Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Rule 20
|
Permissive Joinder
|
|
|
Permissive Joinder: Rule 20
|
1. The claims arise from the same transaction / occurrence; AND
2. Raise at least one common question or law or fact 3. Consolidation: Rule 42. Where actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the same court, the court may order the actions to be consolidated into one action. |
|
|
Mosely v. General Motors Corp.
|
1. A company policy that discriminated against blacks created a “system” of transactions/occurrences through which the individual πs were harmed.
2. Right to relief depends on whether each π was harmed by racial discrimination. Thus, Δ’s discriminatory conduct is a shared question of fact. The fact that the conduct may have affected each π in different ways is immaterial. |
|
Rule 19
|
Necessary & Indispensable Parties
|
|
|
Rule 19: Necessary & Indispensable Parties:
|
1. Under Rule 19(a), the party is necessary if:
a. No complete relief is available to current parties without the outsider, OR b. Outside party has an interest in the lawsuit that may be practically impaired (not legally impaired) by outcome of the lawsuit, OR c. Current party would be subject to multiple or inconsistent liabilities unless the outsider is joined. |
|
|
Rule 19(b)
|
determine whether case should proceed without the outsider, or should be dismissed (“whether in equity and good conscience” the case can go forward without the outsider).
|
|
|
Rule 19(b) Factors
|
a. ∆ Interest: Might Δ be subject to multiple or inconsistent liability?
b. Outsider’s Interest: might a judgment in the person’s absence be prejudicial to the outsider or other party? To what extent can prejudice be lessened or avoided? c. П Interest: Will π have an adequate remedy (other forum where all parties may be sued) if the case is dismissed? Will judgment in the person’s absence be adequate? d. Society, etc.’s Interest: Will dismissal or continuance impede the efficiency and functioning of the court? |
|
Rule 24
|
Intervention: Outsider puts himself into the litigation.
|
|
Rule 24(a).
|
Intervention as Right:
a. Must have direct, legally-protectable interest in the lawsuit, AND b. Must show that their interest will be practically impaired if intervention is refused, AND c. Must show that their interests are not already adequately represented by a current party. |
|
|
Rule 24(b).
|
Permissive Intervention
a. Only has to have a claim or defense with at least one common question of law or fact b. Highly discretionary |
|
Well-pleaded complaint rule
|
In order to invoke federal question jurisdiction at district court level, the federal issue has to be part of Plaintiff’s claim as revealed by the well-pleaded complaint. It cannot come up solely by way of defense.
|
|
|
Diversity Jurisdiction - Requirements
|
(1) Complete diversity (everyone lined up as π must be from different state as everyone lined up as Δ)
Individuals = state of domicile (presence + intent to remain indefinitely) Corporations = state of incorporation and their principal place of business (2) Amount in Controversy = $75,000 you cannot aggregate claims among co-parties |
|
|
Supplemental Jurisdiction
|
If there is an anchor claim that got you to federal court through diversity or FQJ, then you can bring with that anchor claim to federal court all other claims connected to it through a common nucleus of operative fact.
|
|
|
CNOF Test (Gibbs)
|
Means same thing as the “transaction test” from the joinder rules. You’re looking for factual connections between the two claims, such as overlapping evidence, overlapping issues, whether or not res judicata would prevent π from splitting the claims, and a logical relation between claims.
|
|
|
§ 1367
|
Supplemental Jurisdiction
|
|
|
§ 1367(b)
|
carves out an exception to the rule established in (a) which only applies in diversity cases. The exception does not list Rule 23, which is the class action rule, as one to which the exception applies. Zahn said the claims of each class member have to be worth more than the jurisdictional minimum, BUT the supplemental jurisdiction statute appears to create jurisdiction over claims connected by a CNOF, and apparently the (b) subsection does not apply.
|
|
|
§ 1367(c)
|
uses the word “may”, unlike (a) and (b) which use “shall.” Thus, (c) creates discretion in the federal district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if one of the listed factors is true. You can tell from the opinion that courts don’t treat the discretionary space very broadly. There has to be a good reason for them to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
|
|
|
§ 1367(a)
|
creates a rule that all claims connected by a common nucleus of operative fact to the anchor claim are within the court’s jurisdiction. If you have a federal question anywhere in the case, then all other claims connected by a CNOF are automatically within the court’s jurisdiction.
|
|
|
§ 1404(a)
|
Case may be transferred from federal district to federal district, to a place where it could have been brought. This means the transferee district must be one where π could have filed originally. It must therefore have proper personal jurisdiction and venue. Even though Δ can waive objection to personal jurisdiction, they cannot move to transfer to somewhere where they would have had to waive objection because the π couldn’t have actually filed there.
|
|
|
Rule 23
|
Class Actions
|
|
|
Prerequisites to a Class Action
|
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
|
|
|
Class Actions Maintainable
|
(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. |
|
|
RES JUDICATA
|
Claim preclusion, a claim is barred by judgment in an earlier suit
|
|
|
RES JUDICATA requires
|
1. Prior judgment: Prior case has come to a judgment that is
a. final (the majority defines this as final at the trial court level) i. One thing is whether it matters to you whether the judgment is litigated through the adversary system, or if it is settled. In class actions, a judge must approve a settlement and enter a judgment, so you can have a final judgment without having a full trial. b. valid (the rendering court must have had proper jurisdiction), AND c. on the merits (if the prior case was dismissed on some procedural point, then the case can be restarted on the merits) 2. Parties Same or in Privity: Parties in Suit #2 are the same or are in privity with the parties from Suit #1. Privity is a body of law extremely technical and archane, but the kinds of relationship that create this sort of privity are usually either a. if the nonparty had control over the litigation in Suit #1 (as is sometimes true in insurance contracts) b. nonparty who was [adequately] represented by a party in Suit #1 (e.g., someone was judged incompetent and their guardian brings suit on their behalf…this is also how absent class members are often characterized), or c. a successor in interest to a party (e.g., when someone sells his claim to a debt collection agency). 3. Claim within Scope of Judgment: Claim asserted in the later case has to be within the scope of the judgment in Suit #1. This is a transaction test. You are not allowed to “split” your claim by suing again based on the same transaction under a different legal theory. |
|
|
Rule 23(c)(3)
|
When the court enters a judgment under (b)(1) or (b)(2), the court must identify who is in the class. When it is a (b)(3) class the court must identify who has gotten notice and chosen not to opt out. The purpose of this provision is so you can tell who is bound in a class action.
|
|
|
ISSUE PRECLUSION
|
Test for Issue Preclusion
1. Prior Judgment which is final [at the trial court level] and valid [in that the court had proper jurisdiction] 2. Issue in the later case must be the same as the issue in the prior case. How you characterize the issue makes all the difference in the world. a. Because we’re taking issues decided in one case and exporting them to later cases, we want to make sure they were rightly decided, so as to prevent exporting an error. We tolerate imperfect judgments in individual cases, but we don’t want them exported to other cases. We want to make sure the issue got enough attention in suit 1 to reduce the risk that it was erroneous, before we export it to suit 2. b. Make sure the issue was actually litigated. Unlike claim preclusion which precludes issues that could have been litigated but weren’t, issue preclusion only precludes issues that were actually litigated. Actual litigated in the sense that evidence was presented to a factfinder. Summary judgments, therefore, count. It does not cover stipulations, but you can use them as evidence. c. Issue must be actually decided, and necessary to the judgment in the prior suit. If the prior case has an opinion, then the opinion will tell you their findings of fact and conclusions of law. Where it gets difficult is when it’s a jury verdict and the jury just uses a general verdict, even with special interrogatories. 3. The party to be bound (or precluded) had full and fair litigation the first time around (or a full and fair chance to litigate). Collateral estoppel is a one-way street; only the party to be bound must have been in the suit … OR… a. OR…the party was in privity with a party to the prior suit. |
