Ch 4 Federal Questions and Federal Cases: cases arising under federal Law
Article III: important national interest perceived.
Risk of prejudice
Between states
Citizens of different states
International
Citizens & aliens
relations
Foreign ministers/consuls
Admiralty/maritime
Fed Law
Federal constitutional/law issues
Arise under federal law?
Osburn v. Bank of US:
very broad, only requires one party to rely on federal law to estb claim or defense or at least raise federal issue in proving case
2 Questions:
1. Constitutional power?
2. Actual statute power?
1331: constitution, laws, treaties of the US are federal question jurisdiction
Well pleaded complaint rule
ONLY if s claim is federal question. See Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley (US 1908).( SCOTUS decided it lacks SMJ even
though s defense is a federal law.)
EXCEPTION to well pleaded complaint rule: sometimes, state claim that turns on substantial question of federal law has SMJ! See
territorial
jurisdiction
venue
subject
matter
jurisdiction
28 USC 1441 (a): removal only if D. Ct. could have original jurisdiction
under 1332
28 USC 1441(b): removal if is NOT a citizen of state where action is
brought
Eg: if NY citizen is sued by PA citizen in NY, CANNOT remove.
1447 (b)
It may require the removing party to file with its clerk copies of all records and proceedings in such State court or may cause the same to be
brought before it by writ of certiorari issued to such State court.
1450
Attachment or sequestration; securities: Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States, any attachment or sequestration of the goods or
estate of the defendant in such action in the State court shall hold the goods or estate to answer the final judgment or decree in the same manner as they would have been held to
answer final judgment or decree had it been rendered by the State court. All bonds, undertakings, or security given by either party in such action prior to its removal shall remain valid
and effectual notwithstanding such removal. All injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or
modified by the district court.
Ch 8 Proper venue
Venue MUST be waived or satisfied in addition to SMJ and T Jurisdiction
Purpose of venue rules:
restrict where can sue
assure suits are tried where there is sensible relationship
1391 (a) Venue where any is subject to P Jurisdiction
1. where any Df lives if all in same state
2. substantial part of events or omissions occurred (or property is located)
3. where any is subject to P. jurisdiction if no other place.
1391 (b) Venue where any MAY be found
1. same as (a)?
2. Same as (a)
3. Any MAY be found
Focus on judicial districts/ NOT states
Reside only in your domicile OR,
Reside (for venue) in several districts if many residences maintained.
1391 (a)(2) and (b)(2): allow several districts for venue.
1391 (a)(3) and (b(3): are FALLBACK, only if nothing else works.
Privileges of , may be waived (by failing to raise at response)
Forum selection clauses upheld generally (agreeing in advance on venue)
See Carnival Cruise v. Shute (1991)
Exceptions to 1391 venue:
Copyright
Patent infringement 1400b
Federal officials
Interpleaders
CL: local actions where land is located!
1406 Removal for Improper Initial Venue
Ch 10 Easy Erie
1789
1842
Swift v. Tyson
1938
Erie v. THompson
FACTS: guy loses arm when hit by door
protuding from train car while walking on
foot path along traintracks. PA law said
no duty b/c he's a trespasser, D. Ct says
not found by PA law, decision followed
Fed Law, and verdict for $30K.
SCOTUS HOLD: overturn Swift b/c
(1)it failed to merge into one general CL
b/c state judges did their own thing,
didn't follow federal law
(2) federal practice of creating CL led to
grave discrimination in justice,
ironically, meant to protect out of
stater from biased state juries, BUT
created system where out of stater
could subject DF to federal law --> black
and white taxi cab
(3)unconstitutional to have federal
judges MAKE law where there is NO
authority.
1789 Rules of Decision Act (RDA), stated that federal courts would apply the laws of several states
1842 Swift v. Tyson
1938 Erie
Federal Court applying state statutes and law in Diversity jurisdiction 1332
Post Swift
Post Erie
State statute
=>
follow!
State statute
=>
follow!
May look at federal courts application as PERSUASIVE authority if state appellate or supreme
court has not made a decision.
Mandatory authority= States highest court
State Sup Ct
Federal District Court
May look at federal courts application as PERSUASIVE authority if state appellate or supreme
court has not made a decision.
Stare decisis, unless it decides to overturn previous decision
Mandatory authority= States highest court
Unless, no decision by them, then may look at what appellate courts have said, or
Federal COA
SCOTUS
Ch 11 Eerie Erie
Which issues are governed by Erie?
Where there is no federal law-making power.
Cities service Oil Co. v. Dunlap (US, 1939)
Which party had the burden of proof on a question of title to land? TX and feds have different burdens. COA: said no need apply TX law
since its a procedural question. SCOTUS held, burden of proof is a substantial right so Erie mandated application of state law.
Ironic b/c in from 1872 to 1938, Conformity Act of 1872 said federal courts applied procedures of the state and only in 1938 were the FRCP
created to make one uniform federal procedure. Then the Erie decision seems to reverse that.
Guaranty Trust Co. V. York (US 1945)
ISSUE: whether federal diversity court must apply state statute of limitations to a claim, or whether free to apply its own more flexible
laches doctrine. HOLD: state SOL statute must be applied in order to implement Erie policy, outcome of the litigation in the federal
court should be substantially the same so far as legal rules determine the outcomeas it would be if tried in a state court
outcome determinative test
Constitutional Grant of power to Federal Courts:
Article III, 1: congress has the power to establish lower federal courts
Article I, 8: and make law necessary and peroper for exercising that power.
there is constitutional authority to make federal procedural rules, even for
diversity cases.
court in York decided that uniformity of state and federal court outcomes more
important than following a separate federal rule whenever it could.
NOTE: also there is statutory power since Congress reviews FRCP before taking effect,
See 28 USC 2074
uniformitiy of
outcomes in state
and federal court
following a seprate
federal rule
whenever
constitutionally
allowed.
10
Ch 13 Joinder
FRCP 20(a)(1): multiple can sue together if same transaction/occurrence
FRCP 20(a)(2): can sue multiple in single action
Plaintiff
Rationale:
More efficient
Consistent judgments
Plaintiff
1
Plaintiff
2
defendant
1
defendant
2
Defendant
Rule 13(b): permissive counterclaim (unrelated claim), efficiency says, settle all claims w/o separate suit.
Rule 13(g): cross claim against co- . Optional, can sue separately if wants to.; again, efficiency allowance.
18(a): a party can join all claims against another as long as proper claim is there.
NOTE: still need SMJ over every single added claim.
Original
Plaintiff
14(a): for to implead new parties against whom she has claims
related to main claim;
must follow R8-R11
Impleaded 3P is allowed to assert defenses against both .
14 (a)(2)(A): assert defense against 3P
14(a)(2)(C): assert defense against original .
Defendant
3P Plaintiff
3P Defendant
Denial of Impleader
Undue delay in seeking
Complication of main issues
Potential prejudice to from
impleading sympathetic 3P.
Jurisdiction Issues:
3P doesnt count for venue
1367 a supplemental jurisdiction
3P doesnt have to be diverse from anyone.
Original Plaintiff
(NY)
Defendant
3P Defendant
3P Plaintiff
(NY)
(PA)
11
Go forward
anyway w/o
absentee
Go forward,
craft judgment
Parties
Claims
Rule 24 Intervention
Plaintiff : Prima Co.
"invalid patent"
Newton
24 (a) (2)
wants to join, MY
patent, My royalties
Defendant: Apex
company that holds
patent, pays royalties
to Newtwon.
12
13
Ch 18 Service of Process
Service of process
= delivery to a party or witness court orders.
= service of initial notice to of filing of lawsuit
Rule 4:Service of Process
Rule 4(c )(1): what docs
Rule 4(a) contents of summons
4 (e) and 4(d): how papers served
o 4(e)(2): serve individuals:
personal delivery
Leaving copies at dwelling or abode w/ person of suitable age/discretion
Deliver to agent appt by to receive
o 4(c) (2): after 1980: anyone over 18 and NOT a party can deliver, usually s lawyer hires someone
o 4(e)(1): provisions of state court
o 4(e)(1) for ppl outside of statefollow state laws where is.
4(h): serving corporations:
o 4(h)(1) if corporation is in US serving officers, manager, or general agent is OK.
o 4(h)(2) if corporation is outside of the US
4(m): when
4(c )(2): who must serve
4(d) waive requirement of service (get deadline extended to 60 days from 20 days)
o 4(d) waiving is sort of mandatory since
4(d)(2)B: impose cost of service to if w/o good cause
4(d)(3) gives 60 days to respond if they waive. Cf to 20 days.
Defensive move:
12(b) (5): attacks adequacy of method used in service to give notice.
Ch 19 Motion to Dismiss
DF's options
12 (b)
preanswer
motion to dismiss
12 (a)
answer
Ch 20 Amendments to Pleadings
Pleadings
Its where the parties state their claims, their defenses, what
theyre going to argue!
Motions
When parties ask the court to DO something
Eg:
12(b)(6) demurrermoving to dismiss the claim for failure
to state a claim that entitles to relief
14
Ch 21 Discovery
discovery
Discovery
Court mandated production of information from other
parties.
Conducted by the parties, not the court
Usually very important in determining outcome of the
case
Rule 26 broad
scope
relating to
claim or
defense
Rule 26 (a)(2)
testifying
experts
Limitations
work products
protected
privileges
protected
26(b)(4)(B) non
testifying
experts
Note: courts may choose to protect info, and when they do, dont need to disclose.
15
Rule 26(a)
automatic disclosure
for basic facts
Rule 33 interrogatories
Rule 34 Production of
Docs
useful in beginning
for background
information: names,
locations, evidence,
physicians, bills, etc.
contention
interrogatories
answers are usually
too carefully crafted
to be of much use
illustrates FRCP
premise that
litigation shoudl be
based on open
access to all relevant
information
requires opponent
to open her files.
requesting parties
draft broadly b/c
producing parties
are like hostile
librarians.
requests usually
include definitions
Rule 35
examinations
Rule 30 Depositions
Rule 33 Interrogatories
Good because theyre cheap, but seldom answered without careful crafting not always the most helpful.
Also useful to force opponent to specify ground of general claims in contention interrogatories
Responding party can Rule 33(d) allow a search through records
Rule 34 Production of documents
Rule 34 (b)(1)(B) opening files allows responding party to open all files create burden on requesting party to go through them.
Rule 34 (a)(1) sampling and testing allows production for testing and sampling, and entry on land for testing, etc.
E-discovery
Changes in 2006 to allow discovery of electronic storage
Rule 26(b)(2(B): disputes over e-docs not reasonably accessible: court considers whether to order production, deny production, or
order with restrictions. And decides who pays.
Rule 26(b)(5)(B) if party inadvertently discloses info, may notify opponent who then MUST destroy, return, hold info. ( Rule
16(b)(5)(B)(iv) says parties can also discuss what happens with inadvertent disclosure in scheduling conference)
Rule 37(e) No sanctions for destruction of e-docs through routine good faith operation of e-info system. However, there may be
sanctions if party failed to prevent auto-deletion of info relevant to litigation.
Rule 30 Oral depositions: taking testimony from witness under oath
Both parties sit with witness and questions
Rule 30(c)(1)Witness is sworn, testimony subject to penalties for perjury
Most effective means for getting detailed info from witnesses before trial
o Counsels get to SEE the party/witness; assess effectiveness as witness
o b/c required to answer spontaneously, provides better preview of testimony than interrogatories
o follow up questions allow counsel to explore detailed issues
o gets deponent on record so they cant change their story later
drawback: time and expense
YJK Fall 2008
16
Rule 30(a)(1): says any person including the party can be deposed.
Rule 37 Order to compel discovery: if the opposition doesnt comply with request for really important info
Rule 37(a)(1), party must first confer ifnormally with opponent to resolve dispute without court involvement
Rule 37(a)(3) move to compel disclosure or discovery.
Rule 37(a)(5) if the motion granted court MAY order paying moving partys expenses and fees for the motion to compel.
Rule 37 (a)(5)(C) protective orders defining scope of required discovery
Rule 37(b) authorizes sanctions if compelled party still respond adequately.
Striking claims, taking disupted facts or claims as estb. Excluding evidence, dismissing action, ordering payment of feeds and
expenses
BOTTOM LINE: even if there is a threat of sanction in the background, the difficulty/time/irritating the judge most discovery issues get left
unresolved/resolved w/o court intervention
17
56(e): other party has to respond giving evidence why sum judgment should NOT be granted
(countervailing evidence).
o Burden of opposing party: simply to show he has legally competent evidence upon which a jury
could resolve the factual issues in his favor.
56 sum judge
Judge
Standard of review
ON APPEAL
De novo.
De novo
Moving party's
burdens
Standard for
success
50 jmol
56 motion for
summary
judgment
countervailing
evidence?
Insufficient / NO
countervailing
evidence
keeps progressing
(jury trial)
sum judgment
entered.
New trial
18
**abuse of discretion.
12b(6) dismissal
Summary judgment
3.
Jury trial
Claim
Judge
12 b 6 dismissal
jury
summary
judgment: "no
genuine issue of
material fact"
verdict
s burden of production
Between X and Y,
judge should NOT take the case from the jury.
Point W. Where
there is no proof
for PL
stronger evidence for PL
Line X-burden
of production;
after which
jury could legit
find proved
each element
Line Zwhere
evidence is equal
Line Y
burden of proof;
after which
reasonable jury
HAS to conclude
PL proved case
Made by party seeking to have judge take the case from jury on the ground that evidence is too weak to support a verdict how is it
different from sum judgment?
TIMING:
Rule 50 (a)(1) JMOL standard: no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for non moving party
Opening
statements
PL
presents
evidence
DF may move
for JMOL
if judge grants,
it's over.
unlikely b/c if
it's overturned
on appeal, then
a new trial will
have be
granted.
DF
presents
evidence
closing
statments
either party
MAY move for
JMOL
Judge
instructs jury
jury
deliberates
Jury Verdict
Judge enters
Judgement
on Verdict
Can move for
JMOL again
as long as they
have preserved
right by moving
before.
19
Scenario 1:
JMOL before jury trial
Scenario 3:
JMOL after jury trial AND Jury finds for
DF
Scenario 2:
DF renews JMOL
P appeals
P appeals
20
judge's
assessments
judge's disposition
of the case
[evidence balanced]
verdict of PL is
supportable but
against clear wieght
of evidence
verdict for DF is
uspportable but
against clear weight
of evdience
Judge believes trial process was fair but the result is clearly wrong
th
against the clear weight, overwhelming eight or great weight of the evidence See Goldsmith v. Diamond Shamrock co, (8 Cir,
1985)
rd
When it is quite clear that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result See Lind v. Schenley Ind. (3 Cir, 1960)
th
When new trial is necessary to prevent injustice See Whalen v. Roanoke County Board (4 Cir, 1985)
Evidence is strong enough to rationally support jurys verdict but believes verdict is erroneous.
Pros and Cons of a new trial:
th
Judge is acting like a 13 juror,
its not as bad as JMOL b/c its still being decided by jury
it sucks b/c USC 1291 says grants for new trial may not be appealed b/c there is no final decision at trial level yet!
o Note: some state systems allow interlocutory appeal.
Different Standards for appellate review:
1. Questions of law: reviewed de novo, from scratch, w/o deference to trial judges decision
nd
2. Questions of Great weight over evidence reviewed w/deference to trial judge rare for appellate to 2 guess grant for new trial.
FORK:
OLD cases show federal courts reluctant to overturn grants for new trial;
NEW trend: review them under abuse of discretion standard. Approved by SCOTUS in Gasperini.
Rule 50 (c)(1) judges faced with combined motions must rule on both
the JMOL (JNOV) and make conditional ruling on alternative new trial so that COA can address both at appeal.
Rule 50 (d)
Rule 50 (e)
50 (d)
party wins jury verdict
21
50 (e)
winner at trial can
move for new trial
On the Merits: RJ
- full trial on the merits
- 12b6 failure to state a claim (since they could
have amended to make a claim)
f-ailure to prosecute
Ch 27 Res Judicata and rules of Joinder, when does May means MUST?
Claim theories
18a: even though may join, RJ means that practically speaking, USE IT OR LOSE IT MUST
However, 18a does not bar claims the court could not hear b/c lack of jurisdiction.
Claim parties: more generous than claim theories.
Claims against additional parties who COULD be joined not barred by RJ.
b/c is the master of the claim
HOWEVER, the first suit may have some preclusive effect. b/c of C. Estoppel
One suit with joined s
PL
DF 1
2 separate suits
PL
PL
DF 1
DF 2
DF 2
22
Issue Preclusion
On the merits
23