00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page i
Mastering Civil Procedure
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page ii
Carolina Academic Press Mastering Series
Russell L. Weaver, Series Editor
Mastering Administrative Law
William R. Andersen
Mastering Appellate Advocacy and Process
Donna C. Looper, George W. Kuney
Mastering Bankruptcy
George W. Kuney
Mastering Civil Procedure Second Edition
David Charles Hricik
Mastering Constitutional Law
John C. Knechtle, Christopher J. Roederer
Mastering Contract Law
Irma S. Russell, Barbara K. Bucholtz
Mastering Corporate Tax
Reginald Mombrun, Gail Levin Richmond, Felicia Branch
Mastering Corporations and Other Business Entities
Lee Harris
Mastering Criminal Law
Ellen S. Podgor, Peter J. Henning, Neil P. Cohen
Mastering Criminal Procedure, Volume 1: The Investigative Stage
Peter J. Henning, Andrew Taslitz, Margaret L. Paris,
Cynthia E. Jones, Ellen S. Podgor
Mastering Elder Law
Ralph C. Brashier
Mastering Employment Discrimination Law
Paul M. Secunda, Jeffrey M. Hirsch
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page iii
Mastering Evidence
Ronald W. Eades
Mastering Family Law
Janet Leach Richards
Mastering Intellectual Property
George W. Kuney, Donna C. Looper
Mastering Legal Analysis and Communication
David T. Ritchie
Mastering Legal Analysis and Drafting
George W. Kuney, Donna C. Looper
Mastering Negotiable Instruments (UCC Articles 3 and 4)
and Other Payment Systems
Michael D. Floyd
Mastering Products Liability
Ronald W. Eades
Mastering Professional Responsibility
Grace M. Giesel
Mastering Property Law
Darryl C. Wilson, Cynthia G. Hawkins DeBose
Mastering Secured Transactions (UCC Article 9)
Richard H. Nowka
Mastering Statutory Interpretation
Linda D. Jellum
Mastering Tort Law
Russell L. Weaver, Edward C. Martin, Andrew R. Klein,
Paul J. Zwier II, Ronald W. Eades, John H. Bauman
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page iv
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page v
Mastering Civil Procedure
SECOND EDITION
David Charles Hricik
Mercer University
Walter F. George School of Law
Carolina Academic Press
Durham, North Carolina
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page vi
Copyright © 2011 David Charles Hricik
All Rights Reserved.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Hricik, David.
Mastering civil procedure / David Charles Hricik. -- 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-1-59460-988-6 (alk. paper)
1. Civil procedure--United States. I. Title.
KF8841.H75 2011
347.73'5--dc23
2011019843
Carolina Academic Press
700 Kent Street
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone (919) 489-7486
Fax (919) 493-5668
www.cap-press.com
Printed in the United States of America
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page vii
For Abby, Alex, Houston, and Julian
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page viii
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page ix
Contents
Table of Cases
xxxvii
Series Editor’s Foreword
lvii
Introduction and Acknowledgments
lix
Chapter 1 • Courts Decide Claims
Claims Roadmap
A. A Lawsuit Begins with a Client
B. What Is a “Claim?”
C. Affirmative Defenses Compared to Claims
D. Destroying Some Myths
Checkpoints
Part A
The Plaintiff Must Plead One Claim to
Anchor the Action in a Federal Court Where
(1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction,
(2) Personal Jurisdiction, and
(3) Venue Are Proper
3
3
3
5
8
8
9
Chapter 2 • The Preview of Part A of This Book
A. The Three Requirements to Adjudicate an Anchor Claim:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, and Venue
13
Chapter 3 • The Foundations of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Roadmap
A. A Divided System of Government
B. Power to Resolve a Claim: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
C. Sources of Law: A Distinct Issue
Checkpoints
17
17
17
19
22
23
Chapter 4 • Federal Question and Diversity Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Federal Question and Diversity Subject Matter Jurisdiction Roadmap
A. Do Federal Courts Have Power to Adjudicate the Claim?
1. Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Section 1331
25
25
26
26
ix
13
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page x
x
CONTENTS
a. Federal Law Creates the Claim
i. The Typical Arising under Federal Claim
ii. Complete Preemption of a State Law Claim Creates a
Federal Claim
b. Plaintiff ’s State Law Claim Necessarily Turns on a
Substantial Question of Federal Law
2. Diversity Subject Matter Jurisdiction
a. Section 1332 Requires Complete Diversity and a
Minimum of $75,000 be in Controversy
i. Section 1332(a) Requires Complete Diversity
(a) Determining Citizenship of a Party
(1) When Is Citizenship Determined?
(2) How Is Citizenship Determined?
aa. A Natural Person Is a Citizen of His State
of Domicile
bb. Corporations Are Citizens of Both the State
of Incorporation and the State of Principal
Place of Business, Which Is Where It Has
Its Nerve Center
cc. Citizenship of Other Business Entities
dd. Representative Actions: Citizenship of
Real Party in Interest
ii. Section 1332 Requires a $75,000 Minimum Amount
in Controversy
(a) When Is the Amount in Controversy Calculated?
(b) The Legal Certainty Test Applies to the Amount
Pled by Plaintiff
(c) Multiple Claims, Multiple Plaintiffs, and the Amount
in Controversy Requirement
(1) A Single Plaintiff May Aggregate Claims against
a Single Defendant
(2) A Plaintiff Cannot Aggregate Claims against
More Than One Defendant Unless There Is
Joint Liability among the Defendants
(3) Multiple Plaintiffs May Not Aggregate Their
Claims Unless They Are Pursuing a Unified Remedy
B. Must the Claim Be Filed in Federal Court?
1. Federal Question Claims
2. State Law Claims That Meet Diversity Requirements
29
29
30
31
35
35
37
38
38
39
39
41
42
44
45
45
45
49
49
50
50
51
51
53
00 hricik MCP2e final 6/1/11 8:31 AM Page xi
CONTENTS
3. The Discussion Here Applies to the First Claim and All Other
Claims But as to Other Claims, There Is Another Statute
Checkpoints
Chapter 5 • The Foundations of Personal Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction Roadmap
Checkpoints
Chapter 6 • Personal Jurisdiction: Long-Arm Statutes, Minimum
Contacts, and Fair Play
Personal Jurisdiction Roadmap
A. Generally a Claim-by-Claim Analysis Is Required
B. The Three Steps to Evaluate In Personam Jurisdiction
1. A Long-Arm Statute Must Authorize Service of Process
a. State Long-Arm Statutes Authorize Either State or
Federal Claim
b. Specific Federal Statutes Govern Some Federal Claims
2. Assertion of In Personam Jurisdiction Must Comply with
Constitutional Limitations in the Due Process Clause
a. For State Claims or Federal Claims without Nationwide
Service of Process, There Must Be Minimum Contacts
between the Forum State and the Defendant; For Federal
Claims with Nationwide Service of Process, the Defendant
Must Have Minimum Contacts with the United States
b. Specific or General Personal Jurisdiction Must Exist
i. General Personal Jurisdiction
ii. Specific Jurisdiction: “Sufficient” Contacts, a Relationship
between the Claim and the Contacts, and Fairness
(a) Purposeful Availment or Direction
(b) Relationship between Claim and Contacts
3. Defendant Shows Even if There Are Minimum Contacts,
Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction Would Be Unfair
C. Special Issues in In Personam Jurisdiction
1. Corporate Defendant’s Contacts with the Forum
2. Does an Internet Website Count?
3. Service during Fleeting Physical Presence in the Forum Is
Enough for General Jurisdiction
4. Service on Residents
5. Express or Implied “Consent” to Personal Jurisdiction
6. Rule 4(k)(2) and Foreign Defendants
Checkpoints
xi
53
54
55
55
59
61
61
62
63
63
64
66
67
68
69
71
73
73
77
78
79
79
80
81
82
82
83
84
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xii
xii
CONTENTS
Chapter 7 • In Rem and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
In Rem and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction Roadmap
A. The Three Types of In Rem Jurisdiction
1. True In Rem
2. Quasi In Rem
a. Quasi In Rem Type 1
b. Quasi In Rem Type 2
B. The Same Standard for In Personam Jurisdiction Applies
to In Rem Jurisdiction
C. How Is Notice Given?
Checkpoints
85
85
85
86
87
87
88
Chapter 8 • The Foundations of Venue
Venue Roadmap
Checkpoints
91
91
95
Chapter 9 • Proper and Improper Venue
Proper and Improper Venue Roadmap
A. Determining Proper Venue
1. Venue over a Claim in a Complaint without Any Federal Claim
2. Venue over a Claim in a Complaint with at Least One
Federal Claim
3. The General Venue Statute in a Chart
B. Venue Based on Defendant’s Residence
1. Single Defendant Cases
2. Determining “Residences” for Purposes of Venue
a. Residences of Natural Persons
b. Residences of Corporations
c. Residences of Other Entities Such as Partnerships
C. Venue Based on Where “Substantial Part” of the Action Arose
1. Part of the Events or Omissions
2. What Does “Substantial Part” Mean?
D. Venue Based on the Catch-All Subsections
E. Establishing Proper Venue Based on Specific Federal Venue Statutes
F. There Must Be Proper Venue, or Pendent Venue, over Each Claim
of a Plaintiff
Checkpoints
97
97
97
98
88
89
90
99
100
101
101
102
102
102
103
104
104
105
106
107
107
108
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xiii
CONTENTS
Chapter 10 • Removal: What If Plaintiff Filed in State Court a Claim
over Which a Federal Court Would Have Subject
Matter Jurisdiction?
Removal Roadmap
A. The Foundations of Removal
B. When Is a Case Removable?
C. Is the Case Removable?
1. Removal on the Basis of Federal Question
a. Single Claim State Court Complaints
b. Federal Claim Joined with Non-Removable State Claim
or Claims
2. Removal on the Basis of Removal-Type Diversity
a. Citizenship of Fraudulently Joined Defendants Is Ignored
i. Fraudulent Jurisdictional Allegations
ii. No Possibility of Recovery
iii. Fraudulent Procedural “Misjoinder”
iv. The Trump Card: The Forum-Defendant Rule
b. Determining the Amount in Controversy
i. Plaintiff Pleads No Specific Amount
ii. Plaintiff Pleads Less than $75,000 in Its State
Court Pleading
iii. Plaintiff Seeks Injunctive Relief
D. Deadlines, Waiver by Conduct, and Procedure for Removal
1. Deadlines
a. The 30-Day Deadline
i. Initial Pleading: What Is “Receipt”?
ii. Subsequent Papers: “Receipt”
b. One-Year Deadline in Diversity Cases
2. Waiver by Conduct of Right to Remove
3. Procedure for Removal
a. Consent of All Properly Joined and Served Defendants
b. Required Filings
E. Plaintiff ’s Motion to Remand to State Court
1. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
F. Removed or Remanded: What Next?
G. Post-Removal Actions that Destroy or Create Subject
Matter Jurisdiction
H. Limited Appealability of Orders Granting or Denying Remand
1. Orders Granting Remand
2. Orders Denying Remand
xiii
109
109
110
110
111
112
112
112
113
114
115
115
116
117
118
118
118
119
120
120
120
120
121
124
124
125
125
126
126
127
128
128
129
129
130
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xiv
xiv
CONTENTS
I. Removal by Parties Other Than Defendants
Checkpoints
131
131
Part B
Judicial Resolution of (1) Personal and Subject Matter
Jurisdiction and Venue; (2) the Merits of a Dispute without
Discovery, with Discovery but without Trial, and only after
Discovery and Trial; and (3) Appeals
Chapter 11 • The Preview of Part B of This Book
135
Chapter 12 • The Plaintiff ’s Pre-Suit Investigation Required by Rule 11
Plaintiff ’s Pre-Suit Investigation Roadmap
A. The Purpose of Rule 11 Is to Eliminate Frivolous Legal and
Factual Assertions in Filed Court Papers
B. Every Document Signed and Filed with a Court, Including
the Complaint, Is Covered by Rule 11
C. The Representations Implied by Rule 11
1. The Implied Representation of Reasonable Inquiry
2. The Other Four Implied Representations
a. No Improper Purpose
b. No Frivolous Legal Arguments, Claims, or Defenses
c. No Unfounded Allegations
d. No Unfounded Denials of Allegations
e. What Must Be Investigated?
f. Examples with Explanations
Checkpoints
137
137
138
138
138
140
140
140
140
141
141
141
142
Chapter 13 • Pleadings: The Complaint
Complaint Roadmap
A. Historical Role of Pleadings
B. The Modern Limited Role of Pleadings
C. Requirements for Pleadings
1. Technical Requirements
2. Substantive Requirements
a. Short and Plain Statement of the Court’s Jurisdiction
b. Short and Plain Statement of the Claim
i. Inconsistent Pleadings
ii. Pleading Unsupported Allegations
iii. Rule 9(b) as an Exception
c. Demand for Relief
D. Who Must Be the Named Plaintiff and the Named Defendant?
143
143
143
144
146
146
147
147
147
152
153
153
154
155
137
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xv
CONTENTS
E. Examples and Forms
F. Corporate Disclosure Statement and Civil Cover Sheet
G. Conclusion
Checkpoints
xv
156
158
158
159
Chapter 14 • Preview of the Four Steps to Analyze Joinder of Claims
and Parties
A. The Anchor Claim
B. The Four Steps for Analyzing Joining Each Additional Claim
against Each Party
165
Chapter 15 • Joinder Step One: Authority in a Rule for Joining
the Party or the Claim
A. Introduction to the Concept of Authority
167
167
Chapter 16 • Authority to Join Claims
Authority to Join Claims Roadmap
A. Joinder of Claims by a Plaintiff
1. Joinder of a Claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendant
a. Permissive Joinder
b. Mandatory Joinder of Claims by Plaintiffs
B. Joinder of Claims by a Defendant against an Existing Plaintiff
1. Compulsory Counterclaims
2. Permissive Counterclaims
3. Impact of Rule 18(a)
C. Procedure for Joining Claims or Counterclaims
Checkpoints
171
171
171
172
172
175
175
176
180
180
181
181
Chapter 17 • Authority to Join Parties
Party Joinder Roadmap
A. Joinder of Parties by Plaintiffs
1. Permissive Joinder of Parties by Plaintiffs
a. Permissive Joinder of Co-Plaintiffs by a Plaintiff
i. What Is the “Same Transaction or Occurrence”?
ii. What is a “Common Question of Law or Fact”?
b. Permissive Joinder of Co-Defendants by a Plaintiff
2. Mandatory Joinder of Parties
a. How Rule 19 Typically Gets Litigated
b. Rule 19: Three Steps with a Venue-Related Twist
i. Is the Person a “Necessary” Party?
(a) Parties Who Are Necessary to Accord Complete
Relief to Existing Parties
183
183
183
183
184
184
185
185
186
186
187
188
161
163
188
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xvi
xvi
CONTENTS
(b) Parties Who Claim an Interest and Are Necessary
to Join
ii. If the Person Is Necessary, Joinder Must Be Ordered
if Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exist
(a) Joinder Can’t Be Ordered if Personal or Subject
Matter Jurisdiction Is Lacking, but Must Be
Ordered Even if Venue Is Improper
iii. Determining Whether a Necessary Person
Is Indispensable
B. Joinder of Parties by Defendants
1. Joining a Party to a Counter- or Crossclaim
2. Impleader of Third-Party Defendants
a. Scope of Rule 14(a)(1)
b. Time for Filing and Serving
c. Service of the Third-Party Complaint
3. Joinder of Additional Claims under Rule 18(a)
Checkpoints
189
190
191
192
196
196
198
198
200
201
201
201
Chapter 18 • Multiple Parties and Joinder
Multiple Parties Roadmap
A. Crossclaims against Co-Parties and Joinder of Parties
to Crossclaims
B. Rule 14: Fourth-Party Defendants and Beyond
C. Misjoinder, Severance, and Separate Trials
Checkpoints
203
203
203
204
205
206
Chapter 19 • Interpleader: A Non-Party Creates a Suit between
Two Others
Interpleader Roadmap
A. What the Two Kinds of Interpleader Share
B. Statutory Interpleader
C. Rule Interpleader
D. Adjudication of Interpleader Actions
Checkpoints
207
207
207
208
208
209
209
Chapter 20 • Intervention: The Only Way for Someone to Force
Himself into a Lawsuit
Intervention Roadmap
A. Intervention
1. Intervention as of Right
a. Rule 24(a)(1): Unconditional Statutory Right
211
211
211
212
212
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xvii
CONTENTS
b. Rule 24(a)(2): Rule-Based Right
2. Permissive Intervention
a. Rule 24(b)(1)(A): Conditional Statutory Right
b. Rule 24(b)(1)(B): Rule-Based Conditional Right
C. Impact of Intervention on Subject Matter Jurisdiction
D. Appellate Review
Checkpoints
Chapter 21 • Joinder Step Two: Original or Supplemental
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Must Exist
Joinder Step Two Roadmap
A. Is There Original Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the
Additional Claim?
B. Is There Supplemental Jurisdiction over the Additional Claim?
1. Step One: Is the Additional Claim Part of the Same “Case
or Controversy” as an Anchor Claim?
2. Step Two: Even If It Is Part of the Same “Case or Controversy”
and Is Not “Contaminated” Does Section 1367(b) Preclude
Supplemental Jurisdiction over the Additional Claim?
a. Is There at Least One Federal Question Anchor Claim?
i. What’s Not Excluded by Section 1367(b)?
(a) Nothing Is Excluded If There Is at Least One Federal
Question Anchor Claim
(b) No Claim by a Defendant or a Party Sought to Be
Joined as Defendants is Excluded
(c) No Claim by a Single Plaintiff against a Single
Defendant Is Excluded
ii. What Is Excluded?
3. Step Three: Does the District Court Have Discretion to Decline
to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction over the Claim?
a. The Four Triggers to Exercise of Discretion in the
Subparagraphs of Section 1367(c)
i. Dismissal of an Additional Claim That Raises a Novel
or Complex Issue of State Law
ii. Dismissal of an Additional Claim That Substantially
Predominates over the Claim or Claims over Which
the District Court Has Original Jurisdiction
iii. Dismissal of the Additional Claims after the District
Court Has Dismissed All Claims over Which It Had
Original Jurisdiction
xvii
212
213
213
213
214
214
214
215
215
215
216
218
221
221
222
222
222
223
223
224
225
225
225
226
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xviii
xviii
CONTENTS
iv. Dismissal of an Additional Claim When, in Exceptional
Circumstances, There Are Other Compelling Reasons
for Declining Jurisdiction
b. If One Subparagraph Is Met: What Informs Discretion?
B. What Happens If the Court Does Dismiss the Additional Claim?
Checkpoints
Chapter 22 • Joinder Step Three: Personal or Pendent Personal
Jurisdiction Must Exist over Each Claim
Joinder Step Three Roadmap
A. Is There Regular Personal Jurisdiction over the Claim?
B. Is There Pendent Personal Jurisdiction over the Additional Claim?
C. Assertion of Pendent Personal Jurisdiction Must Comport
with Due Process
Checkpoints
Chapter 23 • Joinder Step Four: Venue or Pendent Venue Must
Exist over Most, but Not All, Claims
Joinder Step Four Roadmap
A. Is Venue Proper under the “Regular” Analysis?
B. Is Venue Unnecessary over the Claim, or is Venue or Pendent
Venue Proper?
1. Exceptions to the Requirement of Proper Venue
a. Venue Is Not Required for a Counterclaim against Plaintiff
b. Venue Is Not Required for a Counterclaim against Parties
Joined as Counter-Claim Defendants under Rule 13(h)
c. Venue Is Not Required for a Claim against a Third-Party
Defendant Joined under Rule 14(a)
2. All Other Claims Require Venue or Pendent Venue
Checkpoints
Chapter 24 • A Recap and Flow Chart of the Four Steps for
Adding Claims or Parties
A. A Flow Chart for Applying Section 1367
B. The Charts Revisited
C. Some Examples with Explanations
1. Compulsory Counterclaims
2. Certain Permissive Counterclaims
3. Joinder of Plaintiffs under Rules 19 or 20
4. Joinder of Defendants under Rules 19 and 20
5. Joinder of Counterclaim Defendants under Rule 13(h)
227
227
228
228
229
229
230
230
232
232
233
233
233
234
234
234
234
234
234
236
237
237
239
239
240
241
242
244
245
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xix
CONTENTS
xix
6. Third-Party Practice under Rule 14
7. Rule 18(a) Joinder of Claims
245
247
Chapter 25 • Notifying the Defendant of the Filing of Suit
through Service or Waiver of Service of Process
Notifying the Defendant Roadmap
A. The First Step: Mail the Complaint and Required Forms to
the Defendant and Request It to Waive Formal Service of Process
B. Formal Service of Process
1. Plaintiff ’s Counsel Fills Out the Forms
2. The Court Clerk Signs and Seals the Forms
3. Plaintiff ’s Lawyer Has Process Timely Served
4. Proof of Service Form Is Completed
5. Plaintiff Files Proof of Service
C. The Purpose of Service of Process and Alternatives to It
D. What’s Next?
Checkpoints
249
250
251
251
251
253
253
253
254
254
Chapter 26 • Preview of the Defendant’s Options in Response
to Receiving a Federal Court Complaint
255
Chapter 27 • The Defendant’s Initial Set of Options
Defendant’s Initial Options Roadmap
A. Filing Only Motion Under Rule 12
B. Filing an Answer
C. Doing Nothing
D. Limitations on the Defendant’s Options: Rule 11 and Related Laws
E. Moving to the Details
Checkpoints
259
259
259
260
261
262
262
263
Chapter 28 • An Introduction to Motions
Motions Roadmap
A. Technical Requirements for Motions
1. Writing, Caption, Grounds
2. Service and Filing of the Motion
B. Briefs, Affidavits, and Other Things Associated with Motions
C. The Opposition to the Motion
D. The Reply in Support of the Motion
E. Court Rules on the Motion
Checkpoints
265
265
265
265
266
267
269
270
270
271
249
249
00 hricik MCP2e final 6/1/11 8:35 AM Page xx
xx
CONTENTS
Chapter 29 • When and Why Must a Defendant File an Answer
or Rule 12 Motion?
File an Answer or a Rule 12 Motion Roadmap
A. When and Why Must a Rule 12 Motion or Answer Be Filed?
1. When Must a Rule 12 Motion or Answer Be Filed?
2. Why Must a Rule 12 Motion or Answer Be Filed?
B. What Must or Can Be Raised in a Rule 12 Motion?
Checkpoints
273
273
273
273
273
274
275
Chapter 30 • Rule 12(b)(1) Challenges to Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Rule 12(b)(1) Roadmap
A. Two Forms of Attack
1. Facial Attacks
2. Factual Attacks
B. The Impact of Adjudication
C. Additional Doctrines Related to Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. A Summary Chart
2. Requirements Originating from Article III’s Case or
Controversy Clause
a. Constitutional Standing
b. Ripeness
c. Mootness
i. The Exception to the Mootness Limitation: Courts
May Adjudicate Claims Capable of Repetition Yet
Evading Review
3. Prudential Standing Requirements
4. Other Limitations on Federal Judicial Power
a. Rooker-Feldman: Appeals from State Courts Go to the
Supreme Court, Not Federal District Courts
b. Younger “Abstention”
c. Colorado River Abstention
d. Pullman Abstention
Checkpoints
277
277
277
278
278
278
279
280
Chapter 31 • Rule 12(b)(2) Challenges to Personal Jurisdiction
Rule 12(b)(2) Roadmap
A. Promptly and Timely Objecting to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
1. Two Types of Challenges
a. Facial Challenges
b. Factual Challenges
2. Waiving a Personal Jurisdiction Objection
293
293
293
293
294
294
295
281
283
283
284
285
285
287
287
288
289
290
291
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxi
CONTENTS
a. Intentional Waivers
i. Pre-Dispute Forum Selection Clauses
ii. Post-Filing Deliberate Inaction
iii. Filing of Suit
b. Inadvertent Waivers: Including It in the Answer
Is Not Enough
B. The Impact of Adjudication of the Motion
C. Not Appearing and Later Collaterally Attacking the Judgment
Checkpoints
xxi
295
295
295
296
296
297
297
297
Chapter 32 • Rule 12(b)(3) Challenges to Improper Venue
Rule 12(b)(3) Roadmap
A. Objections to Improper Venue Must Be Made Promptly or
Are Waived
1. Inadvertent Waiver
a. Failing to Timely Raise Improper Venue
b. Including the Objection to Venue in a Pleading
but Not Moving to Dismiss before Engaging in
Continued Litigation
2. Intentional Waiver
a. Post-Filing Deliberate Choice to Waive Objection
b. Pre-Dispute: Forum Selection Clauses
i. Raising a Venue Objection Based on a Forum
Selection Clause
ii. Adjudicating Validity of Forum Selection Clauses
B. Procedure for Adjudicating Objections to Improper Venue
1. Burdens of Proof
2. The Court Must Either Dismiss or Transfer If Venue
Is Improper
3. Where Can the Court Transfer the Claim?
4. What If Venue over Some Claims Is Proper?
5. No Second-Guessing by Transferee Court
Checkpoints
299
299
Chapter 33 • Rule 12(b)(4) and (5) Challenges to Process
Rule 12(b)(4) Roadmap
A. The Scope of These Two Rules
B. Procedure to Make a Rule 12(b)(4) or 12(b)(5) Motion
C. Waiver of Objection
D. The Impact of Adjudication
Checkpoints
307
307
307
308
308
308
309
299
299
299
300
300
300
300
300
301
301
301
302
303
304
304
305
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxii
xxii
CONTENTS
Chapter 34 • Rule 12(b)(6) Challenges to Statement of a Claim by
Plaintiff and under Rule 12(c) for Judgment on
the Pleadings
Rule 12(b)(6) Roadmap
A. The Limitations in Rule 12(b)(6)
1. If Consideration Is Not Limited to the Contents of the
Complaint, a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion Must Be Converted
to a Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment
a. What Are the “Contents of the Complaint”?
b. What If the Court Does Not Exclude, but Does Not
Consider, Matters outside the Complaint?
2. Everything the Party Asserting the Claim Says Is True:
Rule 12(b)(6)’s Burden of Persuasion
a. An Example Applied to a Claim
b. Rule 12(b)(6) and Affirmative Defenses
B. Determining Whether a Claim for Relief Is Stated
C. Procedure for Making a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
D. Responding to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
E. It’s Hard to Waive the Objection of Failing to State a Claim
1. Rule 12(c)
a. The Window of Rule 12(c)
b. The Same Standards under Rule 12(b)(6) Apply
under Rule 12(c)
i. Burden of Proof
ii. Conversion to a Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment
2. At Trial
F. The Impact of Adjudication of a Rule 12(c) Motion
Checkpoints
319
319
319
319
319
320
Chapter 35 • Rule 12(b)(7) and Indispensable Parties under Rule 19
A. Timing of Rule 12(b)(7) Objection
B. Facial or Factual Attacks Permitted
C. The Impact of Adjudication
321
321
322
322
Chapter 36 • Rule 12’s One-Motion-Consolidation Requirement
Rule 12’s One-Motion-Consolidation Requirement Roadmap
A. A Party Can Easily Waive Personal Protections
B. The Requirement That Rule 12 Objections Be Consolidated in the
First Response or Be Deemed Waived, and the Three Exceptions
C. Special Issues under Rule 12
1. One, and Only One, Pre-Answer Motion
323
323
323
311
311
312
312
312
313
314
314
315
316
316
317
317
318
318
324
326
326
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxiii
CONTENTS
2. An Occasional Consolidation Exception for Motions
under Rules 12(e) or (f)
3. Compelling a Party to Abide by a Pre-Dispute
Arbitration Clause
D. The Court Can Grant, Deny, or Carry a Rule 12 Motion
with the Case
1. Impact of Granting a Rule 12 Motion
2. Impact of Denial of a Rule 12 Motion
3. Carrying the Motion with the Case
E. Should a Party with the Choice File an Answer or a
Rule 12 Motion?
F. Filing a Rule 56 Motion Likely Does Not Postpone the Answer Date
Checkpoints
Chapter 37 • The Defendant’s Answer
Answer Roadmap
A. Defense Counsel Must Investigate the Facts and Law
B. Defense Counsel Must Address Each Allegation in the Complaint
C. Defense Counsel Must Plead Every Affirmative Defense
1. What Is an “Affirmative Defense”?
2. How Much Detail Is Required in the Answer?
3. May the Defendant Be Inconsistent?
4. An Example of Pleading Affirmative Defenses
D. Defense Counsel Must Plead Its Rule 12(b) Defenses
E. Defense Counsel Must Analyze Joinder of Claims and Parties
F. Defense Counsel Must Determine If a Jury Trial Is Available
and Desired
G. Defense Counsel Must Timely File and Serve the Answer
Checkpoints
Chapter 38 • Rule 11’s Reach and Special Procedures
Rule 11’s Reach Roadmap
A. Rule 11 Reaches All Papers, but Not Discovery
B. The Reach of Rule 11 beyond “Filing” or “Submitting” a Paper
to “Later Advocating”
C. Two Ways to Raise Violations of Rule 11
1. Party’s Motions for Sanctions
2. Court’s Own Motion for Sanctions
D. The Proper Sanction under Rule 11
1. A Violation Permits but Does Not Require Imposition
of Any Sanction
xxiii
327
328
328
329
329
329
330
330
331
333
333
333
334
334
335
337
337
337
337
338
338
338
339
341
341
341
342
343
343
343
344
344
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxiv
xxiv
CONTENTS
2. Identifying Whom the Court Can Sanction
3. Determining the “Appropriate” Sanction
a. Monetary Sanctions
b. Non-Monetary Sanctions, Including Dismissal
E. Related Law: Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and
Other Authority
1. Section 1927
2. Inherent Power
F. Sanctions Related to Discovery
Checkpoints
Chapter 39 • Transfer from a Proper Venue to a More Convenient,
Proper Venue
Venue Transfer Roadmap
A. How to Analyze a Section 1404(a) Motion to Transfer Venue
1. Venue Must Be Proper in the Current District
2. Venue in the Proposed Transferee District Must Be
Proper and the Defendant Must Be Subject to Personal
Jurisdiction There
3. The Party Seeking to Transfer the Case Bears the Burden
to Establish the Transferee District Is Clearly More Convenient
B. Procedure to Move to Transfer under Section 1404(a)
1. Is a Rule 12(b)(3) Motion Required to Move under
Section 1404(a)?
2. Transfer, Not Dismissal, Is the Only Option
C. Intra-District, Inter-Divisional Transfer under Section 1404(a)
Checkpoints
Chapter 40 • Special Venue Issues
Special Venue Issues Roadmap
A. The Impact of Forum Selection Clauses
1. Enforceability and Interpretation
2. Interplay with Rule 12(b)(3)
B. Forum Non Conveniens
1. International Application of Forum Non
2. No Domestic Application of Forum Non
3. Appellate Review
4. Waiver of Forum Non
C. Venue in Removed Actions
Checkpoints
344
345
346
346
347
347
347
348
348
349
349
350
350
351
351
354
354
355
356
356
357
357
357
357
358
360
361
362
362
362
363
363
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxv
CONTENTS
xxv
Chapter 41 • Amending Pleadings
Amending Pleadings Roadmap
A. The General Rule Regarding Amendment of Pleadings
in Rule 15(a)
1. The Right to Amend
2. Agreement from the Opposing Parties
3. Moving for Leave to Amend
a. Rule 15(a)(2): The General Rule
B. The Procedure to Amend a Pleading
C. The Other Parties’ Right to Respond If Amendment Is Permitted
D. Rule 15(c) Relation Back of an Otherwise Time-Barred Claim
1. Rule 15(c)(1): The Rule Governing Relation Back
a. Relation Back under Rule 15(c)(1)(A)
b. Relation Back under Rule 15(c)(1)(B)
c. Relation Back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)
i. Changing the Defendant or Defendant’s Name
ii. Changing the Plaintiff
2. How the Question of Relation Back Is Typically Litigated
Checkpoints
365
366
366
366
366
368
369
370
370
371
371
373
373
375
375
376
Chapter 42 • Lawyer Responsibility for and Judicial Involvement
in Case Management
377
Chapter 43 • The First Steps after Pleadings Close:
Conferences and Required Initial Disclosures
After Pleadings Close Roadmap
A. Required Initial Disclosures: Each Party Must Show Its Best Hand
B. The Parties Agree on a Plan for the Lawsuit at the Rule 26(f)
Conference
1. When
2. What
3. Why
B. The Rule 26(f) Conference Frees the Parties to Start Litigating
C. The Rule 16(b) Conference and Order
D. Exchange of Required Initial Disclosures
1. Exemptions
2. When
3. What: The Good Stuff Reasonably Available to the Party
4. Supplementation
5. Sanctions and Exclusion from Evidence for Violating the Rule
365
365
379
379
380
380
381
381
384
384
384
386
386
386
386
387
387
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxvi
xxvi
CONTENTS
E. The Impact of Rule 16 Scheduling Orders: Good Cause Plus
1. Amending Pleadings: Good Cause to Amend or Bias Toward
Amendment?
Checkpoints
388
Chapter 44 • Adjudication or Resolution of Claims before Discovery
Adjudication before Discovery Roadmap
A. Default Judgments
1. The Three Steps to Obtain a Default Judgment
a. The Act of Default: The Failure to “Plead or
Otherwise Defend”
i. Failure to Plead
ii. What Constitutes “Failure to Otherwise Defend”?
b. Entry of Default and Setting It Aside
i. Entry of Default
ii. Setting Aside Entry of Default
c. Entry of Default Judgment and Vacating Default Judgment
i. Who Can Enter Default Judgment?
(a) What Is a “Sum Certain”?
(b) What Constitutes an “Appearance”?
ii. Vacating a Default Judgment
B. Voluntary Dismissal
1 Voluntary Unilateral Dismissal of a Claim by a Party
a. Time for Filing Notice of Dismissal
b. Impact of Filing the Notice of Dismissal
2. Only One Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice
3. Dismissal by Stipulation of the Parties
a. Dismissal after Answer or Summary Judgment or
without All Parties’ Consent: Court Approval Required
C. Involuntary Dismissal with Prejudice for Violating Rules or Orders
1. Dismissals for Lack of Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, or
Failure to Join an Indispensable Party
2. Dismissals as a Sanction
D. Dismissal of a Claim Based upon a Motion under
Rules 12(b)(6) or 12(c)
E. Settling the Case
Checkpoints
391
391
391
392
Chapter 45 • The Foundations of Choice of Law in Federal Court
Foundations of Choice of Law Roadmap
389
390
392
392
393
393
393
394
395
395
395
396
396
396
397
397
397
398
398
399
399
400
400
401
401
401
403
403
00 hricik MCP2e final 6/1/11 8:36 AM Page xxvii
CONTENTS
A. Federal Power Is Limited
B. States Did Authorize Congress to Create District Courts
C. Limits on State Power
D. The Complexities of Choice of Law
Checkpoints
xxvii
403
404
404
405
406
Chapter 46 • Choice of Law: Erie and Beyond
Choice of Law Roadmap
A. Claims Arising under Federal Law
B. Claims Arising under State Law
1. The Erie Decision
2. Hanna’s View of the Rules as Valid Federal Law Authorized
by the Rules Enabling Act
3. Where We Are Today
a. The Black Letter Law
b. The Continuing Impact of Erie and Hanna
C. Determining the Content of State Law
1. Which State’s Law Applies?
a. Choice of Law after Transfer of Venue
i. Choice of Law after Transfer Based on Section 1404(a)
ii. Choice of Law after a Section 1406(a) Transfer
b. Typical Choice of Law Principles Applied by State Courts
2. Constitutional Limitations on Imposition of Substantive
State Law
D. Appellate Review
Checkpoints
407
407
407
407
408
Chapter 47 • Discovery
Discovery Roadmap
A. Purpose of Discovery
B. Party Responsibility for Setting the Boundaries for Discovery
and Making Initial Disclosures
C. Lawyer Planning and Involvement
1. Each Lawyer Must Participate in the Rule 26(f) Conference
2. Each Party Must Make Initial Disclosures
3. A Discovery Request Is Certified as Reasonable
4. Lawyers Must Meet and Confer before Raising Disputes
with the Court
D. Judicial Management of the Discovery Stage
Checkpoints
421
421
422
411
411
411
413
414
414
415
416
417
418
418
418
419
423
423
424
424
424
424
425
425
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxviii
xxviii
CONTENTS
Chapter 48 • Scope of Discovery: Relevancy and Other Boundaries
Scope of Discovery Roadmap
A. Relevancy as a Boundary of Discovery
B. Sometimes Even Relevant Information Is Not Discoverable
C. Privilege and Work Product as Boundaries to Discovery
1. Privileged Information Is Protected from Disclosure
2. Work Product or “Trial Preparation” Gets Only
Qualified Protection
D. Other Boundaries
E. Enforcing the Boundaries
Checkpoints
427
427
427
430
431
431
Chapter 49 • Forms of Discovery
Forms of Discovery Roadmap
A. Requests for Production of Documents and Things
1. Obligations of the Requesting Party
2. Obligations of the Recipient
3. Document Requests by Subpoena Duces Tecum to Non-Parties
B. Requests for Inspection of Land and Other Locations to Parties or
Non-Parties
C. Interrogatories to Parties
1. Obligations of the Serving Party
2. Recipient’s Obligations
D. Requests for Admission
1. Sender’s Responsibilities
2. Recipient’s Obligations
3. Scope of Admission and Withdrawal of an Admission
E. Depositions on Written Questions
1. Sender’s Obligations
2. Recipient’s Obligations
F. Oral Depositions
1. Overview
2. Procedure for Taking the Deposition of Parties or Non-Parties
3. Deposing a Natural Person Who Is Already a Party to the Suit
4. Deposing Corporations and Other Entities: Rule 30(b)(6)
a. The Procedure for Obtaining a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
b. Issues Concerning the Designee’s Testimony
5. Taking Oral Deposition of a Non-Party by Service
of a Subpoena
G. Physical and Mental Examinations
437
437
437
438
438
444
433
436
436
436
445
446
446
447
448
448
448
450
450
450
451
451
451
451
453
453
453
454
457
457
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxix
CONTENTS
1. Obtaining an Order for an Examination
a. Who May Be Examined?
b. When Is a Condition “in Controversy”?
c. What Constitutes “Good Cause”?
H. Special Issues
1. E-Discovery
I. Practical but Crucial Big Picture View of Discovery
Checkpoints
Chapter 50 • Expert Witnesses: Disclosure, Discovery, and Protection
Expert Witnesses Roadmap
A. Required Disclosures from Testifying Experts and Fact Witnesses
with Expertise
1. An Overview of the Two Rounds of Disclosures
a. Disclosure of the Identity of Each Testifying Expert
and Fact Expert
b. Disclosure of Reports of Testifying Experts
i. Who Must Prepare Reports?
ii. What Must Be in the Report?
2. Each Party Must Supplement Expert Disclosures
3. Incomplete or Late Reports or Testimony
B. Non-Testifying (aka Consulting) Experts
1. The Rule: No Discovery of Consulting Experts
2. The “Exceptional Circumstances” Exception
a. The Condition Is No Longer Observable and Could Not
Have Been Observed by the Party Seeking Discovery
from the Consulting Expert
b. The Event or Condition Can be Recreated Only
at Great Expense
c. There’s No Other Expert in the Field Available
C. Special Issues
1. Deposing a Testifying Expert’s Non-Testifying Assistants
2. Waiver of Protection of Consulting Expert’s Opinions
3. De-Designating a Testifying Expert
Checkpoints
Chapter 51 • Adjudication of Discovery Disputes
Adjudication of Discovery Disputes Roadmap
A. Penalties for Noncompliance with Discovery Requests and
Disclosure Obligations
xxix
458
458
458
459
459
459
459
460
461
461
462
462
463
464
464
465
466
466
468
468
469
470
470
471
471
471
471
472
472
473
473
473
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxx
xxx
CONTENTS
1. The Built-In Penalties for Noncompliance with Discovery
B. The Process for Adjudicating Disputes over Discovery
1. Adjudication of Motions to Compel
a. The Process for Moving to Compel
b. Violation of an Order Issued as the Result of Adjudication
of a Motion to Compel
2. Adjudication of Motions for Protective Order
Checkpoints
Chapter 52 • Summary Judgment: Adjudication of Claims
prior to Trial but after Discovery
Summary Judgment Roadmap
A. Timing: When Motions for Summary Judgment Can Be
and Typically Are Filed
B. What a Court May Consider in Adjudicating a Motion
for Summary Judgment
C. The Burden of Proof the Summary Judgment Movant Faces
Is Constant
1. The Burden of Persuasion
a. No Genuine Issue of Material Fact
i. When Is a Fact “Material”?
ii. When Is There a “Genuine Issue”?
b. When Is a Movant “Entitled to JMOL”?
2. The Burden of Production, Not Persuasion, Is Usually
What Matters
a. How Much Is Sufficient?
D. The Summary Judgment Procedure: Shifting Burdens
of Production
1. The Movant’s Initial Burden of Production and the Shift
to the Responding Party
a. The Burden of Production If the Party Moving for Summary
Judgment Does Not Have the Burden of Proof at Trial
b. The Burden of Production If the Party Moving for Summary
Judgment Also Has the Burden of Proof at Trial
2. The Burden of Production Shifts Only If the Summary
Judgment Movant Meets Its Burden of Production
E. Examples with Explanations and a Flow Chart
1. Examples with Explanations
2. A Flow Chart
Checkpoints
473
474
475
475
476
477
479
481
481
483
483
484
484
484
485
485
486
487
488
490
490
491
492
492
493
493
496
496
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxxi
CONTENTS
xxxi
Chapter 53 • The Final Set of Required Disclosures: The Pretrial Order
Pretrial Order Roadmap
A. Pretrial Disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3)
B. The More Common, Jointly Prepared Pretrial Order
C. Impact of the Pretrial Order on Subsequent Events
Checkpoints
497
497
497
498
499
501
Chapter 54 • Adjudication of Claims by Trial
Adjudication of Claims by Trial Roadmap
A. Pretrial Motions in Limine
B. Juries
1. Will a Jury Hear the Claim?
a. Is There a Right to Trial by Jury?
b. Was the Right Waived or, if Made, Can It be Revoked?
c. Power of the Court to Use Juries on Non-Jury Questions
or Despite Waiver or Non-Existence of the Right to a Jury
2. Jury Selection
a. Jury Pools
b. Jury Strikes
i. Striking for Cause
ii. Striking Peremptorily
c. Jury Seated
C. Trial
1. Turns and Burdens
2. Plaintiff ’s Case in Chief
3. Defendant’s Turn
a. JMOL under Rule 50(a): aka “Motions for Directed Verdict”
i. Timing of Rule 50(a) Motion
ii. Two Motions
iii. Movant’s Burden of Proof
iv. Grant or Denial of Motion
4. Plaintiff ’s Rebuttal and Plaintiff JMOL against Defendant’s
Counterclaims or Affirmative Defenses
5. JMOL on Issues on Which the Movant Has the Burden of Proof
6. JMOL Examples with Explanations
D. Conferring on the Charge and Verdict Form
E. Closing Arguments
F. Charging the Jury
G. Jury Deliberation
H. Return of Verdict
Checkpoints
503
503
503
504
504
504
505
505
506
506
506
507
507
508
508
508
508
510
510
510
510
511
513
513
514
514
516
517
518
518
519
519
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxxii
xxxii
CONTENTS
Chapter 55 • After Verdict: In the District Court
After Verdict Roadmap
A. Options for the Verdict Loser That Must Be Taken before
Jury Discharge
B. After the Jury Discharge: Verdict Winner Moves for Entry
of Judgment
1. Process for Entry of Judgment
2. Form of Judgment
C. Within 28 Days of Entry of Judgment, the Verdict Loser Must
File Any Motions for New Trial and Rule 50(b) Renewed Motions
for JMOL
1. Post-Judgment Rule 50(b) JMOL Motions (aka JNOV)
a. Predicate: Pre-Submission Rule 50(a) JMOL Motion
b. Scope of Motion Limited to Pre-Verdict JMOL
c. Burden of Proof
d. Impact of Rulings
2. Motions for New Trial under Rule 59
a. The Two Common Bases for New Trial Motions
b. New Trials Awarded Based Only on the Amount of Damages
i. Remittur
ii. Additur: Unconstitutional in Federal Court
D. Motions to Amend the Judgment under Rule 59(e)
E. What Does the Judgment Winner Have to Do?
1. Did the Verdict Deprive It of Any Relief?
2. Respond to the Loser’s Motions
F. Impact of Entry of Judgment on Execution and Appeals
G. Possible Actions by the Trial Court and the Impact on Appeal
Checkpoints
Chapter 56 • Obtaining Relief after Prevailing on a Claim
Obtaining Relief Roadmap
A. Execution of Judgment and Discovery in Aid of Execution
B. The Judgment Loser Can Move in Federal Court to Stay
Execution of the Judgment Pending Appeal
Checkpoints
Chapter 57 • Limited Availability of Appeals: The Final Judgment
Rule and Its Exceptions
Final Judgment Rule Roadmap
A. Who Can Appeal?
521
521
521
523
523
523
524
524
524
524
525
526
526
526
528
528
529
529
529
530
530
530
531
533
535
535
535
536
537
539
539
540
00 hricik MCP2e final 6/1/11 8:38 AM Page xxxiii
CONTENTS
xxxiii
B. When is the Earliest an Appeal Can Be Taken? The Final Judgment
Rule and Its Few Exceptions
1. Exceptions to the Final Judgment Rule
a. Rule 54(b)
i. Adjudication of at Least One of Multiple Claims or Parties
ii. Express Determination There Is No Just Reason for Delay
iii. Express Entry of Final Judgment
iv. Waiver of the Right to Seek Rule 54(b) Certification
v. Appellate Review
b. Collateral Orders
i. Conclusive Determination
ii. An Important Issue Separate from the Merits
iii. Effectively Unreviewable after Appeal
c. Orders Granting or Denying Injunctive Relief:
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)
i. Temporary Restraining Orders: Generally Not Appealable
ii. Preliminary Injunctions: Appealable as of Right
iii. Permanent Injunctions: Appealable as of Right
d. Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)
i. Requirements
(a) Controlling Question of Law
(b) Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion
(c) Interlocutory Appeal May Materially
Advance Litigation
ii. Process in the District Court
iii. Process in the Appellate Court
iv. Waiver
e. Mandamus
C. The Big Picture
Checkpoints
Chapter 58 • A Brief Word on Appeals
Appeals Roadmap
A. Timing of Filing of Notice of Appeal
B. The Appellate Process
1. Error and Harm Must Be Established
a. Standards of Review
b. Harmful Error Is Required to Reverse
2. Affirm, Reverse, Render or Remand
3. Panel Reconsideration and Rehearing En Banc
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
547
547
548
548
548
549
550
551
551
551
551
552
552
553
553
553
554
554
555
555
557
557
557
558
558
558
559
560
560
00 hricik MCP2e final 6/1/11 8:38 AM Page xxxiv
xxxiv
CONTENTS
C. Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
Checkpoints
560
561
Chapter 59 • Attacking a Judgment in District Court under Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) Roadmap
A. Motions to Reopen the Judgment under Rule 60(b)
B. The Six Grounds under Rule 60(b)
C. Adjudication of Rule 60(b) Motions
1. The Scope of Rule 60b(1)
2. The Scope of Rule 60(b)(2)
3. The Scope of Rule 60(b)(3)
4. The Scope of Rule 60(b)(4)
5. The Scope of Rule 60(b)(5)
6. The Scope of Rule 60(b)(6)
Checkpoints
563
563
563
564
564
564
565
565
566
567
567
568
Chapter 60 • After Appeals: Claim and Issue Preclusion
Claim and Issue Preclusion Roadmap
A. Choice of Law
B. Claim Preclusion
1. Purpose of Claim Preclusion
2. The Elements of Claim Preclusion
a. Could the Asserted Claim Have Been Brought in the
First Suit?
b. Is the Asserted Claim a Covered “Same Claim”?
i. Is It the “Same” Claim as a Claim in the First Suit?
ii. Was It a Compulsory Counterclaim to a Claim in
the First Suit?
iii. Could the Claim Have Been a Defense to the First Suit
That, If Allowed to be Litigated Now, Could Nullify
Rights Established in the First Suit?
c. Was the Party Who Is Bringing the Claim a Party to the
First Suit or in Privity with Someone Who Was a Party
to the First Suit?
d. Did the First Suit End with a Final Judgment
“on the Merits”?
C. Issue Preclusion
1. Purpose of Issue Preclusion
2. Elements of Issue Preclusion
a. Was the Same Issue Litigated and Actually Determined
in the First Suit?
569
569
570
571
571
572
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
579
580
580
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxxv
CONTENTS
b. Was the Issue Essential to the Judgment in the First Case,
Such That the Judgment Could Not Have Issued without
That Issue Having Been Decided?
c. Was There a Valid, Final Judgment on the Merits
in the First Suit?
d. Can Issue Preclusion be Applied against the Party in
the Second Suit?
e. Can the Party in the Second Suit Assert Issue Preclusion?
D. Procedure for Litigating Claim Preclusion
1. Res Judicata is an Affirmative Defense under Rule 8(c)
2. Litigation by Motion for Summary Judgment
E. Procedure for Litigating Issue Preclusion
1. Pleading Requirements
a. Res Judicata Is an Affirmative Defense under Rule 8(c)
b. Offensive Use: Must Plaintiff Plead Issue Preclusion?
2. Litigation by Motion for Summary Judgment
F. Special Issues
1. Co-Pending Suits with Same Claims
Checkpoints
xxxv
581
583
584
584
586
586
586
587
587
587
587
587
587
587
588
Part C
Special Procedures for Resolving Similar Claims
among Many Parties
Chapter 61 • A Brief Introduction to Mass and Class Actions
A. Class Actions
1. General Principles of Class Actions under Rule 23
2. Impact of CAFA
B. Multi-District Consolidation: 28 U.S.C. § 1407
591
592
592
593
594
Mastering Civil Procedure Master Checklist
595
Index
603
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxxvi
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxxvii
Table of Cases
A. Kraus & Son v. Benjamin Moore &
Co., 116
A.B.C.G. Enterp., Inc. v. First Bank
Southeast, N.A., 576
Aamot v. Kassel, 398
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 284
Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 536
Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire,
LLP, 219
Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut
Corp., 395
ACLU of Nev. v. Lomax 283, 285
Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 226
Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atlantic Embroidery, Inc., 230
Adams v. AlliedSignal General Aviation
Avionics, 308
Adams v. Vance, 551
Advance Financial Corp. v. Utsey, 388
Advanced Magnetics v. Bayfront Partners,
544
Aequitron Medical, Inc. v. CBS, Inc.,
375
Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila (1984), 31
Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila (2004), 30,
32
Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hosp. & Training School for Nurses, 464
Ahern v. Scholz, 559
Ahrenholz v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of
Ill., 552, 554
Ajifu v. Int’l Ass’n. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 401
Aldrich v. New York, 583
Alexander Proudfoot Co. World Headquarters L.P. v. Thayer, 412
Alexander v. Okla., 314
Allen v. Wright, 282–283, 286
Allred v. Moore & Peterson, 294
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hugh Cole Builder,
Inc., 199
Allstate Ins. v. Hague, 418
Alper v. U.S., 457
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 361
Alvarez v. Simmons Mkt. Research Bureau, Inc., 400
Am. Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 398
Am. Express Travel Related Serv. Co.,
Inc. v. Beaumont, 199
Am. Reliable Ins. Co. v. Navratil, 418
Am. Reliable Ins. Co. v. Stillwell, 287
Anderson v. Docuport, Inc., 185
Anderson v. Hale, 429
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 485,
494
Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc.,
509
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 286
Apotex, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin.,
574
Arbegast v. Bd. of Ed. Of S. New Berlin
Central H.S., 492
Archuleta v. Lacuesta, 130
xxxvii
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxxviii
xxxviii
TABLE OF CASES
Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, 360
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 284
Armotek Indus., Inc. v. Employers Ins.,
540
Arons v. Lalime, 140
Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior
Ct. of Ca., 76
ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 52
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 148, 150–152, 314,
320, 337
AT&T Broadband v. Tech Communications, Inc., 550
Atchinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 367
Athena Automotive, Inc. v. DiGregorio,
42
Atlanta Shipping Corp. v. International
Modular House., Inc., 123
Audette v. Isaksen Fishing Corp., 522
AVC Nederland B.V. v. Atrium Inv. Partnership, 301, 359
Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, Int’l
Ass’n of Machinists, 31
Avista Mgmt., Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 456
Avita v. Metropolitan Club, 154
B. Fernandez & HNOS, Inc. v. Kellogg
USA, Inc., 213–14
Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc., 176
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta
Nat’l, Inc., 72, 76
Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Savs. Asss’n.
v. Nilsi, 193
Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 82
Bank of the Orient v. Superior Court,
428
Banks v. Office of Senate SergeantatArms, 444
Barab v. Menford, 199
Barrett v. Lombardi, 294
Barton v. Florida, 302
Base Metal Trading, Ltd. v. OJSC “Novokuznetsky Aluminum Factory,” 89
Bates v. C&S Adjusters, Inc., 106
Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 564
Baumgart v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp.,
362
Baxter v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 578
Beattie v. U.S., 234
Becker v. Montgomery, 342
Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘n’ Dive Corp., 368
Beighley v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.,
124
Belcher v. Basset Furn. Indus., 445
Belknap v. Leary, 550
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
148–152, 314, 320, 337
Bell v. City of Kellogg, 540
Bell v. Hood, 27
Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign
Market Place L.L.C., 43
Bel-Ray Co. v. Chemrite Ltd., 296
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Andersen, 31
Benham v. Rice, 459
Berhard v. Bank of Am., 584
Berol Corp. v. BIC Corp., 355
Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 526
Bias v. Advantage Int’l., Inc., 485– 486
Bird v. Carteret Mortgage Corp., 117
Bird v. Parsons, 80
Bisciglia v. Kenosha Unified School Dist.
No. 1, 342
Bishop v. Okla., 235
Blake v. Gov’t of V.I. Dept. of Housing,
548
Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 528
Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 593
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xxxix
TABLE OF CASES
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of
Ill., 584
Blue Compass Corp. v. Polish Masters
of Am., 104
Bockweg v. Anderson, 587
Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 512
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Found., 367,
371
Bowler v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 347
Boyer v. Snap-on Tools Corp., 112
Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham
Health Inc., 455
Bracken v. Matgouranis, 28
Bradgate Assocs. Inc. v. Fellows, Read
& Assocs., Inc., 139
Branch v. Tunnell, 313
Braud v. Transp. Serv. Co. of Ill., 373
Braun v. Lorillard Inc., 469– 470
Bremen v. Zapata Off- Shore Co., 295,
301, 357, 359
Breuer Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Toronado Sys.,
Inc., 393
Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v.
Pacific Erectors, 304
Brink v. First Credit Resources, 373–374
Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co., 517
Bromwell v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 128
Brooks v. Vassar, 284–285
Broussard v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 189
Brown v. Capitol Air, Inc., 342
Brown v. McBro Planning & Dev. Co.,
529
Brunswick Corp. v. Sheridan, 545– 46
Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
412–13, 542
Burden v. Gen’l Dynamics Corp., 112
xxxix
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 56, 69,
74–75, 77–79
Burke v. General Motors Corp., 123
Burke v. Smith, 412
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry.
Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 442
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., 73,
81, 87
Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communs. Enterp., Inc., 137
Byrd v. Carnival Corp., 358
Byrne v. Nezhat, 347
C.L.B. v. Frye 121
Cadent Ltd v. 3M Unitek Corp., 456
Caiola v. Berkshire Med. Ctr., Inc., 413
Cal. Scents v. Surco Prods., Inc., 504
Calder v. Jones, 75
Calderon Rosado v. General Elec. Circuit
Breakers, Inc., 588
Calderone v. U.S., 492
Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing
Co., 79
Canny v. Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up Bottling
Group, Inc., 525
Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
150
Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 43, 267
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 227
Carnite v. Granada Hosp. Group, Inc.,
389
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 82,
295
Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 550
Carter v. Macon Manor NRC, LLC, 395
Caruso v. Coleman Co., 445
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 129–30
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 30
Catlin v. U.S., 542
Celotexv. Catrett, 491– 493
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xl
xl
TABLE OF CASES
Century Commodity Corp. v. DataTrend Commodities Inc., 39
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Warrantech Corp., 130, 227
Cf. Port-Wide Container Co. v. Interstate Maint. Corp., 396
Cf. Swedberg v. Marotzke, 397
Chambers v. Capital Cities/ABC, 441
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 341,
347–348
Chapman v. Barry, 42
Chase Manhattan Bank v. Celotex
Corp., 577
Chauffers, Teamsters Helpers Local No.
391 v. Terry, 504
Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 566
Chiquita Int’l Ltd. v. M/V Bolero Reefer,
470
Christian v. Mattell, Inc., 142
Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 476
Cima v. Wellpoint Healthcare Networks,
Inc., 327
Citifinancial v. Gimbi, 130
Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp.
v. Howard, 327
Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 491
Clark v. Exxon Corp., 367
Clark v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.
Co., 50
Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe
County, 588
Cliff v. Payco Gen’l Am. Credits, Inc.,
375
Clough v. Rush, 523
Coast Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States,
553
Coca-Cola Bottling of Emporia, Inc., v.
S. Beach Bev. Co., 118–119
Cohen v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of
Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 551
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
413, 547
Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 412
Cohen v. Republic of the Philippines,
213
Coleman v. Conseco, Inc., 117
Coleman v. Milwaukee Bd. of School
Directors, 252
Collision v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union,
Local 217, 529
Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v.
U.S., 280, 280, 288–290
Com/Tech Commn. Tech., Inc. v. Wireless Data Sys., Inc., 412
Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v. Grinnell
Corp., 472
Commercial Nat’l Bank v. Demos, 208
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. First
National Supermarkets, Inc., 435
Compare Amway Corp. v. Procter &
Gamble Co., 465
Compare Ricke v. Armco, Inc., 330
Competitive Tech. Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd.,
296
Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 81
Concession Consultants, Inc. v. Mirisch,
299
Conk v. Richard & O’Neil LLP, 116
Conley v. Gibson, 148–152
Continental Cas. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Ins.
Co., 328
Continental Cas. Co. v. Howard, 529
Continental Training Services, Inc. v.
Cavazos, 551
Controlotron Corp. v. Perry Printing
Corp., 302
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xli
TABLE OF CASES
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Corp.,
570
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 547
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 137,
139
Coover v. Saucon Valley Sch. Dist., 578
Corpus v. Bennett, 521
Correia v. Fitzgerald, 521
Cory v. Aztec Steel Building, Inc., 63,
66
Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino, 105
Coury v. Prot, 41, 118
Coventry Sewage Assocs. v. Dworkin Realty Co., 46, 48– 49
Credit Co. v. Aaron-Lincoln Mercury,
123
Cullen v. Margiotta, 545–546
Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 542
Cunningham v. Outten, 582
Cunningham v. Rothery, 313
Curtis Management Group, Inc. v. Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, 194
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 545–547
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 81
D.C. Electronics, Inc. v. Nartron Corp.,
397
D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 82, 352
Dadurian v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of
London, 528
Daggett v. Comm. on Gov’tal Ethics &
Election Practices, 213
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 283
DakColl, Inc. v. Grand Central Graphics, Inc., 308
Dalminter, Inc. v. Jessie Edwards, Inc.,
396
xli
Dalton v. R & W Marine, Inc., 80
Danial v. Daniels, 47
Daniel v. Am. Bd. Of Emergency Med.,
105
Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 316
Datskow v. Teledyne, Inc., Continental
Products Div., 308
Davis v. Precoat Metals, 428, 474
De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 119
De Antonio v. Solomon, 393
Debreceni v. Bru-Jell Leasing Corp., 62
Decker v. Circus Circus Hotel, 72
Dempsey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa
Fe Ry. Co., 314
Denver & R.G.W.R. Co. v. Brotherhood
of R.R. Trainmen, 103
Detoy v. San Francisco, 455
Devlin v. Transp. Communications Int’l
Union, 529
DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 567
Diamond Shamrock Oil & Gas v. Comm’r of I.R.S., 209
Dick v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 512
Dickson v. Murphy, 189, 191
Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct
Inc., 547–549
Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 284
Dimick v. Schiedt, 529
Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 280, 287–289
DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc., 293
Dobrick-Peirce v. Open Options, Inc.,
108, 304
Doe v. Kerwood, 125
Doe v. Unocal Corp., 79
Don King Productions, 209
Donaldson v. Clark, 138–139
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xlii
xlii
TABLE OF CASES
Donson Stores, Inc. v. American Bakeries Co., 435
Dove v. Wash. Area Metro. Transit
Auth., 367
Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc. v. Furniture USA Inc., 440
Drooger v. Carlisle Tire & Wheel Co.,
404
Druid Group, Inc. v. Dorfman, 62
Duha v. Agrium, Inc., 362
Dupre v. Fru-Con Eng’g, Inc., 541
Dura Automotive Sys., of Indiana, Inc.
v. CTS Corp., 471
Durning v. First Boston Corp., 313
Dusenberry v. U.S., 253
E.E.O.C. v. Jefferson Dental Clinics, P.A.,
578
E.E.O.C. v. Peabody West. Coal Co., 188
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.
Phillips Petroleum Co., 537
Eagle v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 51
Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P., 113
Eastway Const. Corp. v. City of New
York, 142
ECDC Envtl., L.C. v. New York Marine
and Gen. Ins. Co., 435
Edelson v. Soricelli, 410
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 508
Edwards v. Occidental Chem. Corp.,
373
EFCO Corp. v. Iowa Ass’n of Bus. &
Indus., 31
Effjohn Int’l Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A
& L Sales, Inc., 394
Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 295
Ehorn v. Sunken Vessel Known as “Rosinc 90
Eichenholtz v. Brennan, 353
Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 285–286
Elliott v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 358
EMI April Music, Inc. v. 1064 Old River
Rd., Inc., 565
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v.
McVeigh, 34
Empresa Lineas Maritamas Argentinas,
S.A. v. Schichau-Unterweser A.G.,
361
English v. Cowell, 322
Ennis v. Queen Ins. Co. of Am., 123
Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 565
Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 234
EP Operating Ltd. Partnership v. Placid
Oil Co., 327
Equal Employment Opp’y Comm’n. v.
Peabody Western Coal Co., 191
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 418– 419, 568
Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 316
ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 66,
76, 231
Espinoza v. U.S., 252
Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S.
Dist. Ct., 225, 227
ExxonMobil Corp. v. Allapattah Serv.,
Inc., 37, 49, 164, 166, 216, 220,
242–244
ExxonMobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.
Corp., 287–288
F.D.I.C. v. Bathgate, 196
F.D.I.C. v. LeGrand, 536
Fafel v. Dipaola, 567
Feathers v. McLucas, 65
Fed. Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 578–79
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Tyoco Int’l, Ltd., 112
Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon
Motors, LLC, 48
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xliii
TABLE OF CASES
Federico v. Order of St. Benedict in R.I.,
559
Felton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 119
Ferens et ux. v. John Deere Co., 416
Ferketich v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 358
Ferrell v. Pierce, 581
Fietzer v. Ford Motor Co., 506
Fink v. Foley-Belsaw Co., 526
First of Michigan Corp. v. Bramlet, 106,
303
Fitzgerald v. Seaboard System
FleetBoston Fin. Corp. v. FleetBostonFinancial.com, 86
Fletcher- Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete
Contractors, Inc., 317
Flight Extenders, Inc. v. Lakewood Aircraft Serv., Inc., 201
Foman v. Davis, 367, 375
Ford v. Elsbury, 545
Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Int’l Bus.
Mach. Corp., 131
Franchise Tax Bd. Of Cal. V. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 29
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. KN Energy,
Inc., 214
Friedman v. New York Life Ins. Co., 51
Frier v. City of Vandalia, 575
Fruend v. Nycomed Amersham, 524
Fuddruckers, Inc. v. KCOB I, LLC, 536
Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 524
Fullin v. Martin, 113
Gardiner v. V.I. Water & Power Auth.,
192
Gargallo v. Merrill Lunch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 573
Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 552
Garr v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 139–141
Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc.,
411– 412
xliii
Gen’l Contracting & Trading Co., L.L.C.
v. Interpole, Inc., 296
General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 234
Gerling Int’l Ins. Co. v. Comm’r of Internal Rev., 441
Ginett v. Computer Task Group, 544
Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 367
Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co., 72
Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 88
Global Satellite Commun. Co. v. Starmill
U.K. Ltd., 125
Goel v. Heller, 579
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 297, 303
Goldwater v. Carter, 280
Gonzalez v. Chrysler Corp., 361
Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., Ltd.,
84
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v.
Daure Engineering & Mfg., 32–34
Grace v. McArthur, 82
Gray v. Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 65
Gray v. Genlyte Group, Inc., 518
Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 123
Great Rivers Co-op. of S.E. Ia. v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 543
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v.
Bosworth, 353
Great-West Life Annuity Ins. Co. v. Woldemicael, 187
Green v. Daimler Benz, A.G., 155
Green v. Lake of the Woods County, 44
Greyhound Exhibit Group, Inc. v.
E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 394
Griffen v. City of Okla. City, 342
Grindell v. Am. Motors Corp., 468
Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr. Co., 388
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xliv
xliv
TABLE OF CASES
Grossheim v. Freightliner Corp., 522
Grumman Sys. Support Corp. v. Data
Gen’l Corp., 177
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group,
L.P., 38
Guaranteed Sys., Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Can
Co., 205
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 409– 410
Gucci America, Inc., v. Gold Ctr. Jewelry, 564
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 547
Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 33
Gust v. Flint, 64
H.F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loeppfe, 396
Haas v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 190, 193
Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 139
Hall v. Norfolk So. Ry. Co., 374
Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 296
Hanna v. Plumer, 410– 413, 419
Hanson v. Denckla, 70, 74, 88
Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co. v. Packer, 278
Harris v. Balk, 86
Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp.,
546
Harrison v. M.S. Carriers, Inc., 204
Hart v. Clayton-Parker and Assocs., Inc.,
178
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins.
Co. v. Quantum Chem. Corp., 222,
237, 240
Hartsel Springs Ranch of Co., Inc. v.
Bluegreen Corp., 587
Harvey by Blankenbaker v. United
Transp. Union, 587
Hawthorne Land Co. v. Occidental
Chem. Corp., 389
Haynes v. Gasoline Marketers, Inc., 124
Hays County Guardian v. Supple, 227
Heitmann v. Concrete Pip Machinery,
471
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v.
Hall, 69–72
Helzberg’s Diamond Shops, Inc. v. Valley West Des Moines Shopping Center, Inc., 189, 193, 195
Hemme v. Bharti, 204
Henderson v. U.S., 251–252
Henshell Corp. v. Childerston, 102
Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 313
Herman v. Marine Midland Bank, 471
Hermeling v. Montgomery Ward & Co.,
468
Hermes Consol., Inc. v. United States,
552
Hermsdorfer v. Am. Motors Corp., 470
Herrera v. Reicher, 582
Herrick v. SCS Commun., Inc., 43
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 42
Hess v. Pawloski, 83
Hester Indus., Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
399
Hickman v. Taylor, 428, 433– 434
Hidalgo v. Fagen, 507
Hilton v. Braunskill, 537
Hodge v. Hodge, 566
Hodgson v. Gilmartin, 107, 353, 358
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Nat’l Fire
Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
455
Hoffman v. Blaski, 303, 351
Hogan v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 546
Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., 131
Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.,
436
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xlv
TABLE OF CASES
Home Ins. Co. v. Thomas Indus., Inc.,
302
Honaker v. Smith, 515
Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 74
Horizon Unlimited, Inc. v. Richard Silva
& SNA, Inc., 345
Houston Indus. Inc. v. U.S., 544
Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 516
Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery, 140
Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.,
514
Hurley v. Motor Coach Indus., 127
Hy Cite Corp. v. Advanced Marketing
Int’l, Inc., 354
Ierardi v. Lorillard, Inc., 454
Iglesias v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 177
Ill. Central R. Co. v. Parks, 580–582
Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Parks,
582
In re 60 East 80th St. Equities, Inc., 342
In re Advanta Corp. Securities Litig.,
154
In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La., 362
In re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litig.,
540
In re Bank of N.Y. Derivative Litig., 213
In re Blackwater Security Consulting,
LLC, 31
In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs
Antitrust Litig., 418
In re Briscoe, 130
In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 432
In re Clerici, 536
In re Daily, 582
In re Dierschke, 394
In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 547
In re Flor, 552
In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig., 347
xlv
In re Madden, 428
In re Millennium Studios, Inc., 300
In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig., 72
In re Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 465
In re Polymedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 471
In re Sealed Case, 430
In re Shell Oil Refinery, 470
In re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Securities
Litig., 313
In re Veeco Instruments, Inc. Securities
Litig., 432
In re Zyprexa Prods. Liability Litig., 594
Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City
Council of Baltimore, 208
Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., 454
Injection Research Specialists v. Polaris
Indus., L.P., 104
Ins. Co. of the West v. United States, 552
Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des
Bauxites de Guinee, 297
Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Tech., Corp.,
140
Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 294
International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
67– 68, 70, 89
Interstate Life Assurance Co. v. Sedlak,
207
Int’l Science & Technology Institute, Inc.
v. Inacom Comms., Inc., 26
Ivey v. Wilson, 541
J&J Celcom v. AT&T Wireless Serv., Inc.,
467
J.A. Olson Co. v. City of Winona, 42
Jackson v. West Telemarketing Corp.
Outbound, 417
Jaffe v. Accredited Surety & Cas. Co.,
Inc., 579
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xlvi
xlvi
TABLE OF CASES
Jaffe v. Redmond, 431
Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 583
Jenkins v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
of Pa., 124
Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co.,
50
Jin v. Ministry of State Security, 219,
225
John v. Sotheby’s Inc., 208
Johnson v. De Grandy, 288
Johnson v. Heublein Inc., 125
Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 367
Jones v. Bock, 316
Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 219
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 357
Jones v. Weibrecht, 295
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 351
Justice v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fe Ry. Co., 119
Jyachosky v. Winter, 302
Kalb v. Feuerstein, 52
Kan. City S. Ry. v. Great Lakes Carbon
Corp., 566
Karibian v. Village Green Mgmt. Co.,
226
Kendall v. GES Exposition Servs., Inc.,
446
Kennedy v. Lubar, 129
Kenneth Leventhal & Co. v. Joyner
Wholesale Co., 199
Kerobo v. Southwestern Clean Fuels,
Corp., 349
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 554
Key Bank v. Tablecloth Textile Co., 395
King v. Pratt & Whitney, 455
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 130
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co.,
414
Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 20
Klipsch, Inc. v. WWR Tech., Inc., 588
Kneeland v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic
Ass’n, 214
Kocks Crane, Inc. v. South Jersey Port
Corp., 359
Kourtis v. Cameron, 578
Krisa v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y,
466
Kugler v. Helfant, 289
Kulko v. Superior Court, 72, 75
Kusens v. Pascal Co., Inc., 513
Kyle v. Morton High School, 154
Laber v. Harvey, 367
Laborers’ Welfare Fund v. Lowery, 296
LaFont v. Decker-Angel, 336
Laguna v. Am. Export Isbrandtsen Lines,
499
Lake v. Jones, 588
Landon v. Hunt, 140
Langadinos v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 316
Langsam-Borenstein Partnership by
Langsam v. NOC Enterp., Inc., 201
Larsen v. Senate of Commonwealth of
Penn., 549
Latino v. Kazer, 528
Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser, 548
Lavender v. Kurn, 514
Lawler v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 414
Layman v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.,
335–336
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics
Intell. & Coord. Unit, 154
Lee v. Trans Am. Trucking Serv., Inc.,
41
Legault v. Zambarano, 342
Legg v. Chopra, 413
Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 92
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xlvii
TABLE OF CASES
Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corporation, 234
Leveto v. Lapina, 315
Lew v. Kona Hosp., 474
Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 285
Lewis v. Herrman’s Excavating, Inc.,
458
Lewis v. Time Inc., 505
Lewis v. U.S. Slicing Mach. Co., 148
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Midwest Cold
Storage & Ice Corp., 389
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 542, 544
Lieb v. Topstone Indus. Inc., 138, 346
Lifshitz v. Walter Drake & Sons, Inc.,
525
Lim v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators,
Inc., 358
Lind v. Schenley Indus., Inc., 526–527
Lindsay v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co.,
219–221, 224
Link v. Wabash R.R., 400
Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 301
Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 118,
127
Loeb v. Bank of Am., 102
Logan v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.,
493
Lomano v. Black, 105
Long Term Capital Holdings v. U.S.,
468
Lony v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
356
Lopez-Gonzalez v. Municipality of Comerio, 315
Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 574
Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley,
27–28, 32
xlvii
Lovell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
51
Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n.,
45
Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd.
No. 27, 566–567
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 283
Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation,
40
Lutomski v. Panther Valley Coin Exchange, 396
M.F. Patterson Dental Supply v. Wadley,
155
Magnum Foods, Inc. v. Continental Cas.
Co., 513
Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 348
Manguno v. Prudential Property & Cas.
Ins. Co., 48
Marder v. Lopez, 313
Marex Titanic, Inc. v. Wrecked and
Abandoned Vessel, 86
Markham v. Allen, 286
Markhorst v. Rigid, Inc., 374
Markvicka v. Broadhead-Garrett Co.,
199
Marques v. Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago, 397
Marriott Int’l Resorts, L.P. v. U.S., 552
Marsh v. Coleman Co., 372
Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., 554
Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 348
Martin v. Delaware Law School of
Widener Univ., 327
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. (2001),
118
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. (2005),
127
Martino v. McDonald’s Sys., Inc., 575
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xlviii
xlviii
TABLE OF CASES
Martino v. McDonald’s Sys., Inc.,
575–576
Mas v. Perry, 39
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano,
152
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 485, 493– 494
Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant, 193
Matter of Gober 581–582
Matter of Yagman, 347
Matthews v. Brookstone Stores, Inc., 296
Max Arnold & Sons, LLC v. W.L. Hailey & Co., 314
McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust,
40, 278
McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 47
McClaughlin v. Fellows Gear Shaper
Co., 517
McCullough v. Ligon, 28
McCurtain County Production Corp. v.
Cowett, 126
McFarlin v. Conseco Serv., LLC, 554
McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 74, 79
McGinn v. Burlington Northern R.R.
Co., 493
McKeel v. City of Pine Bluff, 541
McKey v. Fairbairn, 500
McKinnon v. City of Berwyn, 511
Meagher v. Long Island R.R. Co., 518
Med. Mut. of Ohio v. de Soto, 232
Meehan, 565
Mendez v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity
Ass’n, 208
Mendota Ins. Co. v. Hurst, 576
Mennonite Bd. Of Missions v. Adams,
253
Mercantile Capital Partners v. Agenzia
Sports, Inc., 105
Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 47
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 28–30, 32–33, 35, 474
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith,
Inc. v. ENC Corp., 192
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 31–32
Miami Herald Pub. Co. Div. of KnightRidder Newspapers, Inc. v. Ferre, 125
Middle Tenn. News Co. v. Charnel of
Cincinnati, Inc., 50
Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State B. Ass’n., 289
Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 593
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of
Ed., 570
Miller v. Grgurich, 38
Miller v. Mer, 277
Minn. Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp.,
336
Mirak v. McGhan Med. Corp., 443
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 549
Mitchell v. Gonzales, 517
Mitrano v. Hawes, 105
Mitsubishi Int’l Corp. v. S/S Fu An
Cheng, 358
Mitzel v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 422
Mobley v. McCormick, 347
Moe v. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet
Aviation, 19
Mohr v. Margolis, Ainsworth & Kinlaw
Consulting, Inc., 301
Monahan v. Holmes, 90
Montana v. U.S., 572
Montecatini Edison, S.P.A. v. Ziegler,
180
Moore v. Baker, 371–372
Moore v. Dixon, 99, 105, 235
Moore v. Permanente Med. Group, Inc.,
125
Moore v. Western Surety Co., 345
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page xlix
TABLE OF CASES
Moreland v. Barrette, 413
Morgan v. City of New York, 435
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.
Ca. St. Bd. of Equalization, 208
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 114
Morris v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 141
Morse v. Elmira Country Club, 409
Mosley v. General Motors Corp.,
184–185
Muenzberg v. Barnes, 104
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust CO., 253
Munoz v. England, 304
Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe
Stringing, Inc., 121
Musser v. Gentiva Health Serv., 467
N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v.
South Bend, 313–314
N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 392–393
NAACP, Detroit Branch v. Detroit Police Officers Assoc., 580
Naghiu v. Inter-Continental Hotels
Group, Inc., 155
NAS Elecs., Inc. v. Transtech Elecs. Pte
Ltd., 388
Nat’l Bank of Washington v. Dolgov,
546
Nat’l Dev. Co. v. Triad Holding Corp.,
252
Nat’l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent,
295
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
Pa. v. Aerowhawk Aviation, Inc., 327
National Org. for Women v. Mutual of
Omaha Ins. Co., 51
Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n. v. Dep’t of
Interior, 284
Nelson v. Kefer, 47
xlix
New Jersey Sports Prods., Inc. v. Don
King Prods., Inc., 208
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 560
New York State Nat. Organization for
Women v. Terry, 551
New York v. Cyco.net, Inc., 107
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 41
Nivens v. Gilchrist, 289
Nixon v. U.S., 280
Noonan v. Winston Co., 72
Norris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 122
Northeast Ohio Coalition for Homeless
and Serv. Employees Int’l. v. Blackwell,
550
Nowak v. Tak How Investments, Ltd.,
78
NYLife Distribs., Inc., v. Adherence
Group, Inc., 209
O’Brien v. Alexander, 341
O’Brien v. City of Syracuse, 574
Ocean Atlantic Dev. Corp. v. Willow
Treat Farm L.L.C., 336
Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of
Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO,
550–551
Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club,
284
Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v.
Western Union Tel. Co., 537
Olympic Sports Prods., Inc. v. Universal Athletic Sales Co., 418
OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of
Canada, 67
Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff
& Co., 251, 253
One Beacon Ins. Co. v. JNB Storage
Trailer Rental Corp., 234, 350
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page l
l
TABLE OF CASES
Ontel Prods., Inc. v. Project Strategies
Corp., 353
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 429
Orb Factory Ltd. v. Design Science Toys,
Ltd., 300
Orozco v. Trinity Ship Mgmt., Inc., 358
Osborn v. Bank of the U.S.,
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 216, 245–247
Pacitti v. Macy’s, 429
Palcko v. Airborne Express, Inc., 328
Palmore v. Sidoti, 286
Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez,
362
Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen 81
Paparelli v. Prudential Ins. Co., 455
Parke-Chapley Constr. Co. v. Cherrington, 563
Parker v. Colombia Pictures Indus., 388
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 580,
584–585
Patterson v. MacDougall, 191
Payne v. Brake, 394
PdP Parfums de Paris v. Int’l Fragrances,
155
Peabody v. Hamilton, 82
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 73, 80
Pelletier, 345 345
Penn Millers Ins. Co. v. U.S., 375
Pennoyer v. Neff, 56, 530
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain,
515
Penrod Drilling Co. v. Johnson, 103–104
People ex rel. Wheeler v. So. Pac. Transp.
Co., 464
Pepsico, Inc., v. Board of Trustees of the
W. Conference of Teamsters Pension
Trust Fund, 104
Percy v. San Francisco Gen. Hosp., 375
Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 190
Perez v. Posse Comitatus, 344
Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co.,
72
Perry v. Globe Auto Recycling, Inc, 577
Peterson v. Wilson, 518
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 418
Phillips v. Bowen, 524
Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 477
Picciotto v. Continental Cas. Co., 220
Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp., 65
Pierce v. Shorty Small’s of Branson, Inc.,
302
Pikofsky v. Jem Oil Co., 393
Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd., 68– 69,
302
Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l v. Holden Found.
Seeds, Inc., 227
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 361
PKWare v. Meade, 106, 108, 235, 352
Plant v. Blazer Financial Services,
177–178
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 586
Poole v. Textron, Inc., 476–77 476– 477
Porn v. Nat’l Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 574
Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 123
Powell v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 358
Preferred RX, Inc. v. Am. Prescription
Plan, Inc., 541
Price v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 28–29
Price v. CTB, Inc., 198
Pro Billiards Tour Ass’n. v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 477
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc.
v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 140
Protestant Mem. Med. Center, Inc. v.
Maram, 284
Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust
Co. v. Patterson, 192–193
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page li
TABLE OF CASES
Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Stump, 318
Publicis Communication v. True North
Communications Inc., 575
Publicker Indus. Inc. v. U.S., 349
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth.
v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 549
Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 111
Puricelli v. CAN Ins. Co., 185
PYCA Indus. v. Harrison County Waste
Water Management Dist., 545
Q Int’l Courier, Inc. v. Smoak, 177
Quinn v. Owen Fed. Bank FSB, 227
Railroad, Inc., 42
Rainbow Mgmt. Group., Ltd. v. Atlantis
Submarines Hawaii, L.P., 204
Raines v. Byrd, 282
Rainey v. Am. Forest & Paper Ass’n.,
Inc., 454
Randazzo v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc.,
147
Rashidi v. Albright, 331, 393
Rates Technology Inc. v. Nortel Networks
Corp., 296
Rector v. Approved Fed. Sav. Bank, 343
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. B-Jays USA, Inc.,
355
Redfern v. Sullivan, 574
Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt
Lake R.R., 515
Reiter v. Cooper, 545
Revell v. Lidov, 81
Reyes v. Freebery, 548
Richards v. Jefferson County, 577
Richardson v. Nassau County, 565
Rich-Mix Products, Inc. v. Quickrete
Companies, Inc., 106
Ridder Bros., Inc. v. Blethen, 47
Rios v. Davis, 581
li
Rivera Castillo v. Autokirey, Inc., 528
Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro, 319
Roberts v. Corrothers, 329
Robinette v. Jones, 580, 583
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 554
Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron &
Metal Co., 441
Rodick v. City of Schenectady, 139, 142
Romero v. Cajun Stabilizing Boats, Inc.,
350
Romine v. CompuServe Corp., 290
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 280,
287–280
Rose v. Giamatti, 43, 125
Ross v. Rell, 550
Roth v. Green, 343
Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 565
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 17
Rush v. Smith, 541
Rutherford v. Merck & Co., 117
S&W Enterp., L.L.C. v. Southtrust Bank
of Alabama, NA, 389
S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 118
Sagent Technology, Inc. v. Micros Sys.,
Inc., 300
Salgado v. Gen’l Motors Corp., 467
Salpoglou v. Schlomo Widder, 107
Salve Regina College v. Russell, 418
Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc.,
119
Sanders v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 500
Santelli v. Electro-Motive, 432
Sanyo Laser Prods., Inc. v. Arista
Records, Inc., 428
Saval v. BL Ltd., 48
Schaefer v. First Nat’l Bank of Lincolnwood, 547
Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y
of U.S., 46, 586
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page lii
lii
TABLE OF CASES
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 458– 459
Schmitt v. Beverly Health & Rehab.
Serv., Inc., 499
Schoot v. U.S., 197, 234
Schrag v. Simpson, 345
Schultze v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
352–353
Schwarm v. Craighead, 225, 227
Searle Bros. v. Searle, 578
Searock v. Stripling, 440
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 544
SEC v. Lucent, 318–319
Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin
Corp., 570
Senate Select Committee v. Nixon, 20
Seven Hanover Assocs., LLC v. Jones
Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., 435
Shaffer v. Heitner, 88–89
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets,
110
Sheets v. CTS Wireless Components, Inc.,
185
Shell Oil Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur.
Co., 367
Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 35
Shuffle Master Inc. v. Progressive Games,
Inc., 474
Shulthis v. McDougal, 32
Silva v. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.,
301, 359
Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. U.S. Dist.
Court, 555
Simon v. Ward, 102
Singh v. George Washington University,
552
Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l
Shipping Corp., 361–362
Sinochem, 548
Skidmore Energy, Inc., v. KPMG, 139
Skillin v. Kimball, 522
Slayton v. Am. Exp. Co., 373
Smart v. Goord, 352
Smelt v. County of Orange, 291
Smith Pet. Serv. Int’l v. Monsanto Chem.
Co., 212
Smith v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 302,
356
Smith v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,
253
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.,
33
Smith v. Kirkpatrick, 574
Smith v. Yale Univ., 303
Snell v. Mayor and City Council of
Havre de Grace, 574
Snyder v. Harris, 51
So. New England Tel. Co. v. Global
NAPS, Inc., 370
Sobley v. So. Natural Gas Co, 512
Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Corp., 573
Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 388–389
Souran v. Travelers Ins. Co., 345
South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Ala., 577
Southern Boston Mgmt. Corp. v. BP
Prods. N. Am. Inc., 200
Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v.
Sherwin-Williams Co., 468
Southland Oil Co. v. Miss. Ins. Guar.
Ass’n., 130
Southland Sec. Corp. v. Inspire Ins. Solutions, Inc., 153
Sovereign Sales, L.L.C. v. New York Accessory Group, Inc., 200
Spearman Indus., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire
& Marine Ins. Co., 468
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab
Co., 45, 47
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page liii
TABLE OF CASES
St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial
Fin. Corp., 439
Stadtherr v. Elite Logistics, Inc., 499
Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 477– 478
Starlight Int’l Inc. v. Herlihy, 440
State Exchange Bank v. Hartline, 348
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire,
35, 208
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Century
Home Components, 585
Steel Valley Auth. V. Union Switch &
Signal Div., 128
Steffan v. Cheney, 429
Stein v. Bayer Corp., 124
Stelax Indus., Ltd. v. Donahue, 232
Stock West Corp. v. Taylor, 38
Stone v. Dept. of Aviation, 576
Storey v. Cello Holdings, LLC, 262
Stradford v. Zurich Ins. Co., 153
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 37
Stuart v. Spademan, 80
Studio Art Theatre of Evansville, Inc. v.
City of Evansville, Ind., 581
Suber v. Chrysler Corp., 46
Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Astellas Pharma, Inc., 360
Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 418
Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l, 295
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 154
Swift v. Tyson, 408– 410
Sykes v. Hengel, 322
Sylvester v. City of N.Y., 528
Taylor v. CSX Transp., Inc., 235
Tedford v. Warner Lambert Co., 124
Telectron v. Overhead Door Corp., 348
Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 189
Tesser v. Bd. of Ed., 527
Testa v. Katt, 52
liii
Tex. Railroad Comm’n. v. Pullman, 280,
290–291
Theilmann v. Rutland Hospital, Inc.,
400
Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 129–130
Thesleff v. Harvard Trust Co., 45
Thomas v. Capital Security Serv., Inc.,
139
Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray, 507
Thompson v. Dep’t of Housing & Urban
Dev., 430, 475
Thompson v. Duke, 139
Thompson v. Haskell Co., 470
Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto,
78
Tillman v. CSX Transp., Inc. 130
Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept.,
225
Toms v. Links Sports Mgmt. Group, L.P.,
430
Tongkook Am. v. Shipton Sportswear
Co., 46
Too, Inc. v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc., 200
Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr, 84
TransAmerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Aviation Office of Am., Inc., 578
Transclean Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l., Inc.,
586
Travelers Health Ass’n v. Va., 74
Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac. Aircraft
Indus., 278
Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp., 417
Tri-Ex Enterprises, Inc. v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., 371
Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 115
Truck-a-Tune, Inc. v. Re, 208
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page liv
liv
TABLE OF CASES
Trustees of the Univ. of Pennsylvania v.
Mayflower Transit, Inc., 318
Tull v. U.S., 504
Turner v. CF&I Steel Corp., 191
U. S. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.,
432
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment,
Inc., 455
U.S. ex rel. Bilyew v. Franzen, 560
U.S. ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles
County, 449
U.S. ex rel. Tiesinga v. Dianon Systems,
Inc., 455
U.S. v. An Article of Drug, 528
U.S. v. Botefuhr, 230
U.S. v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of
Am., Inc., 542, 549, 555
U.S. v. First Nat’l Bank of Circle, 389,
500
U.S. v. Indrelunas, 542
U.S. v. Konovsky, 581
U.S. v. Mercedes-Benz of North Am.,
398
U.S. v. Reyes, 400
U.S. v. Reynolds, 431
U.S. v. Rice, 130
U.S. v. Sioux Nation, 586
U.S. v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 83
U.S. v. Tittjung, 567
U.S. v. Union Pacific R.R., 68
Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise, S.A.,
105
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,
184, 216, 218–219
United States v. Dist. Council of New
York City and Vicinity of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 435
United States v. J.M. Taylor, 454
United Steelworkers of Am. v. R.H.
Bouligny, Inc., 43
Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, 524
Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 398
Univ. of Tex. v. Vratil, 446
Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 432
Ushman v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 123
Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127
Valentinn v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 39
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 354, 416– 417
Vance v. U.S., 467
Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 552
Verizon Md., Inc. v. Global Naps, Inc.,
35
Versa Prods., Inc. v. Home Depot, USA,
Inc., 399
Viacom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant
Servs., Inc., 152
Vines v. Univ. of La. at Monroe, 579
Vitalo v. Cabot Corp., 465
VMS/PCA Ltd. Partnership v. PCA
Partners Ltd. Partnership, 350
Von Zuckerstein v. Argonne Nat’l Lab.,
512
Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram
Co., 391
Vuitton v. White, 550
Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 408, 413
Walker v. Norwest Corp., 141
Walkill 5 Assocs. II v. Tectonic Eng’r,
P.C., 199, 201
Warth v. Sedlin, 286
Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange & Ass’n. v. Fisons Corp., 443
Wasson v. Riverside County, 307
Watergate Landmark Condo. Unit
Owner’s Ass’n v. Wiss, Janey, Elstner
Ass’n., 199
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page lv
TABLE OF CASES
Watson v. Blankinship, 184
Watson v. City of Newark, 540
Weathington v. United Behavioral
Health, 128
Weiss v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, PLC,
435
Wennik v. Polygram Group Distrib., Inc.,
522
Wickstrom v. Ebert, 393
Wight v. Bankamerica Corp., 154
Wild v. Subscription Plus, Inc., 302
Wilderness Soc’y v. Alcock, 283
Will v. Hallock, 547–548
Will v. United States, 554
Williams v. Bd. Of City Comm’rs., 446
Williams v. Kleppe, 47
Williams v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 454
Williams v. Runyon, 525
Williamson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 527
Wilson v. Belin, 65
Wilson v. Lakner, 454
lv
Wilson v. U.S., 355
Wise v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, 43
Wood v. Worachek, 374
Woods v. Interstate Realty Co, 410
Workman v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 517
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 57, 76
Yannacopoulos v. Gen’l Dynamics Corp.,
541
Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd., 361
Young & Assocs. Public Relations, LLC
v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 510
Young v. Lepone, 375
Younger v. Harris, 280, 288–290
Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc., 334
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,
80
Zubalake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 459
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page lvi
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page lvii
Series Editor’s Foreword
The Carolina Academic Press Mastering Series is designed to provide you with
a tool that will enable you to easily and efficiently “master” the substance and
content of law school courses. Throughout the series, the focus is on quality
writing that makes legal concepts understandable. As a result, the series is designed to be easy to read and is not unduly cluttered with footnotes or cites to
secondary sources.
In order to facilitate student mastery of topics, the Mastering Series includes
a number of pedagogical features designed to improve learning and retention.
At the beginning of each chapter, you will find a “Roadmap” that tells you
about the chapter and provides you with a sense of the material that you will
cover. A “Checkpoint” at the end of each chapter encourages you to stop and
review the key concepts, reiterating what you have learned. Throughout the book,
key terms are explained and emphasized. Finally, a “Master Checklist” at the
end of each book reinforces what you have learned and helps you identify any
areas that need review or further study.
We hope that you will enjoy studying with, and learning from, the Mastering Series.
Russell L. Weaver
Professor of Law & Distinguished University Scholar
University of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
lvii
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/26/11 12:16 PM Page lviii
00 hricik MCP2e auto1 5/27/11 8:43 AM Page lix
Introduction and
Acknowledgments
This book was written by someone who spent fourteen years litigating cases
in federal court and then five teaching federal civil procedure. It is designed to
bring the practical side of procedure to life while thoroughly discussing the
philosophical and conceptual underpinnings of civil procedure.
Thank you Russ, Lindsey, Chase, Kody, Joshua Cup, and Whitney Walsh.
The music of Wes, Warren, Kelly, and several others kept me focused.
Profound thanks to Cindy Schiesel at Palo Verde High School and Ruth
Gardner at the University of Arizona for helping me — greatly — learn to write.
lix