I.
General
 Rules should be just, speedy, and inexpensive
II.










Getting the Δ into Court
a. Personal Jurisdiction
i. Historical Minimum Contacts
Power Theory of Jurisdiction (premised upon the notion that states are
independent as sovereigns) [Pennoyer v. Neff]
PERSONAL JURISDICTION: in rem – the land (action to quiet title); in
personam – the person (citizenship); quasi in rem – the land is the basis for
jurisdiction, but this is a personal obligation (there are characteristics of
both) THIS CASE
Historical Basis for Jurisdiction:
o Consent
o Citizenship/Residency
o Power/Presence
 Of the person
 Tag/Transient
 Minimum Contacts
 Of the property  is the basis in this case b/c the state has
power over property and can use this power to get jurisdiction
Full Faith and Credit  One state must give the same effect as another for a
statute of the other state (Due Process deals w/ if the suit is in the same state It is a violation of due process to enforce a judgment that lacks personal
jurisdiction.)
According to the ruling, the jurisdiction must be over the person and the
subject matter [Pennoyer v. Neff - common law exception]
Implied Consent to jurisdiction by entering state, but not to contest
jursidiction [Hess v. Pawloski; state highway case]
In order to subject a Δ to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within
the territory of the forum, he must have certain minimum contacts with it
such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.” [International Shoe]
ii. Modern Minimum Contacts
Long – Arm Personal jurisdiction is dependent upon:
o Minimum contacts with the state
o Reasonable Method of Notification [Gray v. Amer. Radiator]
Activities still have to arise w/in the state (purposeful availment) [Hanson v.
Denckla]
The foreseeability must be that the defendant conduct and connection with
the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being hauled
into court there; not the mere likelihood that a product would find its way
into the state. [WWVW]
o Stream of Commerce ends where last retail sale is made.
o There must be a “reaching out” into another state















There are two spectrums:
o Activities are continuous and systematic OR an isolated act
o The cause of action arises out of forum activities OR it does not
“Gang of Fours”  “Stream of Commerce Plus”
o (1) stream of commerce and (2) conduct directed towards that state is
required
o this has been used as law even though it is not law [Asahi]
o [The majority held that that introducing goods into the stream of
commerce constitutes purposeful availment. This is rational b/c the
seller has foreseeability and the quid pro quo benefits.]
Specific Jurisdiction  The defendant’s contacts with the state are an
Isolated Act, but the cause of action arises out of forum state activities
General Jurisdiction  The defendant’s contacts with the state are
Continuous and Systematic, but the cause of action does not arise out of
forum state activities
Piercing the Corporate Veil  Jurisdiction against an owner by proving that a
corporation does not actually exist. [Bellino v. Simon]
LAW – Minimum Contacts that meet the traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice
o Purposefully availing oneself (Henckla)
o Effects test
o Stream of Commerce (Gang of Fours)
iii. In Rem Jurisdiction and other related theories
Standard of fairness and substantial justice set forth in International Shoe
should be applied to “in rem” and “quasi in rem” cases as well. [Shaffer]
When you enter the state to defend quasi in rem jurisdiction, you are subject
to in personam jurisdiction.
iv. Transient Jurisdiction
Transient jurisdiction – within the power of the state as a sovereign by being
within the state (“tag” jurisdiction)
Minimum contacts test does not apply if you enter a state. [Burnham]
v. Consent
If a Δ consents through a “forum selection clause”, minimum contacts are
irrelevant [Carnival]
vi. Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Court
Diversity of Citizenship  this is a state law claim in federal court
Federal Question  federal law claim
If you use a state long-arm, the minimum contacts have to be with that state.
If you use a federal long-arm, the minimum contacts have to be with the US.
In order to hale someone into court, the long-arm must apply and the
requirements of International Shoe (minimum contacts) must be met








vii. Challenging Personal Jurisdiction
Δ can make special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction w/o submitting to
the court’s jurisdiction for any other person
b. Notice
Mullane
o A requirement of due process is that everyone shall receive notice
reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity
to present their objections.
o Everyone should be given appropriate notice such that they can weigh
pros/cons and decide whether or not to come. “Opportunity to be
heard.”
c. Service of Process – Rule 4
i. Mechanics of Service
Unless you actually consent, there’s no basis for default judgment. Only if
you get waiver back, can you start the action. Here,  never returned
anything, no compliance with 4(d). If a Δ fails to return a waiver of service, then
he or she has to pay for the Π’s cost of finding him. This is an inducement to
accept waivers. [Maryland State Firefighters]
Can serve someone else (like the son or the butler) under 4(e)(2). This is one of
the most common ways to serve. Just has to be someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides therein.
Often, serving process gives notice and gives personal jurisdiction. Basically,
standards are the same
Notice if someone is appointed and her appointment was for the specific
purpose of service of process.[Agency Notice under 4(e)(2)] [Nat. Equip.]
ii. Immunity and Etiquette
A fraud affecting the jurisdiction is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
[Wyman v. Newhouse]
You do not have to go anywhere, but the risk you take if you’re wrong is that
you are going to have a judgment entered against you and no chance to
litigate the merits.


d. Federal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Can litigate federal issues in state court, but cannot litigate state matters
in federal courts
Ways to get subject-matter jurisdiction:
28 USC §1331 – Federal Question of Law
28 USC §1332 – Diversity Jurisdiction
28 USC §1367 – Supplemental Jurisdiction
i. Diversity Jurisdiction  §1332













Limitation of federal diversity jurisdiction is the rule of “complete
diversity”; this is a requirement; cannot bring something in federal court
if a plaintiff is of the same state as a defendant [Strawbridge v. Curtiss]
Principle Place of Business  The three possible tests for corporate
diversity:
1. Nerve Center Test – locus of corporate decision-making authority
and overall control
2. Corporate Activities or Operating Assets Test – location of the
corporation’s production or service activities
3. Total Activity Test – Hybrid of others; all circumstances
surrounding corporation’s business
For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in a
state is not sufficient.
A change is domicile may be affected by a combination of two elements
1. Taking up residence in a different domicile, with
2. The intention to remain there.
Formal or nominal party (who has no legal interest) cannot determine
citizenship by providing diversity. [Rose v. Giamatti]
ii. Jurisdictional Amount – Amount in Controversy - §1332
Punitive Damages may be considered to determine the amount in controversy
[AFA Tours]
Generally, s can aggregate claims against a single  or if there’s one
indivisible harm.
Plaintiff Viewpoint Rule  Only the value to the Π may be used to determine
jurisdictional amount [other jurisdictions take into account the view of the
party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction.]
iii. Federal Question Jurisdiction - §1331
“Arising under” language [Osborn v Bank of US]
GOT TO SHOW THAT ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION [Mottley]
HOLMES “Creation” TEST  suit arises under the law that creates the
cause of action. (Restriction on the definition of “arising under.”) [Eliscu]
If there is a federal cause of action, then will sue under federal law.
Otherwise, this would follow Merrell Dow and be a case under state law
iv. Federal and Nonfederal Claims Combined – Pendant & Ancillary
Jurisdiction - §1367
Pendent Jurisdiction  when a plaintiff, in her complaint, appends a
claim lacking an independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction
to a claim possessing such a basis
o Common Nucleus of Operative Fact Test.
o Purposes of pendent jurisdiction:
 Do not want close off the federal forum to federal claims.
 Serves the interest of avoiding piecemeal litigation







o Will not apply pendent jurisdiction to an additional party with
respect to whom no independent basis for federal jurisdiction existed.
Ancillary Jurisdiction  when either a plaintiff or defendant injects a
claim lacking an independent basis for jurisdiction by way of a
counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint
o §1367(a) creates a huge area for supplemental jurisdiction under
§1331 and §1332, but it limits only §1332 jurisdiction under §1367(b).
[2 schools] of Statutory Construction
o You never look at legislative history if the words of the statute are
unambiguous. – Skalia
o Maybe you should look at the words of the statute in light of
legislative history.
v. Removal - §1441
§1441(c) says that you can remand all matters in which state law matters
substantially predominate, but cannot remand the entire claim if there
are §1331 (federal law) claims
Because the plaintiff submitted herself to jurisdiction of state court, she
does not have right of removal which is conferred only on the defendant
who has not submitted herself to the state jurisdiction [Shamrock]
vi. Attacks on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Restatement  Whether or not the question of subject-matter
jurisdiction actually was litigated, is beyond collateral attack unless (1)
there is no justifiable interests of reliance that must be protected AND:
(2)
o (a) the subject matter of the action was so plainly beyond the court’s
jurisdiction that its entertaining the action was a manifest abuse of
authority; or
o (b) allowing the judgment to stand would substantially infringe the
authority of another tribunal or agency of government; or
o (c) the judgment was rendered by a court lacking capability make an
adequately informed determination of a question concerning
jurisdiction.
e. Venue and other Territorial Restrictions – §1391
The local action rule (the case should be where the property is and no
where else) no longer applies [§1392] [Reasor-Hill]
“Weight of Contacts Test” for Venue [Bates]
Forum Non Conveniens
 The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist
imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by
the letter of a general venue statute [Gulf Oil]
 Establishes balancing test of considerations  convenience, cost, time
o public factors should be considered before private factors


III.








Van Dusen Rule  when a case is transferred, the law of the district from
which it came is transferred with it.
If there is no alternative forum, forum non conveniens should not be
applied
Erie Doctrine
a. Federal v. State Law in Diversity Cases
ERIE  IN DIVERSITY CASES, SHOULD APPLY STATE LAW OF
THAT STATE IN FEDERAL COURTS, BOTH STATUTORY AND
COMMON; APPLY STATE SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND FEDERAL
PROCEDURAL LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS!!!  Rule of Erie
o Distinction:
- Swift interprets “laws” under §1652 to not include common
law
- Erie interprets “laws” to include common law
Outcome Determination Test  Where a federal court is using diversity
of citizenship for jurisdiction, the outcome in the federal court should be
substantially the same (pertaining to the outcome of legal rules) as if tried
in state courts [Guarantee Trust v. York]
A statute of limitations is substantive law [Guarantee Trust v. York]
If there is a rule (FRCP) apply it. Do not use the Erie Analysis if there are
rules available. Any federal rules will be followed as federal procedural
law. [Hanna v. Plumer]
Four types of federal provisions that may conflict w/ state law:
1. Federal Constitutional Provision  Constitution Prevails!!!!
2. Federal Statute  if this is “arguably procedural,” it must be
applied!!!! (Stewart)
3. Federal Rule  if it “it is rationally capable of classification as
procedural,” this rules!!!!
4. Federal Judicial Practice  diversity court should still choose the
state rule if the difference b/t it and federal practice could prove
“outcome determinative,” in the sense that following a separate
federal practice could lead to forum shopping or inequitable
administration of the laws.
IF THERE IS “DIRECT COLLISION” B/T THE TWO LAWS, FEDERAL
LAW WOULD RULE OVER STATE LAW. [BUT THE FEDERAL LAW
COULD NOT DRIFT INTO SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.] This applies to all
types of laws! [Walker]
Substantive if it does not have to do w/ fairness and efficiency of the litigation
process (if there is an incidental effect of procedural on substantive, this
permissive.); Procedural affects only the process of enforcing rights, not the
rights themselves
Damages are substantive law. [Gasperini]

IV.


b. Ascertaining State Law
The proper function of the federal court is to ascertain what the state law
is, not what it ought to be ( Vertical Uniformity  federal court must do
what state court would) (Side Effect is the Horizontal Uniformity b/t the
federal courts in different states is destroyed) [Klaxon]
Pleading – Rule 8
4 basic principles
1. Provided notice of claim or defense
2. Identify baseless claims [Rule 12 (b) (6)  This motion can take place
at any time]
3. Set out each party’s view of the facts (where the disagreements are)
4. Narrows issues
a. Detail and General Requirements
There is no pleading requirement of stating facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action; what is required is a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. [Dioguardi]
1. A complaint should only be as long as needed to sufficiently state a
claim. There is no need to put in additional details
b. Complaint and Answer
Motions to Dismiss
 A claim should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would
entitle him to relief. [American Nurses]
 Rule 8(b) requires that there is a specific denial, not a general denial.
[Zeilinski]
 Affirmative defenses must be pleaded in timely fashion and a manner
that is not prejudicial to the Π. [Ingraham]
 In CA court, you would have to plead facts, but in Fed. Court, you only
have to give notice pleading, but no facts are required. [Owens Generator]
o The Δ has to plead it, but the Π has to prove it.



c. Amendments – Rule 15
The scope of a lawsuit cannot be controlled by a party. Relevant issues will
most likely be included. [Moore v. Moore]
Relation-Back Doctrine. MUST BE TRIGGERED BY A MISTAKE] in order
to protect the Δ. [Worthington]
d. Sanctions - Rule 11
Safe Harbor Provision [(1)(A)] – allows an attorney possibly in violation of
Rule 11 to voluntarily act to avoid potential sanctions
 If you rely on a case that has been overruled, this is dishonest and violates
Rule 11. However, under (b) (2), you can argue for new law. [Hadges]
V.




Joinder
a. Claims by Π
Π may maintain only one action to enforce his rights existing at the time
such action is commenced. [Rush v. Maple Heights]
b. Counterclaims – Defense Preclusion – Rule 13
Cannot use the same defense first as a shield, and then as a sword. The
transaction out of which the case at bar arises is the same transaction that
Mitchell pleaded as a defense in the federal suit. Therefore, this had to be
raised as a counterclaim in the first suit and cannot be split into a
separate suit. There is only one chance to raise this claim b/c of the rules
of claim preclusion. [Mitchell]
If counterclaims are permissive, there is no federal jurisdiction over them
unless they rest on independent jurisdictional grounds. On the other
hand, if they are compulsory counterclaims, they are ancillary to the
claim asserted in the complaint and no independent basis of federal
jurisdiction is required. [Heyward- Robinson]
1. Rule 13(a)  §1367  res judicata [They are all the same thing!!!] -Common Nucleus and Same Transaction are co-terminous!
Following Heyward-Robinson, when there is a compulsory counterclaim,
this established ancillary jurisdiction and res judicata (Can’t have one
w/out the others….)[Great Lakes]

c. Cross-Claims – Rule 13
Claim has to be indemnity (third-party complaint), cross-claim, or
counterclaim} in order to get ancillary jurisdiction. [LASA]

d. Impleader – Rule 14
There must be an independent ground of jurisdiction for the original Π to
sue the third-party Δ, but not for the third-party Δ to sue the Π. [Revere]



e. Interpleader – NOT ON EXAM
f. Necessary and Indispensable Parties – Rule 19
Necessary Party  would like him there, but can forward w/out injustice;
Indispensable Party  cannot go forward w/out injustice [Provident
Tradesmen Bank]
AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY SHOULD BE JOINED IF FEASIBLE,
BUT NOT A NECESSARY PARTY, THE SUIT CAN GO ON W/OUT
THEM!
g. Intervention – Rule 24
There is intervention of right and permissive intervention. The first is when
the applicant’s ability to protect their interest is impaired or impeded. The
second is when there is question of law or fact in common.
VI.


Class Actions – Rule 23
a. Suitability for Treatment as Class Action
Certification Requirements
1. Must be a class w/ objective membership determinations.
2. Class Rep must be a class member.
3. “Numerosity” - class is so numerous that joinder is inappropriate.
[(a)(1)]
 > 40 = numerosity is satisfied
 < 25 = numerosity not satisfied
 25 < x < 40 = considerations of geography and size of
individual claims
4. “Commonality” – question of law or fact common to the class
[(a)(2)]
5. “Typicality” – claims of representatives are typical of the class
[(a)(3)]
6. Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class. [(a)(4)]
 Adequacy of Representation
 Representative parties must be adequate
(substantial stake in the litigation).
 Lawyers must be adequate (bona fides and technical
competence)
 Class must be adequate (no internal antagonism)
7. Action must be maintainable (b).
You can look at class actions in two different ways.
1. As the mother of all joinders. A way to put together lots of parties
in one case. [(b)(3)]
2. As an entity. One unit, not lots of them. [(b)(1) & (b)(2)]
o MASS ACCIDENTS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CLASS
ACTIONS!!! [Causey]
o If the common issues predominate – class action; if the individual
interests predominate – no class action, separate suits.
b. Due Process
Notice
 In class action suits, a Δ’s class is not automatically created. This needs to be
created; otherwise, the case will not be binding to other Δ’s. [Hansberry]
 The court can force the Δ’s to form a class. Therefore, the Π’s will try to find
someone to join the suit on the part of the Δ and create a Δ class. This will
create a claim preclusion effect for future claims on this issue.
 Congress decided in Civil Rights act that in employment suits, that if
individuals had notice and these persons had an opportunity to intervene,
their interests were adequately represented in this action.









c. Class Action Practice
If an action is maintainable as (b)(2) or (b)(3), it should proceed as a (b)(2)
case b/c of the superior res judicata effects and to eliminate the procedural
complications of (b)(3) notice
d. Jurisdictional Complications
Determination of the diversity of citizenship in a class action should be based
on the named parties only. [Ben-Hur]
Separate and distinct claims cannot be aggregated. Aggregation is only
permitted in cases where:
o A single Π seeks to aggregate two or more of his own claims against a
single Δ
o Two or more Π’s unite to enforce a single title or right in which they
have a common interest. [Snyder v. Harris]
Each Π in a Rule 23 class action must satisfy the jurisdicional amount in
controversy requirements. There is no aggregation in class actions. Strict
Interpretation.
In diversity suits, the only diversity requirement is b/t the class
representatives and the Δ.
There is no “opt in” requirement. Every class member impliedly consents to
being a class member by not “opting out.” In the context of a Π’s class, it is
enough to say that they have consented by not “opting out” instead of giving
an option of “opting in.” [AS LONG AS MULLANE (BEST EFFORT)
NOTICE WAS GIVEN.] [Shutts]
o You cannot opt out of a (b)(1) or (b)(2) class because of the
homogeneity.
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment:
a. Procedural Aspect
i. Notice (Mullane)
ii. Adequacy of Representation
iii. No Class Split (Hansberry)
b. Substantive Aspect
i. Personal Jurisdiction
o What the court is saying that we are not as concerned about personal
jurisdiction as long as the procedural parts are satisfied strongly.
Venue - Only the residences of the class representatives are important for the
purposes of venue.
e. Preclusive Effect
The rejection of a claim of class wide discrimination does not warrant the
conclusion that no member of the class could have a valid individual claim
(but a class representative would be barred). [Cooper]




f. Mass Tort Litigation
Premature certification deprived the Δ of the opportunity to present that argument
to any court and risks decertification after considerable resources have been
expended. [Castano]
Adjudication w/out Trial
g. Summary Judgment – Rule 56
There have to be directly opposing affidavits in order for there to be a genuine
issue of material fact
Presumption in favor of party opposing summary judgment/
h. Dismissal of Actions
i. Default Judgments – Rule 55
VII.






The Trial Stage
a. Right to Jury Trial
b. Judicial Control over Jury Decision
i. Province of the Jury
ii. Jury Selection
iii. Jury Misconduct
Mansfield rule [MAJORITY]– affidavits of jurors may not admissible to
impeach a jury verdict
o Iowa rule – things that inhere in the verdict, personal thoughts of jurors,
etc., are not easily corroborated, so they should be excluded (can only use
affidavits to show extrinsic things that can be corroborated)
(Quotient Verdict) If there is agreement to among the jury members that
there is no unfairness in an verdict, than this is not misconduct. [Huckle]
iv. Judicial Power to Override the Jury – Rule 50
If you fail to file for a directed verdict before the verdict, you lose your
option to file for a JNOV after the verdict.
There must be a “reasonable inference” for the jury to believe something in
order for it to be upheld. [Kircher]
o All inferences and credibility issues are favorable to the jury verdict
Directing a verdict  where there is substantial evidence in support of a
party’s case, the judge may not direct a verdict against him, even though he
may not believe his evidence or may think that the weight of the evidence is
on the other side. [Aetna]
JNOV, Granting a new trial  the judge may, however, set aside a verdict
supported by substantial evidence where in his opinion it is contrary to the
clear weight of the evidence or is based on evidence which is false; for, even
though the evidence be sufficient to preclude the direction of the verdict, it is
still his duty to exercise his power over the proceedings before him to prevent
a miscarriage of justice.





v. Conditional and Partial New Trial – Rule 59
Additur: It is inconsistent with the common law for the judge to ask the Δ to
pay a greater amount of damages, but it is constitutional for the judge to
remit the amount of damages. (But, this is ok for state law). [Fisch]
The jury which determines the liability or lack there of should have the
responsibility of measuring any damages. You cannot decide damages w/out
deciding liability. [Doutre]
vi. Extraordinary Relief from Judgment – Rule 60
Excusable Neglect; if there is no fault of the lawyer, you have to give relief.
For any evidence to come w/in the category of “newly discovered” such
evidence must relate to the facts which were in existence at the time of the
trial. [Patrick]
An action can only be based on extrinsic fraud. [Smith]
o Extrinsic Fraud  that which prevents a litigant from making a claim or
defense;
o Intrinsic Fraud  that which the trial itself is designed to discover (which
witnesses are lying)
VIII.





The Binding Effects of Decisions
a. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion) – Rule 41
An order of a district court which dismisses a complaint for failure to state a
claim but which does not specify that the dismissal is w/out prejudice, is res
judicata as to then existing claim which it appears the Π was attempting to
state. [Rinehart]
CLAIM PRECLUSION EFFECT IS THE SAME IN FEDERAL COURT AS
IT WOULD BE IN STATE COURT IN THAT DISTRICT. [Semtek]
o The choice b/t a state court in a state and a federal court in a state are
not going to result in forum-shopping.
b. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
For negotiable instruments, the claim is to the possessor and each claim is
separate. Because they circulate through society, each bond has its own
separate legal right and separate claims can be made on each. [THIS ISSUE
(BOND) HAD NOT BEEN LITIGATED] [Cromwell]
THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY OF THE PRECISE ISSUE IN ORDER
FOR ESTOPPEL (Interest and Principal are separate issues) [Russell]
Rios
o Only losers can appeal. Winners cannot keep a judgment but fix
things in the record
o The right of appeal is from a judgment and not from a finding.
o Only findings that serve as the basis for the verdict get estoppel. A
finding of fact by a court which does not become the basis or one of
the grounds of the judgment rendered is not conclusive against either
party of the suit.








Patterson
o RULE FROM THIS CASE: There is estoppel only for findings upon
which the judgment rests. A judgment in a case involving two or more
issues is treated as conclusive upon all of them, where all are decided
in favor of the same litigant and the judgment rests upon them jointly,
since the decision of one issue in such case is no less necessary or
material than the decision of the other.
o RESTATEMENT RULE: Anytime that a judgment rests on multiple
issues, neither can be estopped. There is no issue preclusion.
o There is a circuit split b/t these two rules.
Mutual Offensive Collateral Estoppel - In order to bind Π’s by collateral
estoppel, the Δ must also be bound. An estoppel is always mutual. [Wolff]
Mutuality – if the law works one way, it must work the other way. You
cannot use a finding against someone who never litigated the issue; So, you
cannot use a finding for someone who has never litigated the issue
Non-Mutual Offensive Collateral Estoppel - Rejects the rule of mutuality; even
those Π’s who were not privy to the previous action can use collateral
estoppel to get judgment. [Bernhard]
Offensive Collateral Estoppel shall not be used ONLY if:
o Does not promote judicial economy [do not want to encourage “wait
and see” attitude].
o There is no unfairness to Δ [Parklane]
When you bring a suit, you should anticipate that issues that are not decided
in your favor can be used against you in future judgments on issue preclusion
Preclusion is appropriate, even when the parties technically were not in
adversarial posture in the first action (co-defendants). [Schwartz]
c. Intersystem Preclusion
Under Full Faith and Credit, NY can do what it wants to do as long as it does
not shrink the power of the TX judgment [Hart]