I.

CHOOSINGAFORUM
PERSONALJURISDICTIONstatutorilymandatedandconstitutionallypermissible
1.

MinimumContactsisthereastatutewhichauthorizesPJ
a. Defmusthaveminimumcontactswithastate.
b. specificjurislimitationclaimsarisingfrom/relatedtodefscontactswithstate
i. ex.Nonresidentmotoriststatute.(Hesscase)
c. generaljurisifcontactsaresubstantial,thereisgeneraljuris
d. quasiinremjurisdefspropservesasmincontacts.
i. Defcanonlybesuedfortheamtoftheproperty.
ii. propmustbeattachedattheoutsetofthecase
iii. withinremdisputeisaboutwhoownstheproperty
e. Longarmstatutes:
i. FullscopeCAsauthorizesjuristotheextentoftheconstitution(mincontacts)
ii. Limitedscopebasedonspecifictypesofcontactwiththeforumstate.
1. committingatortiousactwithinthestate
2. transactingbusinesswithinthestate
3. owningpropertywithinthestate
f. Waiver:PJandVenueareprotectionsfordef.Hecanwaivethem.

2.

FairPlayandSubstantialJusticeisPJconstitutionalunderdueprocessclass?Mincontactsmustfirst
beestablishedbeforeconsideringFPSJ.
a. Stateinterestintheircitizenschoiceofforum/accesstojustice
b. convenientforumforPl
c. inconvenienceofdef
d. Legalsystemsinterestinefficiency
e. Sharedinterestofseveralstatesinfurtheringfundamentalsubstantivesocialpolicies
Pennoyerpresence.Statehaspoweroverpeople/propw/iitsboundaries.Service
ofprocessondefordefsagentwithinforumnoneedformincontacts.
InternationalShoefirstmincontactscase.Deliberatelychoosetotakeadvantageofthebenefitsand
protectionsofthelawsofAZ.Wasitforeseeablethatdefwouldbecalledintocourtthere?
VolkswagenAudidealerhadnotpurposelyavaileditselfofthestreamofcommerceinOK,althoughit
couldforeseethatotherswouldtakeitscarsthere.VWhadnt
soldcarsthere,advertisedthere,cultivatedOKcustomers,deliberatedlyfocusedonOKasmkt
AsahiAmanufacturersellsfinishedproductstoawholesaleroutsidethestate,thewholesalerresellsto
retailerintheforumstate,andretailerresellstotheconsumer.
Mereawarenessthattheproductmayenterintothestreamofcommercedoesnot
constitutepurposefulavailment.Dissent:Ifthemakerbothforeseesandbenefitsfromsalesin
otherstates,thisconstitutespurposefulavailment.
BurgerKingpurposefulavailmentmakesjurisreasonable;burdenisondeftomakeacompellingcase
thattheforumisgrosslyunfair.

DUEPROCESSNOTICE
A. ServiceofprocessFRCP4
a. Summons&complaintonadultthroughpersonaldelivery/mailtodef/agent/defs
usualabode
b. 4(k)(1)(a)geographiclimits:stsboundarieswherectsits;Afedctcanserveprocess
outofstateonlyifastctcould(PJanalysis)
i. orbyfederalstatute
ii. orBulgeruleifitsw/i100mi/ofthefedcourthousedoesntapplyto
originaldefs,onlytopartiesjoinedlater

B. ConstitutionalStdmustbereasonablycalculatedtoappriseparties
a. Anyonew/aninterestinthejmentgetsnotice
b. Individualdignity,equalityandtraditionfosteredbydueprocess
C. OpportunitytobeHeardsafeguards
Mullanereasonablenessstandard.(trustbeneficiaries)Noticemustbereasonablycalculatedtoappriseall
partiesoftheaction.Whoneedstogetnotice?Whoeverhasinterestinthejment.
mailserviceandpersonaldeliveryarereasonable
Goldbergv.Kelly(welfarerecipientsbenefitsinterpretedasproperty)Dueprocessrequiresthatdefs
haveahearingbeforewelfarebenefitsareterminated.
Mathews(disabilitybenefits)apostterminationhearingisfine.Disabilityisnota)essentialtodaily
livingandb)accuracyofproceedingisensuredbyanimpartialmedicalevaluation
3prongtest
1)individualinterestsdegreeofpotentialdeprivation
2)govtinterestscost/finances,generalsocietywelfare
3)accuracyofproceeding
Fuentes(replevinofappliancesboughtoninstallments)Appliancecompaniesviolateddueprocessbynot
givingplnoticeoftherepossessionofherproperty.

SUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTION(federalcourts,basically)
competenceofcourttohearcases
DiversityofCitizenship1332(a)(1)
A. DeterminingCitizenship
a. purposetoprotectoutofstatedefendant
b. Howdoweascribestatecitizenship?
i. Domicile=citizenship(notresidence)Domicileisonestrue,fixedhomeand
principalestablishmenttowhichhehastheintentionofreturning.
ii. Corporation=citizenoftwostates:placeofincorporationandprincipalplaceof
business
iii. Unincorporatedassociation=courtsconsidercitizenshipofeachmember
B. AmountinControversy
a. Hastobemorethan75k
b. canonlybedefeatedwhenitappearstoalegalcertaintythattheamtincontroisinsufficient
c. courtcanassessavalueforinjunctiverelief
i. amtofdamagelostifpldoesnotgetinjunction
ii. howmuchwilldefloseifhedoesgettheinjunction
d. Aggregationyoucannotaggregatew/multiplepartiesoneitherside
i. mustbesingle,indivisibleharm
FederalQuestion1331
A. Casemustariseunderfederallaw.ArticleIIIConsti.
a. Whereisthefedq?Faceofthecomplaint
i. Osborningredienttheorysomefederalpropositionmustexistinthe
backgroundfortheretobejuris
ii. MottleyPlmustbringupafederalquestioninitscauseofaction.Anticipatinga
feddefensedoesnotraiseafedqforpurposesofsmj
b. Whatisafedq?explicitfedq,implicitfedq,orstatecausesofactionthat
raisesafederalq
i. Smithv.Mooreisasubstantialfedqbeingraised?
ii. Merrellpolicyreasons.Doescongresswantthisqheardasafedmatter?
B. Reasons why constitution wants fed cts to hear federal law claims:
a. consistent interpretation of federal law
b. more expertise at interpreting federal law

C. Aggregationyoucanaggregaterelatedorunrelatedclaimsiftheresasingleindivisibleharm.
D. Twokindsoffederallaw
a. Regulatorylawsdonotcreateafedcauseofactionex.FDA
b. Congresscreatessomelawstoempowercitizenstobringcauseofaction
i. Ex.EEOC,workplacediscrimination

SupplementalJurisdiction1367
A. Doesthefedqauthorizethefedcttoadjudicateoverstatecausesofactionthattheyotherwisewouldhave
nojurisover?Otheroptions:
a. splitcasesbtwfedandstatects
b. takewholecasetostatect
c. dropstateclaim,onlybringfedqinfedct
B. Dotheclaimsarisefromsamecaseorcontrovery?Commonnucleusofoperativefact?Gibbs.
C. Hascongressenabledthecttohavejuris?
D. 1367(b)ifacasearisesunderdiversityjuris,thectshallnothavejurisoveradditionalnondiverseparties
Gibbs:commonnucleusofoperativefact.Whatarisesunderthelawisthecasenotthecauseofaction.
LanguageofArticleIII.Judgeallowswholecasetobeadjudicatedinfedctbecausehedoesnot
wantplswithfedclaimstobedissuadedfrombringingtheminfedct
Aldingerpltriestoaddnewpartyandnewstatelawclaim.Ct.saystherewasnostatutoryjuris
statuteimpliedthatcongressdidntwantfedctinvolved.
KrogerJurisattheoutsetofthecaseiswhatsimportant.
FinleyCt.splitsupstateandfedlawclaimsbecauseplcanonlysuetheU.S.infedctandasalonedef.
Mustbeexplicitstatutorypermissioncontroversialbecausethereisnowaytogetoneforum.
1367(a)overrulesFinley.Anytimeitsconstitutionalyoucangrabnewclaimsandnewparties.
Dontneedexplicitcongressionalpermission
RemovalJuris1441,1446,1447
A. youcanonlyremovewhatcouldhavebeenbrought.
B. Exceptioninstatedefsinadiversitycasecannotremove

VENUE1391Venueisaboutconvenienceandwhatsfair
A. 1391(a)whentheresdiversityjuris,anactionmaybebroughtin
a. wheredefresidesifalldefsresideinsamestate
b. whereeventstookplace
c. catchallprovisionifneither(1)nor(2)applies,thenadistrictwhereadefissubjecttopjat
thetimetheactionstarts
B. 1391(b)fedquestionjuris
a. wheredefresides
b. whereeventstookplace
c. catchallifneither(1)nor(2),thenwhereverthedefcanbefound
C. 1391(c)acorpresideswhereverithaspjminimumcontactswithdistrict
BatesviolationofFairDebtsCollectionAct=fedq.Defcontestsvenue.Defsentacollectionnoticeto
PlsPAaddresswhichgotforwardedtoPlsNYaddress.PlthensuedinNY.Batesrelieson1391(b)
substantialpartoftheeventsgivingrisetotheclaimoccurredintheNYdistrict.Ct.grantsvenue,says
defsshouldhavewrittendonotforwardontheirnotice.
Hoffmanv.BlaskiPlsuesindefslocation.DefsaskforchangeofvenuetoPlslocationinIL.Ct.says
therewouldnothavebeenvenuethere.DefssaywewouldhavewaivedourPJandvenuerights.Ct.says
itsnotfairforadeftopickupthecaseandbringitanywhereitwantsjustbywaivingjuris.

TransferofVenue1404&1406WaiverofDefects
A. Anactioncanbetransferredtoanyotherdistrictwhereitmighthavebeenbrought
B. 1404(a)Changeofvenue.Defcantransferanactionfromapropervenuefortheconvenienceofparties
andwitnessesandintheinterestofjustice.
C. 1406Cureorwaiverofdefects.Transferonthebasisofimpropervenueintheinterestsofjustice
Forumnonconveniens:courtsdismissbecauselitigationwouldbemoreappropriateelsewhereorbecausethat
otherctisinadiftjudicialsystem.IttakesastrongshowingforFNC.
A. Alternativeforum?CanttransferifSOLhasrun,orif2ndforumslawissobadthattheresnorelief.
B. Plaintiffschoiceofforumispresumedtobegoodunlessplsareforeign
C. Privateinterestsburdensonparties
a. Locationofevid/witnesses/realpartiesofinterest
b. Partiesconnectionswithlocation
D. Publicinterestscourtsinterests/citizens/states
a. Cost,efficiency,choiceoflaw,doesstatehaveaconnectionw/controversy?
Piperv.ReynoScotlandplanecrash.U.S.lawsonwrongfuldeathandSLaremorefavorablethan
ScotlandssoplscometoU.S.tosueairlineco.fornegligenceofairplaneparts.Casewasdismissedto
Scotland.Crucialwitnesses/evidwereinScotland,unfairtomakeplslitigateintheU.S.Ct.woulddefer
toplschoiceofforumbuttheyreforeign.Publicv.privatefactors
ChallengingForumSelection:
A. SpecialappearancechallengingPJ
a. defmustbecarefulnottoraiseanyobjectionorargumentthatthecourtcanconstrueasadefense
onthemerits.Thecourtmayconcludefromthisthatdefhaswaivedtheirjurisdictionalobjection.
b. Also,oncethecourtholdsahearingontheissueofjuris,ifitdecidesthatjurisisestablished,def
mustthensubmittocourtsauthority.Defmaybeprecludedfrombringinguptheissueagain,but
alsocanappealjurisoncedeflosesthesuit.
B. FullFaithandCreditclause
a. Ifdefignoressuit,plmayenforcejmentindefsstatethroughfullfaith&creditclause
b. Defmayopposeenforcementofjmentbyassertinginhishomestatethattheforeigncourtlacked
pjoverhim.
c. However,ifdefhasalreadychallengedjuristhroughaspecialappearance,heisprecludedfrom
doingso.
C. 12(b)defensestoraiseinanswerormotion
a. LackofSMJ,PJ,Venue,insufficientprocess(docs)orserviceofprocess,failuretojoinparty

PLEADINGS

II.PROCESSOFADJUDICATION

A.Filingacomplaint8(a)shortandplainstatementoftheclaimthatgivesnotice
8(a)(1)groundsforSMJ
8(a)(2)claimshowingentitlementtorelief
8(a)(3)demandforrelief
B.DefsResponse8(b)
defmustadmit,denyorlacksufficientinfotoadmitordeny
failuretodenycanconstituteanadmissionexceptastodamages
8(c)affirmativedefenses
C.Signing of Pleadings/ Sanctions - 11
11(a) Must sign all docs submitted to court
11(b) i. Improper purpose: purpose of the pleading cant be improper (i.e. delay)

ii. Misrep of law: allows you to argue for changes in the law: extensions, modifications.
Dont need to flag these but probably will anyways.
iii. Misrep of facts: Facts & denials of facts must have evid. support, or are likely to
have evidentiary support after discovery. You must flag these.
11(c) sanctions = discretionary, not mandatory. Range of options available to ct.
D.Amendments&supplementalpleadings15
15(a) At the outset of the lawsuit, before def answers, you can amend at any time. After that only
by leave of ct or the adverse party.
15(b) Amendments to conform to the evidence when issues not raised in the pleading are tried
by consent of the parties, they shall be treated as if they were part of the pleading.
15(c) Relating back concept an amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the
original pleading if (see Worthington)
A) you need to add a new party and that party received notice of the action before the
SOL ran out.
B) Defs would have been sued but for the mistake of identity
JOINDERSEverytimeweaddaclaim/partytoalawsuit,weneedtoask:
1. Does a rule allow it? 13.14.18.20.23.24
2. Is there juris over the new claim/ party?
3. Whats the preclusive effect going to be?
4. Do we want to lump everything together? (think policy)
A.Claimjoinderbypl18(a)
-no limits: you can join as many claims as a party has against an opposing party
-assess SMJ
B.Claimjoinderbydef
1. Compulsory counterclaim 13(a)
- arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing partys
claim. Youre not required to bring it, but if you dont bring suit now, youll be precluded
from bringing it later.
2. Permissive counterclaims 13(b)
claims not arising out of the transaction/ occurrence that is the subject-matter of the
opposing partys claim
3. Cross-claims 13(g) are not compulsory, just permissive
-arises out of same transaction/ occurrence
4. Counter claims & cross-claims ASSESS SMJ
-fed q?
- diversity? (citizenship and amt in controversy)
- Supplemental juris? (same transaction/occurrence? 1367(b)?)
C.ProperParties20(a)
1. Permissive joinder: same transaction/ occurrence and common question
Pls may join in 1 action if they assert a right to relief jointly or if the claim arises out of
the same transaction, occurrence
and if a q of law or fact common to these persons arises in the action.
2. Defs may be joined in 1 action if there is asserted against them (same)
3. Assess SMJ
D. Necessary and Indispensable Parties - 19
1) Efficiency ct cannot accord complete relief w/o absentee party
2) Avoiding harm to party absentee partys interest may be harmed
if she is not joined
3) Avoiding harm to def absentee partys interest may subject def to multiple
or inconsistent obligations.
4) Is joinder feasible? Is there PJ? Will new party defeat SMJ?
If joinder is not feasible, ct may proceed w/o absentee party or dismiss.

If ct dismisses, absentee party is indispensable.

E. Impleader/ third party practice - 14
- indemnity/ contribution: 14(a) def can bring in a third party person who is or
may be liable to the def for all or part of the pls claim against the def.
- same transaction / occurrence: 14(b) Pl can assert a claim against the 3rd party
def arising out of same transaction/ occurrence.
- counterclaim against Pl? Pl may bring in a third party under 14(a)
-Assess SMJ: fed q? diversity? supp. juris?
F. Intervention 24
-Right to intervene your interest may be harmed or not adequately represented
-Permissive intervent. your claim or defense has a common q w/ pending case

G. Class Action 23
1. Initial requirements 23(a)
- numerosity must be too numerous for a joinder
- commonality questions in common
- typicality reps claim must be typical to those of class members
- Adequacy of representation lawyer and class rep
2. Type 23(b) when representative litigation is appropriate
-limited funds
-injunctive relief
-money damages (small claims or multiplicity of claims)
3. If 23(a) and (b) are met, class is certified
-court defines class & appoints class counsel
4. Who is bound?
23(b)(1) + (2) mandatory classes, cannot opt out
23(b)(3) indu notice to all members reasonably identifiable and option to opt-out
23(e) before settlement, there must be notice to every member in 1,2 or 3
5. Diversity juris?
-look only at citizenship of representatives
-amt in controversy: traditional rule (Zahn) every member must have
more than $75,000. However, some argue that 1367 has overruled Zahn.
Hansberry class of white homeowners does not bind the black homebuyer. You cant be bound if your
interests are not adequately represented. If your interests were adequately represented, you can be bound
even if you werent there.
H. Consolidation and Separation of Trials 42 (convenience or prejudice)
-Joint hearing/ trial ct may order this of any matters where common qs of fact
or law are pending. It may consolidate these actions.
-Separate trials: ct may order this of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, thirdparty claim or parties in order to further convenience/ avoid prejudice.
-right of trial by jury must be preserved

DISCOVERY
A. Requireddisclosures26(a)
a. initialdisclosures(1),experts(2),pretrialdisclosures(3)
B. DiscoveryTools
a. Deposition30&31Swornoraltestimonybyanyone
b. Interrogatories33Partiesonly
c. ProductionofDocuments/Subpoena34/45Docs/tangiblethingsbypartyornonparty

d. PhysicalExams35Courtorderrequiredpartyorpersoninpartyslegalcontrol
e. RequestforAdmission36Partiesonlytreatedasadmissioniftheydontdeny
C. Methods
a. Signing26(g)polices
b. Motionforaprotectiveorder26(c)
c. Motiontocompel37
d. Sanctioning26(g)/37
D. ScopeofDiscovery26(b)(1)&(3)
a. Relevanceyoucandiscoveranythingrelevanttoaclaimordefenseofanyparty.Relevantmeans
reasonablycalculatedtoleadtoadmissibleevidence.Thisisbroaderthenadmissibleyoucan
discoverstuffeventhoughitwouldntbebeadmissibleattrial.
b. Privilegedmatterisnotdiscoverable.Attyclient
c. Workproduct/trialpreparationmaterials
i. Materialpreparedinanticipationofandforlitigation.Immunefromdiscovery.
ii. Qualifiedprivilegeyoucanoverridethisbyshowingsubstantialneed&unduehardship,
andthatitsnototherwiseavailable
iii. Absoluteprotection:mentalimpressions,strategies,opinions,legaltheories,conclusions
Hickmanv.TaylorPllawyerusesrogstorequestcopiesofdefsattysdeposw/witness.Defslawyeris
notapartyandyoucantaskarogtononparties.Plsshouldhavedeposeddefattyandsubpoenaedhim
fordocs.However,workproductdoctrinecomeintoplay:thesedocswould1)revealattysmental
impressions,2)attywouldhavetotranscribewhatwitnessestoldhim(doingworkfortheotherside),and
3)therewerewrittensignedstatementsavailable.Youneverhavetoturnover1)or2),butifapartyshows
substantialneed&unduehardship,youhavetoturnover3).
PRETRIALADJUDICATION
A. MotiontoDismissforfailuretostateaclaim12(b)(6)
a. Courtlooksonlyatthecomplaint,notatevidence.Ifplwouldnotwinevenifshecouldprove
everythinginthecomplaint,thenmotiontodismisswillbegranted.
B. SummaryJment56
a. Jmentshallberenderediftheresnogenuineissueofmaterialfact.Canbeusedonwholeoron
partofcase.
b. Considersevidence.Grantedwhenthemovingpartyisentitledtojmentasamatteroflaw.Judge
mayactonlikelyinferencesofthefacts.
c. Ifpllacksevidence,defcanmovefroSJ.
i. Whatstheissueinthelawsuit?
ii. Burdenofproofusuallypl/movingpartyforsj
iii. Standardpreponderanceoftheevidence
iv. Whatstheevidence?Isitindispute?
Plshavealltheevid:
Lundeenv.Cordner1stwifew/kidsv.2ndwifecontestoverwillofdeceasedhusbandleaving$towife2.
Husbandhiredaccountantoverseas(disinterestedwitness)whogiveswrittentestimonythatwillwas
untampered.Summjmentgranted.
versus
Crossv.U.S.languageprofwentontriptoEurope,claimeddeductionforeducationalpurposes.Issue:
whetherdeductionswerelegal.Evidenceisindisputedefwantstocrossexaminewitnessesattrial,so
sumjmentnotgrantedtopl.
Defshavealltheevid:
Celotexinjuryfromasbestosexposure.Plhasburdenoflinkingcelotextoworkplace.The
nonmoving party here who bears the burden of proof at trial, must go beyond the pleadings and by
affidavits, depos, rogs or admissions designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial. SJ granted when def says you have nothing.

versus
Adickescivilrightsclaim.Defmustshowaffirmativeevidthatplhasnothing.Celotexgoes
againstAdickes,weakeningburdenofproofonmovingparty.

TRIAL
A. RighttoJuryTrial
a. 7thamendmentpreservestherighttoajurytrialunderCL(federalcourts)
i. inlegalcases,notequitablecases.Inalegalcase,theprincipalremedyis$.
ii. Equitablecasesremedyisinjunction,nojury.
iii. Declaratoryjmentajudgmentofacourtwhichdeterminestherightsofpartieswithout
orderinganythingbedoneorawardingdamages.Canbeashellforequitableorlegal.
iv. Ifjurydemandsbothlegalandequitablecasestraditionally,nojury.However,Beacon
Theaterstriedjuryissuesfirst.
b. 38(b)partymustaskforajuryinwriting.Righttojurycanbewaived.
c. Disputeoffactanddamages
d. Judgeinstructsjuryonwhatlawis
B. SelectionofJuryvoirdire
a. Eachsidehasunlimitedstrikesforcause(wherethepotentialjurorisbiased)andthreepreemptory
strikes(nospecificreason).Preemptorystrikesnoraceandgenderbias(seeEdmonson).
b. Attysaretryingtoremovejurors,judgesaretryingtokeepthem.
C. Motions
a. 50(a)Directedverdict/motionforjmentasamatteroflawmadeatcloseofevidence.Ifno
legallysufficientevidentiarybasisforareasonablejurytofindinfavorofpl.Plsevidis
insufficienttomeettheburdenofproof.
b. 50(b)renewedmotionforjmentasamatteroflawjuryreachedadecisionthatreasonable
peoplecouldnotreach.
c. 59(a)Motionforanewtrialcanbegrantedinwholeorinpart.Allowsjudgetograntnew
trialifjurydecisioniscontrarytoclearweightofevidenceorbasedonevidencewhichis
false.Lowerstdthan50.Nofinaljmentifnewtrialisgranted.
BeaconTheatersequitableandlegalclaim.Ruling:startw/thejury,legalquestionscomefirstthendeal
w/thepreclusiveeffectsontheequitablequestions.
APPEAL
A. Finaljmentrule1291
a. Federalcourtyoucantappealuntiltheresafinaljment.Trialct.mustwrapupthemeritsofthe
entirecase.
B. Interlocutoryappeals(exceptionstofinaljmentrule)1292
a. 54(b)whentheyremultipleclaimsorparties,youcancarveoutoneclaim
b. 1292(a)exceptionforaninjunctioncanbeappealedimmediately
c. 1292(b)certificationofquestioniftrialjudgecertifiesacontrollingquestionoflawtothe
appellatect,itcanbeheard.
Wetzelv.LibertyMutualdistrictandapp.Ct.founddefliableonpartialsummaryjmentbutdidnot
providerelief.Plalsoaskedforaninjunctionand$damages.Holding:youdonthaveafinaljmentwhen
youhaveadecisionregardingreliefbutnoactualrelief.
Hicksappctcanonlyreviewclearlyerroneousfindingsoffacat.
RESJUDICATAANDCOLLATERALESTOPPEL(claimpreclusionandissuepreclusion)
A. ResJudicata(claimpreclusion)
a. Sameclaimantagainstthesamedefendant.
b. Finaljmentmusthavebeenmade(nofinaljmentifbasedonjuris,venue,indispensableparties)

c.
d.

Sameclaim=allrightsarisingfromthetransactionoroccurrence
mergerifclaimantwoncase#1,barifclaimantlostcase#1
i. compulsoryjoinderifpartyshouldhavemergedclaimsincase#1,thentheyare
precludedfrombringingtheextraclaim(seeRush)
B. CollateralEstoppel(issuepreclusion)
a. Finaljmentmusthavebeenmadeincase1.
b. Sameissuewasactuallylitigatedincase1andwasnecessarytothejment.
c. Usedagainstapartyincase1orpeopleinprivityw/thatparty.
d. Nonmutualcollateralestoppelmodernapproach.Offensiveuseofthisisallowedif(see
ParlaneHosiery):
i. Defhadafulloppandincentivetofullylitigatecase1
ii. Plcouldnthaveeasilyjoinedincase1
iii. Defcouldforeseemultiplelitigation
iv. Therearenoinconsistentjmentswouldbeunfairtodef
ALTERNATIVESTOADJUDICATIONADR
HootersERtriestoforceEEintoarbitration.EEsayscontractstinks.HooterscreatedanADRsystem
thathighlyfavorsthedef(them).Unenforceablesystemcreatesintrapartyinequality&shockedthe
conscienceofthecourt.
versus
Circuitcityalsocreatestheirownarbitrationsystemthatssimplerandfaster.Optingoutofjudicial
systemcreatesaninequalitybtwwhatplwouldgetinct.asopposedtoADR.Forexample,nojurytrialis
allowed,andajurytrialimprovesthesettlementvalueofplscase.However,basicsubstantiverightto
bringaclaimremains,althoughprocedurehaschanged.
FissProtrial.Settlementdoesntallowthefactstoreallyemergeorbeembeddedinajment.Ex.
Pittstonwouldhavebeenmoreexposedbyatrial.Inadditiontodamages,ajmentcanyieldaninjunction
andcourtinvolvementinenforcingit.Thefocusinalawsuitshouldbeonmorethanjustefficiencyand
peacefulresolution,thereshouldbejustice.Otherproblemswithsettlement:
A) sensethatpartieshavelesscontrolthentheirattys
B) lackofcontinuousjudicialinvolvement
C) imbalanceofpowerinsettlement
D) lessjustice
GalanterHavesv.havenots.Characterizespartiesastowhethertheyreincourtonceorrepeatedly.
RPshaveadvantage:
a. RPscanlobbyforfavorablerulechangessincetheyhavetheresources,expertstatus,
andbecausetheyrealwayslitigating
b. abilitytogamethesystemforlegaldecisions/principles
c. abilitytooptout
Onetimershaveopportunitiesaswell:
a. jointogetherw/otheroneshottersmoreresources,powerasagroup
b. OSscangetaRPlawyerthisislimitedbythefactthatOSsdonothavetheflexibility
toplaythesystemandtakeadvantageofRPsexpertise
c. Stronginterestofthehavenots
Whatlevelstheplayingfield?
a. lowpleadingburden
b. opendiscoveryRPshavealltheevidence
c. nonmutualpreclusion
d. thejuryOSsareoftenmoresympathetic,jurorsareOSs