CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 39
Professor Fischer
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
November 24, 2003
Venue vs. Subject Matter
Jurisiction
What are the differences between
venue and subject matter jurisdiction?
Venue vs. Subject Matter
Jurisiction
What are the differences between venue and
subject matter jurisdiction?
Venue can be waived - see 12(b)(3), 12(g),
12(h)(1)
Court does not have to question venue sua
sponte as R. 12(h)(3) requires for subject
matter jurisdiction
Parties can consent to what would otherwise
be improper venue (using, for example, a
forum selection clause)
VENUE and COLLATERAL
ATTACK
Unlike personal jurisdiction, proper
venue is not a constitutional
requirement for a valid judgment and
cannot be raised by way of collateral
attack.
Courts Have Laid Down Exceptions to
the Venue Requirements
One of the most important is exceptions is for
actions that are removed to federal court
(because removal statute specifies the district
to which case must be removed at §1441(a))
Another example - “local” suits that must be
brought in district where land is located.
Most actions are not “local” but “transitory”.
FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS:
CLAIM PRECLUSION
Also known as the doctrine of res judicata
What is res judicata? What is the purpose of
res judicata?
What is the idea of “merger” and “bar” - see
Restatement (2d) of Judgments s. 17 at CB p.
885
What does FRCP 8 (c ) say about res
judicata? Why?
NB. Res judicata can be waived!
CLAIM PRECLUSION AND
ENFORCEMENT
Once a damage claim succeeds, the claim
becomes a claim on the money judgment.
P becomes judgment creditor, and D
judgment debtor.
If D doesn’t satisfy judgment, P must bring
an enforcement action vs. D. See R. 69(a)
Claim preclusion will help judgment creditor
in this enforcement action. Judgment debtor
cannot relitigate on the merits.
CLAIM PRECLUSION V. ISSUE
PRECLUSION
What is the basic difference between
claim preclusion and issue preclusion?
(see CB p. 884)
What is the difference between claim
preclusion and stare decisis?
CLAIM PRECLUSION
Does claim preclusion extend to claims
only to claims that were made in the
first lawsuit, or does it also extend to
claims that could or should have been
litigated in the first lawsuit?
What must D show to prove that res
judicata bars a P’s claim (the elements
of res judicata)?
ELEMENTS OF CLAIM
PRECLUSION
1. Prior suit that proceeded to a final
valid judgment on the merits
2. Present suit arises out of same claim
as the prior suit
3. Same parties to both suits, or
parties are in privity
FINAL VALID JUDGMENT ON
THE MERITS
VALID: To be valid, court rendering judgment
must have valid subject matter and personal
jurisdiction (if action dismissed for lack of p.j.
or s.m.j., no claim preclusion for action
brought in court with p.j. or s.m.j.)
You can’t argue that a judgment is invalid
simply because it was based on error, e.g.
relying on unconstitutional statute
Is a dismissal without prejudice a final valid
judgment on the merits? See R. 41
What about a dismissal under R. 41(b)?
Summary judgment in favor of P?
CONTRASTING RES JUDICATA
WITH JOINDER
Why does Glannon
describe res judicata
as a myrmidon?
Contrast the rules
for res judicata with
the joinder rules
VARIETY OF PRECLUSION
RULES
Note that each state
system has its own
rules on preclusion
Note also that there
has been a general
trend of increased
preclusion
FINALITY OF JUDGMENT
There must be nothing left for judge to do
but enter judgment
Will a judgment determining liability be
final for claim preclusion before
damages have been adjudicated?
What about dismissal of one of Ps
claims, if the other claim is allowed to
continue?
Will the grant of preliminary injunctive
relief bar an action for permanent
injunctive relief for the same claim?
Does an appeal destroy finality?
JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS
Disposition based on validity of Ps claim
rather than technical procedural ground
Is a judgment entered after a full trial a
judgment on the merits? What about:
12(b)(6) dismissal? 12(b)(2) dismissal?
Voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)?
A second voluntary dismissal under
FRCP 41(a)?
Dismissal for failure of prosecution
under FRCP 41(b)?
WHAT IS THE SAME CLAIM?
Federal courts generally employ a
“transactional” approach to determining
whether the claim in the first suit is the same
as the claim in the second suit.
Describe this “transactional” approach (See
Restatement (2d) of Judgments s. 24 at p.
887 of CB)
NOTE IT BASICALLY MIRRORS THE JOINDER
RULES (see Rule 20)
ALI RESTATEMENT (2d) OF
JUDGMENTS
Most influential modern claim preclusion
test
§24(1) “…the claim extinguished
includes all rights of the plaintiff to
remedies against the D with respect to
all or any part of the transaction, or
series of connected transactions, out of
which the action arose.”
TRANSACTION/OCCURRENCE
TEST BARS….
Not only claims that were brought in
the original action but also claims that
were available to the plaintiff in the first
suit if they arose out of the underlying
transaction/occurrence that gave rise to
the first suit
Note that this is a more narrow
approach than the joinder rules (see R.
18)
OTHER MINORITY
APPROACHES
To determining what is the same claim
1. Same evidence test
2. Same right test
CLAIM SPLITTING CLAIM
PRECLUSION HYPO
Jeremy’s car is damaged in a collision
with Marie’s car. Jeremy sues Marie in
negligence for damage to the right
fender of his car. The claim is
dismissed on Marie’s motion for
summary judgment. Can Jeremy then
sue Marie for damage to the left fender
of his car allegedly suffered in the same
accident?
SAME PARTIES/PARTIES IN
PRIVITY
What is privity for the purposes of res
judicata?
Gonzalez v. Banco Central
Corp. (1st Cir. 1994)
What are the key
facts?
What is the
procedural history?
What is the issue on
appeal?
Did the Gonzalez
plaintiffs win their
appeal to the First
Circuit?
Gonzalez: Final/Valid
Judgment on the Merits
Did the 1st Circuit find that there was a
final judgment on the merits in the
earlier Rodriguez suit?
Gonzalez: Same Claim
Did the 1st Circuit find that the claims
asserted in the Rodriguez suit were the
same as in the Gonzalez suit?
Why or why not?
Gonzalez: Same
Parties/Parties in Privity
Were the parties the same in the
Rodriguez/Gonzalez suits? Why or why not?
Did the 1st Circuit find that the parties in both
suits were in PRIVITY? Why or why not?
What are some examples cited by the 1st
Circuit of when parties would be in privity?
What is the doctrine of virtual representation?
Why did the Gonzalez court find it did not
apply?
Gonzalez: Same
Parties/Parties in Privity
Why are courts unwilling to
interpret privity broadly? Why does
Judge Selya describe it as a “murky
corner of the law?” (CB 903)
Happy Thanksgiving!