Date post: | 18-Feb-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sashimiman |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 1/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 2/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 3/69
E. some cts continue to app+' a fair+' broad stream-of-commerce approach based on For+d-Fide0 and ta;e urisdiction in cases that <5onnor wou+dnot reach
3. other cts adopt <5onnor5s view
. /S %$6 that if ∆5s contacts satisf' <5onnor5s test0 the' wi++ support
urisdiction0 since the other +sahi opinions re,uire a +esser showing
(2) anufacturer se++s finished products to a who+esa+er outside the state0 the who+esa+erthen rese++s to a retai+er in the forum state0 and the retai+er rese++s to a consumer
e) <ther &actors in the $urisdictional a+cu+usi) /nterest of the forum state in providing redress to its citiCens
ii) /nterest of the Π in obtaining re+ief in a convenient forum
iii) /nterest of the states in enforcing their substantive +aw or po+ic'
i#) $tent of inconvenience to the ∆ if she is forced to defend awa' from home
#) Botes
(1) Burger King " suggests that0 where the ∆ has purpose+' directed its activities to the
forum state0 urisdiction is presumptive+' reasonab+e0 and she wi++ have to ma;e acompe++ing case that other considerations ma;e the eercise of urisdictionunreasonab+e
(2) /t is on+' when de+iberate contacts eist between ∆ and the forum state that other
factors wi++ be weighed in determining whether the eercise of urisdiction wou+dcomport with fair p+a' and substantia+ ustice2
f) $amp+es
i) :ersona+ urisdiction ru+es are 'oriented ⇒ is the price ∆s pa' for de+iberate efforts to
derive benefits from or conduct activities in a stateii) St has chosen a narrow view of persona+ urisdiction0 focusing on the scope of the
activit' of the se++er (∆)0 rather than the predictab+e area of use b' the bu'er (∏)iii) Durisdiction must arise out of the ∆5s #oluntar( contacts w*the state0 w*E eceptions
(1) Transient jurisdiction " permissib+e to obtain persona+ urisdiction over an
individua+ ∆ b' serving her with the summons in the state where the suit is brought
(2) enera+ in personam urisdictioni#) Car accident is sufficient to support in personam urisdiction " motorists who use the
roads of a state shou+d rea+iCe that this purposefu+ activit' in the forum subects otherdrivers to serious ris;s0 that peop+e ma' be inured and sue
#) Worl(Wie )olks!agen reected the ru+e of foreseeabi+it' that the se++er of a portab+e product is subect to nationwide urisdiction0 ma;ing the chatte+ his agent for service of process2
#i) ∆ ma' reach into the forum state b' advertising*so+iciting business#ii) :ersona+ urisdiction is B<> based on the most or the best contacts but on minimum
contacts
#iii) ∆ ma' be subect to minimum contacts urisdiction in more than one state for a c+aim
that arises from a transaction invo+ving contacts with a number of statesi) Durisdictiona+ doctrine is +arge+' based on a common sense appraisa+ of what peop+e
shou+d epect) Stream of ommerce $amp+e
- 3 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 4/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 5/69
*) STATUTOR+ ,IMITS ON PERSONA, $URIS-ICTION: ,on.'Ar! Statutes "p/ *0)
B<>$ did not inc+ude eamp+es at end of chapter due to s+ight coverage of topic in c+ass
a) &ue :rocess (&:) c+ause of the fourteenth amendment to the onstitution imposes
fundamenta+ +imitations on the power of state cts to eercise urisdiction over ∆s
i) State ma' on+' assert urisdiction over ∆s w*significant to re+ation to forum state
(1) &omici+e(2) /n-state :resence(3) onsent to suit in that state(4) inimum contacts with the state that give rise to suit
ii) &: c+ause on+' defines outer bounds of permissib+e urisdictiona+ power0 and state+egis+ature must actua++' grant power to its cts to eercise persona+ urisdiction(1) $. has a ver' epansive provision that is se+f-adusting
b) $numerated ct2 %ong-rm Statutes
i) 1lon. ar!2 statutes authoriCe cts to eercise urisdiction over ∆s based on specifict'pes of contact with the forum state ⇒ reach out to ca++ nonresident ∆s bac; into the
state to defend +awsuits
(1) tend to be +ibera++' granted0 as the +awsuits are usua++' invo;ed b' ∏s who +ive in
the state and prefer to sue at home(2) U>/<B some +ong-arm statutes ma' eceed their constitutiona+ grasp(3) ++ +ong-arm statues that base persona+ urisdiction on specific enumerated acts
re,uire that the c+aim sued upon arise out of the act itse+f ( International Shoe)ii) Specific categories of urisdiction conve'ed b' the +ong-arm statute are to be interpreted
as +ibera++' as the due process c+ause wi++ a++ow
- ! -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 6/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 7/69
3) -I7ERSIT+ $URIS-ICTION "p/ 88)
a) edera+ courts hear +imited categories of cases (U.S. onstitution0 rt. ///0 IE)i) Durisdiction over a++ other sets of cases +eft to state courtsii) -i#ersit( jurisdiction " cases between citiCens of different states2
(1) Subect matter urisdiction defined b' who the parties to the suit are0 rather than the
subect matter of the under+'ing dispute(2) 6e,uirements a diverse ∆0 c+aim for K L7!;
(3) 6ationa+e framers5 fear that out-of-state citiCens wou+d suffer preudice if the' wereforced to +itigate against +oca+ citiCens in the +oca+ state cts
iii) rt. /// authoriCes ongress to create +ower cts and to hear t'pes of cases enumerated inrtic+e ///0 IE (which authoriCes urisdiction over a++ diversit' cases)
i#) E8 U.S.. I133E is narrower than rt. ///. IE ⇒ it inc+udes an amount in controvers'
re,uirement
#) Stra!%rige v. Curtiss (U.S. 18=G) " a++ ∆s must be from different states than a++ ∏s4
parties on the same side of the v2 ma' be co-citiCens#i) State ,ar$ ,ire - Casualty (U.S. 19G7) - diversit' is present as +ong as some opposing
parties to the action are diverse.
b) >he eaning of State itiCenshipi) Natural persons
(1) -o!icile " the state where a person has ta;en up residence w*the intent to resideindefinite+'
(2) >est domici+e w*subective intent (p+us ph'sica+ presence if new domici+e)(3) the person has no definite intent to +eave to ma;e a home e+sewhere4 met as +ong as
the person has no definite p+ans to move at a particu+ar time or upon the occurrenceof a particu+ar event
ii) Corporations
(1) E8 U.S.. I133E(c) provides statutor' definition of state citiCenship of corporations(a) (c)(1) " where the principa+ p+ace of business is +ocated
"i) >est p+ace of operations2 or bu+; of corporate activit'2
"ii) 6ationa+e same as for diversit' urisdiction⇒ where the corp. emp+o's the
most peop+e0 conducts the most activities0 and has the most interaction w*the pub+ic the corporation wi++ most +i;e+' be perceived as +oca+
"iii) nerve center2 test used to identif' citiCenship when there aredispersed corporate activities0 usua++' the corporate head,uarters or homeoffice
"i#) consistent+' interpreted to mean corporation can <B%M have <B$ principa+ p+ace of business for diversit' purposes
(b) (c)(1) " state in which it is incorporated
c) $amp+esi) :+ace of suit is irre+evant in diversit' ana+'sis.ii) :arties from the same state on both sides of the v2 vio+ates diversit' urisdiction.iii) Alien " person who is a citiCen or subect of another countr'
(1) rtic+e ///0 IE separate+' authoriCes urisdiction over cases between citiCens ofdifferent states and cases between citiCens and a+iens
- 7 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 8/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 9/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 10/69
8) PERSONA, AN- SU$ECT MATTER $URIS-ICTION COMPARE- "p/ ;0)
a) >hree basic re,uirements that +imit the proper courts for an' +awsuit
i) :ersona+ urisdiction over the ∆
ii) Subect matter urisdiction over the t'pe of case the ∏ wants to +itigate
iii) hosen forum must be proper venue under the app+icab+e venue statute
b) Oasic &istinctions
i) Personal jurisdiction " geographica+ +imitation on the p+aces where a ∏ ma' sue
(1) >urns on the re+ationship between the ∆ and the state where suit is brought
(2) or federa+ cts0 reach is restricted in most cases to those of the cts of the stateii) Su%ject !atter jurisdiction " concerns the ct5s authorit' to hear generic t'pes of cases
(1) uch more +imited for federa+ cts than for state cts(2) or fed. cts estab+ished either b' diversit' or presence of a ederal 9uestion <TEST
NOTES 44=48>
(a) ouisville an Nashville R.R. v. Motley (U.S. 1911) " dismissed for +ac; of
subect matter urisdiction because the federa+ ,uestion in the case arose as adefense
(b) ed +aw creates dut' and imp+ied or epressed remed'⇒ eas' ,uestion
(c) Fhat if state +aw creates the dut' and the remed' but re+ies on some edera+ +awP"i) $. <S# +aw " a++ows private individua+ to enforce those +aws"ii) :rob+em incorporating federa+ standard. ear that state +aw wi++ change
standard. /f an important enough federa+ interest⇒ wi++ ta;e it awa' from
the state courts. %oo; at what ongress has decided within the act.
c) Sources of onfusioni) Concurrent $urisdiction
(1) State cts have concurrent urisdiction over cases within the federa+ udicia+ powerun+ess ongress has made federa+ ct urisdiction ec+usive for a particu+ar t'pe ofc+aim
(2) edera+ cts do not have concurrent urisdiction over state +aw actions (un+ess the parties are diverse)
(3) ed cts have broad subect matter urisdiction in that the' hear a case betweencitiCens of different states.
ii) -o!icile (1) Batura+ person subect to persona+ urisdiction in the state where she is domici+ed0
the +ast state where she has estab+ished residence w*the intent to reside indefinite+'(2) State citiCenship (for diversit' urisdiction) a+so uses the domici+e concept but as;s a
different ,uestion whether the ∆5s domici+e is in the state where the suit is brought(a) 6u+e compare domici+es of ∏ and ∆ to ensure that the' differ
iii) General jurisdiction (1) Oasic state tria+ courts eercise genera+ urisdiction broad subect matter ur. over
man' t'pes of suits(2) :ersona+ urisdiction contet genera+ urisdiction2 refers to the authorit' of the
state5s cts to hear an' c+aim against a particu+ar ∆0 whether or not it is re+ated to the
∆5s in-state contacts (genera+ in personam urisdiction)
- 1= -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 11/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 12/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 13/69
?) REMO7A, "p/ @8)
a) >raditiona+ ru+e ∏chooses the forum0 in which to bring the suit0 subect to the +imitations of
persona+ urisdiction0 subect matter urisdiction0 and venuei) $ception Re!o#al
(1) &ederal re!o#al statutes a++ow the ∆0 after ∏ has chosen a state court0 to second-
guess2 that choice b' removing2 some t'pes of cases from the state ct to a federa+ ct(2) >he case becomes a federa+ case0 and the state court +oses urisdiction over it.
(3) 6ationa+e ∆s as we++ as ∏s shou+d have the option to choose federa+ ct for cases
within the federa+ urisdiction. edera+ urisdiction is intended to protect both parties0 and both shou+d have access to it.
(4) I 11(a) - remova+ avai+ab+e <B%M in cases ∏ cou+d have commenced in fed ct
(a) 6ationa+e not meant to epand federa+ urisdiction0 but to ma;e it avai+ab+e to ∆s
(b) edera+ district ct is the on+' ct that can host a removed action
(5) U>/<B some cases not removab+e0 even though∏ cou+d have origina++' brought
them in fed ct
(a) I11(b) " if any ∆ is sued in home state0 ma' not remove on basis of diversit'"i) 6ationa+e for eception ∆ has no need to be protected from +oca+ preudice0
since ∆ is from the forum state.
(6) ongress provided for remova+ in the Dudiciar' ct of 1789(7) I 11(e) " federa+ ct is not prec+uded from hearing a case simp+' because the state
ct +ac;ed urisdiction over it ($. State ct cannot hear patent c+aim0 but it can sti++ beremoved to federa+ ct)
(8) Usua+ federa+ venue ru+es do not app+' in removed actions.(9) 6emova+ app+ies to cases0 not c+aims entire suit is removed
(10) 6emova+ is a one(!ay street ∆ cannot remove to state ct
b) 6emova+ ompared to >ransfer of Henuei) E8 U.S.. I 1=(a) " geographica+ transfer from one district ct within the federa+
s'stem to another in a different state or district
(1) &isp+aces the Π5s geographica+ choice for +itigation
ii) 6emova+ " authoriCes transfer from state ct s'stem to feeral ct syste$ !/in sa$e state
(1) &isp+aces the Π5s choice of the state ct s'stem in favor of a federa+ ct w*in the same
geographica+ areaiii) Piper +ircraft Co. v. Reyno (U.S. 1981) " removed and then transferred0 then dismissed
for forum non conveniens
c) $amp+esi) Motley 6u+e urisdiction is determined b' +oo;ing at the Π5s comp+aint0 to determine if
he see;s recover' under federa+ +aw (federa+ issue must arise on the face of the we++- p+eaded comp+aint)
ii) /n a !ulti' case0 a++ ∆s must agree to remove
iii) Π has a permissib+e form of forum shopping2 present a co+orab+e c+aim against at +east
one non-diverse ∆ <6 structure c+aim to avoid satisf'ing amount in controvers'
re,uirement
- 13 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 14/69
d) >he :rocedure for 6emova+ (I1G)i) 6emova+ decision is not irrevocab+e " can move in federa+ ct to remand bac; to state ct
(1) /f the basis for the motion is fai+ure to comp+' w*procedura+ re,uirements 3= da's(2) otion to remand on basis of +ac; of subect matter urisdiction can be made at an'
time prior to fina+ udgment in the case
e) $amp+es
i) I1G(a) a++ows ∆ to inc+ude in his notice of remova+ an' further a++egations that are
necessar' to demonstrate his right to remove ($. that damages ma' be K L7!;)ii) I1G(b) " /f a case is removab+e as origina++' fi+ed0 the notice of remova+ must be fi+ed
w*in 3= da's after the comp+aint is served on the ∆.
(1) Ourden on ∆ to find out if the case was removab+e from the beginning
iii) <nce the case is removed0 the state court +oses a++ power over it0 even if it wasimproper+' removed
i#) <n+' the ∆s actua++' served need oin in the remova+
#) >he right to remova+ is waived b' fai+ing to fi+e within 3= da's0 even if another ∆ issubse,uent+' oined.#i) 6emova+ only changes the court in which obections or defenses are presented.
(1) 6emova+ does not revive obections that are waived b' answering before remova+(a) $. obection to persona+ urisdiction
- 1 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 15/69
;) PROPER 7ENUE IN &E-ERA, COURTS "p/ 44)
B<>$ did not inc+ude eamp+es at end of chapter due to s+ight coverage of topic in c+ass
a) Henue ru+es are meant to further restrict the p+aces where the Π ma' choose to bring suit
i) $ver' ct s'stem has venue ru+es0 genera++' estab+ished b' statute
b) Henue Oased on /ndividua+ 6esidence
i) E8 U.S.. I1391(a)(1) and (b)(1) authoriCe #enue in a judicial district B5ere an(
resides0 i t5e( all reside in one state (1) ontrast w*in personam urisdiction person who is subect to persona+ urisdiction
w*in a state is subect to urisdiction an'where in that state(2) 6esidence2 for venue purposes is e,uated w*domici+e (on+' one district)
c) Henue Oased on $vents or <missions iving 6ise to the +aimi) I1391(a)(E) and (b)(E) " venue is proper in a udicia+ district in which a su%stantial
part o t5e e#ents or o!issions .i#in. rise to t5e clai! occurred0 or a substantia+ partof propert( that is subect to the action is situated.2ii) :urpose assure a re+ation between the under+'ing events that are +itigated and the p+ace
where the case is tried.
d) >he a++bac;2 :rovisions in Section 1391
i) I1391(a)(3) " authoriCes venue in a udicia+ district in which an' ∆ is subect to
persona+ urisdiction at the time the action is commenced0 if there is no district in whichthe action ma' otherwise be brought.2
ii) I1391(b)(3) " authoriCes venue in a udicia+ district in which an' ∆ ma' be found0 if
there is no district in which the action ma' otherwise be brought2
iii) <n+' app+' if there is no district0 an'where in the U.S.0 which wou+d be a proper venueunder the first two sections
e) >hree <ther /mportant :oints
i) Henue0 +i;e persona+ urisdiction0 is considered a pri#ile.e o t5e
(1) ∆ waives her obection to venue b' fai+ing to raise it when she responds to the ∏5s
comp+aint (6u+e 1E(b)0 (h)0 (g))(2) :arties ma' even agree in advance to a particu+ar venue for suits that ma' arise
between them.(a) &oru! selection clauses2 genera++' he+d enforceab+e in federa+ cts0 even if the'
+a' venue in a district that wou+d not be proper under I1391
(b) Carnival Cruise ines* Inc. v. Shute (U.S. 1991) " upho+ding forum se+ectionc+ause in absence of showing of unfairness
ii) II1391(a) and (b) are genera+ venue provisions that app+' to diversit' and other federa+cases ecept as otherwise provided b' +aw2(1) Specia+iCed venue provisions govern man' t'pes of c+aims that appear to be covered
b' II1391(a) and (b)(2) $. I1==(b) restricts venue in patent infringement actions
iii) $ception for local actions2
- 1! -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 16/69
(1) ertain actions re+ating to interests in +and which must be prosecuted in the count' or district in which the +and is +ocated
(2) >ransitor' action " an action that is not a +oca+ action and ma' be brought in an' proper venue
f) Henue in ases /nvo+ving orporations
i) I1391(c) " defines corporate residence as an' istrict in which the corporation issubect to persona+ urisdiction(1) /nc+udes p+ace of incorporation0 etensive production faci+ities0 minimum contacts
- 1G -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 17/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 18/69
(1) good argument for transferring if the c+aim did not arise in the state and ∆5s activities
are comp+ete+' unre+ated to the action before the courti#) EE of a corporation if neg+igence occurs in the course of wor;0 it is a minimum contact
of the corporation because the contacts of the corporation5s agents whi+e acting on its beha+f are attributed to the corporation
#) >ransient2 persona+ urisdiction (that obtained b' service of process) does B<> app+'
to corporations#i) General in persona! jurisdiction rationa+e is that etensive corporate presence w*in
the state reduces the inconvenience of +itigation and affi+iates the corporation with thestate in such a substantia+ wa' as to ma;e it fair to sue it there for an' c+aim. /f that presence eists at the time the suit is brought0 the rationa+e is satisfied.
#ii) Same 3 rings must a+so be satisfied if a suit is brought in state court.(1) Oroad subect matter urisdiction(2) Henue ana+'sis depends on that state5s statute(3) :ersona+ urisdiction ana+'sis +i;e+' to be the same no matter what ct s'stem.
#iii) 6emova+ na+'sis(1) ase must have been w*in the origina+ subect matter urisdiction of the federa+ ct
(2) 6emova+ barred if an' ∆ is a citiCen of the forum statei) /n an' state where the corporation does enough business to support genera+ in personam
urisdiction0 the diversit' and persona+ urisdiction rings wi++ be satisfied.(1) #owever0 venue wi++ sti++ on+' be proper in those districts in which it does business.
- 18 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 19/69
PART TDO: STATE ,AD IN &E-ERA, COURTS
) EAS+ ERIE "p/ 408)
a) >he 6u+e of S!ift v. 0yson i) Rules o -ecision Act (17890 6&) " >he +aws of the severa+ states ?ecept where
otherwise provided@ sha++ be regarded as the ru+es of decision in tria+s at common +aw2ii) Dustice Stor' interpreted the +aws of the severa+ states2 in the 6& to refer only to the
statutes and certain estab+ished +oca+ usages of the state0 not to udicia+ decisionsinterpreting gen. princip+es of common +aw(1) edera+ ct shou+d eamine a++ the common +aw authorities to ascertain the proper ru+e(2) hoose the right ru+e of consideration0 rather than fo++ow a ru+e some other udge
deemed to be the right one.
b) >he :hi+osophica+ Underpinning of S!ift
i) :remise that a court does not $ake +aw but mere+' fins or dec+ares +aw(1) transcendenta+ bod' of +aw2 (#o+mes)0 brooding omnipresence2
ii) :rob+ems(1) >he +aw cou+d be different in separate states if the +egis+ature so dec+ared it(2) Black - White 0a1ica% v. Bro!n an 2ello! 0a1ica% (U.S. 19E8) " federa+ ct had the
authorit' under S!ift to reach its own conc+usion on the common +aw issue ofwhether such ec+usive contracts shou+d be enforced. (compan' had reincorporatedin >ennessee to then bring suit in federa+ district court in Aentuc;'Qforumshopping)
c) >he %ega+ 6ea+ist ttac; on S!ift i) #o+mes dissent in Black - White 0a1ica% attac;ed the basic phi+osophica+ premise
(1) Out there is no such bod' of +aw.2(2) >he +aw is a set of ru+es +aid down b' those w*the power to do so0 to govern behavior
in a given p+ace in a given time.ii) So0 the +aw can be one thing in one state and another in a second state different
+egis+atures have eercised their authorit'iii) $ach ru+e ma' be right2 in the sense that it is appropriate for its time and p+ace0 but it is
not right2 because it is the one true ru+e for a++ time on a particu+ar issue.i#) >he le.al realist shou+d as; what bod' has the authorit' to ma;e the ru+es governing the
issue⇒ usua++' the states.
d) >he 3rie &ecisioni) <verru+ed S!ift !. 0yson for severa+ reasons
(1) S!ift fai+ed to achieve the goa+ of uniformit'⇒ gradua+ accumu+ation of genera+
common +aw2 did not induce state udges to recogniCe the rightness2 of thosedecisions
(2) edera+ practice of ma;ing common +aw had +ed to grave discrimination in the
administration of ustice⇒ S!ift had introduced diversit' in favor of out-of-state ∏s
(3) Unconstitutiona+⇒ authoriCed federa+ udges to ma;e2 +aw in areas in which the
federa+ gov5t had no de+egated powers
- 19 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 20/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 21/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 22/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 23/69
(1) 6eected b' the Farren ct in favor of a !odiied outco!e'deter!inati#e test (a) Fhether a federa+ procedure is outcome-determinative must be viewed in +ight of
the po+icies under+'ing 3rie0 to prevent forum shopping and ine,uitab+eadministration of the +aws
(2) onc+uded in this case that the test did not re,uire the fed ct to substitute the state ctru+e for its own
e) #anna :art E &istinct na+'sis for edera+ 6u+es onf+ictsi) 6: are officia++' promu+gated b' the U.S. Supreme t under the 6u+es $nab+ing ct
(6$) and imp+icit+' endorsed b' ongress(1) ongress and the St have broad constitutiona+ authorit' to promu+gate an' ru+e that
is arguab+' procedura+ii) #anna ct endorsed an entire+' dierent anal(sis for cases in which an officia+ 6:
conf+icts w*state +awiii) :oint due to #anna5s broad construction of the constitutiona+ and statutor' authorit' to
promu+gate the edera+ 6u+es0 a part' who argues that a federa+ ru+e is be'ond the bounds of federa+ authorit' because it is not procedura+2 faces a ver' steep uphi++ batt+e
i#) 6$ 6u+e0 though procedura+ under the first subsection of the 6$ because itregu+ates the udicia+ process0 is inva+id under the second if it impinges on substantiverights
#) Ruestion what eact+' is substantive2P
f) ramewor; for na+'sis
Conlicts %etBeen a &ederal
Constitutional Pro#ision and State ,aB
>he onstitution is the supreme +aw of the+and2 (rt. H/0 E)0 and its provisions app+'even if the' conf+ict w*state +aw (substantiveor procedura+)
- E3 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 24/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 25/69
iii) Fhat differences are sufficient to +ead to ine,uitab+e administration of the +aws2P(1) &iscrimination(2) #anna :art /5s modified outcome-determinative test is more narrow than Mor;5s(3) tough substance*substance distinction between the ana+'ses of #anna :art / and //
i#) Fhat is the current status o Byrd P(1) Her' much a+ive man' +ower federa+ cts re+' on Byr5s emphasis on the importance
of the federa+ interests as a factor in reso+ving conf+icts under #anna :art /.
h) $amp+esi) 2ork " ran;furter conc+uded that fed cts shou+d fo++ow state ru+es if the difference
between the state and the federa+ ru+es cou+d be outcome determinative2ii) Byr " fed cts must fo++ow state ru+es that define the rights and ob+igations of the
parties2 (su%stanti#e ri.5ts) which the federa+ gov5t has no authorit' to create(1) ed ct shou+d genera++' defer to state ru+es in matters of form and mode2
(procedure) if the' are +i;e+' to be outcome determinative (for uniformit')(a) Un+ess countervai+ing considerations re,uire app+ication of a federa+ ru+e
(2) :rob+em does not specif' what federa+ po+icies wi++ outweigh the 3rie*2ork po+ic' of
assuring that diversit' cases come out the same in state ct and federa+ ct(a) $. 6ight to ur' tria+ ('es)
iii) State 6u+e (or statute) v. 6:⇒ #anna :art E (arguab+' procedura+2 test)
(1) 6: app+ies un+ess inva+id(a) Un+ess abridges0 en+arges0 or modifies substantive rights (mur;')
(2) #eav' presumption of va+idit' accorded to 6: (guide procedure0 too)(3) 6ationa+e fed gov5t has authorit' to regu+ate procedure in federa+ cts0 inc+uding
matters can rationa++' be c+assified as procedura+(a) $. 6: 1! an amendment wi++ re+ate bac; if it wou+d re+ate bac; under state
+aw
i#) State 6u+e (or statute or practice) v. edera+ Dudicia+ :ractice ⇒ #anna :art 1
(1) Ruestion is whether the twin aims of 3rie wou+d be compromised b' a++owing thefedera+ cts to ignore the state statute in favor of their usua+ practice (fortuit'2)(a) orum shopping(b) ine,uitab+e administration of the +aws2
#) State 6u+e (or statute) v. edera+ %aw ⇒ #anna :art 1 (see above)
(1) /n a++ these cases0 it is the nature of the federa+ provision0 not the competing state provision0 that determines the ana+'sis.
(2) /ssue is when federa+ +aw is va+id and∴app+ies in federa+ ct
(a) pp+icab+e if it governs the +itigation and va+id if it passes the #anna :art 1 test(3) edera+ +aw wi++ app+' despite a conf+icting state provision because it is the supreme
+aw of the +and2(a) ust be constitutiona+
#i) State 6u+e (or statute) v. edera+ onstitutiona+ :rovision ⇒ #anna :art E (see above)
#ii) Oe aware that the t'pe and measure of damages recoverab+e is usua++' governed b' state+aw (no federa+ authorit')
- E! -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 26/69
44) ERIE AN- STATE CHOICE O& ,AD: "p/ 4@0)
a) >he :rob+em of hoosing the :roper State %awi) C5oice o laB " the need to choose a bod' of substantive +aw to app+' to the dispute
before the courtii) 6u+e the court shou+d app+' its own ru+e0 the +aw of the state where the suit is brought
(1) &oes not app+' in a++ cases(a) Fou+d obvious+' encourage Πs to forum shop
(b) :o+ic' unwise to decide a controvers' under a substantive ru+e comp+ete+'foreign to the events in dispute"i) actors substantia+ connections0 epectations0 state interest"ii) /f there is a strong connection to another state0 man' cts wou+d choose to
app+' the substantive +aw of the other state"iii) 6esu+t ma' be that a ct in one state hears the suit but chooses to app+'
the substantive +aw of another state
b) pproaches to hoice of %aw " when to choose the +aw of another state instead
i) odern approach2 " weigh the interests of each affected state in app+'ing its +aw to thecase
ii) pp+' the +aw of the state with the most significant re+ationship2 to the case in +ight of po+ic' considerations(1) epectations of the parties(2) the po+ic' interests of the states with connections to the case0(3) uniformit' in enforcement
iii) >he se+ection of the app+icab+e +aw wi++ depend on the choice of +aw approach of thecourt in which the suit is fi+ed.
c) edera+ ourts hoosing State %aw
i) hoice not on+' of state cts in different states0 but a+so federa+ cts in each of those statesii) Kla1on v. Stentor Manufacturing Co. (U.S. 191) " he+d that the po+ic' under+'ing 3rie
mandates the application o t5e oru! states c5oice o laB rules as Bell as its
su%stanti#e laB (1) edera+ ct must do whatever the state ct within that state wou+d do
(2) 6ationa+e 3rie teaches that ∏s shou+d not obtain an advantage due to the accident
of diversit'2 that the' wou+d not have in state court ⇒ fed ct must do whatever state
ct wou+d do(3) ounterargument Kla1on impedes deve+opment of conf+icts of +aw and promotes
forum shopping(4) Kla1on has been reaffirmed in subse,uent St opinions
iii) Hertica+ uniformit' between state and federa+ cts w*in each statei#) #oriConta+ uniformit' destro'ed among the federa+ cts in different states
#) 3rie has not ended forum shopping for a more favorab+e substantive +aw ⇒ it has ust
changed the ru+es of the game
(1) Πs ma' get the same resu+t b' choosing between federa+ cts in different states or
between state courts in different states
d) $amp+es
- EG -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 27/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 28/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 29/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 30/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 31/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 32/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 33/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 34/69
iii) #$A for independent basis for subect matter urisdiction and then for supp+ementa+ urisdiction
i#) I!pleader c+aims must arise out of the same set of facts as the main c+aim to satisf' the
re,uirements of 6u+e 1 ⇒ ∴the' wi++ meet the common nuc+eus test of Gi%%s and the
statutor' test of I13G7(a)
#) Supp+ementa+ urisdiction etends to c+aims b' or against other parties0 even if the Π has
not asserted an' urisdictiona++' sufficient c+aim against the added part'.
- 3 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 35/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 36/69
"i) Fou+d a++ow one citiCen from a state to sue another in federa+ ct (evading thecomp+ete diversit' re,uirement of Stra!%rige)
"ii) 6ationa+e supp+ementa+ urisdiction shou+d not provide a means of evadingthe comp+ete diversit' re,uirement
- 3G -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 37/69
PART &OUR: STEPS IN THE ,ITIGATION PROCESS
4?) SER7ICE O& PROCESS IN THE &E-ERA, COURTS "p/ *?;)
a) &ue process of +aw2 under the fourteenth amendmenti) uarantees parties the basic right to notice of a ct5s intention to adudicate their rights
and an opportunit( for those parties to %e 5eard ii) /n civi+ suits0 this re,uirement of notice is satisfied b' service of process
(1) Service of the initia+ notice to the ∆ of the fi+ing of a +awsuit against him
(2) Botifies the ∆ that he has been sued and informs him that the ct intends to proceed to
adudicate his rightsiii) overned b' the e+aborate provisions in 6u+e
b) >he 6e+ation of Service of :rocess to :ersona+ Durisdictioni) 1E(b)(!) motion
(1) otion to dismiss for insufficienc' of service of process(2) ttac;s the ade,uac' of the method used b' the Π to give the ∆ notice of the action
ii) 1E(b)(E) motion
(1) ha++enges the ct to eercise persona+ urisdiction over the ∆
c) $amp+es
i) Burnha$ " service of process in the state confers urisdiction over an iniviual ∆
(1) &oes not suggest that a corporation is subect to persona+ urisdiction in a statesimp+' because an officer is served whi+e there for an unre+ated purpose
ii) 6u+e G=(b) Relie ro! jud.!ent
(1) ives a udge discretionar' power to undo the fina+it' of a udgment for various
reasons0 inc+uding inadvertence0 surprise0 or ecusab+e neg+ect2 (6u+e G=(b)(1)) andan' other reason ustif'ing re+ief from udgment2 (6u+e G=(b)(E))
(2) 6ationa+e a++ow the ct to re+ieve a part' from the effect of a udgmentQeven a va+id udgmentQwhen fairness supports reopening the case ($. +ac; of actua+ notice)
(3) Dudge might refuse for other po+ic' reasons ($. upsetting epectations of parties)iii) ost cts have he+d that a federa+ ct can eercise urisdiction under the ifth mendment
over a ∆ who has contacts an'where in the United States
- 37 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 38/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 39/69
(4) a' not a+wa's be eas' to determine whether a comp+aint fai+s to state a c+aim at theoutset
d) $amp+es
i) 6u+e 1E(g) provides that a ∆ who chooses to ma;e a pre-answer motion must inc+ude in
that motion a++ of the 1E(b) (and (e)) defenses she has at the time
(1) n' of the defenses that are omitted from the motion are waived w*the eception ofthose preserved b' 6u+e 1E(h)(E) and (3)
(2) 6ationa+e prevents ∆ from nic;e+ and diming the Π be repeated motions to dismiss
on different grounds(3) 6u+e 1E(h)(1) provides that these defenses are waived if
(a) (a) the ∆ ma;es a pre-answer motion and +eaves them out0 or
(b) (b) ∆ answers and +eaves them out
ii) 6u+e 1E(g) re,uires conso+idation of 1E(e) motions (for a more definite statement)iii) A!%i.uit( in motion to dismiss for +ac; of su%ject !atter jurisdiction
(1) %anguage of 6u+e 1E(g) wou+d support that motion is barred if not raised in first
response (because it is not an eception +isted in 1E(h)(E))0 but(2) 6u+e 1E(h)(3) provides that the eception to subect matter urisdiction ma' be raisedan'time
i#) $ven if ∆ unab+e to determine whether venue is proper0 ru+es re,uire immediate assertion
of the defense(1) :ossib+e so+ution move for etension o ti!e to ile a response (6u+e G(b))
#) >actica+ advantages of moving to dismiss rather than answering
(1) ∆ ma' avoid0 temporari+'0 the Π5s a++egations
(2) AnsBer re9uires response to substantive a++egations in the comp+aint
(a) 6u+e 8(b) - ∆ must ma;e admissions or denia+s
(b) 6u+e 8(c) - ∆ must raise an' affirmative defenses
(c) 6u+e 13 " must assert an' counterc+aims
- 39 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 40/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 41/69
(1) Pri#ile.e " some po+ic' favoring confidentia+it' is udged to be more compe++ingthan access to the evidence
iii) Attorne('client pri#ile.e " bars in,uir' into communications between a c+ient and hercounse+ in the course of +ega+ representation(1) 6ationa+e effective representation re,uires fu++ and fran; communication between
+aw'er and c+ient. 6p8ohn v. 6nite States (U.S. 1981)
(2) ommunication wi++ be inhibited if opposing counse+ wou+d +isten in2 on thesecommunications b' as;ing about them at tria+ " or in discover'
i#) <ther privi+eges recogniCed b' cts priest and penitent0 doc and patient0 ps'chotherapistand patient0 #*F
#) :rivi+eges ma' be created b' state or federa+ common +aw or statute or in the U.S.onstitution.
#i) :oint recogniCe wh' cts might choose to protect information despite its re+evance0 andthat where the' so0 the information need not be disc+osed in discover'.
e) Dor6 Product2 <bectionsi) Oars production of certain materia+s deve+oped in anticipation of +itigation
ii) #ick$an v. 0aylor (U.S. 197) - Π5s counse+ in a wrongfu+ death case sought discover'
of defense counse+5s notes of interviews with various witnesses to the tugboat sin;ingthat caused death
(1) +so re,uested0 through interrogatories0 the substance of other interviews that the ∆5s
+aw'er had conducted but had not written down ⇒ wanted ortenbaugh to write out
his memor' of the interviews in response to the interrogatories(2) rgued that a++owing this discover' wou+d improper+' interfere w* the privac' of his
tria+ preparation(3) Fhen the case was decided0 6u+e EG provided no ep+icit eception for menta+
impressions2 contained in the fi+es and minds of the attorne'(a) >roub+ing ver' difficu+t to separate factua+ information in tria+ preparation
materia+s from the thought processes of the +aw'er who deve+oped them(b) oncern that a++owing discover' of tria+ preparation materia+s wou+d a++ow
+aw'ers to ride on their adversar'5s coattai+s in preparing for tria+(c) oncern about +aw'ers ending up as witnesses in their own cases if the
statements the' produced contradicted other testimon' from the same witness(4) &enied production of the re,uested information(5) #e+d that written statements given b' witnesses might be subect to discover' if the
part' see;ing discover' made a sufficient showing of need for the materia+ andinabi+it' to obtain it through other means. t a+so epressed considerab+e doubt thatan attorne'5s menta+ impressions or persona+ notes on a witness interview wou+d ever be subect to discover'.
iii) 6u+e EG(b)(3) codified 1Bor6 product2 doctrine (1) Standard documents and things prepared in anticipation of +itigation can on+' be
obtained in discover' if the re,uesting part' demonstrates that she has substantia+need for the materia+s and cannot obtain substantia++' e,uiva+ent information throughother means w*o undue hardship
(2) $ven where such a showing is made0 the menta+ impressions0 conc+usions0 opinionsor +ega+ theories if an attorne'2 sha++ be protected from disc+osure
(3) >hree cate.ories of wor; product2
- 1 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 42/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 43/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 44/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 45/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 46/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 47/69
- 7 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 48/69
*) -ISMISSA, &OR &AI,URE TO STATE A C,AIM COMPARE- TO SUMMAR+
$U-GMENT "p/ 0?8)
a) &evices ∆s ma' use to cha++enge the merits of the Π5s case before tria+ (pretria+ reso+ution)
i) 1E(b)(G) motion2 " to dismiss for fai+ure to state a c+aim on which re+ief can be grantedii) 6u+e !G " motion for summar' udgment
b) >he 6u+e 1E(b)(G) otion
i) ∆ ma' move to dismiss the Π5s comp+aint on the ground that it fai+s to state a c+aim that
entit+es the Π to an' form of re+ief
ii) >he wrong2 that the Π describes is not recogniCed as a vio+ation of an' +ega+ rights
(1) t wou+d not be ab+e to grant damages or other re+ief to the Π even if he proved a++
the facts a++egediii) Standard whether the comp+aint itse+f states a +ega++' sufficient c+aim
(1) ssumes that the facts are true and the Π wi++ prove them
(2) :ure+' +ega+ ,uestion whether0 if the Π proves the a++egations in the comp+aint0 he
wi++ have estab+ished a cause of action entit+ing him to some form of re+ief from thecourt
i#) ts give ever' benefit of the doubt to the Π in deciding the motion
(1) Conley v. Gi%son (U.S. 19!7) " he+d that a comp+aint shou+d not be dismissed under
6u+e 1E(b)(G) un+ess it appears be'ond doubt that the Π can prove no set of facts in
support of his c+aim which wou+d entit+e him to re+ief2(2) :+eadings must be +ibera++' construed in favor of sustaining the comp+aint " ct can
infer what the Π is a++eging
#) >'pes of deecti#e co!plaints that are vu+nerab+e to dismissa+
(1) Π has sought re+ief for acts that are not proscribed under current +aw
(2) Π
has fai+ed to a++ege the necessar' e+ements of a c+aim that0 if proper+' p+eaded0wou+d state a sufficient c+aim
(a) if an oversight0 ct wi++ a++owΠ to amend the comp+aint0 and suit wi++ proceed
(b) if Π cannot a++ege the necessar' e+ement0 the comp+aint is fata++' defective
c) $amp+esi) 6u+e 1E(b)(G) motion is avai+ab+e to reso+ve difficu+t issues of +aw as we++ as c+ear ones
(1) Some cts ma' be re+uctant to grant motions to dismiss if the state of the +aw is
unsett+ed⇒ ma' sense that the issue is c+ose and cou+d be better decided on a fu++
record after discover' or tria+ii) or purposes of the motion to dismiss0 ct on+' ;nows what is in the comp+aint
(1) Under Conley v. Gi%son0 ct must as; whether the Π0 on the a++egations of thecomp+aint0 cou+d prove an' set of facts that wou+d entit+e her to re+ief
(a) /f the ct can reasonab+' infer that Π has stated a va+id of0 must den' the
motion to dismiss
(2) Πs plead .enerall( in order not to revea+ wea;nesses in their cases or simp+' to
avoid giving the opposing part' an' free discover'
(a) ∆ wi++ use SD motion to f+ush out such wea;nesses an'wa'
- 8 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 49/69
(3) Π ma' p+ead speciicall( because it is more he+pfu+ to the ct and ma' trigger more
specific responses from the ∆ in his answer
iii) /f Π did not a++ege an e+ement because he has no support for his theor'⇒ dismiss
i#) 6u+e 1E(h)(E) " authoriCes ∆ to raise the obection of fai+ure to state a c+aim in an'
p+eading0 b' motion for udgment on the p+eadings or even at tria+
#) &istinguish +ega+ sufficienc' of the c+aim from the factua+ issue of whether thea++egations are true⇒ factua+ issues cannot be reso+ved b' 1E(b)(G) motions
d) Summar' Dudgment &istinguished (6u+e !G)
i) :urpose a++ow ear+' reso+ution of cases in which the Π meets the minima+ burden to
p+ead the e+ements of a compensab+e c+aim0 but cannot prove one or more of thosee+ements
ii) Su!!ar( jud.!ent " entr' of udgment b' the ct in favor of either the Π or the ∆ w*o
tria+(1) Oefore evidence is presented to the ur'
iii) Standard ppropriate on+' if the evidence before the ct demonstrates that there are no
disputed issues o !aterial act to be tried and that the moving part' is entit+ed to udgment on the undisputed facts (6u+e !G(c))
i#) Motion cha++enges Π5s abi+it' to prove an essentia+ e+ement of his c+aim
(1) Fhen the motion is made and ade,uate+' supported0 Π must respond b' producin.
ad!issi%le e#idence that tends to prove the cha++enged e+ement (6u+e !G(e))(a) Such evidence wou+d demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of materia+ fact2
as to the issue(b) Ourden to produce +ega++' competent evidence upon which a ur' cou+d reso+ve
the factua+ issues in his favor"i) /f there is a genuine issue of materia+ fact0 the ur'5s ro+e is to reso+ve it"ii) >he udge5s ro+e is on+' to determine whether the parties5 evidence revea+s a
factua+ dispute(2) /f countervai+ing evidence is produced b' Π0 SD is denied
(a) SD intended on+' to determine whether there are genuine+' contested issues ofmateria+ fact0 B<> to tr' the facts
#) 6ationa+e /f there is no factua+ dispute for the ur' to tr'0 the ur' wou+d have no
+egitimate basis on which to find for the Π. verdict for him cou+d on+' ref+ect
irrationa+ decision-ma;ing. SD avoids this ris;0 as we++ as the de+a' and epense oftr'ing unprovab+e cases.
#i) motion for SD ma' be supported b' affidavits0 depositions0 answers to interrogatories0admissions0 and admissib+e documents (6u+e !G (c)0 (e))(1) ateria+s are not a+wa's admissib+e at tria+ themse+ves0 but the' demonstrate that the
part' has access to evidence that wou+d be admissib+e and supports the c+aim(2) ++egations in the p+eadings are not admissib+e evidence (are on+' assertions as to
what the parties can prove)
e) Summar' Dudgment in <ther >'pes of asesi) ases in which parties agree on the under+'ing facts but disagree as to the +ega+
imp+ications of those facts
(1) Π presents +ega+ argument that the evidence satisfies an e+ement
- 9 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 50/69
(2) otion frames a sing+e dispositive issue for the court
(3) /f the ct agrees with the Π5s +ega+ argument0 it wi++ den' SD
(4) /f the ct decides the e+ement is not satisfied ⇒ wi++ enter udgment for the ∆ because
he is entit+ed to jud.!ent as a !atter o laB2ii) 6eso+ve individua+ c+aims in a mu+ti-c+aim +awsuit
f) $amp+esi) Ad!issi%le e#idence " deemed sufficient+' re+iab+e0 under estab+ished ru+es of evidence0
for a ur' to hear and consider in reaching its decision of facts(1) Since the point of the SD motion is to see if there is an' evidence on the cha++enged
a++egation for the ur' to consider ⇒ the evidence used to support the motion shou+d
be evidence that the ur' cou+d hear at tria+ii) 6u+e !G(c) " no genuine issue2 of materia+ fact
(1) &ispute must be on an issue that is materia+ to the right to recover(2) A!%i.uit( in 6u+e !G
(a) !G(c) provides that SD can on+' be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any materia+ fact2"i) SD often decided even if there are unreso+ved issues in the case"ii) So0 the +anguage must mean no factua+ dispute concerning the particular
ele$ent of the clai$ that is challenge %y the $otion
iii) t ma' grant partial su$$ary 8ug$ent for the Π (on one e+ement)
i#) 6u+e !G(e) " SD granted if appropriate2 " where the moving part'5s materia+s wou+dsuffice to estab+ish that part'5s version of the facts that the %urden s5its to the opposing part' to introduce contrar' evidence(1) /f the evidence offered cou+d give rise to two inferences0 one of which wou+d support
the opposing part'5s case0 ct wou+d assume ur' wou+d ma;e that inference and den'SD (even if opposing part' does not fi+e materia+s)
(2) !G(e) provides that a part' ma' not avoid SD b' resting on contrar' a++egations in thecomp+aint
(a) SD motion cha++engesΠ to show he can prove it0 not ust a++ege it
#) Fhether the SD motion shou+d be granted turns on whether the moving part' can get SD b' pointing out that the part' w*the burden of proof +ac;s ade,uate evidence to meet that burden0 without producing an' evidence of its own to disprove the a++eged facts
#i) Celote1 Corp. v. Catrett (U.S. 198G)
(1) /ssue whether Π5s decedent had been eposed to asbestos products
(2) #e+d a part' can support a SD motion w*materia+s that show that the part' who hasthe burden of proof of an essentia+ fact cannot prove that fact
(3) #e+d if the ∆ demonstrated that there was no evidence in the record to support Π5s
c+aim of eposure to its product0 and the Π did not produce evidence tending to prove eposure ⇒ ∆ cou+d get SD w*o presenting an' evidence to show +ac; of
eposure
(4) ∆ entit+ed to D% if Π0 who he+d burden of proof on the issue0 had no evidence to
carr' the burden
(5) Π5s put in a difficu+t position must aggressive+' deve+op evidence before the motion.
/f Π does not0 wi++ +ose because he has not gathered the evidence necessar' to prove
it.
- != -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 51/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 52/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 53/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 54/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 55/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 56/69
(1) ust be fi+ed within 4 da(s of entr' of udgment(2) ++ows the udge to vacate the verdict and order the case retried in order to assure the
parties a fair tria+ procedureii) >wo categories of cases in which the cts have granted new tria+s
(1) Bew tria+s for error in t5e trial process
(a) :o+ic' ever' +itigant is entit+ed to due process of +aw02 inc+uding a fair tria+
procedure before his rights are determined(b) $rrors of this sort ma' taint the ur'5s decision-ma;ing process0 +eading it to
consider inappropriate information in reaching a verdict or to use the wrong ru+esof +aw in assessing +iabi+it' or damages
(2) >ria+ process was fair but the resu+t was wrong #erdicts a.ainst t5e Bei.5t o t5e
e#idence (a) Harious standards
"i) Dudge ma' grant a new tria+ if the ur'5s verdict is against the c+ear weight0the overwhe+ming weight0 or great weight of the evidence4
"ii) when it is ,uite c+ear that the ur' has reached a serious+' erroneous resu+t(b) Dudge cannot disp+ace the ur' simp+' because he disagrees with the ur'
"i) Out ma' order a new tria+ when the evidence is strong enough to rationa++'support the ur'5s verdict0 but he be+ieves the ur'5s verdict is serious+'erroneous (point R on the diagram)
"ii) Fhen the evidence is within the arena for ur' decision OU> udge disagrees(3) /mportant dierence between (1) and (E) on appe++ate review
(a) >ria+ error can be reviewed de novo b' the court of appea+s(b) gainst the great weight of the evidence inc+udes ba+ancing of evidence which
usua++' on+' the tria+ udge has a fu++ opportunit' to observe"i) 6are for appe++ate udges to second-guess fB> on this ground"ii) >rend review new tria+ grants under an a%use o discretion standard
1. Gasperini v. Center for #u$anities0 Inc. (U.S. 199G)
a. &oes the seventh amendment mandate this particu+ar resu+tP $ven ifnot0 federa+ cts have adopted ru+es about this. ?er;en Use the B2R' >$S>@
iii) Dudge ma' consider the credibi+it' of witnesses(1) cting as thirteenth uror in ma;ing an independent assessment of the evidence(2) &ecides whether it is wou+d serve the ends of ustice to have another ur' hear the
casei#) rguab+'0 the udge is more intrusive w* fB> than with D%
(1) Standard for granting a new tria+ is +ess stringent(2) ounterargument it is a new ur'0 not the udge0 that wi++ reconsider the case if the
motion is granted
#) 6efer to diagram on +annon0 p. 11 T5e $ud.es PoBer to -isplace t5e $ur(s7erdict
$vidence
wea;er evidence for Π $ven+' stronger evidence
for Π
← Oa+anced →
- !G -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 57/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 58/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 59/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 60/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 61/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 62/69
i) jud.!ent need not be right to prec+ude further +itigation4 it need on+' be inal and on
t5e !erits.(1) /f ec+usion of evidence was improper in the first suit0 appea+ rather than re+itigate
the same issue in a second suit ( Moitie)ii) 6es udicata bars not on+' those c+aims that were asserted in the first suit0 but a+so an'
others arising out of that transaction or occurrence that cou+d have been asserted but
were not. (Π cannot ust switch theories⇒ shou+d inc+ude mu+tip+e theories in firstcomp+aint)
iii) ts genera++' reect re+itigation for future damages for inuries surfacing after first udgment
(1) (:o+ic' fina+it' of udgments4 6u+e Π must recover for a++ her damages in the
origina+ action0 w* eception in some asbestos cases)
i#) $ver' potentia+ Π who suffers inur' from a transaction or occurrence has a distinct
c+aim for res udicata purposes#) Separate breaches of contract in successive 'ears are dierent occurrences that ma' be
sued on separate+' (if the' cou+d not have been raised in the same action)#i) #$A to see if urisdiction has a compu+sor' counterc+aim ru+e (6u+e 13(a))#ii) &ismissa+ for +ac; of subect matter urisdiction does not constitute udgment on the
merits.#iii) Summar' udgment and D% are considered to be on the merits.
i) enera+ ru+e Πs in federa+ ct must assert their supp+ementa+ c+aims or +ose them b'
operation of res udicata.) ases must be decided according to the +aw at the time of tria+ and not re+itigated if that
+aw changes (appea+T4 Moitie)⇒ wou+d undermine 6D po+icies of udicia+ econom' and
certaint' of udgmentsi) aorit' ru+e in federa+ cts ct ma' not grant relie ro! jud.!ent due to a change in
the substantive +aw once the period for appea+ has passed
(1) Out0 if the +aw changes whi+e the period for appea+ is sti++ running0 man' cts wou+da++ow Π to see; re+ief from udgment on this ground.
- GE -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 63/69
*3) RES $U-ICATA AN- THE RU,ES O& $OIN-ER "p/ 33;)
a) <ught to be a c+ose re+ationship between the parties5 right to oin c+aims in their first +awsuitand the scope of res udicata in subse,uent suits between themi) >he s'stem ought to offer parties a chance to have a++ their c+aims heard0 through either
(1) %imited c+aims in mu+tip+e suits0 or
(2) u+tip+e c+aims in a sing+e suit(a) edera+ cts (and man' state s'stems) choose this route(b) /mp+emented b' etreme+' %road rules .o#ernin. pleadin. and joinder
"i) 6u+es (8)(a)(3)0 8(e)(E)0 130 10 180 E=
"ii) %ibera+ oinder ru+es give Πs broad power to oin a++ their theories of
recover' in initia+ suit"iii) >he $ay of these ru+es means $ust when the effects of 6D are
considered."i#)$ceptions when initia+ oinder of a particu+ar c+aims is not avai+ab+e under
6u+e 18(a)ii) T5eories that cou+d have been oined are genera++' barred
iii) Scope of permissib+e oinder of parties is much broader than the dimensions of a sing+ec+aim2 for res udicata purposes(1) /n man' cases0 c+aims against additiona+ parties cou+d be oined under the 6u+es but
wi++ not be barred b' res udicata if the' are not
(2) Π5s rights to recover from separate ∆s are considered distinct c+aims2 under res
udicata ana+'sis0 even though the' arise out of the same occurrence
(3) Same parties2 re,uirement not met since the ∆s differ in the two actions
(4) :o+ic' Π is the master of his c+aim (favor freedom of choice over efficienc')
(5) #owever0 the first action ma' have some prec+usive effect(a) Bloner(0ongue a%oratories* Inc. v. 6niversity of Illinois ,ounation (U.S.
1971)(b) /nhibits freedom of choice to some etent0 sinceΠ cannot start action w*a
comp+ete+' c+ean s+ate
b) $amp+es
i) 6u+e E= " sa's Πs $ay sue K 1 ∆0 not re,uired to do so
ii) 6es udicata " a++ theories for recover' arising out of a sing+e transaction or occurrenceconstitute a sing+e c+aim2 for prec+usion purposes
(1) pp+ies not on+' to Πs0 but to a++ parties in the suit who have asserted c+aims
iii) Inter#ention (1) 6u+e E(b)
(a) :ermissive cts ma' den' for a number of reasons(2) /ntervention as a !atter o ri.5t (6u+e E(a))
(a) &emonstrate preudice (wi++ be barred from future +itigation of c+aim)(b) Bot re,uired of parties (optiona+)(c) #$A on urisdictiona+ prob+ems ($. destro'ing comp+ete diversit')
i#) /n some s'stems0 counterclai!s are B<> compu+sor'⇒ even in these urisdictions0 it is
sometimes he+d that a part' waives his right to sue separate+' on an omittedcounterc+aim if the issues were raised defensive+' in the prior action
- G3 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 64/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 65/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 66/69
i) <ffensive2 use of estoppe+ and nonmutua+ estoppe+(1) Parklane #osiery Co.* Inc. v. Shore (U.S. 1979) " see net section
d) $amp+esi) na+'sis of co++atera+ estoppe+ issues shou+d a+wa's %e.in with a deter!ination o
B5at Bas decided in t5e irst action.
(1) &ifferent factua+ issues must be +itigated in the new suit(2) o++atera+ estoppe+ does not affect c+aims or defenses that cou+d have been raised but
were not(3) an wor; for either part'
ii) 6e+ief from udgment (6u+e G=(b)(E)) " app+ies on+' to reopen an original action
iii) General #erdict " ur' as;ed to find for Π (and damages) or ∆
(1) /mpossib+e to te++ which issue is decided ⇒ co++atera+ estoppe+ wi++ not bar
re+itigation of either issue(2) Beither ho+ding is entit+ed to prec+usive effect because the +osing part' had no
incentive to appea+ on one arguab+' incorrect ground if the other wou+d support the udgment
i#) &enia+ of motion for SD (or D%) does B<> actua++' decide an issue#) 7alue of invo;ing co++atera+ estoppe+ save +itigation time0 assure same favorab+e resu+t
obtained in first suit
- GG -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 67/69
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 68/69
(1) /f in doubt0 the ct can den' estoppe+.iii) Bloner(0ongue a%oratories* Inc. v. 6niversity of Illinois ,ounation " ct in the second
action must be convinced that the estoppe+ part' had a fu++ opportunit' to +itigate theissue in the first case.
i#) 6easons for the cts to eercise caution in deciding whether to app+' nonmutua+ co++atera+estoppe+
(1) ∆ in the first action did not choose the forum in which the case was initia++' decided(2) 6is;s noted in Parklane
(a) a' +ead to Bait and see2 attitude b' Πs " ho+d bac; from oining in the first
Π5s suit
(b) part' might not have +itigated the issue aggressive+' in the first action if thesta;es were sma++ or the forum inconvenient (+itt+e incentive)
(c) /t ma' not have been possib+e for the +osing part' to +itigate effective+' in thefirst action if the procedura+ ru+es of the ct that decided the first case were morerestrictive than those hearing the second
(d) <ne or more prior inconsistent udgments on the issue ma' suggest that it wou+d be unfair to give conc+usive effect to an' one of them.
d) Bonmutua+ co++atera+ estoppe+ is a form of co++atera+ estoppe+.i) /t must meet a++ the basic prere,uisites for app+ication of estoppe+ii) >he court must also consider the additiona+ factors to determine whether it wou+d be fair
to prec+ude re+itigation of findings from the prior action in a new suit invo+ving a new part'.
iii) Fhi+e mutua+it' has been abandoned in the federa+ cts0 some states sti++ app+' thedoctrine.
e) $amp+esi) $ver' +itigant is entit+ed to &: of +aw before a ct adudicates his rights.
(1) $fficienc' is outweighed b' fairnessii) Bernhar " nonmutua+ co++atera+ estoppe+ " part' see;ing in invo;e estoppe+ was B<> a
part' to the suit in which the issue was initia++' +itigated(1) Standard did the part' being estopped +itigate the issue in the prior action
iii) Mutualit( doctrine " confines estoppe+ to the parties to the origina+ suit or those inpri#it( with the origina+ parties who actuall( liti.ated those issues(1) Durisdictions that have abandoned mutua+it' ct ma' a++ow use of defensive estoppe+
b' a new part'0 so +ong as the part' being estopped was a part' to the prior actionand +itigated the issue there
i#) Oensi#e estoppel " part' not in origina+ action invo;es a finding from the first action
to estab+ish an e+ement necessar' for recover' against the ∆ in both the first and second
suits#) Parklane #$%& that the federa+ cts ma' app+' offensive mutua+ co++atera+ estoppe+ in
situations in which a new Π invo;es estoppe+ to estab+ish an issue that was decided
against the ∆ in the prior suit
(1) t wi++ B<> automatica++' bar re+itigation eamine circumstances from first case(a) de,uate opportunit' to +itigate
(2) &actors a#orin. application o estoppel
(a) Serious inuries indicate strong incentive to defend action vigorous+'
- G8 -
7/23/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure 1
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-civil-procedure-1 69/69
(b) oreseeabi+it' of future suits from other Πs arising out of same accident
(c) Same ct (federa+P StateP) not +i;e+' to be procedura+ advantages in the secondsuit that were not avai+ab+e in the first
(d) bsence of other actors su..estin. unairness "i) :rocedura+ s'stem in second suit more f+eib+e"ii) ore witnesses avai+ab+e in second suit that were unavai+ab+e in first
"iii) Π de+iberate+' decided not to oin in order to get the advantage of
nonmutua+ co++atera+ estoppe+ w*o ta;ing the ris; of +osing on the issue in thefirst action (burdens ct s'stem w*additiona+ +itigation)
#i) Bonmutua+ estoppe+ cases " a+wa's discretionar' (fu++ and fair opp. to +itigate)