Agenda for 35th Class
• Review
– Supp J
– Res Judicata
• Collateral Estoppel
• Review Class
– 2011 exam
– Questions you bring
• Other exams to look at
– 2000 multiple choice and good choice of law and jurisdiction question
– 1995 good on amendment and other issues
• Posted to Secure Documents part of Portal
– All are helpful
• Do as many as you can
• One page outlines
• Sleep
1
Supplemental Jurisdiction I
• Excellent discussion in last class
• My Test for Supplemental Jurisdiction is consistent with the approach taken
by the Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil v Allapattah, 545 US 546 (2005)
– Exxon Mobil dealt with case very similar to #13
• 13. A California plaintiff sues a Massachusetts defendant. The
California plaintiff then amends the complaint to join another
California plaintiff. The second plaintiff is requesting only $10,000 in
relief.
– Step 4. Is the claim brought by the plaintiff in the original claim?
• If no, stop. There is supplemental jurisdiction under 1367(b)
• If yes, go on to step 5
– “original claim” is claim over which there is subject matter jurisdiction
without 1367, e.g. CA v MA.
– “the claim” is MA v MA
– Since “the claim” is not brought by the plaintiffs in the original claim, my
test says there is Supplemental Jurisdiction
2
– So no need to amend my Test to deal with #13 and Supreme Court
Supplemental Jurisdiction II
• Problem is 12
– 12. A California plaintiff sues a Massachusetts defendant. The California
plaintiff then amends the complaint to join another Massachusetts
plaintiff.
– Same interpretation of 1367 (e.g. application of my test) says there is
jurisdiction,
• but that would violate the complete diversity rule
– 4 approaches
• 1. 1367 overturns the complete diversity rule
– Problems
» No one thinks Congress intended that.
» Would vastly expand diversity jurisdiction
• 2. Intentionalism I: Text of statute is unambiguous in granting
jurisdiction, but intent of Congress to preserve complete diversity rule
means that we set aside textualist interpretation
– Problem. Supreme Court doesn’t like to use Congressional intent
to overrule unambiguous textual meaning of statute
3
Supplemental Jurisdiction III
• 4 approaches (cont.)
– 3. Intentionalism II. Statute is ambiguous
• Step 4 could be: Is the claim brought by the plaintiff in the original
claim or by a plaintiff joined by the original plaintiff. Yes, so got to
Step 5.
• Step 5 could be: Was the defendant first made party to the claim by
FRCP 14 or 20. Yes, so no J
• Choose this interpretation, because it better accords with intent of
Congress
• Problem. Inconsistent with Exxon Mobil
– which read statute in accordance with unamended Steps 4 and 5
for purpose of case like #13
– 4. Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil
• “the presence of a single nondiverse party may eliminate the fear of
bias with respect to all claims [and thus] the special nature and
purpose of the diversity requirement mean that a single nondiverse
party can contaminate every other claim in the lawsuit.”
• Note. Case was about fact pattern like #13. Discussion of #12 was
4
dicta
Collateral Estoppel
• Bars religitation of issue
– Contrast to res judicata, which bars relitigation of claims
• Often called “issue preclusion”
• Policies similar to res judiciata
– Save time and money
– Prevent inconsistent outcomes
5
Collateral Estoppel Requirements
• 1. Same issue
• 2. Actually litigated. No C.E. if party admitted issue in first suit
• 3. Actually decided. No C.E. if court resolved case without deciding issue
– Can be hard to tell if jury verdict
• 4. Necessarily decided / Essential to judgment
– If changing result on issue would not change outcome of case, then no
C.E.
– If court decides negligence case by finding duty, but no negligence
• No C.E. on duty
• CE would not be fair to defendant, because could not have appealed
finding of duty
– If court decides contract case by deciding that there was no contract and
that, even if there was a contract, there was no breach
• Some courts follow Restatement 2nd
– C.E. applies neither to “no contract” nor to “no breach”
» Court may not have thought carefully about
» Plaintiff may have thought appeal futile
6
st
• Other courts follow 1 Restatement and apply C.E. to both
Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel I
• Traditionally, collateral estoppel applied only when parties were the same in
first and second suit (like res judicata)
• Some court allow person not a party to the first suit to assert collateral
estoppel, as long as person against whom c.e. asserted was in the first suit
(and 4 other requirements satisfied)
– Called nonmutual collateral estoppel
• 2 kinds of nonmutual colleral estoppel
– Defensive
– Offensive
• Defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel
– Plaintiff sues defendant1 for patent infringement
– Court decides that patent is invalid
– Plaintiff sues defendant2 for patent infringement
– Defendant2 can assert collateral estoppel against plaintiff
• Because plaintiff already litigated and lost on issue of patent validity
– Now accepted in nearly all jurisdictions
– “defensive” means asserted by defendant
7
Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel II
• Offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel
– Plaintiff1 sues defendant for defective dam
– Court decides that defendant’s dam was defective
– Plaintiff2 sues defendant for defective dam
– Defendant may be estopped from arguing that dam not defective
– Very controversial
• If defendant loses one case (1st or 2nd or 99th case), would mean that
defendant loses all subsequent related cases
– But if one plaintiff loses case, then later plaintiffs not bound by c.e
• Discourages joinder
• Defendant may not have had incentive to litigate hard in first case
– Federal courts have discretion to apply c.e. offensively. Factors:
• Has there been inconsistent litigation outcomes?
• Did plaintiff strategically wait (not join) so as to take advantage of
offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel
• Did defendant have sufficient incentive to litigate issue aggressively
in first case
8
– “Offensive” means by plaintiff
Collateral Estoppel Questions
•
•
•
•
Yeazell p. 750 Qs 1-3
Yeazell p. 753 Q 2
Yeazell p. 756 Qs 1-4
Yeazell pp. 764ff Qs 1c, 2a&b, 5a&b
9