civil procedure i - abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
Post on 07-Aug-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
1/70
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
• Constitutional basis: Due Process Clause (14th Amendment)
• Individual’s presence within the forum state
o Burnham v. Superior Court (US SC, 1990) Holding: tag jurisdiction service can be made on out of state resident
while voluntaril! in state "olic!: upholding traditional constitutional notions
#ervice on an airplane o$a! (Grace v. MacArthur )
• %omicile
o Milliken v. Meyer (US SC, 190)
Holding: %omicile is sufficient to assert &urisdiction
• Domicile= current delling !lace " intent to remain
inde#initel$
"olic!: % owes reci!rocal duties for privileges and protectionafforded b! state
• Consent
o "reviousl! filed suit
"' over individual who asserted a counterclaim in a previous lawsuit in
that forum
• A!am v. Saen"er (US SC, 19#$)
iling a lawsuit does not provide a sufficient basis for &urisdiction in a
later lawsuit against the original " concerning the same set of factsGi%%on& v. Bro'n (, 199$)
o orum selection clauses
Carnival Crui&e ine&, *nc. v. Shute (US, 1991)
• Holding: #orum%selection clauses will be upheld sub&ect to
&udicial scrutin! for *fundamental fairness+
• "olic!: cuts court costs for ever!one conserves resources b!
dispelling confusion,logical& negotia'le& con(enient (limiting fora)
o Are parties sophisticated-
.ot a contract of adhesion
o Rule )* +',+-,
If discoveree persists in his refusal to grant discover! then Rule )* +',
+-, allows the court a choice of coercive sanctions among others:• acts established: it ma! order that *the matters regarding
which the order was made or an! other designated facts shall be ta$en as established for the purposes of the action inaccordance with the claim of the part! obtaining the order+
o *n&urance Corp. o+ *relan! v. Compa"nie !e&
Bauite& !e Guinee (US, 19$-)
1
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
2/70
Holding: even personal &urisdiction over % ma!
be ta$en to be established if % refuses tocompl! with a court order re/uiring him tofurnish discover! of facts related to thee0istence of such &urisdiction
o Cognovit "art! can waive right of notice and appearance
nl! granted when part! has read and understood it and received
something in e0change for signing ito Implied consent
o 2eneral appearance
• .on3resident motorist statutes
o .on3resident motorists involved in accidents are usuall! sub&ect to &urisdiction
b! act of operating vehicle within state
• ortuous acts committed within the state
• 5inimum Contacts est
• *nternational Shoe Co. v. a&hin"ton (US SC, 19/)
• Holding: in order to sub&ect % to &urisdiction if he is not present in
forum he must have certain minimum contacts with it such that themaintenance of the suit does not o##end traditional notions o# #air!la$ and su'stantial justice
• Contacts: sales solicitors in state
• A""6ICA768 I.%I9I%A6#
• "olic!: re&ects territorialit! re/uirement of Pennoyer in favor of
reasonableness recogni;es growing interstate commerce recogni;esreciprocal duties of companies to states
• 6imiting the 5C
• Mc"ee v. *nternational i+e *n&urance Co. (US SC, 19/)
• Insurance polic! written b! < compan! for CA resident
• Contacts: mailing of premiums assumption of obligation deceased
and " were CA residents witnesses offices and solicitation
• Holding: contacts sufficient for 5C
• % reac.ed into CA for business
o least contacts in #C histor!,none in3state
• "olic!: CA !rotecting its citi/ens• an&on v. 2enckla (US SC, 19/$)
• Holding: unilateral acti(it$ is not su##icient #or 0CT
o here was no purposeful availment
o nli$e McGee claims contacts were initiated b! settlor not %
• Absorbing =I>
• Sha++er v. eitner (US SC, 19)
?
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
3/70
• ULTI0ATE CURTAIL0ENT O1 2UASI IN RE0
JURISDICTION
• ATTAC3ED PROPERT4 +PRECEDENT5
INTAN6I7LE, IS JUST ANOT3ER CONTACT
o STILL 0UST 7E ATTAC3ED T3OU63
• In rem &urisdiction still e0istso I> suits do not see$ to impose personal liabilit! on
an!one but instead see$ to affect the interests of persons in a specific thing
• S3OE APPLIES TO INDI8UALS AS 9ELL AS
CORPORTATIONS
• Holding: /uasi in rem &urisdiction over % could not be e0ercised
unless % had such minimum contacts with the forum state that in personam &urisdiction could be e0ercised over him under Shoe
• Attac.ed stoc:s onl$ ser(e as a contact
• 5C in domestic relations cases
• 3ulko v. Superior Court (US SC, 19$)
• Holding: !ermission to let children move to CA was not sufficient for
father to past 5C in CAo Contacts: nilateral activit! (daughter @A.8% to go)
temporar! visits or marriage in3state,not sufficient
• "olic!: even though CA had strong interest there was a statute
providing other methods for the wife to get pa!ment
• 8stablishing 5C via the Internet
• Coa&tal 4i!eo Communication& Corp. v. 5he Stay'ell Corp. (4A, 1999)
• Holding: remanded
• Contacts to consider: ;store #ront< ca!a'ilit$ o# e'site (advertising
soliciting sales customer service interaction,li$e having a sales repthere) maintenance of traditional business contacts in forum websiteinfo (sales to the state Bdollars percentage of total profit number of products customers number of sales) accessibilit! to forum state(hits etc)
• 8stablishing 5C in claims unrelated to in3state activit!
• 6erkin& v. Ben"uet Con&oli!ate! Minin" Co. (US, 19/-)
• Holding: president’s activities were continuous and s$stematic
enough as to e0ercise &urisdiction
• Contacts: office files board meetings salar! chec$s transactions
correspondence supervision polic!ma$ing ban$ accounts,discharged duties as president from H
• "olic!: fairness
• 8stablishing 5C for claims involving in3state purchases
D
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
4/70
• elicoptero& 7actionale& !e Colom%ia, S.A. v. all (US SC, 19$)
• 3olding: wrongful death claims did not ;arise out o#ather it
is that %’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he shouldreasona'l$ antici!ate 'eing .ailed to court t.ere
• Ds !ur!osel$ a(ailed t.emsel(es o# no 'ene#its o# t.e #orum state
o .o cars were in&ected into that stream o# commerce
• if % made efforts to serve directl! or indirectl! the mar$et for its
products &urisdiction is o$a! but if it was an isolated and unilateraloccurrence then &urisdiction cannot be e0ercised
4
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
5/70
o if user ta$es production into forum state it is not enough to
confer &urisdiction over manufacturer even if this wasforeseeable
• Awareness of sales in a foreign state
• A&ahi Metal *n!u&try Co. v. Superior Court (US SC, 19$)
• Holding: des!ite minimum contacts& it ould 'e unreasona'le and
un#air #or CA to .ear t.e case because of: the burden to Asahi ofdefending in a foreign legal s!stem the slenderness of CA’s and Cheng#hin’s interests in having the indemnit! claim heard in CA and thestrong federal and state interest in not creating foreign relations problems b! deciding an indemnit! claims between two foreign %s
• Reasona'leness: sufficient minimum contacts defeated b! violation of
traditional notions of fair pla! and substantial &usticeo Reasona'leness #actors 'urden on D& interests o# t.e
#orum state& P>s interest in o'taining relie#& interstate
judicial s$stem>s interest in o'taining t.e most e##icientresolution o# contro(ersies& and t.e s.ared interest o#se(eral States in #urt.ering su'stanti(e social !olicies
80ceptional case
• Court s!lit i# it is #oreseea'le t.at a gi(en !roduct ill 'e se!t in
t.e stream o# commerce into a s!eci#ic #orum does t.at satis#$
0CT in t.at state #or D?
• #uits based on a contractual relationship
• Bur"er 3in" Corp. v. :u!;e'ic; (US SC, 19$/)
• Holding: although the mere fact that one part! to the contract is a
resident of the forum state does not b! itself mean that the other part!has minimum contacts with that state t.e .ole contractualrelations.i! ma$ ell& in a !articular case& 'e su##icient to con#er
jurisdiction
• Choice3of3law clause: % signed contract with 7E to use 6 law,thus
he has availed himself of the benefits of that state’s lawo % was not surprised
o % was not sub&ect to fraud undue influence or overweening
bargaining power o >easonable anticipation of out3of3state litigation
• E@!licit endorsement o# aggregation o# contacts
• Creates to%!rong test 0CT 1P " SJ
• "olic!: predictabilit! fair warning
LON6%AR0 STATUTES
• hese limits are not re/uired b! the Constitution
F
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
6/70
• 1RCP B+:,+,+A, in 'ot. di(ersit$ actions and #ederal uestion cases&
ser(ice o# !rocess ma$ 'e made onl$
o @ithin the territorial limits of the state in which the %istrict Court sits
>
o An!where else that the long3arm of the state where the %istrict Court
sits permits• #ervice out of state
o 1RCP B+:,+,+A, service outside the state where the %istrict Court
sits ma! be made if the law of that state so permits
• 1GG3mile bulge
o 1RCP B+:,+,+7, a special %mile 'ulge allows for out3of3state
services sometimes even if local law does not permit it @hen the provision applies it allows service an!where (even across a state boundar!) within a 1GG3mile radius of the federal courthouse wheresuit is pending he bulge provision applies onl! where out3of staterswill be brought in as additional parties to an alread! pending action
"ossible parties:
• T.ird%!art$ de#endants
• Necessar$ !arties
most federal courts seem to hold that % ma! be re/uired to
defend so long as he is reachable b! the long3arm of the statewhere service is made (ie *the bulge state+) even if he couldnot be reached according to the law of the state where thefederal suit is pending
• @here authori;ed b! federal statute
o 1RCP B+:,+,+C, provides for certain cases a nationwide service of
process ie parties sub&ect to interpleader &urisdiction
• oreign defendant not servable in an! state
o 1RCP B+:,+-, or a claim that arises under federal law,serving a
summons establishes personal &urisdiction over % if: +A, % is not sub&ect to &urisdiction in an! state court of general
&urisdiction A.% +7, 80ercising &urisdiction is consistent with # constitution
and laws aggregation o# contacts
•
if there is enough contacts within # as a whole then &urisdiction can be held in ever! state as long as itsconstitutionall! permissible
• In rem &urisdiction possible if allowed b! state 1RCP B+n,
• 2aps possible
o @hen personal service within the state the state long3arm 1GG mile
bulge special nationwide3service provision or 4($)(?) do not appl! 8ven if % has constitutionall!3re/uired minimum contacts
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
7/70
NOTICE
• After determining that the part! has "',!ou must determine if notice was
constitutional and authori;ed b! statute
o >easonableness test (reasonable calculation) % does not actuall! have to learn of the suit what matters is that the
method used is reasonabl! li$el! to inform him Mullane v. Central anover Bank (US SC, 19/0)
• Holding:
o Notice is limited '$ considerations o# econom$ and
reasona'leness
"ublication is insufficient for those whose
names and addresses are $now
• 6ennoyer
"ublication is sufficient for those who are
un$nown or unlocatableo 6eneral reasona'leness in (ie o# all t.e
circumstances
Cost& im!ortance o# !roceedings& a(aila'ilit$
o# ot.er& 'etter noti#ication met.ods& etc
o Individual
#ummons and complaint included 1RCP B+c,+,
#ervice must be b! a non3part! over 1 1RCP B+c,+-,
"ersonal
• 7! serving him personall! 1RCP B+e,+-,+A, #ubstitute
• ften allowed b! mail
• 7! leaving summons and complaint at %’s residence with a
person of *suitable age and discretion+ residing there 1RCP B+e,+-,+7,
o Green v. in!&ey (US, 19$-)
Holding: eviction notices posted on doors of
tenant was not sufficient service because of thesubstantial ris$s of children tearing themdown,mail service should have been used,wasn’t reasonabl! calculated
Agent
• 7! serving a state official appointed or designated b! law to
receive process 1RCP B+e,+-,+C, 6ocal state law 1RCP B+e,+,
• b! serving % in the manner provided b! either
J
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
8/70
1 the law of the state where the %istrict court sits if thatstate has such a provision >
? in the manner provided b! the law of the state where the person is being served
• oreign defendants 1RCP B+#,
o An! method allowed b! a particular international treat! (theHague Convention) or an! method allowed b! the countr!where service occurs can be used
o Corporation
o 5anner provided b! state where action is pending or where service is
made 1RCP B+.,+,+A,o #ervice on a corporation ma! be made b! leaving the papers with an
officer a managing or general agent or an! other agent authori;ed b!appointment or law to receive process for the corporation 1RCPB+.,+,+7,
o 5anner provided b! law of the state where action is pending or the
law of the state where service is made 1RCP B +.,+,+A,o #pecial rules for serving foreign corporations 1RCP B +.,
+-,
o @aiver of service
• 1RCP B +d,: allows " to in effect serve the summons and complaint
b! mail provided that the % cooperates Actuall! what " does is mail% a *re/uest for waiver of service+ if % agrees no actual in personservice is needed
"olic!: the rule gives % financial and other incentives to grant
to waiver re/uest "rocedure
• " sends notice that action is being commenced two
copies of waiver3of3service form a cop! of complaintand a prepaid return envelope 1RCP B +d,+,+C,
• he documents ma! be sent *b! first3class mail or other
reliable means+ 1RCP B +d,+,+6, %ate must be stated 1RCP B +d,+,+E,
ime to respond
• % has DG da!s to respond to re/uest for waiver (G for
foreign %) 1RCP B +d,+,+1, Incentives
• Additional time to answer o % gets G da!s following the date on which the
re/uest for waiver was sent in which to answerthe complaint (compared with ?G da!s fromservice process provided b! 1RCP -+a,F oreign %s get KG da!s
• % must pa! costs of service if he does not waive
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
9/70
o he court must impose on % the e0penses later
incurred in ma$ing service and the costs of an!motion to collect those service e0penses1RCP B+d,+-,
Appl! onl! to # %s
@aiver of service does not waive personal &urisdiction or venue
1RCP B+d,+G,
o ime for service
• #ervice must be made within 1?G da!s after the filing of the complaint
1RCP B+m,
OPPORTUNIT4 TO 7E 3EARD
• 7efore propert! is ta$en % must be given a chance to defend against the claim
"re3&udgment remedies (protect " from % s/uandering assets before litigation
is over)
• ie attachment
hree part balancing test to determine whether due process was violated when
%’s propert! was interfered with through a pre3&udgment remed!1 Harm to %’s interest from pre3&udgment remed!? >is$s of erroneous deprivation of %’s propert! rights
o 8speciall! if additional procedural safeguards were not used
D #trength of interest of "o Connecticut v. 2oehr (US SC, 1991)
DE1ENSES TO CLAI0S O1 JURISDICTION
• #pecial appearance
o .ow 1RCP -+',+-, which allows % to ma$e a motion to dismiss for lac$ of
&urisdiction over the parties ma$ing this motion does not sub&ect % to the &urisdiction that he is protesting
• Collateral attac$
o If % defaults in an action in #tate 1 she ma! collaterall! attac$ the default
&udgment when it is sued upon in #tate ? 5ost commonl! % collaterall!attac$s the earlier &udgment on grounds that #tate 1 did not have personal &urisdiction over her or did not have valid sub&ect matter &urisdiction
8ENUE
• CONSIDER A1TER PJ AND SER8ICE
o 9enue locates &urisdiction within a particular district of a state
• 9enue in #tate action
o In state trials venue is determined b! statute
K
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
10/70
9enue is generall! authori;ed based on where % resides or where the
cause of action arose orum non conveniens
• #tate ma! use its discretion not to hear the case in a count!
where there is statutor! venue
o It is the % who often moves to have a case dismissed ortransferred under .C
hree factors: (1) if " is a state resident (?) if
witnesses are more available elsewhere (D)whether forum’s own state laws will govern(transfer is more li$el! if the! do not)
6iper Aircra+t Co. v. :eyno (US SC, 19$1)
• Holding: the mere fact that the law of the
alternative forum is less favorable to " isordinaril! not b! itself grounds forden!ing %’s .C motion
o However if alt forum was *soclearl! inade/uate orunsatisfactor! that it is noremed! at all+ then theunfavorable change in law could be given substantial weight in.C decision
• 8enue in #ederal actions
o -H USC )+a,5DJ& +',512J
1 If an! % resides in that district and all %s reside in the state containingthat district
• >esidenceLdomicile
? If a *substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claimoccurred or substantial parts of propert! that is the sub&ect of the action issituated,+ in the district
D If nowhere else where an! % can be found (sufficient 5C),catch allescape hatch
• 5ain utilit! of these escape hatches are for events where %s reside
in different states and the events occurred mostl! abroad
• Cor!orations (not businesses)
a!!l$ -H USC )+a,5DJ& +',512J
• -H USC ) +c, a corporation is a resident of an! district as to
which it would have minimum contacts necessar! to support "' if thatdistrict were a separate state
corporation will be a resident of at least where:
• it has its principle place of business
1G
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
11/70
• an! district where it has substantial operations
• probabl! an! district in its state of incorporation
corporation ma! be resident of more than one district
• interesting twist: if corp has residence in two districts
in two states and %? is resident in one of those statesthen %? could be brought in the out3of3state district inwhich %1 resides
• -H USC ) +d,5aliens
• an! alien ma! be sued in an! district of the nited #tates where he has
&urisdiction alien can be used to defeat subsection (1)
• forum selection clauses
• -H USC BB +a,federal venue transfer
• &udge has discretion
• burden is on the movant
Gul+
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
12/70
there or because venue would not have been proper there even the consent b! all %s wouldnot authori;e the action to be transferred to thatdistrict
• -H USC BB +c,
!ou can transfer divisions within a district• Choice of law
T.e state la o# t.e trans#eror court is to 'e a!!lied to t.e
trans#eree court
• 4an 2u&en v. Barrack (US SC, 19=)
• If % moves to transfer
• Polic$ % does not get bonus change of law for
changing courtrooms (forum3shopping) "maintains state law advantages from forum3selection privilege ma! indirectl! create forumshopping in "s ma! cause &udges to bedishonest when "’s abilit! to recover changes
• eren& v. >ohn 2eere Co. (US SC, 1990)
• If " moves to transfer
• -H USC BK+a,
• transfer to a district where it could have been brought when a suit is
brought in a district where venue is improper also if the court appl!ing BK decides it lac$s not onl! venue
but also personal &urisdiction the court ma! probabl!
nonetheless order the transfer here law of transferor court does not appl!
• above precedent is related to BB onl!
SU7JECT 0ATTER JURISDICTION
ALL 4OU NEED IS 1EDERAL 2UESTION JURISIDICTION OR DI8ERSIT4
JURISIDICTION TO 7RIN6 A 0ATTER INTO 1EDERAL COURT
• states have broader #5'
• concurrent &urisdiction,when states and federal courts can hear the same case
• Article III o# t.e Constitution,&udicial powers should e0tend too,
1 Arising under
• 8%8>A6 =8#I.
? AmbassadorsD Admiralt!4 # as a part!
1?
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
13/70
F ? states between a state and citi;ens of another stateJ between citi;ens of different states
• %I98>#IM
land grants
K alienage
:uhr"a&, AG v. Marathon
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
14/70
• If state law creates the cause of action,no federal /uestion
&urisdictiono Smith e0ception ( Smith v. 3an&a& City 5itle ? 5ru&t
Co.) nless state law necessaril! implicates federal
law,federal /uestion &urisdiction 3olding Court held that the claim satisfied
arising3under &urisdiction since *thecontrovers! concerns the constitutional validit!of an act of Congress which is directl! drawn in/uestion his decision depends upon thedetermination of this issue+
• Merill 2o' e0ception to the e0ception
o nless Congress has a clear
intent not to create a federalcause of action (when state law
necessaril! implicates federallaw),no federal /uestion &urisdiction
o Antici!ation o# de#ense insu##icient
he federal /uestion must be part of a ;ell !leaded com!laint<
(minimum complaint)
• oui&ville ? 7a&hville :.:. v. Mottley
o #C held no =' e0isted because the federal statute was
not essential to "’s cause of action It is not sufficientthat the complaint mentions some anticipated defenseand asserts that the validit! of the defense is governed b! federal law
o 7ecause the constitutional meaning of *arising under+
is broader than its statutor! meaning the #C (operatingunder the broader constitutional definition) had &urisdiction to hear and decide Mottley the second timearound even though it previousl! decided that thedistrict court (operating under the narrower statutor!definition) did not have &urisdiction
o Claim 'ased on t.e merits
If "’s claim is clearl! based upon federal law it /ualifies for =' evenif it is invalid on the merits In this situation the federal court willdismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief ma! be granted(Rule -+',+K,) not for lac$ of #5'
• Insu'stantial claim: however if the *federal claim+ is clearl!
made solel! for the purpose of obtaining &urisdiction or is*wholl! insubstantial and frivolous+ the court will dismiss forlac$ of ='
14
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
15/70
• Su!!lemental claims5signi#icance o# t$!e o# dismissal
selected #rom t.e - listed a'o(e
o As a matter of #5' the federal court can (though need
not) hear the state3created supplemental claim even if itdismisses the federal3law claim for failure under Rule
-+',+K, but it cant hear the supplemental claim if ithas no #5' over what is falsel! alleged to be the =claim
DI8ERSIT4 JURISDICTION
• Controversies between citi;ens of different states Article III& -H USC
))-+a,+,
o >ationale: attempting to defeat local pre&udice
• Amount in contro(ers$
o Onl$ in di(ersit$ cases
o 5ore than NJFGGG .ot based on &udgment but "’s good faith pleading that he could get
more than NJFGGG
• Interest not included
8ventual amount of recover! irrelevant
• 7ut federal court has discretion to den! costs to " and even to
impose costs on him if he recovers less than NJFGGG ))-+',o Aggregation of claims
Mou can aggregate claims of plaintiffs against one % in a cause of
action
• .o claim must e0ceed NJFGGG,&ust the aggregate does• Cannot aggregate claims against multiple %s
Aggregation b! multiple "s
• At least one " meets amount,o$a!
o #upplemental &urisdiction, @on
• .o single claim meets the amount,usuall! not o$a!
o 80ception: two or more "s unite to enforce a single title
or right in which the! have a common and undividedinterest
• #pecial rule for class actions
o
As long as one class rep meets the NJFGGGre/uirement the others do not have to,#' ( @on)o > class actions with NF million or more can forward
even if no individual meets the NJFGGG re/uirement))- +d,+-,
Counterclaims
• If " sues in federal court for less than the &urisdictional amount
and % counterclaims for an amount which (either b! itself or
1F
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
16/70
added to "’s claim) e0ceeds the &urisdictional amount probabl!the amount in controvers! re/uirement is not met
• >emoval b! %: if " originall! sues in state court for less than
NJFGGG and % tries to remove to federal court amount incontrovers! problems wor$ out as follows
o " removal: " ma! never remove even if %counterclaims against him for more than NJFGGG
o % removal: if % counterclaims for more than NJFGGG
but "’s original claim was for less than NJFGGG theresult depends on the t!pe of counterclaim If %’scounterclaim was permissive (under state law) allcourts agree that % ma! not remove If %’s claim wascompulsor! under state law courts are split aboutwhether % ma! remove
• %ate for determining
o At the time lawsuit is filed
o .o later change cannot create or defeat diversit!• Com!lete di(ersit$ is re/uired
o no plaintiff is a citi;en of the same state as an! defendant
Stra'%ri!"e v. Curti&& (Cranch, 1$0)
o 80ceptions not re/uiring complete &urisdiction Article III
Interpleader statute ))G+a,+,
High3sta$es class actions ))-+d,+-,+A,
• 5ore than NF million is involved
• "leadings not dispositive
o Court loo$s past pleadings and arranges parties to their real interests
.ominal parties ignored• Court ma! dismiss nominal parties
>epresentatives and administrators will generall! be treated as having
the citi;enship of the part! the! represent ))-+c,+-,
• >efusal to e0ercise &urisdiction
o Improper or collusive &oinder of parties
o %omestic relations is the main sub&ect matter
Anken%ran!t v. :ichar!& (US SC, 199-)
o @here probate matters are the essence of the suit
o @here *abstention doctrine+ is invo$ed,court’s doc$et is too congested
•
%omicile not residence is what countso 6ast place one has lived with an intent to remain
%omicile does not change unless one moves to a place in which he
intends to reside in indefinitel!,thus creating an anomal! in whichone ma! be domiciled in a place he no longer resides nor plans toreside in the future
• Ma& v. 6erry
o >esident alien,citi;en of whatever state domiciled ))-+a,
1
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
17/70
• Alienage &urisdiction ))-+a,+-,
Citi;en of a state v alien,diversit! &urisdiction ))-+a,+-,
• # citi;ens domiciled abroad cannot sue on or be sued under
%',the! retain # citi;enship but lose state citi;enshipo @li;a%eth 5aylor
Alien v alien,no diversit! &urisdiction• oreign O # v oreign,no diversit! &urisdiction
>esident alien v non3resident alien,split courts
• 6iteral reading sa!s *!es+ ))-+a,& ))-+a,+-,
• 5ost courts sa! *no+,constitutional problems
o Congress did not intend to grant %' for suits in which
all parties are alien,probabl! unconstitutionalo Saa!eh v. arouki
3olding legislative intent,))-+a, limits %'
it does not e0pand %'
• # &udicial power does not e0tend under Art III to suits involving two aliens (b!constitutional definition not that of1DD?)
aliens and # citi;ens present on each side does not destro! %' as long
as # citi;ens from different states are in opposition ))-+a,+),
• %iversit! involving partnerships and corporations
o "artnerships unincorporated associations do not have a single state of
citi;enship ever! member counts Car!en v. Arkoma A&&ociate&
o Corporation is deemed a citi;en of an! state where it is incorporated and of
the state where it has its principle place of business ))-+c, .o adversar! in %' can be a citi;en of the state where it is
incorporated > where it has its principle place of business
• "rinciple place of business: (1) corporate head/uarters home
office > (?) where bul$ of activit! is
• %evices to create or destro! &urisdiction
o Improperl! or collusivel! &oined parties not allowed %' )G
Assignment of claims
• 3ramer v. Cari%%ean Mill&
o 3olding: assignment claim made solel! for the purpose
of creating &urisdiction thus ma$ing it improper andcollusive under )G and therefore %' was void
ailure to name indispensible parties
• %evices to defeat removal to federal court
o .o federal statute prohibiting improper or collusive &oinder to defeat
&urisdiction Assignment of part of claim
1J
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
18/70
• Courts are split on handling this
>emoval ma! not be defeated b! "’s &oinder of % as a part! against
whom no bonafide claim e0ists
• :o&e v. Giamatti
o 3olding removal to federal court is proper because %s
&oined b! " to defeat it are irrelevant 6ow dollar claim usuall! wor$s
• 5a$e the claim less than NJFGGG
SUPPLE0ENTAL JURISDICTION
• Additional claims and parties ma! be brought into a federal case without
independentl! satisf!ing sub&ect matter &urisdictional re/uirements once there is a basic controvers! as to which there is sub&ect matter &urisdiction
• 1KKG amendments added -H USC )K* which established the doctrine of
supplemental &urisdiction b! rewor$ing and combining two older &udge3madedoctrines ancillar! &urisdiction and pendent &urisdiction
o !endent jurisdiction
if a federal court had &urisdiction over a federal /uestion claim
between two parties it could sometimes ad&udicate a state3createdclaim between those same parties even though it would not have &urisdiction if the claim were brought separatel!
• used in situations .ere !arties ere citi/ens o# t.e same
state& so t.at di(ersit$ did not e@istF In such a situation "could gain a federal forum for her state3created claim b!lin$ing it to a federal /uestion claim provided that the twoclaims were sufficientl! closel! related to &ustif! use of the
pendant doctrine• 5ust be similar:
o Unite! Mine orker& v. Gi%%& (US SC, 19==)
3olding state and federal claims must *derive
from a common nucleus o# o!erati(e #act+and must be so closel! related that usuall! a "*would be e0pected to tr! them all in one &udicial proceeding+
• Initiall! perceived to mean that both
claims must arise out o# t.e same e(entor transaction
• Constitutional 'asiso ;common nucleus o# o!erati(e
#act<
o de#ining limitation #rom Article
III
• 1ederal common la5doctrine o#
discretion5district court ;ma$
1
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
19/70
dismiss< +a!!ellate court can still
re(ie #or a'use%o#%discretion,
o I# state%claim !redominates&
dismissing t.e state claim is
a!!ro!riate
o ;Predominates< "roof,facts
6aw,issues raised state
law is to be resolved b!state law
>emed!,if remed! is
much greater for state lawclaim
• I# #ederal claim is dismissed 'e#ore
trial& t.en t.e state claim must 'e
dismissed as ell
o 7ut if &ur! finds for " on stateclaim and % on federal claim,we do not dismiss state claim
@e don’t need to do the
trial again
• I# e .a(e a #ederal claim and a ;state
claim t.atM is closel$ tied to #ederal
!olic$< e must :ee! t.e claims
toget.er in #ederal court +e(en i# t.estate la claim is !reem!ti(e o# t.e
de#ense,
Pendent !art$ jurisdiction
Additional part! against whom the state3law claim was
brought but who was not a % to the federal3law claim could be made to defend the state3law claim in federal court eventhough she was not a % to an! federal3law and thus was not a% to an! claim for which there was independent federal #'5
• riginall! restricted b! case law in inlay
• Additional parties to the state3law claim could
onl! be brought in if Congress affirmativel!indicated that it wanted those parties brought in
• However #' reversed this 33 new parties ma! be
brought in to defend against the state3law claims eventhough the! don’t independentl! satisf! #'5re/uirements
• Ancillar$ jurisdiction
• 6ine between this and pendent &urisdiction as alwa!s somewhat blurr!
1K
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
20/70
• sed in cases where there was di(ersit$ jurisdiction for at least one
claim between one " and one % and additional !arties or additionalclaims were sought to be &oined to that *core+ claim 5ostl! A' has been used to give the federal courts &urisdiction over certain t!pes ofclaims made b! !arties ot.er t.an t.e !lainti## claims as to which
there would not be independent federal #'5 because of either lac$ ofdiversit! or failure to meet the amount in controvers!
ie cross%claims between defendants
note: AJ eliminates amount in contro(ers$ reuirement
generall$ not alloed #or Ps
•
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
21/70
7asicall! codifies pendent &urisdiction concept
3oe(er& o(erturns restrictions im!osed '$ inley
• e$ !art o# t.e rule
• 7roader jurisdiction no restrictions
•;joinder5additional !arties<
'F e0cludes claims and parties in di(ersit$%onl$ matters
• 9E 0UST 3A8E CO0PLETE DI8ERSIT4 1OR ALL CLAI0S
INITIALL4 1ILIN6 TO6ET3ER ))-
• T3E SU7TRACTIONS5t.e test #or alloing SJ
Su'tract i# +must meet ALL reuirements to NOT 'e
alloed SJ,:
• %iversit!3onl! case
• Claim b! "
• Against third3part! % under >C" 141K?G?4
• Claim against someone added after beginning
and not as a "
• inconsistent with diversit! re/uirements
• Citi;enship and amount in controvers!
• corresponds to A'
• essentiall$ codi#ies
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
22/70
• #' also does not appl! in diversit!3onl! cases for claims
b! "s against parties *permissivel!+ &oined as %s pursuant to >ule ?G
• Claims '$ Rule - Ps not e@cluded
•
Here 1DJ does not bar #' Inter(ention
• Claims b! prospective "s who tr! to intervene under
>ule ?4 do no get the benefit of #'
• Claims still alloed
Com!ulsor$ counterclaims
• >ule 1D compulsor! counterclaims
Additional !arties to com!ulsor$ counterclaims
• >ule 1D (h) &oinder of additional parties to compulsor!
counterclaims
0ulti!le Ps joined under Rule -
• 5ultiple "s who &oin together under >ule ?G’s
*permissive &oinder+ provision
• #' applies for amount3in3controvers! purposes
(the sum of the claim must be over NJFGGG noteach %’s claim) but does not appl! so as toremove the re/uirement of complete diversit!
Class action Ps
• 'oinder of "s for >ule ?D class actions based on
diversit!
• If one or more "s meet diversit! and amount in
controvers! re/uirements the unnamed "s don’tneed to meet these re/uirements because the!fall within the court’s #'
Cross%claims
• >ule 1D(g) cross claims
• ie claims b! one % against another
Im!leader
• >ule 14 impleader of third3part! %s (for claims b! and
against third part! "s and claims b! third3part! %s butnot claims b! the original " against third3part! %s)
• Aggregation to satis#$ t.e amount in contro(ers$ +t.e Allapattah
case5US SC,
=uestion:
• @hether in a diversit! case "s who did not
individuall! meet the amount in controvers!
??
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
23/70
re/uirement could use #' to &oin together permissivel!with one or more "s who did not meet the re/uirement
• #C answered this /uestion affirmativel! b! a F34 vote
in @on Mo%ile Corp. v. Allapattah Service&, *nc.
• Court held that one " could ride another’s coattails as to
amount3in controvers! in two scenarios:1 he "s &oin permissivel! under >C" ?G? "s are members of a " class action under >C"
?D
• @on Mo%ile Corp. v. Allapattah Service&, *nc.
• 3olding when the well3pleaded complaint contains at least one claim
b! a re!resentati(e o# t.e class that satisfies the amount3in3controvers! re/uirement and there are no other relevant &urisdictionaldefects the district court has original &urisdiction over that claim
• .o other &urisdictional defects: complete diversit! present
single *case or controvers!+• *if court has original &urisdiction over a single claim in the
complaint it has original &urisdiction over a Pcivil action’within the meaning 1DJ(a) even if the civil action over whichit has &urisdiction comprises fewer claims than were includedin the complaint
0ajorit$
1DJ re&ected Zahn
• Zahn
• 8ach class member has to meet the amount in
controvers!• #econd rule
• nl! class rep must meet diversit! of citi;en
re/uirement
• >e&ected:
• Indi(isi'ilit$ t.eor$,under which the district court would be
deemed to have ' over a CA onl! if the court had ' overever! claim in the complaint 5a&orit! felt as though this wasinconsistent with #'
• Contamination t.eor$,b! which the inclusion of a claim or
part! falling outside the district court’s original &urisdiction(destro!s complete diversit!) somehow contaminates ever!other claim in the complaint depriving the court of original &urisdiction over an! of these claims
• 0ig.t .a(e merit .en used to justi#$ t.e reuirement
o# com!lete di(ersit$
• " (5d),state 1GG$,% (9a)
= (9a),state 1GG$,% (9a)
?D
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
24/70
o .o &urisdiction over either claim because there is
not com!lete di(ersit$
• >e/uirement is designed to ensure that the dispute
is sufficientl! important to justi#$ a #ederal%court#orum5#airness
• However ;t.e !resence o# a claim t.at #allss.ort o# t.e minimum amount in contro(ers$
does not.ing to reduce t.e im!ortance o# t.e
claims t.at do meet t.is reuirement<
• Does not .a(e merit .en used to justi#$ t.e reuirement
o# amount in contro(ers$5onl$ named mem'er .as to
meet t.e amount in contro(ers$
• Class rep (esolved in favor of continuit!
o 5a&orit! read statute too broadl!
• Signi#icance
?4
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
25/70
o Narro !iece o# statutor$ inter!retationF It esta'lis.es merel$ t.at Rule
- co%Ps and Rule -) unnamed P class mem'ers can use SJ to get around
amount%in%contro(ers$ !ro'lems in di(ersit$%onl$ cases& as long as one
Rule - co%P or one Rule -) named class mem'er +o#ten t.e class re!F,
does meet t.e jurisdictional amountF
o Does not dis!ense it. com!lete di(ersit$• Discretionar$ rejection o# SJ )K*+c,
• 8ssentiall! codifies Gi%%&,giving district courts discretion o(er t.e state
claim
F he claim raises a no(el or com!le@ issue o# State la
-F he claim su'stantiall$ !redominates over the claim or claims overwhich Bthe district court has original &urisdiction >
• #tate claim ma! be dismissed
)F he district court has dismissed all claims o(er .ic. it .as original jurisdiction
• ne especiall! important factor here is time,the later the
dismissal the better the chance of the court $eeping the claim
• H!potheticall! the district court could still hear a state claim even
though a federal claim was dismissed before trial
• "olic!: &udicial econom! fairness to "
o .o reason to start all over in state court
BF In e0ceptional circumstances there are other compelling reasons fordeclining &urisdiction
• rare
o 0ust #all into o# t.e B classes in order #or t.e court to dismiss
o he *e0ceptional circumstances+ catch3all
"rovides some fle0ibilit! but the court has to carefull!
&ustif! a dismissal based on the catch3all
o No e##ect on !ersonal jurisdiction
o PJ and ser(ice still reuired5SJ s!ea:s onl$ to SJ0
RE0O8AL JURISDICTION
• Mou can onl! remove from state to federal . federal to state• 6enerall$& an$ action 'roug.t in state court o# .ic. #ederal courts ould .a(e
.ad original jurisdiction ma$ 'e remo(ed '$ D to #ederal district court
o E@ce!tion
In di(ersit$%onl$ cases the action is removable onl$ i# no D is a
citi/en o# t.e state in .ic. t.e action as 'roug.t
BB+',
?F
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
26/70
• Rationale:
o %' concerns out3of3state 'ias here removal would not
defeat out3of3state bias
• Remo(al statute BB
o @hen a case is removed it passes to t.e district court o# t.e US #or t.e
district and di(ision o# t.e !lace .ere t.e stateM action is !endingF onl!cases which could originall$ .a(e 'een 'roug.t in t.e #ederal courts ma! be removed BB+a,
Mou must anal!;e original jurisdiction
= cases ma! be removed regardless o# citi/ens.i! or residence o#
t.e !arties BB+',
In di(ersit$%onl$ cases& i# D is a citi/en o# #orum state& t.en
remo(al is im!ro!er BB+',
• therwise it is fine
• 80ception
o
Class actions >emoval is allowed even if one or more %s are
citi;ens of the state where the action wasoriginall! filed BG)+',
@henever a se!arate and inde!endent claim or cause of action
within the Bcourt’s federal /uestion &urisdiction, is &oined with oneor more otherwise non3removable claims the entire case ma! beremoved and the district court ma! determine all issues thereinBB+c,
• Rules o# original jurisdiction a!!l$ to remo(al jurisdiction
o 12J
= must be in ell%!leaded com!laint
• Caterpillar, *nc. v. illiam& (US SC)
o "’s claim contained a state law claim and the defense
would contain a federal claim Court held that casecould not be removed to federal court on claim not in"’s well3pleaded complaint
o E@ce!tion to t.e ;ell%!leaded com!laint< rule
Com!lete !re%em!tion
• If pre3emption is so clear that court will
interpret the complaint according tofederal law (as opposed to the state law being put forth)
• Le(els o# !re%em!tion
o No !reem!tion
#ta!s in state court
o Pre%em!tion
#ta!s in state court might
be heard to federal court
?
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
27/70
o Com!lete !reem!tion
Can be heard in federal
courto DJ
Com!lete di(ersit$ o# citi/ens.i!
• 80cept in interpleader suits and class actions involving morethan NF million
Amount in contro(ers$
o Caterpillar, *nc. v. e'i& (US SC)
Claim wrongl! removed to federal court because it did not have
complete diversit! Complete diversit! established b! the time of &udgment Court held that the case &udgment stands despite the defecton pragmatic considerations (general efficienc! will sometimes trumpfairness) of &udicial econom! and the fact this mista$e of removal willnot happen to often (&udges are smart and honest)
federal &urisdiction predicated on diversit! of citi;enship can be
sustained even if there does not e0ist complete diversit! at the time ofremoval to federal court so long as complete diversit! e0ists at thetime the district court enters &udgment
• Remo(al not alloed '$ P BB+a,
o onl$ D+s, can remove
• S!ecial alloances #or remo(al BB-
o ederal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted BB-
o Class Action airness Act BG)
o #ecurities 6itigation niform #tandards Act of 1KK **!+',
• Certain :inds o# cases not remo(a'leo 6imitation reflects Congress’ desire to give certain $inds of "s an a'solute
c.oice o# #orum which cannot be frustrated b! %’s removal ie ederal 8mplo!ers’ 6iabilit! Act and suits under state wor$ers’
compensation laws BBG all other claims listed in BBG
• A #oreign state can remo(e to #ederal court BB+d,
• T.e #act t.at t.e state court did not .a(e jurisdiction does not !re(ent D #rom
remo(ing to #ederal court BB+e,
• Pleadings not !ierced
o
he right of removal is generall! decided #rom t.e #ace o# t.e !leadingshe &urisdictional allegations of !lainti##>s com!laint control 'urisdictional allegations are viewed as o# t.e time t.e notice o#
remo(al is #iled
• C.ange in status
o If " amends complaint later and creates the opportunit!
for removal it can be removed
?J
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
28/70
o However " cannot ta$e later action in order to defeat
removalo E@ce!tion #or di(ersit$ cases
%iversit! cases present an e0ception to the rule
that removabilit! is determined as of the time
when the notice of removal is filed Indi(ersit$ cases& di(ersit$ must e@ist at t.e
time o# #iling t.e original action AND at t.e
time o# notice remo(al +unless P .as dro!!ed
a !art$ .o .ad destro$ed di(ersit$,
• Rationale: prevent % from ac/uiring a
new domicile after commencement ofthe suit and then removing on the basisof diversit! 7ut as noted above if "drops a non3diverse part! And diversit!e0ists with respect to the remaining
parties the action ma! be removed• " is the ;master o# .is claim&< if he chooses not to assert a
federal claim even though one is available to him % ma! notremove
• Remo(al o# multi!le claims
o BB+c,5!arallels )K*+c, some.at +not same on relatedness,
*whenever a se!arate and inde!endent claim or cause of action
within the #ederal uestionM jurisdiction,is joined it. one ormore ot.erise non%remo(a'le claims or causes o# action& t.e
entire case ma$ 'e remo(ed and t.e district court ma$ determine
all issues t.erein& or& in its discretion& ma$ remanded all matters in
.ic. State la !redominatesF<
• NOT a(aila'le in di(ersit$ cases
o Tactic #or P
" who wants to defeat diversit! has a potential
weapon: as long as some additional claim can befound that will bring in a non3diverse part! andthe &oinder rules of the state are liberal enoughto allow that claim to be &oined " can defeatdiversit!
• 1ederal uestion cases
o
>emoval does appl! where one of the *separate andindependent+ claims is based on #ederal uestion jurisdiction
Pro'a'l$ unnecessar$
• However 1441(c) is probabl!
unnecessar! in most of the ver! =situations where it is usable It willalmost alwa!s be the case that the
?
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
29/70
court’s 1DJ #' will appl! if so 1441(c)does not need to be used at all
Com!letel$ unrelated claims
• f course if the state3law claim was
com!letel$ unrelated to the = claim
then there would not be #' and 1441(c)might seem to be both applicable anduseful 7ut in this situation it is notclear that as a constitutional matter thecourt could hear the state3law casean!wa! (since the constitutional basisfor supplemental &urisdiction is that thetwo claims arise from a *commonnucleus of operative fact+)
• Remand
o In the relativel! rare instance where % actuall! relies on
BB+c,& " ma$ score a partial victor! b! getting thestate claim sent bac$ to state court
OR .e ma$ not5de!ending on one>s reading
• ;all matters<
o %istrict court ;ma$ determine all issues t.erein& or in
its discretion& ma$ remand all matters in .ic. State
la !redominates<
o Some courts e(en .old t.at judges can remand
#ederal claim i# state la dominates t.e matter
• Remand
o If federal &udge concludes that the removal did not satisf! the statutor!
re/uirements he must remand the case (all claims) to the state court fromwhich it came BB*+c,
o Case ma$ 'e remanded at an$ time during t.e trial #or a lac: o# S0J
BB*+c,
o Cases can be remanded for defects in removal procedure within DG da!s of
receipt in district court BB*+c,
• Discretion to remand
o ederal court also has discretion to remand to the state courts if a
federal trial case would be &urisdictionall! proper but unwiseo his is most li$el! to happen if a = claim and a supplemental state
claim are both removed and the federal claim is dismissed before trial Carne"ieMellon Univ. v. Cohill
o Codified under )K*+c,+),
o %ecision to remand is not a!!eala'le BB*+d,
Rationale prevent frivolous removal "revent dela!
T.ere are some e@treme circumstances .ere t.e district
court ma$ re(ie it on rit o# mandamus
• 9ai(er
?K
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
30/70
o % ma! be held to have ai(ed his right of removal if he ta$es e0tensive
action on the merits in state court 7ut federal &udges have usuall! beenreluctant to find such a waiver even in cases where % did such things asta$ing depositions in the state suit
• 0ec.anics o# remo(al USC BBK%BG
o 1iling
• % must usuall! filed for removal within ) da$s of the time he
receives service of the summons and complaintBBK+',
• Amended com!laints BBK+',
• % must usuall! filed for removal within ) da$s of the time he
receives of receipt of an amended com!laint t.at #irstre(eals t.e !ossi'ilit$ o# #ederal jurisdiction
• Di(ersit$%onl$ cases BBK+',
• 5ust ta$e place within one !ear from filing of lawsuit
(commencement)o #o % does not get a new residence
o 9.ere #iled
• % files b! submitting to the district court a ;notice o# remo(al
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
31/70
• Permissi(e counterclaim )+',
o Allows assertion as a counterclaim at %’s discretion of *an! claim that is not
com!ulsor$+o .o claim is far too removed from the sub&ect of "’s claim to be allowed as a
counterclaim here are e0ceptions,listed below
• Com!ulsor$ counterclaim )+a,
o wo re/uirements
F It *arises out o# t.e transaction or occurrence t.at is t.e su'jectmatter o# t.e o!!osing !art$>s claim5
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
32/70
• If % has asserted a counterclaim (whether compulsor! or
permissive) and " neglects either to serve a repl! or to move againstthe counterclaim a de#ault judgment ma! be entered against " onthe counterclaim Rule GG+d,
o Polic$
• A(oid multi!le litigations• Allo #or consolidation
• ;Transaction or occurrence<
o no defined meaning in the courts
o if claim is logicall$ related
• same aggregate of operative facts
o rule o# t.um'
• man! courts are especiall! interested in whether there is a substantial
amount of e(idence that bears upon both the claim and thecounterclaim and which would therefore have to be considered
twice if the counterclaim were not allowedo Polic$ &udicial econom!
• Counterclaims '$ t.ird !arties
o An$ !art$ ma$ ma:e a claim against ;an o!!osing !art$< Rule )+a,&
)+',
• T.ird%!art$ D
hird3part! % ma! counterclaim against either the original %
or against the original " (In the latter case a claim b! "against the third3part! % must first have been made)
• P>s counterclaim
" could have a compulsor! *counter3counterclaim+o >egardless of whether %’s claim was compulsor! or
permissive
• Ne !arties
.ew parties to a counterclaim can be brought into a suit as
long as the &oinder test of either >ule 1K or >ule ?G is satisfiedRule )+.,
• Cross%claims
• Are not counterclaims,cross3claims are never compulsor!
•1ailure to raise a com!ulsor$ counterclaim
o 2enerall! #ore(er 'arred #rom suing on t.at claim in anot.er #ederal
action
7asis for rule unclear
6enienc!
• In cases of hardship where part! was not at the time of the
first suit aware that he had a compulsor! counterclaim the
D?
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
33/70
federal courts have been lenient in waiving the bar againstsubse/uent assertion of the claim in a new action
o .eed for lenienc! is less pressing because of
amendment Amendment Rule )+#,
• Court ma! grant leave to a part! who has overloo$ed acompulsor! counterclaim to assert that counterclaim b!amendment during the original action after the trial has begun
• Jurisdictional reuirements #or counterclaims
o SJ
A com!ulsor$ counterclaim to a federal action is o#ten times
within the federal court’s SJ )K*+a,
• I# claim is in t.e ;same transaction or occurrence< it is
in t.e same ;common nucleus o# o!erati(e #act<
Permissi(e counterclaims not su!!lemental
• A PC ill !ro'a'l$ NOT 'e it.in a court>s SJ& and
must t.ere#ore satis#$ t.e reuirements o# #ederal SJ0hus a "C ma! not be used to &oin a third3part! who is ofthe same citi;enship as the part! asserting the counterclaimagainst him #imilarl! it is generall! held that a "C mustindependentl! e0ceed the amount in controvers!re/uirement
• Pleading o# counterclaims
o "art! raising a counterclaim is a plaintiff and his opponent a defendant for
the purposes of that claim >ule of pleading correspond to those for
ordinar! "’s claim and an ordinar! %’s claim Rule H+a,• Statutes o# limitations #or counterclaims
o If "’s complaint is timel! but %’s counterclaim would be barred b! the
statute of limitations ma! % assert the counterclaim-o State rule
Common law precedent: counterclaims arising from the same
transaction as "’s claim ma! be asserted as defenses against an!timel! claim but ma! not !ield an affirmative recover! Acounterclaim not arising from the transaction on which " suesmust generall! be timel! on its own
o 1ederal di(ersit$ cases
@here the case is a #ederal one based on di(ersit$ %’s right to bring an arguabl! time3barred counterclaim will depend in part onwhether the statute of limitations ran before or after " brought thecase
• Time 'arred .en P sued
o % not allowed to assert counterclaim as a means of
affirmative recover! but might be able to use it as adefense
DD
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
34/70
6imited use is far more li$el! if CC is
compulsor! rather than permissiveo 1ederal uestion cases
#tate law become irrelevant
#ame as diversit!
• 6lant v. Bla;er inancial Service& (/th Cir.)
o " suing % on a truth3in3lending cause of action Court held that an action
on the underl!ing debt in fault is a compulsor! counterclaim that must beasserted b! % Court concluded that the obvious interrelationship of claimsand rights of parties coupled with the common factual basis of the claimsdemonstrates a logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim
Strategies #or D +in general,
• Cost,&udicial econom!
• Higher costs for ",drop case-
•
6owered "’s &udgment• &ur! ma! be more s!mpathetic
P is arguing t.at t.is is not and D is arguing t.at is a
com!ulsor$5'ecause i# it ere com!ulsor$ t.ere ould 'e
it.in ancillar$ jurisdiction
• 7ad for %,use it or lose it
• 2ood for %s,#' if compulsor!
;Transaction or occurrence<
• factors leading to broad definition,ma$e it compulsor!
o &udicial econom!,rele(ant toda$
concerning all &udges
o fairness
!ou should be able to sue bac$ to reduce
• factors leading to narrow definition,ma$e it permissive
o #ederal courts s.ould not .a(e role in state
claimsQ #ederal or:load5rele(ant toda$
o private enforcement scheme
JOINDER
• first e0amine the parties being &oined to the suit
• then e0amine the claims being added to the suit
• Relations.i! 'eteen joinder and jurisdiction
o T3E4 ARE SEPARATE
JOINDER O1 CLAI0S
• Rule H+a,
D4
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
35/70
• *a part! asserting a claim counter3claim cross3claim or third3part! claim
ma! &oin as independent or alternative claims as man! claims as it hasagainst an opposing part!+
• once a !art$ .as made a claim against some ot.er !art$& .e ma$ t.en
ma:e an$ ot.er claim .e is.es against t.at !art$
• Ne(er reuired
o 'oinder of claims is never re/uired b! >ule 1(a) but is left at the claimant’s
option However the rules of res &udicata particularl! the rule againstsplitting a cause of action will often as a practical matter induce the claimantto &oin claims
• Su'ject 0atter jurisdiction is not a##ected
o Rule H+a, does not a##ect t.e reuirements o# S0J& .ic. must 'e
inde!endentl$ satis#ied '$ t.e joined claimF T.at is& SJ ill generall$ not.a(e to 'e a!!lied to a claim joined it. anot.er under Rule H+a,F
• Not usuall$ restricti(e
o As a practical matter the #'5 re/uirements will not usuall! impede the use of
Rule H+a,
Di(ersit$
• %iversit! is not affected generall! b! >ule 1(a) &oinder of
claims because no new parties are added when >ule is used Amount in contro(ers$
• Aggregation of claims is possible to satisf! &urisdictional
amount aggregation of all claims b! a given plaintiff against agiven defendant is allowed
SJ
• However if the initial claim against a particular % is itself possible onl! because of the court’s #' there ma! be &urisdictional problems with &oinder of other claims
o Ie: suppose %’s claim against < is worth less than
NJFGGG and is allowed onl! because the counterclaimwas compulsor! and therefore within the court’s &urisdiction An additional claim against ule 1(a)
1ederal uestion claim
• If the original claim against a particular % was a = claim a
non%#ederal claim could not 'e joined under H+a,& unlesseit.er di(ersit$ e@ists& or t.e to claims are closel$ related
so t.at t.e doctrine o# SJ +#ormerl$ called !endent
jurisdiction in t.is conte@t, a!!lies
JOINDER O1 PARTIES
• Rationale &udicial econom!
DF
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
36/70
o "romote trial convenience prevent multiple trials
Permissi(e joinder
• Rule -
o Allows " in certain circumstances to
+a, &oin other "s with himself or +', to ma$e several parties co3defendants to his claim
• If the option e0ists " ma! use it but does not have to
o Reuirements Rule -+a,
F he claims #or relie# must arise #rom a single& ;transaction&occurrence& or series o# transactions or occurrences+ AND
-F here must be a /uestion o# la or #act common to all !arties whichwill arise in action
o Polic$
5a! have to anticipate merits,what evidence will be brought
Individuali;ed evaluation
o Test
Logical relation or common e(idence
o Common uestion must 'e o# su'stantial im!ortance to all Ps
o Eac. P must 'e (oluntar$
o Joinder o# Ds
#ame two3prong test
At "’s option
o Judicial Discretion Rule -+',
Court has considerable discretion in arranging proceedings so as not to
causes undue inconvenience or pre&udice to an! part! (eg separate
trials)
• Jurisdiction in !ermissi(e joinder cases
o All "' re/uirements must be met for all %s
o All #'5 re/uirements must be met for all "s and %s
SJ generall$ does not a!!l$ to Rule - joinder o# multi!le Ds
SJ !artiall$ a!!lies to Rule - joinder o# multi!le Ps
• ften prove fatal to >ule ?G &oinder
o Complete diversit! must be met
o 5ultiple "s are permitted to aggregate their claims to meet the &urisdictional
amount if at least one name named " meets the amount @on
8ach % must have claims against him e/ual to the &urisdictional
amounto 9enue must be met
8asier wa! to do this is bring suit in a district where substantial part of
the events occurred
D
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
37/70
• Mo&ley v. General Motor& Corp. ($th Cir.)
o "s (females men and women minorities) suing % (25) on discrimination
claims Claims for relief arise of out the same transactionToccurrence andthere is a common /uestion of lawTfact herefore the court reverseddisallowance of &oinder b! lower court and remanded
Strateg$ #or P +in general,• 5a$es 25 loo$ bad
• 7roaden claim as *emplo!ment discrimination+ rather than
*race discrimination+ and *se0 discrimination+o Common law or fact
CO0PULSOR4 JOINDER
• Rule
o In certain cases must be &oined if it would prevent uneconomical or unfair
litigation
5emple v. Synthe& (US SC)• Court held that patient (") did not have to &oin negligence
claim against doctor when suing manufacturer in negligencecase Court reasoned that a tortfeasor with the usual &oint3and3several liabilit! is merel! a permissive part! to an actionagainst another with li$e liabilit!
o To categories
;Necessar$< !arties
• parties whose &oinder if possible is re/uired b! Rule +a,
;Indis!ensa'le< !arties
• parties who are so vital that if their &oinder is impossible the
court will consider factors to determine if the whole actionmust be dropped Rule +',
o Necessar$ !arties +a,
5ust be &oined if #easi'le (1) service can be validl! made on them
and (?) their &oinder would not destro! diversit! o be a necessar! part! a person must meet .8 of the following two tests:
• Incom!lete relie#
o *in that person’s absence the court cannot accord
complete relief among e0isting parties++a,+,+A,
•
Im!aired interesto A &udgment in the person’s absence will either
(1) as a practical matter impair an interest the person has or
• A'sent !art$>s rig.ts
DJ
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
38/70
(?) impose on some of the e0isting parties*double multiple or otherwise inconsistentobligations+ +a,+,+7,
• Inconsistent o'ligation #or de#endant
!art$5inconsistent judgments
• 2enerall! comes up when there is ?in&unctions
o ",%1 A.% ",%?
o Indis!ensi'le !arties
o Assuming absentee meets t.e to tests a'o(e +incom!lete relie#&
a'sentee !art$>s rig.tsQinconsistent judgments, the court considersadditional #actors to determine whether the claim should bediscontinued if &oinder is not possible +',
Prejudice
• 80tent of pre&udice to the absentee or to those alread!
parties 1raming o# judgment
• the possibilit! of framing the &udgment so as to mitigate
such pre&udice adeuac$ o# remed$
• the ade/uac! of remed! that can be granted in his
absence result o# dismissal
• whether " will have an ade/uate remed! if the action is
dismissed alternati(e #orums
o el;%er" v. 4alley e&t ($th Cir.) H (") sued 9@ (%) for breach of contract in bringing in
another &ewelr! store to mall Court held that cases could not be dismissed on grounds that new store was indispensable andnot sub&ect to "' Court reasoned that a person does not become indispensible to an action to determine right under acontract simpl! because that person’s rights or obligationsunder an entirel$ se!arate contract will be affected b! theresult of the action 8ssentiall! it is 9@’s fault for enteringinto two conflicting contracts
• #ome ma! argue it is a wrong decision because:
o Inconsistent &udgmento Alternative forums
o Jurisdictional o'stacles
o "' #5' and venue must all be e0amined
mile 'ulge
o (ariet$ o# di##iculties
D
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
39/70
his presence would destro! diversit! since he is a citi;en of the
same state as one " and there is no federal /uestion the claim against him does not meet the amount in controvers!
re/uirement he is be!ond the personal &urisdiction of the court because the
local long3arm would not reach him (since the local long3arm iswhat is relied on in diversit! suits)
o SJ
If person who is sought to be &oined as % under >ule 1K(a) is
not diverse with all "s or if the claim against him does notmeet the amount in controvers! re/uirement the doctrine of #'does NOT appl! to overcome these defects herefore &oinedr will not be allowed in this situation )K*+',
T3IRD%PART4 PRACTICE +I0PLEADER,
Rule B+a,
• % alleging that a third person is lia'le to .im for all or part of "’s claim against %
ma! ;im!lead
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
40/70
o Assuming that the state law claim provides for
indemnification etc
• Lea(e o# court not needed if original % serves third3part! summons and complaint
upon the third3part! % within da$s of the time the original % served his answer to"’s claim
o A#ter da$s !ermission to im!lead it necessar$• 1actors considered in granting im!leader
o 'udicial econom!
o @hether part! see$ing to implead deliberatel! dela!ed or was derelict in filing
the impleader motiono @hether impleading would undul! dela! or complicate the trial
o @hether impleading would pre&udice the third3part! %
• Im!leader '$ P
o " against whom a counterclaim is filed ma! implead a third person who is
liable to him for the counterclaim Rule B+',
•
Jurisdictional reuirements rela@edo 7oth "' and #'5
o "'
%mile 'ulge Rule B+:,+,+7,
o #'
A third3part! claim falls within the court’s SJ
• As long as there is %' or =' between the original parties
o 9enue
As long as proper between original parties
.68## great inconvenience to third3part! % the court ma! refuse
impleader
• Claims in(ol(ing t.ird%!art$ D
o Rule B+a,+-, allos t.ird%!art$ D to ma:e certain claims
Counterclaims against third3part! "
Cross3claims against third3part! "
An! claim against original " or third3part! " *arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the sub&ect matter of "’s claim againstthe third3part! "
An! counterclaim against original " if original " has made a claim
against third3part! %
B+a,+G, Impleader claims against persons not previousl! part of thesuit if these persons ma! be liable to the third3part! % for all or part of the third3part! "’s claim against him
o All a'o(e claims #all it.in SJ
no #ear o# collusion
o De#enses
%efenses against both the original " B+a,+-,+A,
• and third3part! " can be made B+a,+-,+7,
4G
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
41/70
o Claims '$ original P
original " ma! *assert against the third3part! % an! claim arising out
of the transaction or occurrence that is the sub&ect matter of the "’sclaim against the third3part "+ Rule B+a,+),
• does NOT #all it.in SJ and t.us must inde!endentl$
satis#$ jurisdictional reuirementso disallowing collusion
• not re/uired to meet venue as if it were a separate action
• Joinder o# claims
o riginal % ma! &oin to his third3part! claim an$ ot.er claims he has against
the third3part! %o #uch &oinder falls within Rule H+a, which allows a part! to &oin *as man!
claims as it has against an opposing part!+
• Dismissal o# main claim
o If main claim is dismissed before or during trial the court still has the
authorit! to hear the third3part! claims based on it if these are applicable andare within #' @hether to e0ercise this authorit! is generall! left to the trialcourt’s discretion )K*+c,+),
6rice v. C5B, *nc. ($th Cir.)
• " sued % for ma$ing fault! chic$en coup %1 impleaded %? for producing fault!
screws If the claim is deri(ati(e o# t.e original claim and there is at least a possibilit! for factualTlegal theor! for impleading there e0ists grounds for impleaderunder >ule 14 Here %1 properl! impleaded %?
CROSSCLAI0S
Rule )+g,
o allows a part! to ma$e in certain situations a claim against a co%!art$
• Reuirements
1 5ust have risen out of ;t.e transaction or occurrence that is the sub&ectmatter of the original action or of a counterclaim therein+ or else relate to propert! that is the sub&ect matter of the original action
? 5ust as$ for actual relie# from the co3part! against whom it is directed
• @here one % claims he is blameless and other % is liable no cross3
claim can be made
• Indemnit! claims are o$a!
• Cross claims are ne(er com!ulsor$
• Cross claims are it.in SJ
o ransaction or occurrence,common nucleus
airvie' 6ark @cavatin" Co. v. Al Mon;o Con&truction Co. (#r! Cir.)
41
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
42/70
• Crossclaim between %1 and %? Court found that cross3claim can be dismissed if the
original "’s claim is dismissed for lac$ of #'5 However as was the case here across3claim properl! permitted under >ule 1D(g) under ancillar! &urisdiction shouldnot be defeated b! a decision on the merits adverse to the " on the "’s primar! claim
o Crossclaim can 'e dismissed i# t.e original P>s claim is dismissed #or lac:
o# jurisdiction .oe(er& crossclaim ma$ continue ot.erise i# originalclaim is dismissed on non%jurisdictional grounds +court .as discretion to
dismiss t.e crossclaim,F
INTER8ENTION
• Rule -B allows certain persons who are not initiall! part of a lawsuit to enter the suit
on their own initiative as intevenorso Is reall$ a'out $our interest in a case and .o i# t.e case as decided
it.out $ou in it stare decisis ould im!ede $our interest
o Intervention allows !ou full status as a part! in the courtroom
Alternative,amicus brief (friend of the court brief)• To #orms
o Inter(ention o# rig.t Rule -B+a,
o Permissi(e inter(ention Rule -B+',
o @here the intervenor is permitted to intervene *of right+ no leave of court is
re/uired for his entr! into the case @here the facts are such that onl!*permissive+ intervention is possible it is left to the court’s discretion whether to allow intervention
• Inter(ention as o# rig.t -B+a,+-,5similarit$ to +a,+-,+i,
o An!one meeting following criteria:
Inter(ention must 'e timel$ Interest in t.e legal su'ject matter
• >elated to !ro!ert$ or transaction that is the sub&ect of the
action Im!aired interest
• %isposing of action ma! as a !ractical matter impair or
im!ede the movant’s abilit! to protect its interest AND Inadeuate re!resentation
• his interest is not ade/uatel! represented b! all parties
OR Statute
• If outside cannot meet above criteria he ma! nonetheless
automaticall! intervene under Rule -B+a, if a federal statutegives him such right
o Stare decisis e##ect
Rule -B has occasionall! even been stretched to the point of re/uiring
the intervention of right of a part! who is interested in the litigation
4?
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
43/70
onl! because it ma! set an adverse precedent whose stare decisis effectma! later hamper him
o Jurisdiction
5ust meet #5'
.o #'
• Permissi(e inter(ention
o A person who has a claim or defense involving a common uestion o# la or
#act with a pending action ma! be allowed to intervene at the discretion of thecourt Rule -B+',
>arel! appeals due to discretionar! nature
5ust meet #5'
Martin v. ilke& (US SC)
• 7lac$ firefighters recentl! won a consent decree against discrimination against the
cit! of 7irmingham @hite firefighters brought a cause of action based on theirdiscrimination due to the decree 7lac$ firefighters petitioned that this is not allowed because the! had there chance to interveneT&oin and failed to do so However thecourt held that the white firefighter’s case could proceed he! reasoned that it isthose in the suit that share with the court the responsibilit! for &oining the absenteeshe penalt! for failing to locate and &oin all absentee interests is that one must facethe prospect of subse/uent litigation when the absentees do assert their interests
o Parties do not #or#eit t.eir a'ilit$ to !arta:e in later litigation i# t.e$
#ailed to inter(ene in t.e !rior suitF
o Indi(iduals are not .eld to a judgment o# .ic. t.e$ ere not a !art$F
3oe(er& t.e$ ma$ 'e su'ject to !recedent o# t.e courto "ublic law litigation often ends in consent decrees
Consent decrees ma! affect other parties
Consent decrees create legislative effects without going through
legislation
Atlanti& 2evelopment Corp. v. Unite! State&
• " (#) and % (Acme) are litigating over coral reefs off the coast of 6 Atlantis (I)
had interest in reef that government (") sought to claim as government propert!Court granted intervention under >ule ?4 because "’s claim to and interest in the ver! propert! and ver! transaction which is the sub&ect of the main action Also Atlantisdid not have ade/uate representation because it had no friend in the litigation And
lastl! " has a right to advance his interest where the &udgment of proceedings ma!impede his abilit! to later protect that interesto S.ould e allo inter(ention?FFF4ES
imel!,!es
Ade/uate representation,no Atlantis has no friend in the litigation
Interest,!es Atlantis is tr!ing to claim propert!
Impede Atlantis’s interest,!es court will follow precedence,stare
decisis
4D
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
44/70
• nli$el! #C or en banc decision would have to overturn it
INTERPLEADER
• echni/ue whereb! a part! who owes something to one of two or more other persons
but isn’t sure which ma! force them to argue out their claims among themselves before coming to sue him It is designed to !re(ent t.e !art$ #rom 'eing made to!a$ t.e same claim tice
• To :inds o# inter!leader
o Statutor$ inter!leader5F-H USC ))G
o Rule inter!leader5Rule --
• Need #or jurisdiction o(er 'ot. +or all, claimants
o #olved b! 1DDF and ??
• 1ederal statutor$ inter!leader ))G
o Allows a person holding propert! which is claimed or ma! be claimed b! two
or more adverse claimants to interplead those claimantso Jurisdictional !ro'lems
"'
%iversit!
Amount in controvers!
o Solutions
Nationide ser(ice o# !rocess -)K
• A court in which a sta$eholder has filed a 1DDF suit ma! serve
its process on a! claimant no matter where in the # thatclaimant resides or is found
0inimal di(ersit$ ))G+a,+,
• %iversit! is satisfied as long as some to claimants areciti/ens o# di##erent states
Amount in contro(ers$
• "ropert! which is the sub&ect of the suit must merel! e0ceed
G in value as opposed to NJFGGG 8enue )*
• #uit allowed in &urisdiction in which an$ claimant reside
o Commencement o# inter!leader suit
Commenced b! sta:e.older +;!lainti##
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
45/70
he further the goal of !rotecting t.e sta:e.older #rom dou'le
lia'ilit$& a court hearing a 1DDF action to en&oin (prohibit) allclaimants from starting or continuing an! other action in an! state orfederal court .ic. ould a##ect t.e !ro!ert$ -)K
• Interpleader can not be used to bring together all potential
litigation arising from an occurrence• 1ederal Rule Inter!leader Rule --
o 5uch li$e 1DDF
o @henever a person ma! be e0posed to *double or multiple liabilit!+ he ma!
demand interpleader A person ma! do this b! coming into court on his owninitiative as " or b! counterclaiming or cross3claiming as % in an actionalread! commenced against him
Distinguis.ed #rom ))G
• he chief difference between 1DDF and >ule ?? is that Rule --
inter!leader .as no e##ect on ordinar$ jurisdictional and
(enue reuirements
o %iversit! must be complete unless ='
o #tandard service of process
o #tandard amount in controvers! re/uirement
• No reuirement to disclaim !ro!ert$ under Rule --
o %o not have to disclaim propert!
• Denial o# lia'ilit$ e@ists .ere as ell
• Statute5Rule +costQ'ene#its o# c.oice,
o .ationwide service,standard service
o 5inimal diversit! (determined between claimants),Complete diversit!
(determined between sta$eholder and claimants)o 5ore than NFGG,more than NJFGGG
o In&unctions (t!picall! to free;e assets or re/uire deliver! to claimants)
5ust disclaim propert!,do not have to disclaim propert!
o %enial of liabilit!,denial of liabilit!
o 9enue
>esidence of one or more claimants,ordinar! venue rules appl!
Cohen v. 5he :epu%lic o+ the 6hilippine&
• " (art dealer) brought interpleader action against 7ramer and "hilippines to determine
who owned paintings he was consigned to sell 5arcos (wife of former dictator)intervened Her intervention was allowed pursuant to >ule ?4(a)(?) because herintervention was timel! she has an affirmed interest she ma! be sub&ect to possible pre&udice and she suffered a lac$ of ade/uate representation (no #riends)
o @h! was 5arcos not interpleaded-
%id not reali;e she was a possibilit!
5a!be "' was a problem
igured she had no interest or she would interpleader if she did
4F
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
46/70
o Inter!leader ma$ not sol(e all $our !ro'lems +iFeF con#licting
interestsQjudgments, i# $ou do not im!lead all t.e !arties $ou need to
CLASS ACTIONS
• "rocedure whereb! a single person or small group of co3parties ma! represent a larger
group or class of person sharing a common interest
• Class actions ma! be used where &oinder of all the potential co3parties is not feasible
either because the class is simpl! too large or because of the insuperable difficultiesof personal &urisdiction venue or diversit!
o Onl$ re!resentati(es must satis#$ t.e reuirements o# !ersonal
jurisdiction& S0J& and (enueF
• ne concern is that of due !rocess because the results of this $ind of mass litigation
must 'e 'inding on t.e a'sent mem'ers
• Class can be made up of either defendants or plaintiffs
• Class actions o(ercome mootness +rele(ance o# t.e judgment, 'ecause $ou can
re!lace t.e re!resentati(e as t.e case !roceeds o(er time
Rule -)
Certi#ication
• 1our !rereuisites Rule -)+a,
F Numerosit$QIm!racticalit$ o# Joinder -)+a,+,
• Class must be so large that &oinder of all of its members is not feasible
• Su'stitute #or #orms o# joinder
• >ule of thumb is about 4G but no magic number here
• .o e0act number • geographical dispersion also ta$en into account
-F Commonalit$ -)+a,+-,
• here must be */uestions of law or fact common to the class+
• class should be a class U that is it should consist of persons who share
characteristics that matter in terms of the substantive law involved
)F T$!icalit$ -)+a,+),
• he claims of defense of the representatives must be *t!pical+ of those
of the class
•
6oo$ing for the potential for conflicts between the representative andthe class as a whole
• class representatives must stand in significant respects in the same
shoes as the average class member BF Adeuac$ o# Re!resentation -)+a,+B,
• he representatives must *fairl! and ade/uatel! protect the interests of
the class+
• >epresentative himself must have some sta$e in the litigation
4
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
47/70
• >elationship between representative and law!er should be
straightforward
• representatives must furnish competent legal counsel to fight the suit
• measured before and after the suit
• #ocuses more on t.e la$er t.an in considerations o# t$!icalit$
T.ree maintaina'le categories o# class actions -)+',+%),
• -)+',+, actions5inconsistenc$ +limited #und +7,,
o applies to situations that are similar to the circumstances re/uiring the &oinder
of necessar! parties under >ule 1Ko Test #or -)+',+,
Inconsistent decisions that would establish incom!ati'le standards
o# conduct for the part! opposing the class Rule -)+',+,+A, OR
• inconsistenc$
he im!airment o# t.e interests of member of the class who are not
actuall! a part! to the individual actions Rule -)+',+,+7,• Dis!ositi(e o# interest as a !ractical matter
o 5embers of a ?D(b)(1) class ma$ not ;o!t out
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
48/70
• *that /uestions of law or fact common to class members
!redominate over an! /uestions affecting onl! individualmembers+ AND
su!eriorit$ +in #orm o# litigation,
• *that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairl! and efficientl! ad&udicating the controvers!+• #actors determining i# ;su!erior met.od<
o interest in indi(idual control
*the class members interests+ in individuall!
controlling the prosecution or defense ofseparate actions
o e@isting litigation
*the e0tent and nature of an! litigation
concerning the controvers! alread! begun b! oragainst class members+
o concentration in one #orum
*the desirabilit! or undesirabilit! of
concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum+
o di##iculties o# management
*the li$el! difficulties in managing a class
action+o most popular form of class actions because its re/uirements are the least
restrictive almost a catch3all for class actions
o -)+c,+),,notice with right to opt claim because !ou claims will be
ad&udicated if !ou thin$ !ou’ll get a lous! deal and want to pursue litigation on
!our owno the li$elihood that the class will win on the merits ma! be considered as a
factor determining whether the court will hear the suito fre/uentl! used in securities and antitrust cases
o also used for mass tort actions
• Reuirement o# notice
o he member of a class other than the representatives do not necessaril! $now
that the suit has been commenced herefore the court will normall! re/uirethat these class members be given notice of the fact that the suit is pending
o 9.en reuired
he giving of notice of the suit is re/uired onl! where it is a -)+',+),
class action Rule -)+c,+-,+7, re/uires the giving of *the best noticethat is practicable under the circumstances+ to all b(D) class membersRule -)+c,+-,
• Indi(idual notice
4
-
8/20/2019 Civil Procedure I - Abramowitcz - 2009_4.doc
49/70
o Individual notice almost alwa!s b! mail must be given
to all those class members whose names and addressescan be obtained ;t.r
top related