Agenda for 33rd Class
•
•
•
•
•
Name plates
Joinder (continued)
Introduction to Jurisdiction in complex litigation
Class Actions
Assignments for next classes – Jurisdiction in complex litigation
– Read very carefully 28 USC 1367
– Read the handout on 1367
– Skim 1332(d),1369
• Note that indentation of 1332(d) is incorrect. 1332(d) starts at the
bottom of Pamphlet p. 4 and continues through p. 7
– Yeazell pp. 211-13, 218-223
• Writing Assignment / Questions to think about
– Handout with 1367 problems
• Optional
– Glannon. Ch. 16, 17
– Yeazell Problems on pp. 222-23, 796-7
1
Joinder Questions
• Pp. 818ff. Qs 1-2
2
Jurisdiction in Complex Litigation
• Plaintiff must show 4 things for claim to be properly in court
– Personal jurisdiction
– Subject matter jurisdiction
– Venue
– Joinder
• Each must be proven independently for each claim
• Some relaxation of rules
– Personal jurisdiction
• FRCP 4(k)(1)(B). 100 mile bulge for defendants joined by Rule 14 (3rd
party defendants)
• Some courts say no need to show personal jurisdiction over
compulsory counterclaim, because defendant to counterclaim
consented to jurisdiction over related claims by asserting claim in first
place
– Venue
• 28 USC 1391 allows venue where a single defendant “is subject to ..
personal jurisdiction” (b)(3)
3
SMJ in Complex Litigation
• Some relaxation of complete diversity rule
– In class actions, complete diversity is determined by considering ONLY
citizenship of named plaintiff(s)
• Suppose named plaintiff is from CA and defendants are from NV and
MA, there is diversity jurisdiction, even if plaintiff class includes
plaintiffs from NV and/or MA
• Manipulable by plaintiff who wants or does not want federal
jurisdiction.
– SMJ in any non-securities class action where any member of plaintiff
class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, IF amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and 100 or more plaintiffs. 28 USC
1332(d).
• With discretion to decline jurisdiction for reasons in (d)(3) and (d)(4)
• This is new statute. Class Actions Fairness Act
– SMJ in cases involving death of at least 75 people, if minimal diversity
and “substantial part of accident” took place in state other than
defendant’s residence, or any two defendants reside in different states,
or substantial parts of the accident took place in different states. 28 USC
4
1369
SMJ in Complex Litigation
• Aggregation of amount in controversy
– Relevant for diversity jurisdiction only
– See Yeazell pp. 219ff
– Single plaintiff may aggregate claims against single defendant
– 2 or more plaintiffs may aggregate claims against 1 or more defendants
only if their claims are part of a common undivided interest
– In class actions, sufficient that one member’s claim meets the amount in
controversy requirement OR if total exceeds $5 million
• Removal
– All defendants must consent to removal. 1446(b)(2)(A)
• Some exceptions, e.g. for 1369
• Supplemental Jurisdiction
– Note. Supplemental Jurisdiction is about Subject Matter Jurisdiction
• NOT personal jurisdiction, venue, etc.
– See handout
5
Class Action Questions
• Pp. 881ff. Qs 1, 2
• BadCorp manipulated the price of its stock by failing to disclose information
that would cause share prices to fall. Would a class action alleging violation
of federal securities law against BadCorp on behalf of all shareholders who
purchased stock during the period when the information was being withheld
be appropriate?
• BadPharm supplied blood to hemophiliacs, but failed to screen adequately
for AIDS. As a result, many hemophiliacs in dozens of states got AIDS and
some died. Would a product liability class action against BadPharm on
behalf of all hemophiliacs who contracted AIDS as a result of contaminated
blood be appropriate?
6