23(b)  Limited to Injunctive or Protect rights where large numbers of Civil rights cases.
(2) Declaratory Relief persons are affected.
 No $ damages
Res Judicata Basics
 Class members may NOT opt out
1. Definition: RJ means you cannot re-litigate a matter that you previously litigated or could have litigated.
23(b)  $&Monetary Class action for everyone who was
2. Merger Bar: The Damages
controverted matter (cause  Judicial efficiency
of action) is like a poker chip, you only get two choices: bet it or
(3)  Must be superior to other  Allows relief where individual π’s overcharged 10 cents on every can of
don’t bet it. You can’t break it in half and play part now and part later. Additional theories that could have been plead
available methods could not economically pursue tuna they bought at Ralph’s. No one
but weren’t are merged into the first judgment and further litigation is barred by RJ.
 Must present common questions of action would sue individually. But as a class
3. Claim for Relief is The Key: So, what’s the claim for relief (cause of action)? Is it litigation to preserve a right or to
law or fact. (Predominance of  Could be only effective method of it would make sense and Ralph’s
remedy a wrong? Courts have held both ways and a minority of jurisdictions still use the right-wrong test. But the
common question) deterring behavior of some ∆ ’s would have to react.
majority position is to focus on the transaction. On the exam, focus on transaction & occurrence. If the claim arises
 π same
from the bearstransaction
cost of notice to all class it’s probably
or occurrence, (many small
covered violations).
by RJ.
members.
a. Example: In-other-words, if π bought a toaster that exploded and killed her pet iguana, she’s probably got half
 aNotice
dozenmust inform
theories membersunder
of recovery may tort and contract law (strict liability, warranty, breach, etc.). But all those
opt-out.
actions arise from the same occurrence – the toaster explosion. Most Courts would rule this a single cause-of-
action for RJ purposes.
4. Exam Tip: Be sure to let the professor know you defined the cause-of-action so that he knows you understand its
central importance to the concept of res judicata.
5. Remember the Policy Rationale: Courts will interpret claims broadly in order to encourage joinder and discourage
multiple litigation (judicial efficiency). But Courts will interpret claims narrowly if they are concerned about the
harshness of preclusion and the burden on the π .
Collateral Estoppel Basics
1. Definition: CE means you cannot re-litigate an issue that you previously litigated or could have litigated. If RJ is a
meat cleaver, lopping off the entire claim, CE is a scalpel, severing only the issues previously adjudicated. There are 3
requirements for CE:
a. Same Issue
b. Actually Litigated
c. Necessarily Decided (This is important. The issue may previously have been decided but was not necessary to
resolution of that case.
2. Example: Driver A hits Driver B, sues B for negligence, and wins. Assume that there was no compulsory counterclaim
rule, so B never counterclaimed against A. Now Driver B wants to sue Driver A for his injuries.
a. B is NOT barred by res judicata because even though his claim arises from the same transaction & occurrence,
claims are specific to the π , so that single accident gave rise to valid claims for both A and B.
- 25 -
b. But B will be estopped from asserting a claim of negligence against A. This is because A actually litigated and
necessarily determined that B was the negligent driver in the accident. For purposes of the exam, don’t worry
about comparative negligence claims.
Do the issues in the current case stem from the same
transaction or occurrence as a previously litigated
case?

Was there a final judgment in the previous case?


(Final means all steps in the adjudication except
execution & appeal.) No
Jurisdiction
Venue
Was it considered “on the merits”? Joinder of an Indispensable
Party
RES JUDICATA (CLAIM PRECLUSION) FLOWCHART
Yes
12(b)(6)
Default judgment or Consent decree
Summary judgment & Directed Verdict
(JMOL)
Yes

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.

Does 2nd Action Involve Same Parties or Those In


Privity?
(Privity requires a legal relationship between the
parties)

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 -

Anda mungkin juga menyukai