Agenda for 34th Class
• Slide handout
• Next week
– Monday. No class
– Wednesday. Regular class
• 10-11:15, Rm. 103
– Friday. Rescheduled class.
• 1:20-2:35, Rm. 101
• Internet & Personal Jurisdiction
• Venue
• Forum non conveniens
• Introduction to Former Adjudication
– Res judicata & collateral estoppel
1
Assignment for Next Class
• Res Judicata
– US Constitution Article IV (Supplement p. 1)
– 28 USC 1738
– Yeazell pp. 715-27
– Yeazell p. 727 Q1
– Optional: Glannon Chapters 26 & 27
2
Internet Jurisdiction
• Briefly summarize Revell
• Handout Problems 2-18 to 2-20
3
Venue
• Venue means what court within a state
– Federal court: CD of Cal (LA) or SD of Cal (San Diego)
– State court: LA Superior Court of San Diego Superior Court
• Purely statutory matter. Not constitutional
• Each state has its own statute
• Federal statute is 28 USC 1391
• Map of federal districts
– http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/images/CircuitMap.pdf
4
Venue: 28 USC 1391
• (b)(1). If all defendants reside in the same state, venue is proper in any
judicial district in which at least one defendant resides
– For individuals residing in US, residence = domicile. (c)(1)
• Confusing, because domicile is usually defined as residence + intent
to remain indefinitely
– Corporations are resident in any district in which they would be subject to
personal jurisdiction, if district were considered a state. (d)
• If reside in district, then reside in state in which district located
• (b)(2). Venue is proper in judicial district where event or omission giving rise
to claim occurred
• (b)(3). If no district satisfies (b)(1) or (b)(2), then venue is proper in any
district in which in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
• (c)(3). Defendant not residing in US can be sued in any district
– Joinder of person not residing in US disregarded in determining venue
when multiple defendants
• IMPORTANT. Even if venue is proper, court still needs to have personal
jurisdiction over EACH AND EVERY defendant.
5
Venue Questions
• Pp. 175ff. Qs 2, d (ignore the reference to 28 USC 1392)
• Briefly Summarize Dee-K Enterprises
• P. 176 Q5; pp. 178ff Q1a, 2
6
Moving Cases Around
• From one federal court to another
– 28 USC 1404 says cases may be transferred “to any other district ..
Where it might have been brought” “for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Even if venue was proper in the
first place
• BUT transferee court follows choice of law rules of transferor court
– 28 USC 1406 says that court can transfer case if venue was improper in
the first place.
• Without statute, one might think that the court didn’t have power to do
anything
• No comparable ability to transfer case between judicial systems
– E.g. from one state court to a court in a different state or foreign country
– E.g. from federal court to court in foreign country
– If judge thinks that her court has jurisdiction, but that a court in a different
state or country would be better, the judge must dismiss the case
• Forum non conveniens
• No transfer or forum non-conveniens to move case from federal to state
court or vice versa
7
– State to federal court. Removal; Federal to state. Abstention.
Forum Non Conveniens Questions
• Briefly summarize Piper Aircraft
– In your summary, please incorporate answers to pp. 186ff Qs1, 4,
• Suppose a chemical plant in India owned by an American company leaks
gas into the surrounding neighborhood and kills 16,000 people and injures
half a million. The victims sue in US court. Defendants move for dismissal on
the basis of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs argue that dismissal is
inappropriate, because Indian courts require a filing fee equal to 5% of
damages claimed, which in this case could be billions of dollars. There are
long delays in Indian courts. Indian courts have very few tort precedents
and none relevant to mass torts. Discovery is usually very narrow, if allowed
at all. Should the court grant the forum non conveniens motion? If it does,
are there any conditions it should attach?
8
Introduction to Former Adjudication
• 2 concepts
– Res judicata / claim preclusion
– Collateral estoppel / issue preclusion
• Res judicata
– Cannot litigate same claim several times
• Finality
– If two claims are closely related to each other (e.g. same transaction or
occurrence)
• Then must bring them together. Compulsory joinder
• If litigate one claim and then try to litigate the other
– Second claim will be barred by res judicata
• Collateral estoppel
– If issue resolved in one case, cannot relitigate that issue in subsequent
case
– Suppose long-term contacts
• Litigation I. breach in 1990. Court: contract is valid
• Litigation II. Breach in 2000. cannot relitigate contact validity
– Key issue is “non-mutual” collateral estoppel
• Case I. A sues B for patent infringement. Court: patent invalid
• Case II. A sues C for patent infringement. Can relitigate validity?
9
Res Judicata
• Sometimes one adjudication bars later adjudication
– If plaintiff tries to bring second suit, then defendant has valid affirmative
defense
• Policies
– Save costs
– Prevent inconsistent judgments
– Encourage consolidated litigation of related claims
• Also called “claim preclusion”
• Easily applies when same plaintiff brings exactly same claim against same
defendant for which previously had lost (or won) after trial and appeal
– But res judicata is not so limited
10
4 Requirements for Res Judicata
• Same claim
– Federal court. Claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence
• Even if claim in second suit not actually raised or litigated in first suit
– Some state courts may apply narrower rules
• E.g. claim in second suit arises out of “same evidence”
• Judgment on the Merits
– Trial, summary judgment, default judgment
– 12(b)(6), but not equivalent dismissals in some states courts
– NOT dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or venue
• Final judgment
– Judgment entered on all claims
– In federal court, still final if appeal pending; not in some state courts
• Same parties
– Except judgment against former real property owner bars subsequent
owner
– Perhaps other exceptions when interests of parties are very closely
aligned
11
• But exception narrowed by Taylor v. Sturgell