Cases for Civil Procedure Law
Wood, 2009
Case Name
Summary
Rule of Law
Other Stuff
Jurisdiction Over the Parties Or Their Property
The Traditiontal Bases for Jurisdiction
63
Pennoyer v. Neff
Neff (P) alleged that Pennoyer's
Est. bases for PJ: physical presence in
(D) deed from a sheriff's sale was
territory, or domicile.
invalid bc the ct ordered the sale
exercise juris. over property owned by
had never obtained PJ over Neff.
nonresident in its territory (QUASI IN
State can
REM jurisdiction).
A New Theory of Jurisdiction
76
Int'l Shoe v Washington
State statute authorized mailing
For a state to subject a nonresident D
After this
of notice of assessment of
to in personam juris., due process
decision,
delinquent contributions for
requires that he have certain minimum
states began to
unemployment compensation to
contacts w/it such that the maintenance
enact long-arm
nonresident employers. D was
of the suit doesn't offend trad. notions
statutes;
nonresident corp.
of fair play and substantial justice.
primary
Notice of
assessment was served on one of its
purpose of
salespersons w/in Wash. and was
these statutes
mailed to D's office is MO.
is to provide
local forums
for local Ps on
locally
generated
causes of axn.
Chief barrier
to undue
extension of
long-arm
juris. is the
14th Amend.
Specific Jurisdiction and State Long-Arm Laws: The Development of Long-Arm Laws
83
Gray v American Radiator
Gray (P) alleged that Titan's (D),
Whether a nonresident activity w/in a
an Ohio corp., neg. construction of
state is adequate to subject it to juris.
a valve sold to American Radiator
of that state depends upon the facts of
(D), which incorporated the value
each case, and the relevant inquiry is
into the water heater, caused an
whether D engaged in some act or conduct
explosion in IL, injuring her.
by which he invoked the benefits and
protections of the forum.
Specific Jurisdiction and State Long-Arm Laws: Due Process and Long-Arm Statutes
89
McGee v Int'l Life Insurance Co.
Single insurance policy on CA
Single policy sufficient to est. minimum
resident by AZ insurance co.
contacts; policy was the document being
sued on.
94
World-Wide Volkswagen v Woodson
Robinsons bought a new Audi in NY
The sale of a car by a corporate D is not
Five factors to
from Seaway and while traveling in
a sufficient purposeful availment of the
consider in
OK were involved in a fiery crash
benefits and protection of the laws of
deciding
allegedly aggravated by Audi's
a state where the car is fortuitiously
minimum
neg. placement of the gas tank, and
driven there so as to constiute the
contacts: (1)
DC asserted personal juris. over
requisite "minimum contacts" w/ that
burden on D;
Seaway and World-Wide Volkswagen
state for PJ purposes.
(2) forum
(P), another dealer
state's
interest in
adjudicating
the dispute;
(3) P's
interest in
obtaining
convenient and
effective
relief (at
least where P's
interest is not
adequately
protected by
P's power to
choose the
forum); (4) the
interstate
judicial
system's
interest in
obtaining the
most efficient
resolution of
controversies;
(5) shared
interest of the
several states
in furthering
fundamental
substantive
social
policies.
104
Keeton v Hustler Magazine
Plaintiff's contact with a forum was not a separate requirement for
determining whether personal jurisdiction over defendant was proper, and lack
of such contacts by plaintiff in her libel case was immaterial.
106
Kulko v Superior Ct.
Where father did not purposely avail himself of benefits of California laws
by consenting to his children living there with mother, California state
courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over father in an action to
modify child support.
108
Burger King v Rudzewicz
Rudzewicz (D), MI resident,
A party who establishes purposeful
contended that FL ct lacked PJ over
minimum contacts w/ a state is subject
him for franchise dispute
to that state's exercise of PJ over him.
117
Asahi Metal Industry v Supeior Court
P appealed from decision of the Cal
Minimum contacts sufficient to sustain
Even if all
SC discharging a peremptory writ
juris. are not satisfied simply by the
five factors
issued by the appeals ct quashing
placement of a product into the stream
from Worldwide
service of summons in Cheng Shin's
of commerce coupled w/ an awareness that
Volkswagen
indemnity axn, contending that
its product would reach the forum state.
present, can be
there did not exist minimum
overcome by
contacts btw Cal and Asahi (P).
fairness
considerations
in exceptional
circumstances
like here.
General Jurisdiction and State Long-Arm Laws
128
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v
Texas exercised juris. over
Purchases of equipment and training of
Hall
foreign corp (D) on the basis of its
personnel may be insufficient to confer
purchases of helicopters there and
PJ.
certain training its pilots had
undergone - SC determins that
juris. was improper.
New Bases of Juris: Technological Contacts
135
Pebble Beach v Caddy
P brought trademark infringement
Where D has not (1) purposefully availed
Zippo case
axn agnst owner of a bed and
himself of the privilege of conducint
(141) which has
breakfast that overlooks a pebbly
activities in the forum, or (2)
"sliding
beach in England (called "Pebble
purposefully directed his activites
scale", the
Beach").
towards the forum, the minimum contacts
diff. btw
test for PJ is not satisfied.
"active"
DC dismissed for lack of
PJ, CoA affirmed.
websites,
which allow
customers to
transact
business thru
the site;
"interactive",
which allow the
user to
exchange info,
but not
transact
business; and
"passive"
which operate
more or less
like an
advertisement.
Jurisdiction Based Upon Power Over Property
147
Shaffer v Heitner
P brought derivative suit agnst
Juris. can't be founded on property w/in
Expanded
Greyhound directors (D) for
a state unless there are sufficient
minimum
antitrust losses it sustained in
contacts w/in the meaning of the test
contacts test
Oregon.
developed in Int'l Shoe.
of Int'l Shoe
The suit was brought in
DE, D's state of incorporation.
from just in
personam
juris. to quasi
in rem juris as
well.
A Refrain, Jurisdiction Based Upon Physical Presence
160
Burnham v Superior Ct
P was personally served w/ process
14th Amend. does not deny a state juris.
P wants minimum
while temporarily in Cal. on
over a person personally served w/
contacts test
business, while visiting his
process while temporirly in a state, in
applied to
children.
a suit unrelated to his activities in the
in-state
state.
service as
well, but SC
confirms that
minimum
contacts test
only refers to
out-of-state
service.
Another Basis of Juris: Consent
171
Insurance Corp of Ireland v Compagnie
District court did not abuse discretion in finding that petitioners were
Des Bauxites de Guinee
subject to personal jurisdiction under sanction where sanction was just under
circumstances and specifically related to the particular claim at issue in
order to make discovery.
173
M/S Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co
A choice of forum clause in an international contract was applicable to a
breach of the contract absent a showing by the party who sought to invalidate
the clause that application of the clause was unreasonable.
173
Carnival Cruise Lines v Shute
Clause in contract between cruise line company and passengers that limited
forum to one state was valid where there was no bad-faith motive for the choice
of forum, and where company did not limit its liability.
Jurisdictional Reach of Fed District Cts
FRCP 4k: Territorial Limits of Effective Service. (1) In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes
personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the
state where the district court is located; (B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial
district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or (C) when authorized by
a federal statute.
(2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving
a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the defendant is not
subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with
the United States Constitution and laws.
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter of the Axn - The Court's Competency
The SMJ of the Fed Cts - Diversity of Citizenship
§ 1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs - (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
and is between (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3)
citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign
state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States. (For the
purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence
shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.)....
§ 1359. Parties collusively joined or made - A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which
any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of
such court.
§ 1369. Multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction - (a) In general.--The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
any civil action involving minimal diversity between adverse parties that arises from a single accident, where at least
75 natural persons have died in the accident at a discrete location, if - (1) a defendant resides in a State and a substantial
part of the accident took place in another State or other location, regardless of whether that defendant is also a resident
of the State where a substantial part of the accident took place; (2) any two defendants reside in different States, regardless
of whether such defendants are also residents of the same State or States; or (3) substantial parts of the accident took
place in different States.
---
(b) Limitation of jurisdiction of district courts.--The district court shall abstain from
hearing any civil action described in subsection (a) in which - (1) the substantial majority of all plaintiffs are citizens
of a single State of which the primary defendants are also citizens; and (2) the claims asserted will be governed primarily
by the laws of that State.
---
(c) Special rules and definitions.--For purposes of this section - (1) minimal diversity
exists between adverse parties if any party is a citizen of a State and any adverse party is a citizen of another State,
a citizen or subject of a foreign state, or a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title;...
Diversity of Citizenship - Determining Citizenship
255
Mas v Perry
D appealed a damage award,
Mere residence in a state doesn't est.
Domicile: A
contending it had been entered in
domicile for purposes of diversity
person's
the absence of diversity of
juris.
permanent home
citizenship, and thus the fed ct
or principal
lacked SMJ.
establishment
to which he has
an intention of
returning when
he is absent
therefrom.
Diversity of Citizenship - Amount in Controversy
262
AFA Tours v Whitchurch
P's diversity axn was dismissed on
A ct. may not dismiss a diversity axn for
the grounds that the
failure to meet the
amount-in-controvery requprement
amount-in-controversy requirement w/o
had not been satisfied, even though
allowing P to brief the issue.
the issue had not been briefed.
The SMJ of the Fed Cts - Federal Questions
§ 1331. Federal question - The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
§ 1334. Bankruptcy cases and proceedings - (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district (fed.)
courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11….
§ 1337. Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in controversy, costs - (a) The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade
and commerce against restraints and monopolies: Provided, however, That the district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of an action brought under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt or bill
of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs....
§ 1338. Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition - (a)
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to
patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the
states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases.
§ 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise - (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action
authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because
of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy
mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing
any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To
redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right,
privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights
of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable
or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.
§ 1345. United States as plaintiff - Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer
thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.
§ 1346. United States as defendant - (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United
States Court of Federal Claims, of: (1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue
tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected
without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue
laws;...
271
273
Osborn v Bank of the US
Bank of the United States was constitutionally empowered to sue in federal
Ex. of fed.
court for repayment of funds seized by state officials under an invalid state
juris. bc US is
statute levying a tax upon the bank and authorizing seizure of the tax.
D.
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v
Mottley sued in fed. ct.
Mottley
on state law (breach of K).
SC raised SMJ sua sponte; Mottley's claim based
RR raised fed.-related defense, but that is not
enough for fed. juris., fed. claim must arise in the P's complaint (not just
in a defense that D raises in response).
281
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v
D argues that the presence of a fed
Incorporation of a fed standard in a
Thompson
standard at issue in a state law
state law private axn, when that
private axn created fed Q juris,
standard creates no fed right of axn,
even though the standard carried no
does not confer fed Q juris.
fed right of axn.
290
Grable & Sons Metal Products v Darue
Prop owned by comp that was
A case involving the interpretation of
Engineering & Manufacturing
delinquent in paying its fed taxes
fed tax law may be removed to fed ct from
was seized and sold.
state court.
The company
Can be removed to fed ct
sued the new owner, claiming that
bc implicated serious fed issues, and bc
the IRS should have provided notice
there is national interest in providing
by personal service, according to
a fed forum for fed tax litigation
fed tax law.
warranting removing the case to fed ct..
THe new owner removed
the case to fed ct.
290
Empire Healthcare Assurance v McVeigh
The SMJ of the Fed Cts - Supplemental Claims and Parties
§ 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction - (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise
by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall
have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such
supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. --- (b)
In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title,
the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons
made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to
be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules,
when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of
section 1332.
---
(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection
(a) if-- (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law; (2) the claim substantially predominates over the
claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; (3) the district court has dismissed all claims
over which it has original jurisdiction, or; (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for
declining jurisdiction.
291
United Mine Workers of America v Gibbs
Gibbs (P) lost his job as
Under pendant jurisdiction, fed cts may
superintendent of a coal mining
decide state issues which are closely
comp bc of alleged unlawful
related to the fed issues being
influence of UMW (D)
litigated
297
Owen Equipment & Erection Co v Kroger
299
Finley v US
304
Exxon Mobil Corp v Allapattah
Only some memb ers of a class met
Where one P's claim satisfies the
Services, Maria Del Rosario Ortega v
the amount-in-controversy to
minimum amount-in-controversy req. for
Star-Kist Foods
establish diversity juris., and
fed diversity juris., and another P's
the circuit cts were split as to
related claim does not, 28 USC 1367
whether each member's claim must
allows fed cts to exercise supp. juris.
meet the req in order for their
over the claim that is less than the
claims to go forward, if the claims
required amount.
of the other members of the class
meet the req.
305
Executive Software North America v US
Page filed a complaint in state ct
Absent extraordinary circumstances, 28
DC for the Central District of Cal.
agnst her former employer,
USC 1367c1-c3 sets forth the exclusive
Executive Software (P) alleging
circumstances under which a fed. ct. may
fed. and state claims of religious
appropriately decline pendant juris.
and racial discrimination
The SMJ of Fed Cts - REMOVAL
§ 1441. Actions removable generally - (a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by
the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under
fictitious names shall be disregarded.
--
(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction
founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without
regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties
in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.
--
(c)
Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the jurisdiction conferred by section 1331 of this
title is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and
the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law
predominates.
313
Shamrock Oil & Gas v Sheets
318
Borough of West Mifflin v Lancaster
DC remanded to state ct a civil
DC may not remand to state ct an axn
28 USC 1441c
rights axn containing Sec. 1983
containing a Sec. 1983 claim on the
provides for
claim on the grounds that state law
grounds that the state law claims
remand only
claims predominated.
predominate.
when fed claims
are separate
and
independent
from the fed
claim.
When
the claims are
so closely
related that
the state law
claims can be
considered
supplemental
(forerly
"pendent")
they are not
separate and
independent
under 1441c.
Here the state
and fed claims
were not
separate and
independent.
Challenging the SMJ of the Ct - Direct Attack on a Ct's Lack of SMJ - NO CASES (p323)
Challenging the SMJ of the Ct - Collateral Attack on a Judgment for Lack of SMJ - NO CASES (p325)
Venue, Transfer, and Forum Non Conveniens
Venue - Local and Transitory Axns
333
Reasor-Hill v Harrison (Circuit Ct
Barton sought damages in an Ark. ct
If a local axn cannot be brought at the
Judge)
from Reasor-Hill Corp (P) for
situs of the prop bc of lack of juris of
selling an insecticide which
D, the axn may be brought in the state
damaged Barton's (P) cotton crop in
where D resides.
MO.
Venue in the Fed Cts
§ 1391. Venue generally - (a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise
provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part
of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
--- (b) A
civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought
only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the
subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which
the action may otherwise be brought.
--- (c) For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be
deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. In a
State which has more than one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at
the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts
would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and, if there is no such district,
the corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant contacts.
-- (d) An alien may be
sued in any district. (e) A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof
acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except
as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, (2) a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action
is situated, or (3) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.
337
Bates v C&S Adjusters
P contended that venue was proper
Venue is proper under the Fair Debt
in his axn under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act in the district
Collection Practices Act in the
where an allegedly offending letter is
district where he received an
received.
allegedly offending letter from D,
a collection agency
Transfer of Venue in Fed Cts
§ 1404. Change of venue - (a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. - (b) Upon motion, consent
or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be
transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same district.
Transfer of proceedings in rem brought by or on behalf of the United States may be transferred under this section without
the consent of the United States where all other parties request transfer. - (c) A district court may order any civil action
to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.
341
Hoffman v Blaski
Hoffman (D), a fed. district ct.
Under 28 USC 1404a, fed ct can only
judge in IL, denied Blaski's (P)
transfer a case to a ct where P could have
motion to retransfer a patent
originally brought the case.
infringement axn which P brought
agnst Howell in fed. DC in Tx back
to that Tx ct.
Forum Non Conveniens
349
Piper Aircraft v Reyno
Reyno (P), the representative of
P may not defeat motion to dismiss for
five victims of an air crash,
forum non conveniens merely by showing
brought suit in Cal even though the
that the substantive law that would be
location of the crash and the home
applied in the alternative forum is less
of the victims was in Scotland
favorable to him than that of the present
forum.
Joinder of Claims and Parties: Expanding the Scope of the Civil Axn
Joinder of Claims - Historical Limitations on the Permissive Joinder of Claims
578
Harris v Avery
P alleged that D called him a thief,
P may unite causes of axn where they have
said he had stolen a horse, took the
arisen from the same transaxn(s)
horse from him, and kept it for 4
connected w/ the same subject matter.
or 5 days, and had him arrested.
Rule 18. Joinder of Claims - (a) In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim
may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.
--
(b) Joinder of
Contingent Claims. A party may join two claims even though one of them is contingent on the disposition of the other; but
the court may grant relief only in accordance with the parties' relative substantive rights. In particular, a plaintiff
may state a claim for money and a claim to set aside a conveyance that is fraudulent as to that plaintiff, without first
obtaining a judgment for the money.
580
MK v Tenet (Part I)
CIA employees (P) sought to amend
FRCP 18 permits joinder of all claims a
their complaint against the CIA (D)
party has agnst an opposing party
by adding new Ps, adding new Ds, and
clarifying the original Ps'
claims.
The Cia (D) moved to sever
the original Ps' claims from those
of the new Ps.
Addition of Claims - Counterclaims
Rule 13a-f. Counterclaim
--
(a) Compulsory Counterclaim. - (1) In General. A pleading must state as a counterclaim any
claim that--at the time of its service--the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim: (A) arises out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and (B) does not require adding another
party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. - (2) Exceptions. The pleader need not state the claim if: (A) when
the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or (B) the opposing party sued on its claim
by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader
does not assert any counterclaim under this rule. --- (b) Permissive Counterclaim. A pleading may state as a counterclaim
against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.
---
(c) Relief Sought in a Counterclaim. A counterclaim need
not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party. It may request relief that exceeds in amount or differs
in kind from the relief sought by the opposing party.
---
(d) Counterclaim Against the United States. These rules do
not expand the right to assert a counterclaim--or to claim a credit--against the United States or a United States officer
or agency.
---
(e) Counterclaim Maturing or Acquired After Pleading. The court may permit a party to file a supplemental
pleading asserting a counterclaim that matured or was acquired by the party after serving an earlier pleading.
---
(f)
Omitted Counterclaim. The court may permit a party to amend a pleading to add a counterclaim if it was omitted through
oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect or if justice so requires.
584
US v Heyward-Robinson Co
D counterclaimed agnst P in fed ct
When a counterclaim is asserted on a K
on 2 contracts, only one of which
in fed ct, a claim based on another K may
was subject to fed juris.
be joined, if there is a logical
relationship btw the claims
Addition of Claims - Cross-Claims
Rule 13g-h.
Cross-Claim -- (g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty. A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party
against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action
or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim
may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the
action against the cross-claimant.
--
(h) Joining Additional Parties. Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person
as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim.
593
Lasa Per L'Industria Del Marmo Societa
P filed suit agnst D alleging that
Cross-claims, counterlcaims, and
Per Azioni v Alexander
it was owed a balance on its K to
3d-party complaints arising from the
supply marble to another D, and
same transaxn or occurrence as the
after P filed suit, D2 filed a
subject matter of the original complaint
cross-claim and a 3d-party
may be joined with the original
complaint, both of which were
complaint.
dismissed by the TC as not arising
from the same transaxn or
occurence.
Identifying Parties who may be Sued and be Sued
599
Ellis Canning Co. v Int'l Harvester Co.
P alleged that it had been damaged
An insured who has been fully paid for
comp and brought this axn to
for the use and benefit of the insurer.
recover the amount for the use and
Note, there can be more than one real
benefit of the insurance comp.
party at interest
See Rule 17
by a fire allegedly caused by D's his loss is not the real party in
(defines real
neg. P recovered the full amount interest and, hence, cannot maintain an parties at
of its damages from its insurance axn to recover the amount of such loss interest)
Claims Involving Multiple Parties - Permissive Joinder of Parties - Historical Limitations on Permissive Joinder of Parties
o603
Ryder v Jefferson Hotel
The Ryders (P) suffered personal
When two or more persons suffer a
losses as a result of insults from
tortious act arising out of the same
a Jefferson Hotel (D) servant.
occurrence or transaxn, each person's
cause of axn must be severed and tried
sparately, if the torts are of a personal
nature (even if the two ppl are husband
and wife)
Claims Involving Multiple Parties - Permissive Joinder of Parties - Permissive Joinder Under FRCP 20
Rule 20. Permissive Joinder of Parties
--
(a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined.
(1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as
plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise
in the action.
--
(2) Defendants. Persons--as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem--may be
joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or
fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. -- (3) Extent of Relief. Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant need be interested
in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. The court may grant judgment to one or more plaintiffs according to their rights,
and against one or more defendants according to their liabilities.
--- (b) Protective Measures. The court may issue orders--including
an order for separate trials--to protect a party against embarrassment, delay, expense, or other prejudice that arises from including a
person against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party.
Rule 21. Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties
--
Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On
motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim
against a party.
Rule 42. Consolidation; Separate Trials
--
(a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question
of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate
the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
606
MK v Tenent (Part II)
Former CIA employees (P) sought to
An alleged pattern of obstruction of
amend their complaint against the
counsel justifies joinder of Ps under
CIA (D) by adding new Ps, adding new
FRCP 20(a).
Ds, and clarifying the original Ps'
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
claims.
second amended complaint. The court
The CIA (D) moved to drop
some Ps from the proposed amended
complaint.
(The court granted
denied defendants' motion to sever.)
608
Tanbro Fabrics Corp v Beaunit Mills
The buyer, Tanbro (P) sought to
Even tho there are separate
(The court
place liability for debts in goods
relationships, Ks or duties existing btw
affirmed, as
on either seller, Beaunit Mills (D)
parties in a multiple axn, mordernly a
modified, the
or the processor, Amity (D)
P, to consolidate his calims, need only
supreme
show: (1) prima facie that one of the Ds
court's order
caused the injury; (2) the D's
by denying the
alternative liability arose from a
seller's cross
common transaxn; and (3) that there
motion to
exist Qs of law and fact common to all
dismiss the
parties.
complaint and
by granting the
buyer's motion
to
consolidate.)
Claims Involving Multiple Parties - Mandatory Joinder of Persons - The Traditional Concept of "Indispensable" Parties
612
Bank of Cal. Nat. Ass'n v Superior
Smedley (P) brought an axn to
Necessary parties are those who are so
(The court
Court
enforce a K in which Boyd,
interested in the controversy that they
denied the
decedent, promised to leave her
should normally be joined in order to
request by
entire estate to P.
enable the ct to do complete justice, but
petitioners,
the axn agnst Bank of Cal (D),
whose interests are separable so they
estate
executor of Boyd's will, and St.
are not indispensable parties, that is,
executor and
Luke's (D2) Hospital, the
parties w/o whom the ct cannot proceed.
residuary
She rbought
residuary legatee who was to
legatee, for a
recover the bulk of the estate.
writ of
THe will named many additional
prohibition
legatees, who P did not name as Ds.
against
respondent
trial court.)
Claims Involving Multiple Parties - Mandatory Joinder of Persons - Compulsary Joinder of Persons Needed for a Just
Adjudication Under Fed Rule 19
Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties -- (a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process
and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that person's absence, the court cannot
accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing
of the action in the person's absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing
party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest. - (2) Joinder by Court
Order. If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff
may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. - (3) Venue. If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make
venue improper, the court must dismiss that party. --- (b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be
joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.
The factors for the court to consider include: (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the
existing parties; (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief;
or (C) other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate
remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder. --- (c) Pleading the Reasons for Nonjoinder. When asserting a claim for relief, a party must state:
(1) the name, if known, of any person who is required to be joined if feasible but is not joined; and (2) the reasons for not joining that person.
616
Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust v
In a multi-party axn arising out of
In the absence of a party who cannot
(The Court
Patterson
an auto accident, Provident
feasibly be joined, a ct should not
vacated the
Tradesmens Bank sought
dismiss the axn if, in "equity and good
appellate
indemnification from other Ps from
conscienct," it could proceed w/o the
court's
Lumbermens Casualty (D)
party.
judgment and
remanded the
case for
consideration
of issues
raised on
appeal that had
not been
considered
and, if the
appellate
court affirmed
the district
court as to
those issues,
for an
appropriate
disposition to
preserve the
district
court's
judgment and
protect the
interests of
nonjoined
persons.)
Impleader - Third-Party Practice Under Fed. Rule 14
Rule 14. Third-Party Practice - (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party. (1) Timing of the Summons and Complaint. A defending party may,
as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. But the third-party
plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 10 days after serving its original answer. (2) Third-Party
Defendant's Claims and Defenses. The person served with the summons and third-party complaint--the “third-party defendant”: (A) must assert any defense
against the third-party plaintiff's claim under Rule 12; (B) must assert any counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff under Rule 13(a), and may
assert any counterclaim against the third-party plaintiff under Rule 13(b) or any crossclaim against another third-party defendant under Rule 13(g); (C)
may assert against the plaintiff any defense that the third-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff's claim; and (D) may also assert against the plaintiff
any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff.
-- (3)
Plaintiff's Claims Against a Third-Party Defendant. The plaintiff may assert against the third-party defendant any claim arising out of the transaction
or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff. The third-party defendant must then assert any defense
under Rule 12 and any counterclaim under Rule 13(a), and may assert any counterclaim under Rule 13(b) or any crossclaim under Rule 13(g). -- (4) Motion
to Strike, Sever, or Try Separately. Any party may move to strike the third-party claim, to sever it, or to try it separately. -- (5) Third-Party Defendant's
Claim Against a Nonparty. A third-party defendant may proceed under this rule against a nonparty who is or may be liable to the third-party defendant
for all or part of any claim against it.
-- (6) Third-Party Complaint In Rem. If it is within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, a third-party complaint
may be in rem. In that event, a reference in this rule to the “summons” includes the warrant of arrest, and a reference to the defendant or third-party
plaintiff includes, when appropriate, a person who asserts a right under Supplemental Rule C(6)(a)(i) in the property arrested.
---- (b) When a Plaintiff
May Bring in a Third Party. When a claim is asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may bring in a third party if this rule would allow a defendant
to do so….
626
Jeub v B/G Foods, Inc
When Jeub (P) sued B/G foods (D) for
In a fed. axn, impleader is permitted of
serving spoiled ham, D sought
a party who is or may be liable for
indemnification by joining Swift
indemnification to a party-D so long as
&Co as 3d-party Ds.
the applicable state substantive law
regarding indemnification is satisfied
o628
Too, Inc. v Kohls Department Stores
Too, Inc (P) sued multiple Ds,
A trial ct. should permit a 3d-party
including Windstar Apparel (D) for
complaint if the allegations involve the
allegedly violating P's IP rights
same core of facts as those stated in the
and right to fair competition.
original complaint, but not if the
D
moved for permission to file a
3d-party allegations are facially w/o
3d-party complaint agnst 2 of its
merit.
employees, Mia DeCaro and Paul
Abraham, for their alleged
liability in the underlying
transaxns.
Interpleader - Historical Limitations on the Use of Interpleader
Rule 22. Interpleader - (a) Grounds. (1) By a Plaintiff. Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability
may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder for interpleader is proper even though: (A) the claims of the several claimants,
or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical; or (B) the plaintiff
denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. --- (2) By a Defendant. A defendant exposed to similar liability may
seek interpleader through a crossclaim or counterclaim.
§ 1335. Interpleader - (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader or
in the nature of interpleader filed by any person, firm, or corporation, association, or society having in his or its custody
or possession money or property of the value of $500 or more, or having issued a note, bond, certificate, policy of insurance,
or other instrument of value or amount of $500 or more, or providing for the delivery or payment or the loan of money or
property of such amount or value, or being under any obligation written or unwritten to the amount of $500 or more, if
(1) Two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship as defined in subsection (a) or (d) of section 1332 of this title,
are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property, or to any one or more of the benefits arising by virtue
of any note, bond, certificate, policy or other instrument, or arising by virtue of any such obligation; and if (2) the
plaintiff has deposited such money or property or has paid the amount of or the loan or other value of such instrument
or the amount due under such obligation into the registry of the court, there to abide the judgment of the court, or has
given bond payable to the clerk of the court in such amount and with such surety as the court or judge may deem proper,
conditioned upon the compliance by the plaintiff with the future order or judgment of the court with respect to the subject
matter of the controversy. --- (b) Such an action may be entertained although the titles or claims of the conflicting claimants
do not have a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another.
§ 1397. Interpleader - Any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader under section 1335 of this title
may be brought in the judicial district in which one or more of the claimants reside.
§ 2361. Process and procedure --In any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader under section 1335
of this title, a district court may issue its process for all claimants and enter its order restraining them from instituting
or prosecuting any proceeding in any State or United States court affecting the property, instrument or obligation involved
in the interpleader action until further order of the court. Such process and order shall be returnable at such time as
the court or judge thereof directs, and shall be addressed to and served by the United States marshals for the respective
districts where the claimants reside or may be found. -- Such district court shall hear and determine the case, and may
discharge the plaintiff from further liability, make the injunction permanent, and make all appropriate orders to enforce
its judgment.
634
Hancock Oil v Independent Distributing
Hancock Oil (P) interpleaded
If adverse claimants both claim the
Independent Distributing Co (D)
right to the same debt or property, the
and Hopkins (D) in order to
party owing the debt or holding the
determine which party Hankcock (p)
property can interplead both claimants
owed the rental money to
and force them to litigate the issue of
which claimant has the superior claim to
the debt or property.
Interpleader - Jurisdictional Limitations and Passage of the Federal Interpleader Act
639
New York Life Ins. Co v. Dunlevy
Dunlevy (P) instituted an action in
PJ must be obtained over the individual
California to obtain the proceeds
in an interpleader axn to have the
of an insurance policy that had
judgment be binding on that individual.
been awarded to Dunlevy's (P)
father by a Penn. court
Interpleader in the Fed. Cts.
642
Pan American Fire & Cas. Co v Revere
P sought to interplead all parties
In the fed cts, an insurer can interplead
to a multicar accident who were
all claimants to a particular policy if
seeking to collect agnst holder of
the claims would exceed the policy
the insurance policy
limit.
646
State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co. v. Tashire
State Farm Fire (P) insured the
Insurance companies can invoke the fed.
driver of a truck involved in a
interpleader before claims against them
collision involving a Greyhound
have been reduced to judgment.
bus and attempted to interplead all
to a multiparty litigation can only
claimants
interplead the claimants seeking the
A party
funds of that party.
Intervention
Rule 24. Intervention - (a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right
to intervene by a federal statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated
that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately
represent that interest. -- (b) Permissive Intervention. (1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given
a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
(2) By a Government Officer or Agency. On timely motion, the court may permit a federal or state governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party's
claim or defense is based on: (A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or (B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement
issued or made under the statute or executive order. (3) Delay or Prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention
will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights. -- (c) Notice and Pleading Required. A motion to intervene must be served
on the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense
for which intervention is sought.
652
Smuck v Hobson
Smuck (D) appealed and several
The fed. cts. allow intervention when
other parties sought to intervene
the party has an interest to be
after the school board chose not to
protected, denial of intervention would
appeal a trial court ruling finding
impair the party's ability to protect
racial discrimination.
the interest, and the party is not
adequately represented by others
Class Actions
Operation of the Class Axn Device - Certification - Federal Rule 23(a): "Prerequisites to a Class Axn"
Rule 23. Class Actions -- (a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties
on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical
of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class.
668 General Telephone Co v Falcone
Operation of the Class Axn Device - Certification - Federal Rule 23(b): The Kinds of Class Axns that are "Maintainable"
(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
- (1) prosecuting separate
actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of: (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect
to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests
of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability
to protect their interests;
-
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally
to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as
a whole; or - (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include: (A) the class members' interests in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation
concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating
the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
675 Castano v American Tobacco
P brought a class axn suit agnst D,
Class axns may be certified under
seeking compensation for nicotine
FRCP23b3 only if the requirements of
addiction.
predominance and superiority are met.
Operation of the Class Axn Device - The Certification Decision
(c) Certification Order; Notice to Class Members; Judgment; Issues Classes; Subclasses . - (1) Certification Order. (A) Time to Issue.
At an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify
the action as a class action. (B) Defining the Class; Appointing Class Counsel. An order that certifies a class action must define the
class and the class claims, issues, or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g). (C) Altering or Amending the Order. An
order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment. - (2) Notice. (A) For (b)(1) or (b)(2)
Classes. For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), the court may direct appropriate notice to the class. (B) For (b)(3) Classes.
For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,
including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must clearly and concisely state
in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims,
issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court
will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding
effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3). - (3) Judgment. Whether or not favorable to the class, the judgment in a class
action must: (A) for any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), include and describe those whom the court finds to be class members;
and (B) for any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), include and specify or describe those to whom the Rule 23(c)(2) notice was directed,
who have not requested exclusion, and whom the court finds to be class members. -- (4) Particular Issues. When appropriate, an action may
be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues. -- (5) Subclasses. When appropriate, a class may be divided
into subclasses that are each treated as a class under this rule.
Notice - Orders Appointing Class Counsel - Interlocutory Appeals from Certification Orders - Orders Regulating
the Conduct of Pretrial and Trial Proceedings - Settlement - Attorney's Fees - NO CASES
Ascertaining the Applicable Law
State Law in Federal Cts - The Rule in Swift v Tyson
362
Swift v Tyson
State Law in Fed Cts - The Erie Doctrine: The Rules of Decision Act and the Rules Enabling Act
364
Erie R. Co. v Tompkins
In a personal injury suit, the fed
Although the 1789 Rules of Decision Act
DC trial judge refused to apply
left fed cts unfettered to apply their
applicable state law bc such law
own rules of procedure in CL axns brought
was "general" (judge-made) and not
in fed ct, state law governs substantive
embodied in any statute
issues.
State law includes not only
statutory law, but case law as well.
372
Guaranty Trust Co v York
P, barred from filing suit in state
Where a state statute that would
ct bc of the state statute of
completely bar recovery in state ct has
limitations, brought an equity axn
significant effect on the
in fed ct based upon diversity of
outcome-determination of the axn, even
citizenship juris.
though the suit be brought in equity, the
fed ct is bound by the state law.
379
Byrd v Blue Ridge Rural Electric
P was injured while connecting
The Erie doctrine requires that fed cts
Cooperative
power lines for a subcontractor of
in diversity cases must respect
D.
definitions of rights and obligations
created by state cts, but state laws
cannot alter the essential
characteristics and fxns of the fed cts,
and the jury fxn is such an essential fxn
(provided for in the 7th Amend.)
385
Hanna v Plumer
P filed a tort axn in fed ct in
The Erie doctrine mandates that fed cts
Mass., where D resided, for an auto
are to apply state substantive law and
accident that occurred in South
fed procedural law, but, where matters
Carolina.
fall roughly btw the two, and are
rationally capable of classification as
either, the Constitution grants the fed
ct system the power to regulate their
practice and pleading (procedure).
395
Walker v Armco Steel Corp
P contected that FRCP 3 governed
In diversity axns, FRCP governs the date
the manner in which an axn is
from which timing requirements of the
commenced in fed ct for all
fed rules begin to run but does not
purposes, including the tolling of
affect state statutes of limitations.
the state statute of limitations.
401
Stewart Organization v Ricoh Corp
D contended that fed., not state,
In a fed. diversity suit, fed. rules, not
rules should apply in a motion for
state rules, should govern Qs of venue.
change of venue
406
Gasperini v Center for Humanities
P filed suit agnst D after it lost
The 7th Amend. does not preclude
several 100 slides that he had
appellate review of a trial judge's
loaned D for use in an educational
denial of a motion to set aside a jury
film.
verdict as excessive.
The Problem of Ascertaining State Law - Determining Which State's Law Governs
417
Klaxon v Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.
The Problem of Ascertaining State Law - Ascertaining State Law
418
Mason v American Emery Wheel Works
A fed. ct. sitting in diversity
A state SC ruling on an issue need not
held itself obligated to follow an
be followed by a fed ct sitting in
old Miss. SC decision regarding
diversity if the ruling has lost its
standing to sue in a products
vitality.
liability case.
think state SC would do if case was
Fed. ct. has to do what they
before them today.
Federal "Common Law"
429
Clearfield Trust Co. v US
DC held that state law applied in
In an axn by the fed govt concerning
an axn by the Govt (P) concerning
commercial paper issued by it, fed law
commercial paper issued by it.
shall apply bc the case implicates a fed
interest and there is a need for
uniformity.
433
435
Miree v DeKalb County
Boyle v United Technology Corp.
P sued as 3d party beneficiary of
In K axn, the mere fact that the fed govt
a K btw DeKalb County (D) and the
is a party to the K will not, by itself,
fed govt.
mandate application of fed. law.
P, the father of a US military
Fed military contractor is immune from
helicopter pilot, filed a
liability for design defects under state
diversity suit agnst D, the comp.
tort law.
that made the helicopter in which
federal interests."
P's son died.
have established that areas implicating
A jury returned a
Reason: implicates "uniquely
Ct's precdeents
verdict agnst D under either of 2
"uniquely federal interests" are so
theories of Virginia state tort
governed by fed law that the fed
law, and TC denied D's motion to
interest preempts state law in those
enter judgment for D
areas.
notwithstanding the verdict.
THis case presents 2 such fed
On
interests: (1) K rights and liabilities
appeal, the fed CoA reversed the
of the US and (2) the civil liability of
judgment, in part bc D, as a fed
fed employees for axns taken w/in the
military contractor, was immune
scope of their employment.
from liability under state tort
law.
Federal Law in the State Courts
444
Dice v Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.
P, a railroad fireman, was injured
Tho fed claims may be adjudicated by
Co.
in an accident involving D's train.
state cts, state laws are controlling on
the Q of what the incidents of any fed
right may be.
The Binding Effect of Prior Decisions: Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel (The Law of Judgments)
Claim and Defense Preclusion - Claim Preclusion
1115
Rush v City of Maple Heights
P won in an axn for damage to her
Whether or not injuries to both person
personal property agnst the City of
and prop. resulting from the same
Maple Heights (D), and then
wrongful act are to be treated as
commenced a 2nd axn agnst D for
injuries to separate rights or as
personal injuries, claiming that
separate items of damage, P may maintain
the first axn was res judicata on
only one lawsuit to enforce his rights
the issue of negligence.
exisiting at the time such axn is
commenced.
1121
Mathews v NY Racing Association
P, having unsuccessfully sued
The doctrine of res judicata operates as
employees of Thoroughbred Racing
a bar to subsequent suits involving the
Protective Association (D) in a
same aprties, or those in privity with
prior axn, brought a 2nd suit on the
them, based on a claim which as once
same cause of axn agnst
reached a judgment on the merits.
Thoroughbred and the latter's
employer, NY Racing (D).
1124
Federated Department Stores v Moitie
1126
Jones v Morris Plan Bank of Portsmouth
When P failed for 2 months to meet
If a transaxn is represented by a single
installment payments under a
and indivisible K, and the breach gives
conditional sales K, D obtained
rise to a single cause of axn, it cannot
judgment agnst him for the two
be split into distinct parts and
payments, and later took
separate axns.
possession of the car to satisfy a
subsequent unpaid installment.
Claim and Defense Preclusion - Defense Preclusion
1130
Mitchell v Federal Intermediate Credit
P pleaded the same facts, now the
D may not split his cause of axn agnst
Bank
basis of an affirmative claim, in
P using part of it as a defense to the
an earlier axn where he appeared as
first axn, and saving the remainder for
a D, although, at the time, he did
a separate affirmative suit.
not counterlcaim or ask for relief.
Issue Preclusion - Actually Litigated
1135
Cromwell v County of Sac
P attempted to demand payment on
A judgment estops further axn not only
bonds issued by D even though the
as to every ground of recovery or defense
issuance of the bonds had been
actually presented in an axn, but also
declared fraudulent in a prior axn.
as to every ground which might have been
presented when the subsequent axn
involves the same demand or claim in
controversy, but where that subsequent
axn btw the same parties is instituted
upon a diff. claim or demand, the prior
judgment operates as an estoppel only as
to matters actually controversial, the
determination of which were essential to
the final verdict.
Issue Preclusion - Necessarily Decided
1140
Russell v Place
P (patent holder) sued for damages
It is well settled that a judgment of a
for use of an invention of P's
ct of competent juris upon a Q directly
(patent holder's) by D (alleged
involved in 1 suit is conclusive as to
infringer)
that Q in another suit btw the same
parties, where it can be established
that the precise Q was raised and
determined in the prior suit.
1142
Rios v Davis
TC, in an axn where D raised as a
It is the judgment, and not the jury
defense contributory neg on the
verdict or conclusions of fact, filed by
part of P, entered judgment in
a trial ct which constitutes the
favor of D on the grounds of res
collateral estoppel, and a finding of
judicata bc, in an earlier trial,
fact by a jury or a ct which does not
the jury found P to be neg. in the
become the basis or one of the grounds
matter, although the first ct's
of the judgment rendered is not
judgment only denied D any recovery
conclusive agnst either party to the
agnst P.
suit.
Issue Preclusion - Defining and Characterizating the Issue
1145
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v
P, having won a favorable
Where 2 cases involve taxes in diff.
Sunnen
determination in a prior year,
taxable years, collateral estoppel will
sought to invoke the decision as
be confined to situations where the
res judicata to bar later
matter raised in the second suit is
challenges for other years where
identical in all respects w/ that
there was a complete identity of
decided in the 1st proceeding and where
facts, usses, and parties.
the controlling facts and applicable
legal rules remain unchanged.
The Required Quality of Judgment - Judgments of Judicial Tribunals
1152
Hanover Logansport v Robert C.
P, in agreeing to a consent decree,
A party who agrees to a consent decree
Anderson, Inc.
unilaterally sought to reserve a
may not unilaterally reserve a cause of
cause of axn for further
axn for further litigation.
litigation.
The Required Quality of Judgment - Judgments of Nonjudicial Tribunals
1158
Holmberg v State, Division of Risk
P was denied permanent disability
Litigation conducted before 1 agency or
Management
by D, but was later granted
official is generally binding on another
benefits by the Public Employees
agency or official of the same govt bc
Retirement Board.
officers of the same govt are in privity
w/ each other.
Persons Benefitted and Persons Bound by Preclusion - The Decline of the Mutuality Doctrine
1163
Bernhard v Bank of America Nat. Trust
The Administrator (P) of
In Cal. and a minority of jurisdictions,
& Sav. Ass'n
Bernhard's estate had lost in an
a judgment in the first axn may be
earlier probate axn to recover
asserted as a defense in a later axn by
funds drawn from bank account by a
one who was neither a privy w/ a party
friend of Bernhard, and, failing to
nor a party in the first suit, so long
prevail agnst the friend, later
as the party agnst whom the judgment is
sued the Bank (D), who sought to
raised was a party or privy w/ a party
invoke collateral estoppel to
in the first suit.
prove, as a defense, that the
withdrawals were undertaken w/
Bernhard's permission.
1169
Parklane Hosiery Co v Shore
In a prior SEC suit, Parklane
A litigant who was not a party to a prior
Hosiery Co (D) was found to have
judgment is not per se precluded from
issued a materially false and
using that judgment "offensively" to
misleading proxy statement, and
prevent a D from relitigating issues
Shore (P) argued collateral
resolved in that earlier equitable
estoppel precluded D from
proceeding.
relitigating that issue in his
stockholders' class axn suit.
Persons Benefitted and Persons Bound by Preclusion - Binding Nonparties
1179
Martin v Wilks
In a reverse discrimination axn, it
A consent decree mandating affirmative
was contended that an earlier
axn does not have preclusive effect upon
consent dcecree mandating certain
a subsequent challenge to those programs
affirmative axn procedures barred
brought by persons not parties in the
a subsequent reverse
prior axn.
discrimination axn by parties not
involved in the prior axn.
Intersystem Preclusion - Interstate Preclusion
1184
Hart v American Airlines
Relatives (P) of victims of a plane
Application of the doctrine of
crash filed suit agnst D, seeking
collateral estoppel requires: (1) an
a judgment of liability and
identity issue which has been decided in
damages.
a prior axn and is decisive of the
present axn; and (2) a full and fair
opportunity to contest the decision now
said to be controlling.
1188
1192
Thompson v Thompson
Allen v McCurry
P filed a fed axn under the Parental
The Fed Parental Kidnapping Prevention
Kidnapping Preventing Act
Act does not create a fed right of axn.
McCurry (P) sought to relitigate in
The constitutionality of an official act
fed ct the constitutionality of a
may not be relitigated in a Sec. 1983 axn
police search, which had already
after having been litigated in state ct.
been held valid in a state ct
proceeding.
1198
Semtek In'l Inc v Lockheed Martin
When P's breach of K and tort claims
Fed. CL governs the claim-preclusive
were barred by Cal's two-year
effect of a dismissal by a fed. ct.
statute of limitations, P filed the
sitting in diversity.
same charges in Maryland, which had
a 3-yr statute of limitations.