Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
33 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
what are the policy ends served by Claim Preclusion
|
Efficiency
Consistency in litigation |
|
What claims are precluded
|
The same case and the prior case involve the same claim
And the same parties claim reached final judgement on the merits Claim preclusion, broadly speaking, provides that you cannot bring a claim now if in an earlier case you already brought ( or had the opportunity to bring) the same claim. |
|
Majority - Transactional or Restatement Approach
|
the two cases arise out of a "common core of operative facts"
This can mean "same evidence" but can also arise if the two simply involved the "same transaction" |
|
Minority - Rights Approach - California follows this
|
Correct claim preclusion approach is to ask whether the factual underpinnings of two legal claims are so identical that it not only would be convenient to llitigate them together, but also there is a core set of overlapping facts that are necessary to each claim. Today loosely called a Primary Rights approach
|
|
What is the source of law related to claim preclusion
|
Judge Made Law
|
|
Must a claimant have brought a claim in a previous case in order for it to be precluded
|
No - only the opportunity to litigate is required under claim preclusion.
|
|
What is primary policy behind Transactional approach to Claim Preclusion
|
Efficiency
This approach gives a plaintiff incentive to raise all of his claims in one suit |
|
What was ruling of Semtek
|
Remember Semtek – a court should give the preclusive effect to a judgment that the court issuing the judgment would have given
|
|
Takeaways from Martino v McDonald
s |
Reinforces that under claim preclusion, it is just the opportunity to be heard
Preclusion rules are matters of substantive state law – the first court sat in diversity, and so the court applied Erie and concluded the preclusion rule for the first case came from the forum state (Iowa) Consent judgments make settlements into judgments Consistency also is a virtue in preclusion |
|
What was the "legal interest" analysis applied by the court in Searle v Searle regarding "same parties"
|
“Same” parties is imprecise terminology – the real concern is that the legal interest had a full and fair representation
The legal interest here was the partnership’s ownership interest, and while Woodey was a party, he was not a party in his role as an agent for the partnership So the partnership’s interest was unrepresented at all in the divorce Thus, no claim preclusion |
|
Which of the following are judgements "on the merits" for purposes of claim preclusion
Full jury trial Judgment as a matter of law Summary judgment Dismissal under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim Dismissal under 12(b)(2) for want of personal jurisdiction Dismissal for failure to prosecute |
Full jury trial - yes
Judgment as a matter of law - yes Summary judgment - yes Dismissal under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim - yes Dismissal under 12(b)(2) for want of personal jurisdiction - NO Dismissal for failure to prosecute - Yes |
|
Definition of Issue Preclusion
|
There is some piece of, or issue in, a case that either party – defendant OR plaintiff – says has already been decided in another case and so that is binding – it cannot be undone or re-tried
|
|
Elements of Issue Preclusion
|
An issue of fact or law …
…actually litigated and determined … …by a valid and final judgment … …if the determination is essential to the judgment… …and the party against whom preclusion is asserted in a later case (“the party burdened with preclusion”) had an adequate opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue in the first case. If this is the case, then the determination is conclusive in any later case involving the parties on the same issue. |
|
"Actually Litigated" for Issue Preclusion
Full jury trial Judgment as a matter of law Summary judgment Dismissal under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim Dismissal under 12(b)(2) for want of personal jurisdiction Dismissal for failure to prosecute Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch |
Full jury trial - yes
Judgment as a matter of law - yes Summary judgment - yes Dismissal under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim - no Dismissal under 12(b)(2) for want of personal jurisdiction - no Dismissal for failure to prosecute - no Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch - no |
|
Rule 8A
|
Jurisdiction
• Short and plain statement of the plaintiff’s claim • A Demand for judgment setting out the relief plaintiff seeks. |
|
Demand for Relief 8(a)(3)
|
Must include a demand for relief 8(a)(3) – must specify the remedy he would like for the court to grant.
Court is not bound by the demand and can award whatever relief ultimately is deemed appropriate in light of the evidence. Rule 54(c) Exception – in a default judgment the demand for relief does bind the court. Can seek alternate and inconsistent forms of relief. You must include a form requesting a Jury Trial if you are requesting that. |
|
Short Plain Statement per Rule 8a(2)
|
Basic Standard – a claim is sufficient as long as it provides defendant adequate notice of plaintiff’s claims and of the basic situation or situations from which those claims arise
Legal Conclusions – Per Twombly the complaint must have enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that the legal conclusion is true. requiring a plausible and not just possible claim |
|
What types of complaints have elevated pleading standards and why
|
Fraud or Mistake
Special Damages Because of the possibility of harrassment |
|
Options in an answer
|
o Rule 8(b) Admit or deny all or part of what the claimant says
o Denials must fairly respond to the substance of the allegations. Rule 8(b)(2) – otherwise it is an ineffective denial and will be treated as failure to deny and may constitute an admission Defenses |
|
What type of Defenses can be included in an answer
|
Ordinary Defenses - Rule 12
Affirmative Defenses Rule 8(c) |
|
When may a pleading be amended without the permission of the court
|
once without permission of the court as long as timing is ok
or with permission of other party |
|
Why did the Supreme court in Iqbal want to change the standard to make it so much harder for cases to make it
|
- they think there was too much litigation - and wanted to make it harder to pursue frivolous litigation so they gave a tool to the trial court to get rid of it early, often , and aggressively -. They gave the Trial Courts a tool to throw the cases out without being concerned about being reversed.
|
|
what is a plausability evaluation based on in an Iqbal review
|
Judges experience and common sense
|
|
What does Rule 11 stand for
|
Everything you file and/or say in federal court has to be signed and you are personally responsible for their accuracy, merit and intent. You are asserting to the court that you have sufficient knowledge of the content and that it is legitimate. You aren't making up or misrepresenting the law - making up facts, merely trying to cause pain to your opponent.
|
|
Who can be liable for sanctions under Rule 11
|
Lawyer, client and law firm
|
|
How does a Rule 11 motion get filed
|
Under Rule 11 - the Motion has to be presented to the other party a minimum of 21 calendar days prior to actually being filed with the court. You would typically prepare the motion and a letter that you send which outlines what you think is wrong with their complaint accompanied by a copy of your motion to put them on notice that the motion will be filed. You have to then allow 21 days to withdraw or amend. If they don't do so then you can file - It is actually the motion that starts the 21 day count. In this circumstance, you do not collapse the notice of motion into the Motion because you don't know when your court date will be because it is not yet filed.
|
|
Can a Rule 11 motion ever be the basis for another Rule 11 motion
|
Yes if the other side thinks the original motion is frivolous
|
|
Do rule 11 sanctions only apply to written documents
|
Under Rule 11 - the Motion has to be presented to the other party a minimum of 21 calendar days prior to actually being filed with the court. You would typically prepare the motion and a letter that you send which outlines what you think is wrong with their complaint accompanied by a copy of your motion to put them on notice that the motion will be filed. You have to then allow 21 days to withdraw or amend. If they don't do so then you can file - It is actually the motion that starts the 21 day count. In this circumstance, you do not collapse the notice of motion into the Motion because you don't know when your court date will be because it is not yet filed.
|
|
Do you have to amend a complaint if you find a fact to be later untrue in order to avoid violation of Rule 11
|
What if after discovery - when you had a good faith belief something is true - you now know that the fact is not true - you DO NOT have a responsibility to amend the complaint but you can not continue to use it whether in oral representation or in later pleadings.
|
|
Are rule 11 motions allowed to be grouped with other motions
|
No - they must be stand alone motions
|
|
Who can be sanctioned under Rule 11 for inaccuracies related to matters of law
|
Attorney and law firm
you are representing to the court that you have a good faith argument that this is in fact the law or it should be the law. And you have to tell the court that you are asserting that the law should be changed. |
|
Who can be sanctioned under Rule 11 regarding matters of facts
|
Attorney, client & firm
Asserts that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the fact exists or that in discovery you will uncover the proof. |
|
What are the main Rule 12 motions
|
• Rule 12(b)(1) - SMJ - if you win, the case is over in the Federal System, court doesn't have the power
• Rule 12(b)(2) - PJ - no PJ over the defendant (special appearance) • Rule 12(b)(3) - Venue - not the right federal court • Rule 12(b)(4) - Insufficient process - did not get served the right documents (ex: summons and no complaint) • Rule 12(b)(5) - Insufficient service of process - did not get served properly according to serving rules •Rule 12(b)(6) - Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted - court may give plaintiff opportunity to amend the complaint - defendant can submit additional 12(b)(6) for amended complaint- •Rule 12(b)(7) - Failure to join a party under Rule 19 - indispensible party |