advanced civil procedure3

8/20/2019 Advanced Civil Procedure3

1/21

Advanced Civil Procedure

Seeking Relief: Pre-judgment, Final, ContemptI. Remedies and Stakes

• Before decision is made to use civil process, it must be decided !at

remedies"relief can be attained t!roug! s#stemo Boddie v$ Connecticut, %&' ($S$ )*', +'*'

o Facts: .elfare recipients c!allenged court fees t!at restricted t!eir access to divorce$

o /olding: Court fees den# good-fait! divorce applicant meaningful opportunit# to be

!eard$o 0!e due process clause of t!e '%t! amendment pro!ibits a state from imposing a filing

fee upon an indigent litigant seeking a judicial dissolution of marriage$ 1ue processre2uires at a minimum a meaningful opportunit# to be !eard

o Reasoning: State monopol# of means for legall# dissolving marriage +fundamental

!uman relations!ip$

Lassiter v. Department of Social Services Facts: 3om +4assiter as neglecting !er son in '*5$ 0!en s!e murdered someone in '*6giving !er 75 8 %& #ears in prison$ 0o more #ears pass and s!e doesn9t contact !er son$ 0!e1epartment of Social Services files a petition to permanentl# terminate !er parental rig!ts$ f t!is!appens s!e ould never see !er son again$ Problems with the trial: 4assiter foolis!l# c!ose not to !ave counsel$ S!e didn9t stop t!e prosecution for submitting !earsa# testimon#$ 0!e cross-e;amination as a disaster because4assiter did not actuall# ask 2uestions$

Defendant’s appeals: 4assiter claimed t!at s!e as indigent and s!ould !ave !ad a la#er$ S!eis claiming t!at t!e court violated !er '% t! Amendment due process rig!t$ S!e ants a retrial$

Holding: 4assiter is not given a retrial$

Reasoning:

• 0!ere is a pre-eminent generaliver# issue needs to be evaluated on a case-b#-case circumstance

• 0!ere is over!elming evidence t!at regardless of !at 4assiter sa#s, s!e didn9t reall# care

about !er son$ Because of t!is, it ouldn9t matter if s!e !ad a la#er or not


2/21

Specificall# t!at t!e private interests, government interests and t!e risk t!at t!e procedures in place ma# provide erroneous outcomes be eig!ed to determine !et!er it ould necessitate t!eassistance of counsel$ But t!e Court ill eig!t t!ose factors case-b#-case, and in t!is case t!ereas reason to believe t!at Petitioner ould !ave received little !elp from counsel and t!at t!ereas no damage done in !er lack of counsel$

Dissent: 0aking someone9s c!ild is a uni2ue kind of deprivation$ Regardless of if t!e case ould!ave come out t!e same !et!er 4assiter !ad a judge or not, it does not mean t!at due processs!ould be denied$Correctl# used >ldridge )-factor test

'$ believed famil# matters are a fundamental libert# interest7$ libert# interests at stake in P0 undeniabl# re2uire procedural protection)$ state9s interest can9t be greater t!an t!at of a person t!reatened b# P0

Rule: 0!ere is no absolute rig!t to an attorne#$ >ver# case needs to be looked at individuall#$>ldridge ) factors

'$ 0!e interests of t!e individual in retaining t!eir propert#, and t!e injur# t!reatened b# t!eofficial action7$ 0!e risk of error t!roug! t!e procedures used and probable value, if an#, of additional or

substitute procedural safeguards?)$ 0!e costs and administrative burden of t!e additional process, and t!e interests of t!e

government in efficient adjudication

. Pro!isional relief

• >2uitable remedies: Can be attained before an# decision is made on claim +no

juries for e2uitable claims

• nvoked for to reasons:

o "o secure a #udgment +make sure plaintiff gets compensation aardedand could put pressure on someone to settle

o "o stop someone from continuing acti!it$ or to preser!e the status %uo

• Rule 65 +&b#ecti!e of maintaining status %uo

o Preliminar# njunction

@otice to ot!er side and !earing applies unless t!ere is immediate

irreparable !arm n ruling on preliminar# injunction, court ill consider:

♦ f injunction ill !arm ot!er side

♦ f it9s in best public interest

♦

/o likel# P is to succeed on claims♦ rreparable !arm suffered b# P if t!ere isn9t a preliminar#

injunctiono 0emporar# Restraining rder

Filed at same time t!at preliminar# injunction is filed

/as a lifespan of no more t!an '& da#s unless it is e;tended

@otice and !earing applies unless P s!os immediate and

irreparable injur# t!at ill occur if ait for !earing


3/21

P needs to make at least an informal attempt to notice 1

• Rule 6%: Sei


4/21

!ad been reliant on Plaintiff for cas! infusion prior to t!e termination$ Plaintiff broug!t an actionfor breac! of contract and successfull# obtained a preliminar# injunction against 1efendant toenforce t!e contract$

ssue$ 0!e issue is !et!er t!e preliminar# injunction granted to Plaintiff s!ould be up!eld$

/eld$ 0!e court implemented a formula, P ; /p +'-P G /d, t!at basicall# restated t!etraditional balancing factors in a mat!ematical format$ 0!e court t!en affirmed t!e injunction andsupported t!e decision b# noting t!e !ig! probabilit# of Plaintiff9s success at trial and t!e lack ofsignificant !ards!ip to 1efendant versus t!e !ards!ip to Plaintiff$ 0!e court still applied !ards!ipto t!e public +!ic! as considered !ards!ip for 1efendant for t!e sake of t!e formula andconcluded t!at t!e left side of t!e e2uation as greater +favored Plaintiff9s side$

1issent$ 0!e dissenting judge favors t!e traditional four-prong test for granting preliminar#injunctions +irreparable !arm and no ot!er remed# as e2uitable? t!e irreparable !arm outeig!st!e ot!er part#? likeli!ood of success? and no danger to public interest rat!er t!an t!e proposedformula$

.algreen Co$ v$ Sara Creek Propert# Co$Facts: - .algreens in mall oned b# Sara Creek

- lease stipulates no ot!er p!armac# can !ave lease in mall- mall9s anc!or tenant going out of business H Creek ants to bring in P!ar3or - .algreens sued for breac! of I? asked for injunction against Creek to least toP!ar3or

Rule: - rdinaril# mone#? t!is case mone# not appropriate b"c it9s impossible tocalculate

) "he burden is to show that damages are inade%uate *for permanent in#unction(+

not that the denial of the in#unction will work irreparable harm *that’s for a preliminar$

in#unction(

Reasoning: Substituting injunction for damages is beneficial:'$ s!ifts burden of determining cost of 19s conduct from court to parties7$ prices H costs are more accuratel# determined b# market t!an gov9

7$ >nforcement of e2uitable relief J use ct9s contempt poer a$ Civil contempt

- to compel to do somet!ing- used to impel t!e 1 to compl# it! t!e ct order - imprisonment as a result? compl# to sta# out of jail +e$g$ pa# c!ildsupport- fine ould be strange since e2uitable relief made mone# damages notade2uate- std of proof preponderance of evidence

b$ Criminal contempt- broke court order and illful about it- to punis! +b# fine and"or imprisonment- serve #our time- to give court respect +not so muc! relief for t!e P


5/21

- std of proof be#ond a reasonable doubt)$ 3one# damages

' nominal- represent a token amount simpl# to signif# t!e recognition t!at !arm asdone but !ere injur# can9t be proven

KProvisional relief in Carpenter case:

o A 0R and preliminar# injunction so Randall 1ee can9t sell !ouse

o Preliminar# injunction ordering eep not to be altered

o A se2uestration of eep to put it under supervision of t!ird part#

KProvisional relief in Cleveland case

o preliminar# injunction to stop !iring process

,. Final Relief

• ranted after decision is made on claim

• 0!ese can be eit!er e2uitable or legal remedies +t!ere are juries to determine

legal remedies

• >2uitable final relief

o ranted !en mone# damages on9t be enoug! to compensate for losses

o Permanent injunction

o 1eclarative relief: parties !ave declaration of t!eir rig!ts

• 4egal Relief

o 3onetar# damages

Punitive

Compensator#

@ominal: +unusual !en someone9s rig!ts !ave been violated but

t!e# !ave not suffered an# rig!t t!at can !ave monetar# valueattac!ed to it

• KFinal Relief in Carpenter case:

o Compensator# damages

lost income, lost !ouse!old services, etc$

o Punitive damages

3ust s!o recklessness, illful or anton misconduct

o udgment proof defendant:

1 doesn9t !ave an# mone# or assets so P can9t get damages from

!im

• KFinal relief in Cleveland case:o Final e2uitable relief

f final goal is a permanent injunction to restructure !iring process,

Ps must s!o t!at t!ere is no ade2uate legal remed# +mone#damages not enoug! for t!e 1s

o Compensator#

back pa#

C$ Contempt: .!en a part# or la#er disobe#s a court order


6/21

• A part# or la#er can be !eld in contempt if !e violates a court order or rule

• Parties sometime deliberatel# disobe# a statue in order to protest"c!allenge a

rule t!e# deem to be unjust

• Collateral Bar Rule +>nforced in .alker v$ Birming!am

o Procedural rule re2uiring obedience to a court order even if it is later

found to be unconstitutionalo Lou cannot disobe# a court order and t!en raise unconstitutionalit# of t!e

order as a defense$ nstead, #ou must tr# to directl# c!allenge order firsto Rule does not appl# if court t!at issues injunction does not !ave

jurisdiction over t!e parties or if injunction is so obviousl# invalid on itsface

o n enforcing collateral bar rule, as Supreme Court collaborating it!

injustice in Walker v. BirminghamDo .!en is t!e collateral bar rule appliedD

o /o can someone c!allenge injunction it!out running into collateral bar

ruleD

A$ Provisional relief J prejudgment reliefs J securing t!e judgment +t#ing up 19s propert#'$ Rule 6%+b

a$ arrest- to keep t!e 1 from running aa#

b$ attac!ment- sei


7/21

!et!er M damages ould provide inade2uate relief for P if ins? mone# on9t !elpirreparable !arm ill occur if not grantedlikelihood P will pre!ail on merits +most important factorscope H irreparabilit# of !arm 1 ill suffer if relief is rongl# grantede;tent to !ic! granting an injunction ould !arm public interest

%$ Rule 65+b J 0R- maintaining t!e status 2uo- e; parte decision? does not re2uire notice- irreparable !arm must be argued? somet!ing bad is going to !appen if t!e courtdoesn9t issue t!e restraining order +e$g$ bodil# !arm, c!ild custod#, foreclosure- immediate protection !ile ait for !earing on preliminar# injunction- '& da#s it! e;tension can turn into preliminar# t!en permanent- e$g$ butc!er across m# propert# line? !e mig!t kill it? so 0R

B$ Final relief

'$ >2uitable relief - onl# granted !en mone# damages ould not be ade2uate- e2uitable relief aarded b# judge? mone# damages usu$ aarded b# jur#a$ Rule 5* J 1eclarator# judgment

- ct9s clarification of t!e la as applied to t!e undisputed facts presented b# litigants- issues an opinion declaring rig!ts of parties involved

b$ Rule J Consent decrees- parties decide on a solution, t!e ct monitors agreement, and can bedissolved b# motion or sunset- e$g$ prison litigation not giving dental to prisoners- some ongoing for as long as )& #ears? !ave to do it piece b# piece- can arise out of violations of Constitutional rig!ts, !ic! supercede evenlegislation

c$ Rule 65 J Permanent injunctionwhether - damages would pro!ide inade%uate relief

!et!er P !as s!on risk of irreparable injur#scope H irreparabilit# of !arm 1 ill suffer if relief is rongl# grantede;tent to !ic! granting an injunction ould !arm public interest

- in2uir# leading to it doesn9t involve predicting likeli!ood of P9s success on merits b"cmerits alread# decide? injunction granted on !earing on t!e merits

Care# v$ Pip!us +'*NFacts: - students suspended for violating sc!ool rules

- not given due process prior to suspension%7 ($S$C$ O 'N): a person !o deprives someone of !is rig!ts, privileges, or immunitiessecured b# t!e Constitution and las, s!all be liable to t!e part# injured in an action at laRule: - nominal damages are most t!at can be aarded in t!e absence of proof of injur#

- must pro!e actual in#ur$ from denial of due process in order to obtainremed$


8/21

- in order to receive punitive damages, t!e students needed to s!o t!at t!eofficials acted it! malicious intent- mental H emotional distress are covered under O 'N), but "o actuall# provinginjur#, it can9t be assumed t!at t!e injur# is so great

Ruling: 1ue process asn9t given, but damages eren9t proved, so !ere9s M'

7 compensator#- seek to return P to position enjo#ed before t!e !arm- e$g$ medical bills, pain H suffering, loss of ages, fi; propert# t!at asdamaged>;: Carpenter

) punitive- furt!er monetar# relief seems appropriate to deter future rongfulconduct and to e;press public disapproval of injuring be!avior Kuideposts to clarif# !at constitutes unconstitutional e;cessiveness in punitive damage aards:

'- !o repre!ensible is t!e 19s conductD7- ratio of t!e aard to actual or potential !arm inflicted)- a comparison of t!e aard to civil or criminal penalties t!at could beimposed for comparable misconduct>;: Carpenter

>nforcement of mone# damages:'$ Secure a judgment7$ 1ocket it it! t!e clerk9s office

C$ Settlement- a legall# enforceable agreement, usuall# involving a pa#ment from 1 to P, in !ic! Pagrees not to pursue t!e claim furt!er

>$ Contempt#ou can violate an ordinance but not an order #ou can violate t!e statute or ordinance but @0 !en t!e ct orders #ou not to

.alker v$ Cit# of Birming!am +'6*Facts: - violated injunction at marc!ollateral ,ar Rule J !en violating a ct9s contempt order, #ou9re barred from c!allengingunderl#ing statute

Finalit$ and Preclusion

II. laim Preclusion/res judicata

Claim Preclusion pro!ibits P from splitting up claims t!at arise from common

nucleus of operative fact

>lements:

o +' Final and valid judgment on t!e merits

o +7 Second lasuit arises out of same claim as first lasuit

o +) Parties are t!e same or are in privit#


9/21

Polic#:

o 0o avoid asting judicial resources

o So 1 doesn9t !ave to defend case again

o So P cannot file same claim until s!e finds a s#mpat!etic jur#

o 0o avoid inconsistent results

f claims involve different transactions, P doesn9t !ave to join claims +tr#ingcases separatel# ould not repetition of same facts and evidence

Claim preclusion usuall# results in summar# judgment

0o moments in course of lasuit to keep claim preclusion in mind:

o .!en constructing complaint: @eed to make sure to include all issues t!at

raise out of one claim to avoid preclusion later ono f t!ere9s a second lasuit filed: 19s la#er !as to be aare of claim

preclusion to raise it as a defense

Final and !alid #udgment on the merits

o 1ismissal for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, non joinder, misjoinder

is not$ 1ismissal it! prejudice is$ +Rule %'+bo t!er judgments, suc! as motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

it! prejudice, S, ill be judgments t!at !ave preclusive effect

Second lawsuit arises out of same claim as first lawsuit:

o Fundamental 2uestion, !as t!e part# !ad t!e opportunit# for t!eir da# in

court, to argue t!e merits of t!e caseDo Factors to consider !en determining !et!er lasuit arises out of same

claim as first @atural grouping of common nucleus of operative facts

+considering time, space, origin, motivation, !et!er t!e# form aconvenient trial unit

o .!en P comes upon ne evidence: Rule 6& gives t!e court poer to relieve a part# of a judgment on a

number of grounds? one of t!ese is ne evidence$ t is at judge9sdiscretion and #ou probabl# on9t in if judge finds t!at #ous!ould !ave originall# found t!e evidence$ 0!ere is also a ' #eartime limit$

o Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company +F$7d, *t! Cir$ 'N

Asserts t!at transaction, not legal claim or t!eor#, matters !en

determining claim preclusion +common nucleus of operative factsidea.!en ne facts are found, court !as rig!t to presume t!at it P !as

done !is legal and factual !omeork, could9ve taken advantage ofamendment rulesFRCP are designed to allo t!ese claims to be broug!t toget!er

+joinder ') so claim preclusion provides motivation to join t!emo Heacock v. Heacock +SC 'N

1ivorce action !ere 3rs$ /eacock makes claims of violence 3r$

/eacock asserted against !er in support of reasons for divorce


10/21

Folloing divorce, 3rs$ /eacock begins tort action for abuse

.!en original jurisdiction did not !ave jurisdiction to !ear a

subse2uent claim, claim is not precluded$

"a$lor ! Sturgell+ to dif parties litigated t!e same issue H ere represented b# t!e same

attorne#0!e court !eld t!at suc! Qnonpart# preclusion runs up against t!e Qdeep-rooted !istoric traditiont!at ever#one s!ould !ave !is on da# in court$irtual representation s!ould onl# be applied rarel# and under certain e;ceptions to t!e generalrule, none of !ic! t!e Court found applicable in t!is case$Preclusive effect of prior ct judgment is based on federal common la 8 don9t look to state lato see if t!is is alloedAde2uate representation 8 interest of a nonpart# and representative must be aligned -e;:!omeoner9s association could be litigating for or against !omeonersRule against nonpart$ preclusion is sub#ect to the following e0ceptions *c.e is #ustified

when:( *take a categorical approach(

'$ A person !o agrees to be bound b# t!e determination of issues in an action beteenot!ers is bound in accordance it! t!e terms of !is agreement +non part# can agree to be bound b# prior decision

7$ ustified based on a variet# of pre-e;isting substantive legal relations!ips beteen t!e person to be bound and a part# to t!e judgment +certain relations!ips !ere it makessense to bind a nonpart# to a prior judgment 8 like in propert# cases

)$ n certain limited circumstances, a nonpart# ma# be bound b# a judgment because s!eas ade2uatel# represented b# someone it! t!e same interests !o as a part# to t!esuit +nonpart# as ade2uatel# represented b# a part# it! t!e same interests in t!e priorlasuit? e;: class action

%$ Bound if s!e assumed control over t!e litigation in !ic! t!e judgment as rendered +not

a formal part# in t!e litigation but t!e nonpart# controls t!e prior proceeding5$ A part# bound b# a judgment ma# not avoid its preclusive force b# relitigating t!roug! a pro;#$ Preclusion is t!us in order !en a person !o did not participate in a litigationlater brings suit as t!e designated representative of a person !o as a part# to t!e prioradjudication$

6$ n certain circumstances a special statutor# sc!eme ma# e;pressl# foreclose successivelitigation b# nonlitigants if t!e sc!eme is ot!erise consistent it! due process$ +e;: bankruptc# H probate proceedings

Simplified*1( A nonpart# ma# agree to be bound b# a judgment

*2( Privit# ma# justif# preclusion of a nonpart#*3( @onpart# interests represented b# part#: class actions, trustees, guardians*4( @onpart# !o9s assumed control over lasuit*5( @onpart# litigated suit via pro;# to avoid preclusion*6( Special statutor# sc!emes: bankruptc#, ot!er suits broug!t on be!alf of public

Consider: A part#9s representation of a nonpart# is ade2uate for preclusion purposes onl# if, at aminimum:


11/21

' t!e interests of t!e nonpart# and !er representative are aligned7 eit!er t!e part# understood !erself to be acting in a representative capacit# or t!e originalcourt took care to protect t!e interests of t!e nonpart#$ Ade2uate representation sometimesre2uires) notice of t!e original suit to t!e persons alleged to !ave been represented

Reject a broad doctrine of virtual representation H an all-t!ings-considered balancing approac! b"c:1ecisions emp!asi;$ Qbatter# is a claim? issues are intentional touc!ingD intention of !arm

Parties are the same+ or in pri!it$:

o Pri!it$ 7 some sort of relations!ip t!at makes it appropriate to conclude

t!at t!at part# !as alread# !ad its da# in court$ Famil# relations!ip is notenoug! to impl# privit#

o Gonzalez v. Banco Central Corp. +'st

Cir$, '% Facts: Bank selling sampland in Fl$ to people in Puerto Rico for

development$ Rodrigue< Ps file action first$ on


12/21

+7 3ust !ave actual or constructive notice of t!e earlierlitigation$

+) 3ust !ave some kind of relations!ip of accountabilit#$+0rustee"Beneficiar#, Corporate officers, Some familialrelations!ips, suc! as in bankruptc# proceedings

III. Issue Preclusion *ollateral 9stoppel(• Collateral estoppel"issue preclusion: nce issue !as been adjudicated beteen

to adverse parties, t!at issue cannot be relitigated in anot!er suit beteensame parties

• >lements:

o Are t!e issues t!e sameD

Analogous to transaction"occurrence

o .as issue actuall# litigatedD

o 1id litigation go to final judgmentD

o .as issue on !ic! preclusion as soug!t essential to final judgmentD

• ssue preclusion can be invoked even if one of t!e parties asn9t bound b#

prior litigation

• 3utualit#

o Federal and states !ave bod# of common la it! respect to preclusion,

so issue of !et!er mutualit# is re2uired is matter of state la$o 0rend is t!at mutualit# is not re2uired +including in federal court

• ssue preclusion usuall# results in partial summar# judgment

• Polic#: >fficienc#, consistenc#

• David P. Hoult v. Jennifer Hoult +'N

o Fat!er convicted of se;uall# abusing !is daug!ter$ /er fat!er later sues

!er for defamation because s!e reported rape$ 1aug!ter argues t!at issue preclusion s!ould appl#, sa#ing t!at !e cannot sa# t!at !e did not rape !er!en jur# implicitl# found t!at !e did$

o ssue: S!ould issue preclusion appl# !en t!ere as no e;plicit finding

t!at t!e fat!er raped !is daug!terDo Court: ssue preclusion can still appl# if finding in first suit as central to

t!e finding$ +Central is part# could !ave prevailed or lost because of t!eoutcome of t!at issue

o Can be determined b# evidence, testimon#

• Jarosz v. Palmer +3ass$ 7&&7

o Business relations!ip !ere former partner sues la#er t!at t!e compan#

used claiming breac! of attorne#-client privilegeo Court sa#s t!at issue preclusion does not appl# because issue asn9t

essential to underl#ing claim of original litigation on !ic! judgment asentered

o Polic# of re2uiring it to be central to judgment: 3a# not !ave been full#

litigated, ma# not !ave received full attention of court, etc$

• Parklane Hoisery o. v. Shore +($S$ '*


13/21

o 1eals it! non-mutual, offensive issue preclusion: Can a litigant !o as

not a part# to a prior judgment use t!e previous judgment Qoffensivel# to prevent 1 from re-litigating issues resolved in earlier proceedingD

o First action as seeking injunction decided b# a benc! trial$ Second

action as a damages action, so t!ere as a rig!t to a jur# trial

o ssues: Can preclusion be used !en Parklane ould be prevented from

!aving jur# trial it! respect to *t! amendmentD 3utualit#: P asn9t involved in first lasuit, but is tr#ing to use

issue preclusion against 1 !o !ad issue decided against !im in prior action$ S!ould offensive use of issue preclusion be alloedD

o ffensive vs$ 1efensive issue preclusion:

Supreme Court !as alread# !eld t!at mutualit# not needed for

defensive use of issue preclusion, as decided in Blonder!"ongue# but court s!ould still be conscious of unfairness

1efensive can be routinel# invoked it!out t!ere being problems

it! den#ing an#one da# in court Court is !esitant to allo offensive, non-mutual issue preclusion

Problems it! offensive:

♦ .ait and see problem: .ould result in more litigation, as Ps

ould be able to ait and see !at !appens in earlier litigation because success of one P in earlier litigation ould allo laterPs to pigg#back off of decisions

♦ (nfairness to 1s: 0!ere mig!t be a lack of incentive to

vigorousl# defend claim in earlier litigation? t!ere mig!t bemore e;pansive discover# opportunities in second litigation

o

n t!ese cases, t!ere is a tension beteen desire for efficienc# and finalit#and respect for jur#o Re!n2uist9s dissent:

Sa#s t!at it is unfair to appl# doctrine of collateral estoppel !ere

part# !o is soug!t to be estopped !as not !ad an opportunit# to !avefacts determined b# a jur#

Focused on *t! amendment rig!t to a jur#

o pproaching non)mutual issue preclusion problems:

s action a defensive or offensive oneD

f offensive trial judge s!ould use discretion, asking:

♦ .ould offensive be motivated b# ait and see PD

♦ Could P !ave easil# joined in first lasuitD

♦ .ould use of preclusion be unfair to 1s, considering additional

procedural opportunities, lack of incentive in first actionD

nter-jurisdictional Preclusion

o Preclusion can operate beteen state and federal court, beteen criminal

and civil, beteen state courtso State to State:


14/21

Full Fait! and Credit Clause 8 Art$ , Section '

A subse2uent court must ask itself !at preclusive effect t!e

judgment ould !ave in t!e state !ere t!e judgment asoriginall# !ad$

o State to Federal:

Congress enacted statute t!at does same t!ing as t!e above FFHCclause does to states 8 section '*)N$

Federal court must ask t!e same t!ing as t!e state court$

o Federal to State:

Art$ , Section '*)N don9t appl#$ 0!is is an area !ere federal

common la controls$ Supreme Court developed rule as to !at effect federal courts

rulings preclusive effect is$ t depends on !et!er it is federal2uestion or diversit#$

laim and Issue Preclusion Problems

o KA and B !ave a contract$ B agrees, ever# une, to clear timber on part of

A9s land$ Contract is for five #ears$ B performs in first #ear$ Second #ear,!e doesn9t perform A sues for breac! of contract$ B sa#s t!at at timecontract as made, !e as a minor and t!erefore couldn9t enter intocontract$ Court sa#s B as old enoug! to enter into enforceable contact

judgment for A$ @e;t #ear, B fails to perform again$ A sues again and Braises same defense of minorit#$ 1oes A !ave to relitigate t!is issueD

Resolution of decision as central to first judgment A can sa# t!at

issue need not be re-litigated$o 3s$ Podros as driving eep and s!e makes a left turn, rolling onto

.arren9s car$ .arren finds out Podros illegall# altered car, t!at 4oell

police officers !ad stopped !er and released !er for driving under t!einfluence$ Podros as alread# found guilt# of modif#ing !er eep$.arren files personal injur# action in federal court against Podros, 4oell police officers !o stopped !er, ultimate auto, and cit# of auto$ s t!erean# ground to sa# t!at .arren is collaterall# estopped from litigating t!isissueD 0!is is offensive, non-mutual issue preclusion

s t!ere a ait and see P problemD

@oE!e couldn9t !ave been part# to first suit

s t!ere an# unfairness to 1o in asserting non-mutual issue preclusionD

State met its !ig!er burden in criminal case, so t!ere is no

problem it! t!at in alloing issue preclusion Per!aps 1 didn9t litigate claim as furtivel# as possible

o '$ @o claim preclusion because different transaction$

@e facts t!at gave rise to ne claim$

t!er finalit# doctrines t!at mig!t appl# even t!oug! 7nd claim

ouldn9t be precludedD ssue preclusion mig!t appl#


15/21


16/21

a. @(3>RS0L: class must be so numerous t!at joinder ofall members is impracticable +usuall# T'&& is t!e cut-off

b. C33@A40L: 2uestions of la or fact common to t!eclass +t!e rule re2uires common 2uestion, not t!e absenceof individual ones=

c. 0LPCA40L: t!e claims or defenses of t!e representative parties are t#pical of t!e claims or defenses of t!e classd. A1>U(ACL F R>PR>S>@0A0@: t!e representative

parties ill fairl# and ade2uatel# protect t!e interests of t!eclass, A@1 t!e attorne# is 2ualified

%$ 23*b( - t#pe of classa$ *b(*2( does not e;tend to cases in !ic! t!e appropriate

final relief relates e;clusivel# or predominantl# to mone#damages +injunctive relief onl#=

b$ *b(*3( 8 2uestions of la or fact predominate over ot!erclaims A@1 class action is most efficient met!od of

adjudicating t!e claimsi$ Re2uires notice to all ot!er members of t!e classand t!e abilit# to Qopt-out

ii$ Four factors to consider in certif#ing a *b(*3( class:'$ nterest of t!e members of t!e class in

individually controlling t!e litigation ofseparate actions

7$ >;tent and nature of an# litigation alreadycommenced b# or against an# members oft!e class

)$ 0!e desirabilit# or undesirabilit# ofconcentrating t!e litigation of t!e claims inthe particular forum

%$ 0!e difficulties likel# to be encountered int!e management of a class action

b$ .!# !ave class actionD'$ Reasons to !ave class action:

a. ndividual damages not big enoug! for an# single V to bring suit, but t!ere is still a public interest in deterring t!e!arm from continuing

b. Consistenc# - lots of small similar claims s!ould bedecided t!e same

c. >fficienc#7$ Reasons @0 to !ave class action:

a. 3ust more costl# t!an regular litigationb. Vs in t!e class are risking res judicata "o control over

litigationc. s it reall# fair for so man# Vs to gang up on WDd. >;tremel# comple; and burdensome cases


17/21

e. t c!anges t!e incentives of t!e e;isting la +!at9s at stake becomes muc! greater financiall#

c$ ommunities for 9%uit$ !. cause of suc! a mass accident and no use in litigating it overand over

7$ 0!e class members support t!e action)$ 0!e c!oice of la problems are minimi


18/21

e$ 0!e named V at all times must ade2uatel# represent t!einterests of t!e absent class members

So e !ave P!illips Petroleum$ P!illips spes fort! oil$ 0!e lease!olds are oned b#individuals suc! as S!utts$ P!illips is tr#ing to scre t!e little gu#s b# pa#ing t!em ro#alties on

prices t!at are too lo$ S!utts ants to recover interest on t!e mone# t!at as it!!eld$ 0!ereare )),&&& people in S!utts9s position !o get toget!er to sue for t!e interest t!e oil compan#oes$ S!utts sues in Iansas$ @one of t!ese people !ave muc! interest$ >ac! of t!em !as asmall amount of interest in t!eir interest$ 0!is is a perfect e;ample of class litigation bringingtoget!er small claims t!at are too small to litigate individuall#$ S!utts provides t!e best possiblenotice$ /e sends out a letter to all of t!e class members telling t!em t!e# can opt-out if t!e#ant$ 7N,'&& are in, ),%&& opt out, and ',5&& ere not found and e;cluded$ 4ess t!an ',&&& oft!e plaintiffs are actuall# in Iansas, and a negligible part of t!e oil and gas leases are in Iansas$P!illips makes a personal jurisdiction argument t!at onl# t!e Iansas plaintiffs can sue$ P!illipsargues t!at t!ere !as to be an opt-in procedure$

ustice Re!n2uist sa#s e don9t need opt-in$ .!#D 0!e issues of personal jurisdiction are nott!e same !en #ou talk about a class of out-of-state plaintiffs t!an !en #ou talk about out-of-state defendants$ .!en #ou9re a class-action plaintiff, t!e state may e;ercise jurisdiction overt!e claim of an absent class-plaintiff, even t!oug! t!at plaintiff ma# not !ave minimum contacts$But t!e minimal re2uirements of due process must be met: t!ere must be notice plus t!eopportunit# to be !eard and t!e abilit# to opt out$ 0!is later gets built in to Rule 7)$ 0!e due process clause is not violated as to t!e absent Plaintiffs and if t!e court ants to bind an absentPlaintiff concerning a claim for mone# damages it must provide minimal procedural due process protection$ Absent Plaintiffs must receive notice and be given an opportunit# to be !eard$ n t!issituation, t!e absent class members did !ave t!at opportunit#$ An Qopt in provision ouldimpede t!e class action and ould re2uire revisions of man# lasuits$

9rie Doctrine

I8. 9rie Doctrine

n federal diversit# cases, t!ere is a 2uestion of !et!er state or federal la

applies

ertical c!oice: beteen state and federal

/orias# to decide !at la to appl# because Article 6t!

+supremac# clause of Constitution makes it clear t!at even state courts!ave to appl# federal la

Di!ersit$ ases: .!at la does fed$ court appl# to decide diversit# casesD rie !ailroad Co. v. "omkins *($S$ ')N

o Facts and Procedure: P as alking along pat!a# along railroad !en

freig!t train operated b# >rie Railroad Co came b# and !it !im +open dooror somet!ing$ P filed suit in federal court for sout!ern @e Lork because>rie as incorporated in t!at state

o f state la applied, P mig!t not be able to recover because of PA

trespassing la


19/21

o ssue: .!et!er t!e federal court as free to disregard t!e alleged rule of

Penn$ common lao Rules of Decision ct: 4as of several states s!all be regarded as rules of

decision in courts of (S in cases !ere t!e# appl# unless Constitution,treaties, or statutes of ($S$ sa# ot!erise$

o S*ift v. "yson as precedent before t!is$nterpreted Rules of 1ecision act to mean t!at onl# las and not

judicial decisions applied Courts e;ercising jurisdiction onground of diversit# of citi;cept in matters governed b# constitution or acts of congress,

t!e la to be applied in an# case is t!e la of t!e state$ An# source of la,!et!er b# statute or common la, is state la$ 0!ere is no general federalcommon la$ Congress !as no poer to declare substantive rules ofcommon la applicable in a state !et!er t!e# be local or general, be t!e#commercial la or a part of t!e la of torts$ And no clause in t!econstitution purports to confer suc! a poer upon federal courts$

o "win aims of rie# Prevent forum s!opping and ine2uitable distributionof t!e la +b# alleviating unfairness to instate Ps and 1s

o +rie as decided in t!e same #ear t!at t!e FRCP ere enacted$ 0!is

resulted in conflict beteen state rule and FRCPo /o s!ould a court decide if State Supreme Court !asn9t decided on an

issue +trespassing, for e;ampleD Federal court !as to predict !o t!e state court ould resolve an

ambiguit# in state la, using trial and appellate court decisions,relevant case la from ot!er jurisdictions, etc$

ssue is !o aggressive federal court s!ould be in anticipating

!ere state la is going

Guaranty "rust Co. v. $ork +($S$ '%5

o Considers !et!er federal court is re2uired to appl# t!e state statute of

limitations or t!e federal practice called Qlac!es, a fle;ible doctrine oflimitations

o Sa#s point of +rie as to ensure t!at in cases !ere federal court is

e;ercising jurisdiction based on diversit# of citi


20/21

litigation s!ould be same as far as legal rules determine outcome if it eretried in State court

o &utcome Determination "est: f disregarding state rule ould

significantl# affect outcome of federal court, state la s!ould be applied+test determines if state la is rule of decision or just procedure

o Court sa#s conse2uences are !at is important and not distinction beteensubstance and procedure

• Byrd v. Blue !id%e !ural lectric Cooperative, Inc. +($S$ '56

o Considers !et!er utcome 1etermination test alone is an ade2uate test

in application of +rieo ssue: S!ould 2uestion of fact be sent to jur# or s!ould it be decided based

on SC state statute t!at sa#s judge s!ould decide it$o ,ork ould sa# t!at state la s!ould appl# because state la ould"could

result in different result if state la applieso Court sa#s if outcome ere onl# determination 8 state rule ma# appl#$

/oever, !en t!ere are counter!ailing considerations+ a publicinterest in a federal s$stem of allocating functions between #udge and

#ur$, t!en a state rule not bound up it! rig!ts and obligations +notsubstantivecan not ala#s be folloed$

o Court sa#s furt!ermore, if outcome test is done, it9s not conclusive 8t!is

case stands for t!e proposition t!at outcome determination test is not aloneenoug! to decide t!ese cases

Hanna v. &lumer +($S$ '65

o 0!is case represents t!e current understanding of !o t!e +rie 1octrine

orkso Facts and Procedure: Auto accident involving !io oman and

3assac!usetts man$ Person !o caused accident died so 1 is e;ecutor ofestate$ 3A statute governs service of process against e;ecutors and FRCPgoverns service in federal court

o 1 sa#s t!at P s!ould9ve complied it! 3A statute +P folloed federal

procedureso f state rule applicable, suit s!ould be dismissed since P didn9t compl#$ f

federal rule applicable, suit s!ould go on$o Rules 9nabling ct *1?34( 8 QSupreme Court s!all !ave poer to

prescribe, b# general rules, t!e forms of process, rits, pleadings, and

motions and t!e practice and procedure of district courts of (S in civilactionsX Suc! rules s!all not abridge, enlarge, or modif# an# substantiverig!t and s!all preserve t!e rig!t of trial b# jur#

o Holding: .!en t!ere is a conflict beteen state la and FRCP, if FRCP

does not go be#ond Constitutional poers or Congressional poers ofConstitution +Rules >nabling Act, FRCP is good la and trumps state la

o oes be#ond Constitution if rule is too substantive and in an area of polic#

t!at is not governed b# Constitution under Article '&


21/21

o 1ecision is important in t!at it maintains uniformit# of FRCP, preserved

rationale of +rie# and protects FRCP from being eaten up b# outcomedetermination test of ,ork

• +rie doctrine cases in general:

o rie sa#s t!at in diversit# cases, courts appl# federal procedural rules andstate substantive rules

o $ork sa#s t!at rules of decision are determined b# utcome 1etermination

0est$ 0!is ould eventuall# corrode FRCP because, at some point,different rule is going to give different result

o Byrd and Hanna tr# to protect FRCP !en t!ere is a collision beteen

state rule and FRCPo Byrd is relevant in !o it as used in -asparani Eaccomodating state

la interests !ile appl#ing federal ruleo 'alker applies outcome determination test in lig!t of tin aims of +rie#

referred to in Hanna

• How to do rie Problems:

o First identif$ the source of the federal practice: +FRCP, udicial Code

Provision, udge made common la or practice, or a federal practiceessential to c!aracter of federal litigation

o Is there a direct collision between FRP and the state statute/law@ +no

if t!e# can coe;ist Aes s t!e FRCP valid under t!e Rules >nabling Act and t!e

ConstitutionD

♦ Constitution: Are t!e rules c!aracterinabling Act: t does not abridge, enlarge, or modif# a

substantive rig!t$

Aes use FRP o!er statute

;o 0!e collision is beteen federal judicial practice or common

la and state la and an +rie!es2ue anal#sis applies$ 0!e state laapplies if:

(se of federal la ould be outcome determinative at an#

point in t!e litigation$t is outcome determinative if at least one of t!e t*in aims of

+rie is implemented +forum s!opping and ine2uitabledistribution of t!e la

o S!ould also do modified outcome determinative test !en conflict is

it!in a federal practice essential to c!aracter of federal litigation+countervailing considerations of Byrd

advanced civil procedure3

Documents