Civil Procedure Complete Outline

Civil Procedure Complete Outline
Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:17 PM
Choosing a System of Procedure

Bands v. Borrough of Fair Lawn
Plaintiff: Bands Refuge (denied right to collect garbage for western electric, whom they had a contract with, because of ordinance 688) Defendant: Borough of Fair Lawn Capassos only authorized garbage collectors became part of the defense. Has a contract with the city.
Ordiance unless you have a contract with the borough you are not allowed to get a permit. Post admendment fair lawn alleges fraud and the contract not valid and a cross-claim seeking recovery against the Cappassos of all monies.
Cappassos were not allowed adequate time to protect their interest in the case once their co counsel changed the position. What the judge did wrong:
i. Became an advocate for the plaintiff. Questioned his own witness by calling his witnesses. ii. Added issues iii. Appointed amicus cura and talked to the plaintiffs counsel. iv. Judge did not give notice or time for the defendants to re group.
Amicus curiae appointed by the court ( not necessarly the judge)
Pg. 9 The Rule of the trial Court 3rd paragraph In red complaint of judicial conduct. 1185 9th circuit 2005 Should a lawyer advise a client to remain doing something illegal even though they fighting for this thing in court? I think the answer is no.
Rule 24 Intervention for the Capassos to intervene
Ab initio Amicus curiae Complaint Rule 8(a) Answer (Rule 8(b) (d) ) Intervention (Rule 24) Cross-claim (13 (g) ) Questions: Grand jury investigation, how does bands refuge attorney react to this investigation and what authority does the attorney have for the action that he took? RULE 15: In response to the grand jury investigation the plaintiff was allowed to enter an amendment.
Kothe v. Smith
o The judge used coercision to get the sides to settle. o Rule 16 (f) - sanctions on either party. But in this case sanctions were only on 1 side.
o Miss Coddant is examined by doctors provided by the insurance companies and they include here injuries are minor and she
will reover full use of her injured hand, miss coddant knows that her own doctors have come to the same conclusion. She starts playing tennis with the injured hand to no effects. She is insited to her attorney that she should be paid a lot of money for malpractice by dr. smith. She directs her attorney not to budge from the figure of 250000 dollars during the settlement procedures. Is such actions by her and her attorney during the negotiations are that of good faith? when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.
o good faith - is honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even
Good Faith in negotiation
Civil Procedure Page 1
Decker v. Lindsay. 824 s.w. 2d 247, 1992 Texas court of appeals.
- Here the court found that a court cannot force parties to negotiate peacefully. All the courts can do is make the parties sit
down with eachother. The court cant say that something definite has to come out.
Monroe v. Corpus Cristi. Monroe agreed to negotiate a case.236 frd Pg 320 - Look at individuals acting unreasonable in negotiations. - Rule 68
Settlement - IF the settlement accurately express the forecasts of the trials while shouldnt we want the settlement? - How can judges evaluate settlements? The judge would have to be informed by the attorneys. AGENT ORANGE CASE. PG.24 (did the judge foul in this case?)
If an insurance company and plaintiff comes to settlement for 15000 but the judge thinks its worth a lot more is it okay for him to interfere.
Federal Court Powers

Federal courts are courts of limited power and limited jurisdiction, as distinguished from general jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction can hear and decide cases that involve only certain subject matter. This limited subject-matter jurisdiction must fall within the enumerated powers of the judiciary:
Federal question: power to decide cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties
- Diplomats: power to decide cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls - Water: power to decide cases involving navigable waters - Federal party: power to decide cases in which the United States is a party
- Interstate: power to decide cases between two or more states

- Diversity: power to decide cases between citizens of different states
- Land grant: power to decide cases between citizens of the same state claiming land under the grants of different states
- Alienage: power to decide cases between - a state and a foreign state; - citizens of a state and a foreign state; - citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; or
- a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state, where the state is the initial plaintiff.
Article Three is not entirely self-executing concerning all the subject-matter over which federal courts have power.[5][6] The Congress determines, from the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what cases can be appealed to each federal court, and Article Three also describes a few rare instances where a trial can occur in the Supreme Court.
If its in federal court than there is no federal law applicable. The court must in the case use the state law to decide the issue.
DESCRIBING AND DEFINING THE DISPUTE

PLEADING
Dismiss
Defendant first says that I will assume everything in the statement is true. But giving all these facts there is still no cau se of action. There is no way relief could be granted.
GILLISPIE v. GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES (1963)

The Court held that the demurrers should stand on the basis that the plaintiff did not state any facts whatsoever constituting a cause of action, but
merely stated legal conclusions such as assault, negligence, which are established based on a pattern of facts. o The plaintiff does not necessarily need to place a lot of information in the initial complaint. However, generalities within the complaint may affect the validity of the claim. Details need to be included so that the Court may be able to find that there is no claim or that there is a claim. The Court disfavors conclusory statements, i.e. the defendant hurt me
12 (d) gives the court the right to transfer a 12 (b) (6) to a summary judgment case. (Rule 53) in order for the party to present information important
to the motion.
Conley standard set the ground for granting a 12 b 6. It was revisited by Bell Atlantic
12 (e) means that the defendant does not believe they could admit or deny these facts. Do you need any more information to admit or deny the
claim. US v. Board of harbor commissioners the defendants can do their own investigation.
UNITED STATES v. BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS (1977)

respond by admission or denial of allegations. A misuse of 12e would be a tool for the defendant to harass and hold up the proceedings for the plaintiff. The Court wants to be truly convinced that a Rule 12e filing has some chance to close the case or produce evidence that will lead to a closure of the case. Would it make a difference if the 1973 hurricane enab had come through the harbor area in august of the year questioned. And if enab had come through what response might the defendants make to the complaint based on the relevant statute in this instance?
By filing a Rule 12e motion, the defendant is essentially saying that the complaint is so vague and ambiguous that the defendant cannot
If there was a hurricane defendants could have made an affirmative defense (Rule 8(c)) , and rule 12 (b)
for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required.
the defense to a claim
So may ask government for the time frame based on the statute and answer. 12 (e) more clarification of complaints is not usually granted if a court believes you can accurately give an answer. They do not like
defendants going on fishing expeditions.
McCORMICK v. KOPMANN (1959) The Court held that although the plaintiff cannot recover on both counts, the rule does not preclude the counts from being pleaded
together. own and the facts that are found at trial will determine which count will be sustained or denied. o The Court also reasoned that sound public policy permits alternative pleading as the controversies of a case can be settled i n a single action. A plaintiff could not submit if the plaintiff should know beforehand whether one count is true or false. The defendant may also defend himself with alternative pleading, but cannot plead direct factual information which he knows to be untrue. By suing both at the same time the plaintiff increases here chances of getting recovery. If she sues separately the other could just allege that the other did it. Advantages of suing 2 parties at once: Most jurisdictions are under comparative negligence percentage designation of compensation based on %negligent. The plaintiff must have no knowledge of what exactly took place in order to sue both parties. If plaintiff knows that one of the allegations are untrue then they should not sue both parties. E.g. if the husband remembers the driver crossing the median, than you cannot make these contradictory statements.
ZUK v. EAST. PA. PSYCH. INST. of the MED. COLLEGE OF PA. (1996) The Court held that the sanctions order had to be vacated as the district court did not subdivide the sanctions between Section 1927 and Rule 11. The Court also found that the discovery process was not meant for speculative pleading and that the claimant should have some basis for bringing the claim. The attorneys signature on a court document that has been filed tells the court that there has been a reasonable legal inquiry and the claim has evidentiary support. In the copyright act: Only provides fee shifting from party to party not on attorney. Doesnt find anything against attorney.
According to Rule 8-e-2, a party may set forth two or more statements in the alternative to each other, because each count stands on its
U.S.C.A. Section 1927: before the court can order the imposition of attorneys fees under section 1927, it must find willful bad faith on the part of the
offending attorney. More weight on willfulness.
Rule 11 (b)(1): A lawyer must make an adequate inquiry into the facts. Could just be negligent. This amended rule imposes a duty on counsel to
make an inquiry into both the facts and the law which is reasonable under the circumstances. This is a more stringent standard than the original good-faith formula, and it was expected that a greater range of circumstances would trigger its violation.
- Even a prevailing party could violate rule 11; if anything frivolous in the complaint was made. - A lawyer must sign each document before presenting it to the case. He must make a reasonably inquiry
under the circumstances (if the lawyer has time). 11(b) - Note 4.b given the circumstances you should not just rely on your clients statements; you have to make a reasonable inquiry.
- The attorney does not have to take the statements of defendants as true - Rule 11 b (3) anything filled with the court must have some evidentiary support within a reasonable time. (at least until discovery). Can y ou
say in you allegations that they will be evidence once you go to discover?
- The lawyer violated 11(b) 2: Major Copyright era was that the first lawyer said that since he had a copyright for the book he also had the copyright of the film. BUT ITS
The lawyer should have found out the law before filing.
NOT THE LAW.
The lawyer could of satisfied rule 11 by saying this the case is a first impression and I am challenging
The lawyer can be wrong but must back down after finding out that he was indeed wrong. He could of pleaded differently. By saying this circuit looks at the law a certain way he errored.
the current law.
The lawyer second mistake was stating that eppi could not rent the movies because they didnt own them. Wrong. EPPI was the employee Adverse possession Ive had possession for so long that I can claim ownership or title. The court and eppi said that they had possession based
Replevin reclaim property that was wrongfully taken Rule 11 (c) 1 (safe harbor provision) plaintiff would not withdraw complaint once it was pointed out he had mad mistakes.
Civil Procedure Page 3 on this.
Rule 11 (c) 1 (safe harbor provision) plaintiff would not withdraw complaint once it was pointed out he had mad mistakes. Note 6 after the case Rule 11(c)(2) gives the party an opportunity to withdraw its wrongs to avoid sanctions. 21 days (safe harbor period). Gives you time to
look a the motion and consider what the motion was saying and refilling or not.
Assuming that the court finds that there is a violation of rule 11, is the court required to impose sanctions? No, Rule 11 (c ) says that the court
"MAY IMPOSE AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION".
Assuming that a sanction is appropriate, and a monetary sanction is appropriate is decided, who should get the penalty money?
says that the court may compel the offenders to pay to the court or to the movant party.
Rule 11 (c)(4)
MITCHELL v. ARCHIBALD & KENDALL, INC.
For any court to render a valid decision, the court needs: Personal Jurisdiction Subject Matter Jurisdiction o Diversity jurisdiction federal court has authority to hear cases involving parties from different states The federal court will apply state law in these cases The attorney must apply new legal theories; he must allege an extension to premise if he would like the court to consider it. Ramifications: Res judicata (affirmative defense) if you did it once you cant do it twice even if the first time was good. Same facts but different theory, is not allowed.
If a party wasnt to add information to their motion 12(b) 6, they must do so as a summary judgment and under Rule 56 ( 12 (d) ). Motion for summary judgment by moving party there is no dispute in material fact; so the court should just decide by law. So the
moving party is stating that the law is in my favor.
Therefore lawyer should be general. Doing a lot of fishing in discovery. Put both theories into one lawsuit to avoid res judicata. Allege as must as possible to get everything in and then go into discovery.
READ RULE 56 Motion for summary judgment stops the case after pleadings. To file 12 (e), you must not be able to ADMIT OR DENY the allegations.
Question: What if the plaintiffs lawyer had merely alleged that the attack on his client occurred on the premises and furth er alleged that the defendant should have been aware of that risk?
Res judicata = you get one shot, with all the facts and the legal theory, and put it in one plea. If you do not put all the facts and legal theory in case 1, you do not get an opportunity to do it in case 2. A plaintiff may not try a case twice with the same set of facts but with different legal theories.
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor issues & Rights, LTD .
Investors bring suit against company for fraud after the stocked dropped significantly. The plaintiffs allege that the CEO was making false statements bout the products and growth of the company. The PSLRA, permits private parties involved in buying or selling securities to bring suit against companies. The PSLRA goes a lot further than 9(b) 2, the pslra makes the plaintiff be more specific than a general statement as the 9b2 The court doesnt agree with the argument that it violates the 7th amendment right, because legislature codified the PSLRA and they have the
discretion to not make conflicting laws.
There is no historical basis to say recovery is required at a jury trial. Congress heightened the pleading PSLRA, further requires more specifics with regard to all matters unlike Rule 9(b). The legislature is saying that since fraud cases are so expensive they would like to weed some out. Note 3: What are the competing concerns about the barriers of the pleadings? Footnote 9 pg. 166. What if the pleadings could not be further proven until discovery? The plaintiff may not have the resourc es or cant know
until discovery the extra evidence needed. On the other hand it saves the court resources by shielding out baseless claims.
If we posit an enforcement of public norms is a basic feature of American litigation, is such private enforcement a good idea? Private Citizens can act as watch dogs for the public companies. E.g. fcc or sec. Note 11: In Tellabs the Court rules that the Seventh Amendment is not being compromised. The complaints dont need to be plausible but at least McDonald Douglas Plaintiffs obligation Under McDonald Douglas - Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case. Defendant - Must produce a non-discriminatory reason for the action. - Can say the defendant answered with inusft pre -test What is the standard that justice Thomas says is being applied by the Second Circuit to determine the sufficiency of plaintiffs claim? - Thomas says that it is implying an evidentiary standard to the pleadings by using the McDonnell; this standard is heightened under this rule. Should the plaintiff be required to plead sufficient facts which if proven would lead to an inference of discrimination where there is no direct evidence
only circumstantial evidence of discrimination?
ROSS v. A. H. ROBINS COMPANY The court held that there needed to be more particular statements by Ross as to the exact conduct of the defendants that constituted the
plea for fraud under Rule 9-b.
plea for fraud under Rule 9-b.

(1)" Plaintiff files a complaint on Defendant. Which if any are true? A - Def. must serve an answer within 20 days after being served with a summons and complaint True according to Rule 12-a-1-A B - Def. must file an answer within 20 days after being served with a summons and complaint False according to Rule 4C - If the Def. files a Rule 12 motion, the Def. need not serve an answer on plaintiff within 20 days after having been served wi th the complaint.
(2) " You represent def. in an action by Pla. in which Pla. claims that a Def; is guilty of intentionally tortuous behavior a gainst pl. because def. used sexually and offensive expletives to pla. In the conference room during a meeting in which 12 other office workers were in attendance. Pla. Brings claims in small claims court asking for damages in amount o 50K. Jurisdictional limit is 10K. Def. may do the following: A - Serve an answer on Pla. Where Def. makes a general denial of allegation asserted in the complaint Rule 8-b B - Serve on pla. In which Def. Makes specific denials of allegations in the complaint Rule 8-b C - Instead serving an answer def. may file a motion to have plai. Complaint dismissed. Rule 12-b-1 D - Def. Can serve an answer on Pla. In which Def. Asserts among other things that the complaint be dismissed UNDER Rule 12-b-1.
(3) Pla. Serves def. with a service of complaint by mailing it to def. at his residence. Def is outaged at the allegations m ade by Pla and the Def then files a general denial of all the allegations made by the Pla. We are now at the eve of trial and Def believes that the service by t he Pla on Def was not proper. Def believes that the Pla should have served the Def personally. If Def is correct, is there a basis for the court to dismiss th e action? And if so, what is that basis? It is correct and the court can dismiss the action under a Rule 12 -b-5 motion (Insufficiency of service of process). However, if this was not included in a motion or the responsive pleading, then according to Rule 12 -h-1-A or B, the right to a defense on insufficiency of process is thereby waived. What caused the problem in this case? What did the defendants lawyer do upon receiving the complaint? See Brief (D was late in filing answer based on misunderstanding of the deadline. D asked for a 45 day deadline extension. In the case, there is a reference by the court to thirty days within which to answer. Where does that reference come from? This reference comes from Rule 4-e-1, where it states that it is pursuant to the laws of the state. On April 12, the plaintiff requested that the clerk enter a default judgment. Could Plaintiff have obtained a default if the confirming letter had said April 29 instead of April 12? P would not have been able to file a motion under Rule 55-a and b since D had already responded and that motion is only available when D fails to plead or otherwise defend.
o Swierkiewicz v. Sorema Case: He does produce enough evidence for a prima facie case. The judge found that more specific pleadings would not be necessary. Direct evidence do not have to make an inference from it. This case allowed inference but no direct evidence. Thomas says that the prima facie case relates to the burden for plaintiffs pleadings. Standard must be short and plain statement Defendant must be able to provide an answer to the complaint. claim for which relief can be granted. 12(e). Conley standard a claim must not be dismissed unless it cannot be inferred from the pleadings.
o Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly Second Circuit: the district court did not use the right standard, there is no plus factors that should have to be pleaded. What is necessary to be pleaded. It doesnt prohibit all actions of companies. Sherman act prohibits only restraints effected by contract, combination, or conspiracy. In Bell Atlantic, says that it requires more than labels and conclusions. What does the court say would make the factual
allegations sufficient? IF you determine what it is, what does that mean (Specialized Terms)?
It doesnt replace notice pleading. Connelly is not overruled completely just a part.
SHEPARD CLAIMS SERVICE, INC. v. WILLIAM DARRAH & ASSOCIATES The court held that the Rule 55-c motion to set aside a default had to determine o (1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced; o (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and o (3) whether culpable conduct of the defendant led to the default.
On what basis will the defendants council believe that he had 30 days in which to file his answer?
Because he was following state law. For certain motions and pleadings 4 (e) says that you can use your state jurisdiction. South Carolina has different pleading rules than federal.
Where does the courts reference to 30 days to answere come from? (What do you notice about the procedural posture of the case)?
Defense thought that they had an additional 45 days to the 30 days under rule 4(e) Defense file a "motion of retention"; saying that the defendant had reatained counsel. This would stop the clerk from enter "default" for plaintiff. Plaintiff then motioned for default on defendant after the answer was overdue. Its better to confirm your extension with both parties. The defendant made an appearance with "motion to retention". Entering a default and getting a default judgment are two separate issues. Rule 55 (a) - places limits with how you can grant a default judgment by clerk. Because of an appearance by defendant ( the clerk can set aside the "retention " as appearance .
"retention " as appearance . Has to file with court instead of the clerk. After getting out of rule 55(a) for appearing. The defendant is allowed notice of the default (at least 3days). Defendant entitled to notice. (Rule 55(b)) At hearing he can protest the damages of the plaintiff. Defendant can challenge damages in default but not liability Y? court is weary on granting relief on a non trial case. The judge is then scrutinizing more of the case. Makes plainittiff prove at least a prima facie case. Rule 60 (b) - setting aside default judgment. In order to grant the default judgment the court consider three factors: 1. Whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced a) Made them do something that they would of not done b) If something happened in the meantime that the defendant didnt answer 2. Whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and a) A defense "good at law", without reference to the likelihood success. b) The plaintiff breached the contract. 3. Whether culpable conduct of the defendant let to the default. a) The lawyer was at fault not the defendant. b) Maybe defendant had to do something that was culpable. If the defendant had willfully done it than the court is very unlikely to lift the default no matter what. Rule 55 (c) is less strict with granting relief from default than Rule 60(b).
DAVID v. CROMPTON & KNOWLES CORP. (1973) A denial for insufficient knowledge will be deemed an admission if the knowledge was within the partys knowledge and control. A party must make a timely amendment so they do not prejudice the opposing party. Defendant originally admitted to allegation. But later wanted to change its pleading. Before you admit or deny in your answer you must do a really good inquiry into to the allegations. Consequences of ineffective denials Its admitted so its now fact! And truth. Defendant Crompton alleges uncertainty here. Allegations was that Crompton made the product. General Denial - you will have to deny everything. Under Rule 11 you cannot deny everything if you know you did something. You can admit some and deny others if you like. You will have to parse the language. Denial comes from the fact that the subsidiary was making and selling the product and the contract for acquisition does not hold them liable for any of the subdivisions liability. "Confesses and Avoidance" - even if the allegations are proven I have a legally valid excuse. Affirmative defense Plaintiffs allegations may have violated Rule 10(b) all averments. Note 4 pg. 211 - usually sloppy drafting of a complaint is really not that frowned upon it just requires the defendant to do more work. You dont not want to do a blanket denial or admittance because you might deny/admit something you didnt meant to. Try to deny/admit much as possible under Rule 11.
o Questions: o In this case, what is the courts basis for jurisdiction? Because the plaintiff is using a federal statute. o Are the counter-claims for slander, and abusive process based on a federal statute? No the court says such claims are between non -diverse parties, and are grounded solely is state law. o Courts speak to annsilary jurisdiction, what is the courts authority for the invocation for ansillary jurisdiction? 29 U.S.C. Section 412
o If the opposing party has a compulsory counterclaim but doesnt bring it in trial and attempts to start a new trial it may co me into the realm of res judicata ( which doesnt allow the a trial of the same situation ). WIGGLESWORTH v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 592 (1975)
The court applied the same evidence standard from Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of the US, Inc. where the compulsoriness of the claim is based on whether the evidence in two claims are significantly dissimilar to each other. If they are, the counterclaim is permissive. If they are not, the counterclaim is compulsory.
o Rule 13 - Counterclaim and CrossClaim o slander and abuse is always under state law. o Its in the US district court because of the "federal question" of the U.S.C., a federal statute. o The counterclaim is not under the federal statute, that initially gave the district court jurisdiction of the claim. The counterclaim is not
related to the statute at all regardless if the court is hearing the trial; the court must have jurisdiction of both claims not just any one of them. o 28 U.S.C.A section 1367 - subject matter jurisdiction. (Note 3) (must be compulsory) Has jurisdiction over federal questions and supplemental jurisdiction over subject matter but it has to relate to the origina l reason for the jurisdiction. The counterclaim has to arise from the same actions or occurrence of the original claim (that the court already has jurisdict ion over). (compulsory) Even though this counterclaim would usually be handled in state court the federal court could of still had jurisdiction if it was properly related.
properly related.
Ancillary (now supplemental) jurisdiction o If its not compulsory it can later be brought in another court. If it was compulsory it may be subject to res judicata. o Counterclaims are important because the courts want consistency. o What is the test for compulsory counterclaims? 13(a) o Transaction/occurrence - transaction ( is a set of occurrence); occurrence is usually a single event. o Court defines transaction - is a word of flexible meaning. It may comprehend a series of many occurences, depending not so much upon
the immediateness of their connection as upon their logical relationship. on Pg. 218 Note 2: Questions: How does the court arrive at the conclusion that the counterclaim are insufficiently logically related?
Relation Back of Amendments: - Wanda Krupski v. Costa Crociere - We were interested in what the plaintiff knew but only the mistake that was made. - Knowledge of existence and knowledge of identity are not the same statements. o The plaintiff can know the plaintiff exists but no know the relationship the defendant has to the suit. o The deliberate choice to sue one over another. When the actions of the plaintiffs are so compelling that it shows that the plaintiff made a fully informed decision. Adams v. Nelson; evidence that the only reason to add Nelson was for monetary purposes. It did not seem that Nelson was the intended party to be sued. - Focus on what the defendant knew. - Rule 17 (a) - provides that an action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party of interest.
A typical case for 13-b is this:

Case 1 = counterclaim not included Case 2 = D becomes P with the Claim not brought earlier If the counterclaim is compulsory and is not brought in case 1, then it is forever lost due to res judicata. State claims can only be brought in federal courts if the doctrine of supplemental (ancillary) jurisdiction can be invoked. Supplemental jurisdiction is when a given issue is properly before the court, then a related matter is properly before the court and there is no need to assert a n independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
If there is an action between two parties from two different states, then the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the case = Diversity jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction only applies to compulsory counterclaims. The permissive counterclaims will have to be dismissed a nd re-entered in state court. In this case, the counterclaim will be barred from future claims on this set of facts if the claim is compulsory, because sim ultaneous claims on the same evidence save time on the court. And simultaneous disposition reduces the risk of inconsistent outcomes. Same Evidence Test is under Rule 13-a.
If the statute was broad enough to include act of God, act of third party, negligence, then you A Rule 12-c motion asks the court to look at the complaint and look at the answer, and make a summary judgment on the case. The defendant wants to deny the facts stated in the complaint so as to challenge those facts and take them out of play.
Indemnification = if the D is liable to P, then a third party is liable to D basis of a cross-claim. DAVID v. CROMPTON & KNOWLES CORP. (1973)
Relevant Rules Facts
Rule 15-a (Amendments to Pleadings) Crompton (D) seeks to amend its answer to the complaint from David (P) stating that it did not have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations against them and demanded proof from P. It now wants to deny that it designed, manufactured and sold the machine in question because earlier the court ruled that its answer stating that The issue before the court is to determine whether D should have leave to amend their complaint. The Court ruled that the motion was not proper in this instance. The courts are fairly amenable to amending pleadings under Rule 15. The courts are certainly not amenable to these motions when there is undue delay, particularly when it causes prejudice to the other party, and will most likely be denied. Crompton lulled the plaintiff into believing that they had the right defendant by waiting until close to the end of the statute of limitations.
Holding Notes from Class
A denial for insufficient knowledge will be deemed an admission if the knowledge was within the partys knowledge and control. A party must make a timely amendment so they do not prejudice the opposing party.
SWARTZ v. GOLD DUST CASINO, INC. Relevant

Rule 15-b (Amendments to Conform to the Evidence)

Holding
Rule 15-b (Amendments to Conform to the Evidence)
The burden is on the party opposing the amendment to prevent it from happening. Even when there is strong prejudice, the Notes from Class preference of the court to allow an amendment is so strong that the court will even consider a continuance rather than denying the amendment. Relation back is allowed only if the new claim arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence from the original claim. It looks to Blair which found that the same conduct but violated different
Are the terms conduct, transaction, or occurrence to be viewed as broadly, narrower, or the same as in Wigglesworth. Should there be a loss of privacy because you are in a lawsuit? The defendant should know who the plaintiff is in order to test their legal standing In res judicata, further suits are barred to those persons involved in the litigation. Two initial things as a lawyer to think about before bringing a lawsuit: Where can I bring it? Can I bring the defendant into that court?
Joinder of Claims, Parties

Courts are very permissive when it comes to the joinders of claims, under Rule 18(a).
100 plaintiffs would not likely be joined to a suit against 100 police officers. It would prejudice the police officers depe nding on the culpability of individual officers. There would most likely be a lot of guilt by association. There would also be no trial convenience by joining all of these p arties in the same lawsuit.
Rule 20 is looking to produce (1) trial convenience, (2) fairness of evidence; (3) Most state laws recognize the right of associations, such as labor unions and organizations, to have a legal status, which in cludes the right to sue and to be sued, and even in some cases, to sue on behalf of its members.
ESTABLISHING THE STUCTURE AND SIZE OF THE DISPUTE

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAW STUDENTS v. WYNNE AND JAFFE Relevant Rule 10(a) Caption; Name of Parties Rules Facts
A group of women suing the firms, Wynne & Jaffe, for sex discrimination by not hiring enough women as summer law clerks and associates. Some of the plaintiffs were already attorneys who wanted to be joined as plaintiffs but did not want to reveal t heir names for fear that their colleagues and other firms would retaliate against them.
Courts have allowed plaintiffs to hide their real names only where there are issues involved that are matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature, such as birth control, abortion, homesexuality, or it regards a very private matter. In this case, t he court found that there was no evidence of these elements and thus, the plaintiffs had to reveal their actual names.
Holding
Notes from Class
The courts have came to recognized associations as single entities. In a lawsuit you will loose some privacy.
KEDRA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Relevan Rule 20 Permissive Joinder of Parties t Rules Facts
The plaintiffs are members of the Kedra family and they allege that the members of the Philadelphia Police Department illegally arrested, interrogated and beat different members of the family over the span of one and one-half years. In an action against various police invaluable officers and officials and join them together in one claim. The Police department feels that that would be prejudicial to some of the officers that were not involved in all the incidents.
Holding
The joinder of multiple parties is usually liberal because the unification of claims in a single action is more convenient and less expensive and time-consuming for the parties and the court. However, the court argued that there may be a prejudice to some officers because not all were involved in one incident that was particularly offensive. The court deferred decision on this aspect and retained the right to sever portions after discovery.
The actions of different police officers occurring at different places and under different circumstances were considered the same
Notes
Notes from Class
The actions of different police officers occurring at different places and under different circumstances were considered the same transaction because the facts showed a systematic pattern of harassment of the police department against the same family and set of individuals.
INSOLIA v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC. Relevant Rule 20 Permissive Joinder of Parties Rules Facts
The plaintiffs are suing the countrys major cigarette manufacturers for damages due to an industry-wide conspiracy to deeive consumers about the addictive, deadly characteristics of cigarettes. The defendants filed a motion to sever the claims as be ing joined improperly under Rule 20. Plaintiffs also were denied a motion to certify a class of all Wisconsin residents who had smoked for 20 years and had been diagnosed with lung cancer.
There was too much disparity between the plaintiffs to serve the proper meaning of Rule 20. The smokers smoked during different time periods in different areas and the only thing holding them together was the industry-wide conspiracy claim. Juries would not be served by hearing a lot of evidence that involved one party and not the others.
Holding
Notes from Class
Problems on page 241:

8a. The claim does arise from the same transaction linking the 8b. The plaintiffs could be joined if they could show that the manufacturer gave the salesman the script. It would change i f the claim were for breach of contract or strict liability due to defects, because then it would have nothing to do with the misrepresentations of the salesmen. 8c. We would have to find out whether the same principles of law would be involved in all the cases before the court.
Rule 19 comes into play when someone who should have been a party to the lawsuit is NOT made a party, and the moving party states that the case can not go on if this party is not joined.
JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT, INC. v. SHEPARD NILES, INC. Relevant Rules Facts Holding Notes from Class
Rule 19(a) Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication (Feasibility) Rule 19(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder Not Feasible Trial court sustained defendants Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for failure to include all parties that are indispensable to the claim for leaving out the defendants parent company. The court ruled that the parent company was not an indispensable party under Rule 19(a). Types of Lawsuits in Case: Janney v. Underwood Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas - breach of contract Janney v. Unibank US District Court tortious interference with contract Janney v. Shepherd Niles US District Court breach of contract
In every state, there is a court of general jurisdiction. This court has the authority to hear any matter that can be brought before a court. The court had to ask whether, in the absence of Underwood, complete relief can be granted to ALL parties in the suit, includi ng Janney and Shepherd Niles, under the language of Rule 19(a). Stare decisis - two courts of equal authority must follow decision of other court with substatially similar facts. If it is a lower court they must follow the precedent. Applied for routine and fairness purposes.
Preclusion doctrine - generally other parties are not excluded from
The mere possibility of a persuasive precedent should not require joinder under 19(a)1B(i). The court said that a federal decision would not effect this case.
With joint tortfeasors, they can be held jointly or severally liable, meaning that C can sue A & B or either one of them. Ru le 19(a)(2)(i) provides for a party to be joined compulsorily when there is an impediment to Underwoods interest. The court ru led against this argument that was raised by Shepherd Niles by saying: They could have intervened in the suit according to Rule 24 (Intervention) Relitigation of the issue could not occur if: o The issue in the prior adjudication was identical with the later one o There was a final judgment on the merits o The party was a party or in privity with a party in prior case o Party had full and fair opportunity to litigate
To add Underwood (PA) to Shepherd Niles (NY) with Janney (PA), you destroy diversity jurisdiction.
Janney distinguishes Acton because Acton was a co-obligee because Bachman was bound to Acton by contract, while Shepherd Niles is the one who is bound to the contract in Janney.
An interlocutory appeal is an appeal on a ruling of the court that is sought during the trial as opposed to after a decision is made. Rule 19 Questions: Diagram Rule 19. What are the necessary questions that determine whether a party is necessary and indispensable? What kind of impact is the subject of focus of Rule 19(a)(2)(ii)? Is Underwood claiming to be necessary to the suit, that in Underwoods absence, it would leave Shepherd Niles subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations. Contribution = one party says that if I am liable to another, then a third party is liable to the first party. Thus, the fir st party would only pay its fair share of the lawsuit awards. Look at Note 6 on pg. 257 Declaratory Judgment = one party sues another party to get the Court to declare a statement on the rights or give the official legal interpretation of a situation.
Have we reached the question as to whether or not Underwood is an indispensable party? What authority that you look at to make that judgment? Rule 19(b) The court uses these factors to determine if a party is indispensable To what extent a judgment rendered in the persons absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties; The extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided Whether a judgment rendered in the persons absence will be adequate Whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder Questions for LaRue How is diversity destroyed? All the plaintiffs and all the defendants should be from different states. If at least one of the plaintiffs and the defendants are from the same state, then diversity is destroyed. What is issue preclusion? When a court in one case adjudicates a situation on multiple issues and parties, res judicata precludes all the issues that were adjudicated in the first case.
Rule 14 (Third Party Practice/Impleader) Does the theory of the claim that the third party plaintiff has against the third party defendant be based on the same theory as the third party plaintiff has against the plaintiff? No.
CLARK v. ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORP. (1993)

Rule 14 (Third Party Practice) Plaintiff sued Associates for breaking his leg and his property in repossession of force of a tractor that was collateral for a loan that Associates had made to P. Clark was the repossession company. Rule 14 allows the defendant to implead a third party who may or may not be liable to the defendant for the all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the defendant. The court does not have to allow an impleader claim. Reasons the court may favor the impleader claim are: 1. efficiency of hearing the related claims together 2. avoidance of repeated suits or inconsistent judgments Reasons suggesting denial of impleader include:
Holding
Notes from Class
1. delay in seeking it 2. complication of the issues in the main action 3. potential prejudice to the plaintiff from impleading a sympathetic third party
10/20/11 Lets assume the tracker was damaged and the collateral was reduced from 100000 to 750000 during the repossession.. Can they sue the 3rd party. Rule 18(a) does allow them to even though it is unrelated to the other suit.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO. v. TASHIRE (1967)

Holding
Rule 22 and 28 U.S.C.A 1335
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge did overkill by making an injunction to allow all the cases to be tried under th e Notes from Class interpleader. The proper thing to do is to only allow those parties that want a claim to the special fund to go to the interpleader court for proceedings.
The purpose of the interpleader is to protect the stakeholder who has generally a limited thing or a sum of money not created by the stakeholders own doing and which is owed to someone who the stakeholder doesnt care who he has to pay it to, just so he doesnt have to pay it out multiple times. Why did State Farm initiate this litigation in the first place if it only protects the passengers? To save costs on the defense of the lawsuits. It could put out the initial sum of $20,000 but it did not want to pay a lot o f lawyers to defend each individual suit. Multiple Claims: Who's IN and WHY? Start with A v. B, what can B do? B v. A in action A v. B Compulsory counterclaim for B's injuries B v. C in action A v. B B impleads C alleging that b is liable to A, the c is liable to b Rule 14 B v. D in action A v. B B implead d alleging that if b is liable to a, then D is liable to b because D negligent repaired brakes of A's car, and the faulty brakes contributed to the accident. Rule 14 (a) B v. M in action A v. B B impleads M alleging that if B is liable to A, then M is liable to B Rule 14(a)
Claims in Reply to B's Claims & Other parties

With multi party claims the court will like server the claims under rule 42. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire Statutory Interpretation: The interpleader action: o Stakeholder (holding this thing but dosent own it but has possession) So the stakeholder deposits it with the court until the other parties determines who is entitled to it. o Rule 22 - the party invoking interpleader must show that there is a real risk of multiple suits against them. o State farm only deposited 20000 but said that it is only liable for that amount; they dont want to pay multiple 20000. o Under statute: Only requires adverse claimants. As long as movant says there are people out their who want it. It doesnt read to protect against multiple liability. o Here the claimants are adverse because state farm is saying that the funds are limited. This isnt really the interpleader reason for existence State farm is going on a limited fund theory. o Here this is not the usual interpleader action. State Farm wanted to be creative. Neither the rule nor the statute supports state farms position. o Note 3 Read o It is not a good example of an interpleader case but a better example of a bankruptcy case. o The court is saying this is not a substitute for the bankruptcy statute. Its not keeping with the statute or rule. Having worked through the statutory interpretation. Why does a bill of peace approach is not appropriate in these types of massive tort litigations?
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (1978)
Relevant Rules Facts Holding Notes from Rule 24 focuses on the property or transaction which is the subject of the action. It is more likely for a court to grant a motion for a party to intervene, than for a party to bring in an absent party under Rule 19 (Joinder of Persons) Class 10/24/2011 Rule 19 a B (i) is pretty much the same as Rule 24 (a) (2) except Rule 24 look to see if the existing parties adequately repr esent the interest of the party who want to intervene.
Rule 24 (Intervention) Rule 24(a) Intervention of Right
the interest of the party who want to intervene. Rule 24 - is of an absent party who want in. Rule 19 - is looking to see if the case can go forward in the absence of a party.
Natural Resources v. U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission
District Court thought that adding more parties would further complicate the case and that the interest of Kerr-McGee and AMC are being adequately represented by the United Nuclear Corporation. o The court also said that the companies didnt have a application pending. So they are not directly involved. o It suggested that they file to become "amicus curiae". They abilities would be very limited. The Court of Appeals Application of Rule 24 (a) (2) o Interest in the case: what is the case about, the nature of the suit - they want people to prepare the environmental impact statements. Did KERR have interests? Yes The court held that KERR and AMC are big companies and has interest in the outcome of the matter. It will definitely effect them. They need to acquire licenses in the future. They might have to write an environmental impact statement and the companies would have to change the way they do business. Thought district court defined "interests" way too narrow. Money-making is a valid interest. Side Note: Can public interest ever be counted: INTERVENER RIGHTS: NOTE 8 pg. 292 o The issue and the interests are just two of the factors the court must consider in allowing or disallowing the motion. o Then the court look at IMPAIR OR IMPEDE the movant's interest. How are they imparied? The stare decisis doctrine ( if d loses than kerr and amc may not be able to litigate the case again; only applies to courts in the same state. Note 3 pg. 290) Kerr and amc would have to significantly change the way they do buisness. o Then the Court must evaluate if the current parties will adequately represent the absent parties. Does the parties have a conflict of interests? If they are competitors (competitors may not be enough but also have to look at strategy)? o NOTE 5 pg. 291: o University of Michigan vs. The Students You have to look at how the issue is defined. If the issue is whether these students still stand to benefit from the decisions You have to look at the issue that is before the court and that is the deciding factor of is intervention appropriate or not. Courts did permit intervention.
An amicus curiae has no right as a party does to participate in the process, they cant call witnesses, they cant do discove ry, and they cant file motions. They also cant appeal if they dont like the verdict. Intervenors become parties and have this ri ght. The court can specify the parameters of the intervention and may not allow them to be a full party.
You must also show the inadequacy of the present parties to adequately represent their interests.
It would be better to be a Rule 24 intervenor
Rule 16 pre-trial conferences gives the judge a lot of authority. Rule 17 requires a party to have a real stake in the claim in order to bring a suit because the parties will be aggressive in litigation and it is easier to get the truth out. The court should not be giving out advisory opinions.
Class action suits turn this theory on its head. The Class Action Fairness Act was passed in 2005. It federalized the class action suits. It pitted the Bush administration along with business interests against trial lawyers, labor and civil rights groups, consumers and environmentalists. Federal courts were seen as less sympathetic to class action suits as opposed to state cour ts. Minimal diversity means that at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states. The CAFA states that there must be at least 100 members of the class. When more than one-third and less than 2-3rds are citizens of the state in which the actors Under the CAFA, the requirement in 1441 Whether the Reasons for Injunctive Relief whether an adequate legal remedy can be made without the injunction whether the court can effect a remedy without micromanaging WALTERS v. RENO (1998) Relevant Rules Facts Holding Notes from Class
It is sufficient to simply have a common allegation of wrongdoing across a class, even if some members of the class would actually have lost by themselves. Also, if all the parties are not injured within a class, the injunctive remedy can still be applied because the offending policy could possibly harm them in the future.
10-25-05 Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions Maintainable The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropr iate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole
A B-2 class action is not meant for everyone to get different amounts of money according to the 5 th Circuit. A B-2 class action requires cohesiveness between class members.
23(b)(3) When the court makes a finding that the question of fact or law common to the class predominate over questions affecting only individual members and if the class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, then it is 23(b)(3). Pertinent elements are: The interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.
DISCOVERY 10/26/2011 Rule 26(a) mandates certain disclosures, and Rule 26(b)(1) provides a broad scope of discovery. Amendments: Rule 26 (a) and 26(b)(iii) were both amended.
Rule 11 - deals with sanctions outside of discovery. Discovery has their own sanctions.
Discovery For the Defendant: D's response to P's discovery - Most lawyers are going to object to searching back to a past time You must review the documents before handing them over to determine that what the client asked for is actually delivered. - You also do not want the privileged information to be turned over. - If it might come up later, it may be good practice to turn it over now. o You do not want a judge to put sanctions on you. - If it is clearly outside the scope of the request then you do not have to produce it. Create a model/method for discovering items. Rule 34: It must be produced in order that the items were found within the files. Interrogatories: Lawyers write the answers to these. - Used to flesh out allegations in the pleadings - You can ask for an explanation from P. - You can get names of witenesses. - There is a limt on interrogatories now. No more than 25. Rule 30: Dispositions. - Main device for discovery. Absorb the most time and money. - Must know these documents in and out. - Be able to follow up on answers. - Dont ask witness any more questions once its done. - Rule 45: Hardest task: finding information from non parties. o e.g. obtaining eyesight of non party. o Rule 35: physical examinations of parties ONLY; non parties do not apply. - You might not want to bring the chart in by yourself but may want to bring in an optometrists. - If you were to bring a doctor in the dispositions that would be wrong also because the person is a non party (So no physical examinations). - Since the eyewitness isnt a party it may be hard to get her patient records from her doctor. If she was a party we could file a motion to get those documents. - RULE 23 E1A: you must supplement discovery production as you find necessary to do so.
In the Ross case assuming that ross's net worth and income are properly discoverable how would you go about getting that info ? What is the standard for whether such info is discoverable? What is discoverable under the rules: RULE 26 B1 - Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 1) RULE 401 and 402 Admissible evidence you have to look at RULES OF EVIDENCE a. Where do we look for facts of consequence in a case? The pleadings first. Compensatory damages - compensate for P's damages Punitive Damages - punishment for your actions. Based on your income. Will you be able to ask Franhe.. What grade he made in civil procedure in law school?
Will you be able to ask Franhe.. What grade he made in civil procedure in law school? What is the complaint that P is making to hear other allegations of other employees? Why is existance of complaint have a bar ing or no baring?
1. Rule 26 requires three types of disclosure: a. Initial Disclosure (required w/in 14 days after initial discovery mtg (Rule 26(f)) ) i. Names, addresses, numbers of people with info that party may use to support its claims or defenses ii. Copies or descriptions of things controlled by party that it may use to support its claims or defenses iii. Computation of damages by party and copies of materials its based on iv. Copies of insurance agreements under which an insurer b. Disclosure of Expert Testimony i. Must disclose the expert witnesses that are expected to be used at trial ii. Must be accompanied by a report stating their qualifications, opinions, and basis of opinions c. Pretrial Disclosures i. Lineup of witnesses must be submitted and any documents or exhibits 2. Discovery may be had of any matter not privileged that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. a. Information sought must be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on a claim or defense even if it is not by it self admissible.
DAVIS v. ROSS (1985)

Relevan Rule 26 Disclosure (required disclosures) Rule 34 Production of Documents t Rules Facts
Davis (P) sued Ross (D) for libel, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. P propounded discovery, seeking information on Ds net worth. D refused to divulge such information, and P moved to compel. damages are alleged, a defendants net worth is relevant as to the appropriate damage amount. However, the law recognizes the confidential nature of a persons finances. This, plus the relative ease of alleging punitives, has led to the rule that information regarding a Ds net worth may not be forcibly disclosed until a jury has decided to award punitive damages. Since the action did not reach this stage, disclosure cannot be compelled.
Holding Information on a defendants net worth may not be discovered until a verdict awarding punitive damages is made. When punitive
Notes from Class KOZLOWSKI v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. (1976) Releva nt Rules Facts
Rule 26 Discovery Rule 34 Production of Documents Kozlowski (P) was burned when a pair of pajamas purchased from Sears, Roebuck & Co. (D) caught fire. P demanded production of all reports of similar occurrences. D refused. A court ordered production. D did not comply. Upon motion, Ds default was entered. D moved to set aside the default, contending that Ds complaint indexing system was by name, not occurrence, making compliance impossibly burdensome. party from whom discovery is sought has the burden of showing some sufficient reason why discovery should not be allowed once it has been shown that the items sought are withini the scope of discovery. While burdensomeness may be a reason, it will not be so considered if it is the responding partys own actions or inaction that created the burden. Here, D employed an indexing system making compliance difficult. The indexing system was created and controlled by D. Thus, no good excuse for not mandating discovery exists.
Holding If difficulty in locating records is the fault of the party requested to produce, production will not be excused. Under Rule 34, the
Notes from Class Rule 26 (B) - Scope of Discovery - Could sears get any information about other claims of flamming pajamas o Maybe but you would have to show that the two circumstances are similar. - This is a products liability case so the focused is shifted o You have to look at the nature of the product itself. So other instances of the mishap of the product may indeed be relevant. - Merely because it is costly or time-consuming doesnt ordinarily provide sufficient reason to grant a protective order where the requested material is relevant and necessary to the discovery of the evidence. - Sears says it is an impossible task to find the requested information? Court though that this was stone walling. The court took strong measures - Sears acted arrogant. E-discovery (Zubulake) 26 (B)(2) - cost shifting analysis. What is the obligation of the party under the E-discovery
What is the obligation of the party under the E-discovery At the very beginning of trial the lawyer needs to send a letter to the client to not destroy any information o May not need to preserve all but the advice is to just STOP IT ALL o Scope of preservation: once a party detects possible litigation then you should stop destroying If not preserved: o You may get sanctions or Striking of your pleading UBS had destroyed documents here and Zubulake could not prove that the destroyed information was relevant. UBS still had to pay Zubulake for re disposition of employees who destroyed info o This is a sanction cost. The jury would have to decide whether the deleted docs were relevant and would have helped case. The jury is asked should a negative inference be drawn? What is meant by preservation of document? All back up material should be stored in a safe place. You have to emphasized the importance to the client. The respondant party has the obligation to produce the information even for e-discovery. This is fundamental. Cost shift analysis 7 factors: o (1) Scope of discovery: Very broad. Party may obtain discovery regarding any nonpriviledged matter that is relevant to any partys' claim or defense.
3. Work product of lawyers and others in anticipation of litigation is discoverable only where there is (1) substantial need or (2) to avoid undue hardship in obtaining materials a. This rule applies also to the opinions of experts who are retained in anticipation of litigation but who are not expected to testify at trial. HICKMAN v. TAYLOR (1947) Releva nt Rules Facts
Rule 26(b)(3) Provisions of Discovery Trial preparation materials Rule 26(b)(4) Trial preparation: experts Ds are tug boat owners whose ship while towing a railroad car sank after an unusual accident. 5 of 9 crew members survived. The tug boat owners hired a firm to prepare for litigation from the survivors and to possibly sue the railroad company. The lawy er, Fortenbaugh, privately interviewed the survivors and received signed statements from each. The opposing side requested production of the transcripts and the statements of those interviews. Fortenbaugh refused. The District Court held them in contempt of court and had them imprisoned. The appellate court reversed this decision, by calling those documents the work product of the lawyer and hence was privileged information. There must be a showing of substantial need for the information and a showing that there is no other way for the lawyer to receive the requested information.
Holdin g Notes from Class
The crewmembers are clearly not the client. Only physical and mental examinations would the party have to prove a "need" for the information requested. Under Rule 26(e) - if there was an interagotory of the information then the lawyer must hand over the information. According to Hickman:If we had the statements by an insurance instructor then it may be possible to have those statements in! Rule 26(B)(3) Statements by others besides lawyers are not privilege information. Q: would the above rule provide Fortubenball any basis for refusing in his disposition to answere question about what he reca lls in his interviews with the witensses. You can dispose a lawyer Yes, Under Rule 26 b 3 - the opposing party would have to show that they would not be able to obtain information by other means. - Circumstances (preparation of his litigation); he was representing his company in anticipation of litigation. o So since it is a work product of the attorney then no need to present discovery. - 26 b 3(a) contain only documents and tangible materials. Rule 26 C - previous statements What needs to be shown to get work product? - Needs to be shown that the work product is not strategy but opinion. UPJOHN CO. v. UNITED STATES (1981) Relevant Rule 26 Provisions of Discovery Rules Facts
In January 1976, independent accountants conducting an audit of one of Upjohns (D) foreign subsidiaries discovered that the subsidiary made payments to, or for the benefit of, foreign government officials in order to secure government business. The accountants so informed Thomas, Ds general counsel, who subsequently undertook an internal investigation of these activities. As part of th is investigation, Ds attorneys prepared a questionnaire, which was sent to all foreign general and area managers,
As part of th is investigation, Ds attorneys prepared a questionnaire, which was sent to all foreign general and area managers, regarding the alleged payments. In March, D voluntarily submitted a preliminary report to the SEC disclosing certain questionable payments. After a copy of the report was sent to the IRS, the Service issued a summons demanding production of all files relative to the investigation. D declined to produce the documents specified in the summons on the grounds that they were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and constituted the work product of attorneys prepared in anticipation of litigation. After the Government (P) filed a petition seeking enforcement of the summons, the court of appeals held that only senior management personnel were protected by the privilege. D appealed, contending that the privilege applied to all corporate personnel who answered the questionnaire.
Holding
The attorney-client privilege may be applied to communications between all corporate employees and corporate counsel. The privilege exists to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice. Middle- and lower-level employees can, by actions within the scope of their employment, embroil the corporation in serious legal difficulties, and it is only natural that these employees would have the relevant information needed by corporate counsel if he is adequately to advise the client with respect to such actual or potential difficulties. The control group test adopted by the court of appeals frustrates the very purpose of the privilege by discouraging the communication of relevant information by employees of the client to attorneys seeking to render legal advice to the client corporation. Here, because the privilege doesnt protect the disclosure of the underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney, P was free to question the employees who communicated with Thomas as a means of conducting discovery. Concurrence: As a general rule, a communication is privileged at least when, as here, an employee or former employee speaks at the direction of the management with an attorney regarding conduct or proposed conduct within the scope of employment.
Notes from Class Whether result by lawyers is part of the discoverable part of the case? - In Hickman, there was little risk that the witnesses would be subject to prosecution. Here some of them may be subject to litigation so its a little more controversy. - We are focused on who is in the attorney-client privileged and the work product (what is it)? - The court attempted to retain priviledeged to only the control group but the S.C. rejects that reasoning. o You may have to go outside the control group to get essential materials. - The court is trying to protect the open communication between the client and lawyer. o Client has to trust the lawyer that he want say anything so that the case can be prepared properly. Different theory: Why dont we parse the communication and attached privileges to parts of it? - May compromise the clients trust with the lawyer - Making the determination of the communication may be difficult to do. Primary concern of the court seems to be that of the lawyers choice. Employees may not want to fully disclose because they ma y get subjected to litigation. Facts themselves may be discoverable but the communication between the lawyer is. (Pg. 404. indented paragraph) - So would have to distinguish between facts and communication. Regular employees outside the control group? Should it be privileged? - The information is needed to give good legal advice? - Does it concern matters inside the scope of the employee's duty? - The employees should understand that the communication would be confiential - Is the information only available from lower employees? Former employees covered? May be difficult based on above factors. Present employee seem to be privileged but doesnt say that is never discoverable. Q: you are in a disposition and you ask a question, opponents tell them not to answer. No privileged asserted and the opponen t doesnt raise any valid objection to the question. Do you have a right to seek sanctions against the lawyer for having direct ed the witness not to answer the question?
If you feel your question wasnt answered you can move to get more info. RULE 37 a 1: yes, if there is a court order. Incomplete responses Rule 37 b: you cant go straight to the court you have to move for sanctions. But first you must have an order from the court instructing the witness to answer. TO be sanctioned you must do something very our of the ordinary. The court must meet with the opposing counsel before bringing anything to the court. The must try and make an agreement (conference) The court (majestry is assigned for discovery) really dont like the discovery rules. Rule 26 G 3 - mandatory sanctions. Read with Rule 11 Be appropriate to offense For severe sanctions your actions must be severe (hard threshold to reach)
For severe sanctions your actions must be severe (hard threshold to reach)
CORLEY v. ROSEWOOD CARE CENTER, INC. (1998)

Relevant Rule 26(b)(3)(B) Trial Preparation: Materials (Stenographic or other recordings) Rules Facts
Corley (P) had been conducting interviews with non-party witnesses under oath and with a court reporter present. The witnesses evidently participate voluntarily in this activity. When Rosewood (D) found out, it persuaded the district court to grant a protective order requiring P to give notice of these sessions as though they were depositions. The appellate court held that this order was wrong. A party may take depositions with non-party witnesses and court reporters without the other parties knowledge when those depositions are not in compliance with Rule 30(b) because they did not notify the other party. However, this preclusion from admission in the trial does not also preclude the entitlement of P to take them. The Supreme Court has long recognized that as part of his investigation and trial preparation, counsel may choose to take sworn statements from individual having knowledge of the claims or defenses at issue. The rules do not prohibit this technique; they are only concerned with whether the statements are discoverable.
Holding
Notes from Class 4. a. b. c. Oral and/or written depositions are allowed under Rule 30 It may be used at trial in lieu of deponents appearance as a witness Parties cannot take more than 10 depositions or depose the same one twice Rule 31 allows written questions to witnesses
5. Rule 33 provides for written interrogatories to other parties a. Written answers are required and must respond with known or available facts. b. Limit is 25 interrogatories including sub-parts 6. Rule 34 provides for the production of physical material or entry on land for discovery. 7. Rule 35 provides for an independent physical or mental examination of a party a. Must be ordered by the court on showing of good cause. b. The partys physical or mental condition must be in controversy. 8. Requests for Admission under Rule 36 allow a party to make another party admit or deny the truth of any matter or document described in the request. a. The served party can object with a valid reason for not answering. PURPOSE OF PRE-TRIAL DEPOSITION In contrast to the pretrial interview with prospective witnesses, a deposition serves an entirely different purpose, which is to perpetuate testimony, to have it available for use or confrontation at the trial, or to have the witness committed to a specific representation for such facts as he might present.; It is the common experience of counsel at the trial bar that a potential witness, upon reflection, will often change, modify or expand upon his original statement and that a second or third interview will be productive of greater accuracy.
IBM v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1975)

Enforcing The Discovery Rules - Sanctions
CINE FORTY-SECOND ST. THEATRE CORP. v. ALLIED ARTISTS PICTURE CORP. (1979) Relevant Rule 37 Sanctions in Discovery Further sanctions 32 Rules Facts
Cine (P) brought an action charging Allied (D) and others operating competing movie theatres with engaging in a conspiracy wi th motion picture distributors to cut off its access to first-run, quality films. It sought treble damages under the antitrust laws and injunctive relief. D proposed interrogatories on the issue of damages, which P repeatedly failed to answer adequately or on time, although given several extensions. Finally, the magistrate held that P acted willfully in not complying with the courts ord ers concerning discovery as to the issue of damages and precluded P from introducing evidence on that issue. This effectively amounted to a dismissal of the damage claim, leaving only the claim for injunctive relief. The district judge, to whom the o rder was submitted for approval, felt P had been grossly negligent and no more and that this was insufficient to impose the severe st sanctions of Rule 37. Being unsure of the law, however, he certified an interlocutory appeal on his own motion.
A grossly negligent failure to obey an order compelling discovery is sufficient to justify the severest disciplinary measures available under Rule 37. Negligent, no less than intentional, wrongs are fit subjects for general deterrence. Gross professional incompetence no less than deliberate tactical intransigence may be responsible for the interminable delays and costs which plague modern complex lawsui ts. In fact, P has, by its gross negligence, frozen this litigation in the discovery phase for nearly four years. There is simpl y no reason to avoid imposing harsh sanctions in such a situation.
Holding
Concurrence: An unknowing client should not pay for the sins of his counsel.
Concurrence: An unknowing client should not pay for the sins of his counsel.
Notes from Class 11/7/2011
you have to be really doing something intentionally to get these sanctions.
Sanctions on party or attorney? More likely to impose on attorney not party. Did the party tell the attorney to do this? What is the attorney's prior bad behavior? Did the party claim have merit? Overview: Information is very broad. Not everything thats discovered has to be admissible in court.
The lawyer is not required to produce what the document request does not request. If something is embarrassing, it is almost certain that whatever is embarrassing will be produced at some point, and so it is better to produce it early.
Assume that this is properly discoverable, how would you go about trying to get that information? What is the judges reasoning in the Davis case about New Yorks answer to the question about providing financial information ?
Rule
Would the ruling in Hickman have provided any protection, had the statements in the case been taken by an insurance adjuster?
CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Summary Judgment and DV/JNOV)

Beyond reasonable doubt is for criminal proceedings not for civil cases. RULE 56 Is there enough information in the findings to give rise to a conflict in facts? The state of mind ( if element of the claim or issue) of def/pl is for the jury to decide. o The state of mind will overcome summary judgment. o Jury questions. Moving party has the ultimate burden of persuasion. You then have to show that there is no triable issue of fact. If the no nmovant stands pat based on your evidence, then you win. That consequence shifts the burden on the non -movant for production of triable issues of fact. If the judge decides that there is a triable issue of fact, then the motion for SJ must be denied . If there is none, then the motion must be entered.
Burden Shifting:
ADICKES v. S.H. KRESS & CO. (1970) Relevan Rule 56 Summary Judgment t Rules
Facts
Adickes (P) was refused service at a restaurant owned by S.H. Kress & Co. (D) and arrested for loitering. She then brought a n action seeking damages under 1983, alleging a conspiracy between D and the police. There was testimony from Ds employees that there was no communication with the police, which would have been required for the state action portion of 1983. Whe n P could not show that police had earlier been present or notified, D moved for summary judgment. This was granted and affirmed on appeal. P appealed to the Supreme Court.
Holding In an action based on conspiracy, summary judgment may not be granted unless a D can show that no evidence thereof exists.
In a motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving party to affirmatively show the absence of a genuine issue as t o any material fact. The fact that the burden would be on the other party on the same fact at trial is of no matter. Here, wh ile at trial, P would have to prove the presence of police earlier in the day; at the summary judgment leel, the burden was on D to prove they were not.
Notes from Class - Has to prove conspiracy among police officers.
Has to prove conspiracy among police officers. Has 2 burdens: Burden of proof to go further and burden of proof SJ is not just brought by the D, the P can also bring it. SJ is not so easily granted. Issue has Kress has made a sufficient showing in its papers that entitles it to a judgment without an objection from P? o The moving party
Plaintiff concerns: - When SJ if filed P would have to put on some evidence. - The trial is only for the dispute in facts. The SJ is saying that there is no facts in dispute so there is no need for a trial. The opposser is saying that there is and they could prove it. - P would have to put on evidence before trial in the presence of the SJ. - P dont like because something can come up later and they want to go to the jury. o Keeping the case alive may get a settlement. CELOTEX CORP. v. CATRETT (1986) Relevan Rule 56 Summary Judgment t Rules
Facts
Catretts (P) husband died, and she sued several asbestos manufacturers, claiming the death resulted from exposure to their products. D, one of the manufacturers, moved for summary judgment on the basis that no evidence existed that the decedent had been exposed to Ds products. The district court granted the motion, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that D h ad not offered sufficient evidence to rebut Ps allegations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Summary judgment must be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his case and on which he has the burden of proof. P had the burden of showing that D had some level of culpability in order to go forward on her claim. She thus bore the burd en of proof on this issue. Her failure to meet this burden and thus establish a genuine issue of material fact justified entry of summary judgment.
Holding
Notes from Class
The court rejected Ps argument that D had to offer affirmative evidence disproving that her husband was exposed to Ds asbestos. In its view, the movant, as a party who would not bear the burden of proof at trial, could meet its burden on summary judgment by either: 1. Pointing to the deficiencies in the non-movants proof, or; 2. Offering affirmative evidence to negate an essential element of the non-movants case. An affirmative showing is not required and is easier to shift the burden of production to the non-movant.
What must the moving party must show in order to move for summary judgment if the manufacture gave a list of all the sites where they gave materials? The P would have to show that descendant was at one of the sites. After the interrogatories, can the moving party then just say " the p has no evidence"? - The moving party may point to documents of where the descendant worked to see if it matches any of the sites that the manufactured had its product. So it may have to insert an assertion. - Probably could not just say the plain statement "plaintiff cannot prove her case". White says on pg. 445 (it is not enough for the moving party to rely on a conclusory insertion). - May have to further point out the insertion (footnote 2: pg. 446). May need to attach an affidavit showing the sites where the product is and where the descendant worked. Last sentence: if there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference in the nonmoving party's favor may be drawn, the moving party simply cannot obtain summary judgment. Summary judgment - no material fact question of fact exists. You could attach an affidavit with the motion for summary judgment. - must be of competent witnesses ( direct knowledge of what happened not - Moving party must prove there is no dispute to the material fact. - These additional documents has to be admissible at trial. The moving party is saying that there is no dispute in facts so there is no need for the trial. The non moving party can file a 56 (d) request for discovery in light of the moving party's motion for summary judgment. Have to show that they would be able to produce something if granted. The non moving party would have to tip everything that it has in its case. (Main reason to make the summary judgment motion - even if you lose the motion.) Rule 11 - the moving party must show that it did a reasonable investigation into the issue before filing the summary judgment. Rule 56 (c) Does it matter whether the letter itself is admissable at trial??? Yes, the affidivat submitted must have been admissable at trial. - From my personal knowledge or business records. IT CANT BE A LETTER FROM THE CEO STATING WHAT OTHER EMPLOYERS Said. - IF its just hear say than it is not admissible!! - The letter doesnt matter because the CEO CAN BE CALLED AS A WITNESS. - In order to overcome summary judgment then there must be presented an issue between the facts of the party. BURDEN OF PRODUCTION:
DYER v. MacDOUGALL (1952) Relevant Rules Facts

Rule 56 Summary Judgment P alleges that MacDougall (D) made libelous and slanderous comments about P. He alleged that D had said You are stabbing me in the back. The 2nd count alleged that D had written a letter to Hope and that he had said to Almirall that a blackmailing letter was sent to the QB Corp. The 4th count alleged that Ds wife had sid to Hope that P had written and sent out a blackmailing letter. However, D, Ds wife, Almirall, and Hope unequivocally denied the committing or the hearing of the utterance of the slanders attributed to him or her. D motioned for summary judgment and the court offered P the chance to take new depositions but P refused. Court then sustained the summary judgment on the counts that the Ds had denied. The plaintiff cannot survive a motion for summary judgment when he has no evidence to sustain his claim based on claims that he makes that are denied by the very persons he claims made the claims originally. Even though there might be a possibility that the plaintiff could extract contradictory testimony from the witnesses when they are in front of a judge, the P is in no position to invoke this possibility because he has refused to try out these witnesses upon deposition. Judge Hand argues that the D and the other witnesses could evaluate the credibility of these witnesses at trial and find that their denials in the depositions were false. However, he still held for the defendants because there would be unreviewability of a directed verdict by the appeals court because the demeanor that caused the jury to lose faith in the witness could not be reviewed. Thus, that defense could not be used to deny the motion for SJ.
Holding Notes from Class
Courts will not decide anything about credibility. Credibility Issues are fact questions for the jury and will overcome summary judgment.
If all witnesses say they same story: - If the witnesses all say one thing, you can dispose them before trial and try and get them to contradict themselves. So you can possibly show a discprency which would have to go to a jury to decide. - If they say one thing in affidavit and one thing in dispositions they may be able to overcome summary judgment as well. Celetex
Note 10:
Summary Judgment Problem: The non moving party must rebute what the moving party said exactly. Tera and Della said they saw her use drugs. The non moving party witnesses didnt go to what her friends saw at the party. Should have got some people from the party to testify that she wasnt using drugs there. Could have put evidence that there wasnt any party.
DIRECTED VERDICTS: GALLOWAY v. U.S. (1943) Releva Rule 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law nt Rules Facts
Galloway (P) served in World War I. During his stay in Europe, he demonstrated several episodes of bizarre behavior. Upon his return, his behavior became increasingly erratic. By 1930, he was diagnosed as psychotic and was put under the care of a guardian (whom he later married). In 1934, he filed a claim for military disability benefits. To qualify therefore, he had to have been mentally ill no later than 1919. His claim was denied, and he filed an action to obtain the benefits. At trial, he introduced virtually no evidence of his condition from 1923 to 1930. The trial court, finding that the lack of evidence for the period made an insufficient showing of mental disability, ordered a directed verdict for the Government (D). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review. A directed verdict does not violate the Seventh Amendment. The Amendment preserves the right to jury trial in common law actions. However, the power of juries over the factual issues of a civil action had never been absolute. Further, at different times in the history of the common law, courts had exercised different levels of control over juries. It appears that the true purpose of the Seventh Amendment was to preserve the jury trial as a basic institution and to preserve its most fundamental elements. Judicial control by such procedural mechanisms as the directed verdict is permitted, when appropriate. Here, the evidence presented by P had such large gaps that any award in his favor could only have been based on speculation, an impermissible basis. Affirmed. Dissent: The founders of our government thought that trial by jury was an essential bulwark of liberty. The language of the Seventh Amendment is clear, and the concept of the directed verdict constitutes an improper departure from the Amendment.
Holdin g
Notes from Class
DV -
DV - After pleadings and discovery. After plaintiffs case. - Sometimes delayed to after the case because they want the juries decision. - Your saying that the non moving party has not put on the evidence to prove its case. - Usually Def. - If the D has the burden of proof (affirmative defense) then the Pl can bring this motion
JNOV - After the jury has given its verdict the judge disregards it. - Only available to party who made DV after the plaintiff case. - If you dont make the DV motion you cannot make the motion for DV. o Applied strictly - Can be seen as a renew to the early motion of DV
The directed verdict is more likely to come up on appeal. - If you have a dv and then appealed you might have to go to a new trial
JNOV you wont need a new trial. Because you will have to reinstate the jury's verdict.
What are the 5 motions used to decide civil cases, DV an JNOV are the last group in the series of motions before trial. Motion on the pleadings, summary judgment, motion to dismiss
Rule 50(a) provided, prior to its 1991 amendments, direct verdict (sought before the case is sent to the jury) and judgment n.o.v., judgment notwithstanding the verdict (sought after the jurys verdict). After the amendment, it is now known as judgment as a matter of law. - Must give the non moving party the benefit of any valid inferences.
Galloway v. United States - Directed Verdict case.

LAVENDER v. KURN (1946) Releva Rule 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law nt Rules Facts
Lavender (P), as administrator of the estate of Haney, sued Kurn (D), as representative of the St. Louis -San Francisco Railway Co. (D) and the Illinois Central Railroad (D), under the Federal Employers Liability Act. Haney died from head injuries suffere d on his job while working as a switch-tender for D. At trial, P attempted to prove that Haney had been killed by a mail hook protruding from a moving train (i.e., negligence). This theory depended upon the jurys finding that Haney was standing exactly at one certain spot on a mound near the tracks so that the hook would have hit him at exactly 63 inches above the ground. Ds defense wa s that Haney was murdered. The jury entered judgment for Haney. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the jury, stating, it would be mere speculation and conjecture to say that Haney was struck by the mail hook, and such was not suffic ient to sustain a verdict. P appealed.
Holdin An appellate court may not reverse a jury verdict as erroneous merely because the jury may have engaged in speculation and conjecture in reaching its verdict. An appellate courts function in reviewing a jury verdict is exhausted as soon as it de termines g
that there is an evidentiary basis for the jurys verdict, and only when it finds a complete absence of probative facts to su pport a verdict may the court reverse it as clearly erroneous. The jury is free to discard or disbelieve whatever facts are inconsis tent with its conclusion. Whenever facts are in dispute or evidence is such that fair -minded men might draw different inferences, a measure of speculation and conjecture is required on the part of the jury, whose duty it is to choose the most reasonable inference. The appellate court was unjustified in reversing on such grounds. The judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court is reversed.
Notes from Class GUENTHER v. ARMSTRON RUBBER CO. (1969) Releva nt Rules Facts
Rule 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law
Guenther (P), a mechanic, was injured when a tire allegedly manufactured by Armstrong Rubber Co., Inc. (D) exploded. He file d a personal injury claim. At trial, disagreement arose between P and his expert as to the identity of the allegedly offending t ire. The trial court entered a defense award, based on a failure to authenticate the tire. P appealed. jurys function to decide whether a proffered piece of evidence is that which it is claimed to be. Here, dispute exists as t o whether the tire offered as evidence was in fact the same one that injured the plaintiff. This was an issue the jury could consider. Reversed. P, in support of his offer of proof, noted that 80% - 85% of the tires sold at the store at which he was hurt were manufactured by D. The court rejected this as a basis for authentication. Any conclusion based on this, said the court, wou ld be speculation.
Holding Whether or not a crucial piece of evidence is authentic is a jury issue. Where an issue of fact as to authentication exists, it is the
Notes from
from Class
CHAPTER 9: JURISDICTION
MASS V. PERRY (850 through 864)
Appellant claims that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (Rule 12 h(3) - at anytime the party can raise this motion) Rule 12 h(1) - some defenses must be raised in a pre answer motion or answer. o Subject matter jurisdiction is not one of the excluded answers. If the court lacks jurisdiction they must dismiss and the statute of limitation may have run out!!! So the impact of this decision would be great. Plaintiff would be greatly effected. DOMICILE: New Domicile is established in two ways: physically established in geographical boundaries of state and intention to stay there. Domicile is where you wish to return. Residence is different from domicile. Residence is just where you are staying now. 28 US Statute section 1332 was amended to provide that "an alien admitted to the US for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the state in which such alien is domiciled." Under 28 U.S. Section 1332 - there must be "complete diversity." How long do you have to stay in a place for it to be your domicile? Indications: does she have a La. Drivers license? Etc.? She would have to have a new domicile in order to replace another. She is physically in louisiana but does not intend to stay there. This domicile rule relies on the testimony of the parties. Note 4: 3 applications of "The domicile test". The husband and wife could have different domiciles even though they under the same ruff. For the Jurisdictional Amount: As long as the amount in claimed in "good faith". The court will look at
97 - 98 26, 500 from (98-99) So Res judicata comes into play that they cannot bring in 97-98 66k so the D will probably raise 12 b(1) to dismiss based on jurisidiction amount being less than 75000 or 50000. The affirmative defense must be raised in answer by D! 12 b(1) can be raised at any time - the court could raise the motion if defense counsel haven't.
Diversity
Personal Jurisdiction - is one of the waivable defenses that you have to bring up in the beginning or lose it. Unlike subject matter jurisdiction. - Federal judges are arguing that they are being burdened by too many state cases so they subject matter jurisdiction to make sure they are absolutely certain that they have to take the case. - In federal court one judge hears all matters on a case; In a state system they may have judges for motions and then different judges for the trial and so on. When a case is in court for diversity then what is the applicable law? - The court is sitting as if it was a state court. But then it has to decide which substantive law of which state must - The CASINO CASE (From Contracts) - action took place is NJ but people are from PA and case was brought in PA. - Every law has their own conflict of law rules. o That rule would tell which law is controlling. May be where it took place or where they are from. o But the conflict of law rules may be different for each state which makes things more complicated. The rules of the state may not be in a book but from other decisions. o Still applying federal rules of law though.
`PENNOYER v. NEFF (1877) Relevant Rules Facts

Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Neff (P) owned real property in Oregon. Mitchell brought suit in Oregon against P to recover legal fees allegedly owed him. P, a nonresident, was served by publication, and Mitchell obtained a default judgment when P did not show for court. The court ordered Ps land sold at a sheriffs sale to satisfy the judgment. Pennoyer (D) purchased the property. P subsequently learned of the sale and brought suit in Oregon to recover possession of his property. P alleged that the court ordering the sale had never acquired in personam jurisdiction over him. Therefore, the court could not adjudicate the personal rights and obligations between P and Mitchell, and the default judgment had been improperly entered.
Holding
Service by publication against a nonresident is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon that person in an action that involves the adjudication of personal rights and obligations of the parties. Every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. Following from this, no state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over
persons and property within its territory. Following from this, no state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property outside of its territory. These are two well-established principles of public law respecting the jurisdiction of an independent state over persons and property. However, the exercise of jurisdiction which every state possesses over persons and property within it will often affect persons and property outside of it. A state may compel persons domiciled within it to execute, in pursuance of their contracts respecting property situated elsewhere, instruments transferring title. Likewise, a state may subject property situated within it which is owned by nonresidents to the payment of the demands of its own citizens. Substituted service by publication or by other authorized means may be sufficient to inform the parties of the proceedings where the property is borught under the control of the court or where the judgment is sought as a means of reaching such property or effectuationg some interest therein. That is, such service is effectual in proceedings in rem. The law assumes that property is always in the possession of its owner or an agent. It proceeds upon the theory that a seizure of the property will inform the owner that he must look to any proceedings upon such seizure for the propertys condemnation or sale. But where the entire object of the action is to determine personal rights and obligations, the action is in personam and service by publication is ineffectual to confer jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant upon the court. Process sent out of state to a nonresident is equally ineffective to confer personal jurisdiction. In an action to determine a defendants personal liability, he must be brought within the courts jurisdiction by service of process within the state or by his voluntary appearance. Without jurisdiction, due process requirements are not satisfied. In the case herein, P was not personally served, and he never appeared. Hence, the personal judgment obtained against P was not valid, and the property could not be sold.
Notes from Class In personam jurisdiction = where a defendant is made personally liable. In rem jurisdiction = where a defendants property is focused on and permits the court to dispose of the property in accordance with the outcome of the litigation. The Shift to Minimum Contacts:
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v. WASHINGTON (1945)

Relevant Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Rules Facts
A Washington statute set up a scheme of unemployment compensation which required contributions by employers. The statute authorized the commissioner, Washington (P), to issue an order and notice of assessment of delinquent contributions by mailing the notice to nonresident employers. International (D), a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Missouri, employed 11 to 13 salespersons under the supervision of managers in Missouri. These salespeople resided in Washington and did most of their work there. They had no authority to enter into contracts or make collections. D did not have any office in Washington and made no contracts there. Notice of assessment was served upon one of Ds Washington salespersons, and a copy of the notice was sent by registered mail to Ds Missouri address. For a state to subject a nonresident defendant to in personam jurisdiction, due process does require only that he have certain minimum contacts with it, such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend notions of fair play and substantial justice. Historically, the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on their power over the defendants person, and his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was necessary to a valid judgment. But now, due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he is not present within the territorial jurisdiction, he have certain minimum contacts with the territory such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The contacts must be such as to make it reasonable, in the context of our federal system, to require a defendant corporation to defend the suit brought there. An estimate of the inconveniences which would result to the corporation from a trial away from its home is relevant. To require a corporation to defend a suit away from home where its contact has been casual or isolated activities has been thought to lay too unreasonable a burden on it. However, even single or occasional acts may, because of their nature, quality, and circumstances, be deemed sufficient to render a corporation liable to suit. Hence, the criteria to determine whether jurisdiction is justified is not simply mechanical or quantitative. Satisfaction of due process depends on the quality and nature of the activity in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the laws. In this case, Ds activities were neither irregular nor casual. Rather, they were systematic and continuous. The obligation sued upon here arose out of these activities. They were sufficient to establish sufficient contacts or ties to make it reasonable to permit P to enforce the obligations D incurred there.
Holding
DISSENT: The U.S. Constitution leaves to each state the power to tax and to open the doors of its courts for its citizens to sue corporations who do business in the state. It is a judicial deprivation to condition the exercise of this power on this Courts notion of fair play.
Notes from Class What is internations shoe's argument against the asserition of jurisdiction over intereactional shoe based on Pyner v. Ness How does the court resond to Intenation shoe argument in reagard to Pyner v. Ness.
Minimum Contacts Test = a concept that a nonresident defendant who voluntarily maintains continuous, systematic relations or a single relation, that is significant due to its quality or nature, within a state should expect to be tried in that state. This onl y applies when the defendant is being sued on claims arising from those same contacts.
Factors in determinng whether personal jurisdiction over is fair o Number/volume of contacts has had w/ forum states o Degree to which activities of have been systematic/continuous
o o o o o o o o
Degree to which activities of have been systematic/continuous What it the states interest in regulating conduct? What is the states interest in opening its courts to its residents? The balance of conveniences what is the inconvenience of having come to forum state v. going to Location of the witnesses and evidence Relation between contacts and the claim Whether derives benefits from contact with the state.(monetary, legal) Whether could foresee that a lawsuit might arise in forum state. If so, then it is fair to require to come.
Genereal In Personam Jurisdiction = when a defendants contacts are very substantial, then the defendant may be sued in the state for any claim, even those unrelated to its in -state activities.
Specific Jurisdiction = jurisdiction over claims arising out of the minimum contacts.
Purposeful Availment = the concept under jurisdiction where a court decides whether a defendant deliberately chose to relate to the state in a meaningful way. Stream of Commerce = courts are split as to whether the mere awareness of a companys goods being sold in the forum state suffice to prove minimum contacts. Some would say that the maker foresees and knowingly benefits from such sales in forum states. Othe rs would say that it is not sufficient for purposeful availment.
JURISDICTION FACTORS The defendants in-state contacts o (the extent of these must be weighed and approved 1 st) o Was there purposeful availment by the defendant in the state? Interest of the forum state in providing redress to its citizens Interest of the plaintiff in obtaining relief in a convenient forum Interest of the states in enforcing their substantive law or policy Extent of the inconvenience to the defendant if forced to defend away from home o These factors are weighed against the courts notion of fair play and substantial justice.
Requiring a corporation to defend a suit away from home where its contact has been causal or isolated activities has been tho ught to lay too much of an unreasonable burden on it. However, single or occasional acts may by their nature, quality, and circumstances, be deemed sufficient to render a corporation liable to suit.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Guidelines in Applying Minimum Contacts: Minimum Contacts Test applies to individual as well as corporate s. The limitations on personal jurisdiction found in long -arm statutes are distinct from the constitutional limit imposed by the test. A may have sufficient contacts with a state to support minimum contacts jurisdiction there even though she did not act w/in the state. Minimum contacts analysis focuses on the time when the acted, not the time of the lawsuit. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTs Due Process Clause: Forbids the states from depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. States would violate this guarantee if its courts entered judgments against s w/out following a fair judicial procedure. This includes traditional elements such as: i. Right to counsel ii. Cross examination of witnesses iii. Appropriate limits on jurisdiction for lawsuits.
Long arm statues - states impression of that state intentions of how to execute on what the supreme court said it can do. The state can use the full extent of the supreme court or (califorina). The state can limit what the supreme court has entitled it to use. New York - if you commit something that causes a conflict in this state. Than you are liable for that tort in this state.
Grey Case: After Doing the statute analysis - does the state intend jurisdiction? Then does the constitution allows the exercise of the jurisdiction with the facts of the case; with what the court say (inter national shoe); we are looking at the same facts.
Exam Question: If the state has already exercised jurisdiction when then only have to look to whether it is constitutional. Exam 2 Question: Does the state have jurisdiction based on its long arm statue? Do this anlaysis See if the state jurisdiction is constitutional.
WWW Volkwasgon, Burger King, Asai
McGEE v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. (1957)

Franklin, a resident of CA, purchased a life insurance policy from EM Insurance in 1944. In 1948, EM agreed with respondent for the R to assume its insurance obligations. Respondent then mailed a reinsurance certificate to Franklin in CA to offer to insure him in accordance with the terms of the policy he held with EM. He accepted this offer and had it until his death in 1950, paying premiums the whole time. Petitioner, Franklins mother, was the beneficiary under the policy. She sent proofs of his death to
premiums the whole time. Petitioner, Franklins mother, was the beneficiary under the policy. She sent proofs of his death to the respondent but it refused to pay claiming that he had committed suicide.
Holding
The Due Process Clause didnt preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on respondent. It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with that State. It cannot be denied that CA has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims.
Notes from Class
STREAM OF COMMERCE: Supreme Court has held: o If a corporation elects to sell its products for ultimate use in another State, it is not unjust to hold it answerable there for any damage caused by defects in those products. o Isolated occurrences do not apply, because the s conduct and connections should be such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. There still must be purposeful availment and minimum contacts.
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN CORP. v. WOODSON (1980) Relevant Rules Facts
Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction The plaintiff purchased a car from the defendant that was later involved in an automobile accident, which caught fire after b eing hit in the rear, causing severe burns on the plaintiff and her children. They brought a products -liability action in Oklahoma, even though D is incorporated in NY.
Holding
Oklahoma cannot exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident automobile retailer and its wholesale distributior in a product-liability action, where the defendants only connection with Oklahoma is the fact that the automobile sold became involved in an accident in Oklahoma. The mere fact that it is foreseeable that an automobile purchaser will take the car int o other states doesnt satisfy that requirement with the forum State necessary for State to have jurisdiction of the persons o r corporate persons rights.
Notes from Class Doesnt align with Hansen case ( purposely availed by its actions in the state) Does the activities show purposeful availment (international shoe factors) in the forum state? Not just was it foreseeable that the car would get their but foreseeable that they would be sued.
The court is willing to make the assumption that other audis are manufactured, sold in Olklahoma. Proving jurisdiction is the job of the plaintiff.
NOT CONFUSED:::::: Notion of foreseeability Foreseeability necessary to satisfy due process clause. The mere likely hood is not enough; to satisfy the due process clause the foreseeability must be of the kind that which the actions made by the defendant is of the kind that should of made them assume they could be sued there. Court does not come to the analysis that Audi should be sued in every state based on the facts in this record!!! The pl may h ave shown that more Audis are sold in Oklahoma. Purposeful availment Did the defendant reach out to the state to conduct any activities? Then it is foreseeable that you may be made to go to court in that state. Extent of jurisdiction over Retailer: What the retailer seeks to serve? If I only advertised on the east coast. I dont seek to serve oklahoma. Forum selection clause does not set Personal jurisdiction. General Jurisdiction Question Here: What circumstances give rise to the general jurisdiction? To be continued. Specific Jurisdiction: Manufacturer May be held liable because of the STREAM OF COMMERCE! There was no evidence here that Audi put its car into the stream of evidence. (on these facts!) Basically saying that the pl had the burden and prove that Audi intended to serve oklahoma. All the pl gave was that NY sold the car and you drove it to Oklahoma. You have to show us something to show Audi activities in oklahoma. There is not enough proof here that Audi was doing service in Okl. If court made the assumption that cars will go other places then it is looking at the plaintiffs actions not the defendant. Stream of commerce is still applicable today, but might be easier to prove. Harder to show manufactures and retatiler jurisdiction: what the manufacturer knew about the retailer selling activities.
CALDER v. JONES (1984) (is their a first amendment limitation on the personal jurisdiction analysis?) Relevant Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction
Relevant Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Rules Facts

In its Oct 79 issue, the National Enquirer ( published by a FL corp in that state) printed a story about Shirley Jones, an entertainer who lives in CA. the story made uncomplimentary statements about her and she sued for libel in CA state court. 12% of the Enquirers nationwide circulation is sold in CA, nearly twice the distribution of any other state. Jones also sued Calder, the papers editor, who is also a FL resident.
When a writers story is aimed at a person in a different state based on sources from that state and could foresee that the article would be circulated in that state, then the petitioners must reasonable anticipate being haled to court there. An individual injured in CA need not go to FL to seek redress from persons who, though remaining in FL, knowingly cause the injury in CA.
Holding
Notes from Class

Court said jurisdiction was valid. Stream of commerce was easily proved here. 12% of the product is sold in CA. Defendants actions were aimed at California so the effect should have been foreseeable. HERE THE DEFENDANT MUST REASONABLY ANTICIPATE THAT THEY COULD BE SUED IN CALIFORNIA! THEY WERE! Defendants conduct is assessed individually not the companies activities. The writers directed their activities at California. The defendants The defendants could not use the 1st amendment right to fight jurisdiction!!!! No first amendment right here!! Not looking at the first amendment at all.
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ (1985) Relevant Rules Facts

Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction A preliminary agreement was entered into by Burger King (P) and Rudzewicz (D) for a franchise in Michigan. D had to pay P over $1 million in payments over 20 years. When D fell behind in the payments, P terminated the franchise; however, D continued to operate the business. FLs long arm statute extended jurisdiction over nonresidents from breaches of contract formed in FL and breach failure to perform required acts in FL. P contends since they were nonresidents and the claim did no t arise with the Southern District of FL, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction. The assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident by a forum state, otherwise fair is in concert with due process whe re the circumstances establish a substantial and continuing relationship with a forum state and indicate that there was fair notice that a nonresident might be subject to suit in the forum state. A court should look to see if the nonresident purposefully availed himself of the benefits and privileges of conducting activities within the state in order to determine if the nonresident cou ld have anticipated out-of-state litigation. Existence of a contract is not sufficient to support the assertion of FL jurisdiction over D. However, the negotiation that occurred between the parties is sufficient to maintain the minimum contact required for the lon garm statute of the state. Court of appeals deny personal jurisdiction. Because they said everything was done in Michigan.
Holding
Notes from Class
How does the court use the reach out test for the contract claim in this case? When does this reach out occur? ASAHI METAL INDUSTRY CO., LTD. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SOLANO COUNTY (1987) Relevant Rules Facts
Asahi (P), a Japanese corporation, manufactured tire valve assemblies in Japan, selling some of them to Cheng Shin, a Taiwanese company who incorporated them into the motorcycles it manufactured. Zurcher was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident, and a companion was killed. He sued Cheng Shin, alleging the motorcycle tire, manufactured by Cheng Shin was defective. Cheng Shin sough indemnity from P, and the main action settled. P moved to quash service of summons, contending that jurisdiction could not be maintained by CA, the state in which Zurcher filed his action, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the 14 th Amendment. The evidence indicated Ps sales to Cheng Shin took place in Taiwan, and shipments went from Japan to Taiwan. Cheng Shin purchased valve assemblies from other manufacturers. Between 1978 and 1982, Ps sales to Cheng Shin ranged between 100K to 500K units per year and accounted for approximately 1% of Ps income. There was no indication how many Ps valves reached CA, and P was aware its valve assemblies would be used in products sold in CA. Miminum contacts sufficient to sustain jurisdiction are not satisfied by the placement of a product in the stream of commerce, coupled with the awareness that its product would reach the forum state. To satisfy minimum contacts, there must be some at by which the purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities w/in the forum state. Although the courts that have squarely addressed this issue have been divided, the better view is that the must do more than place a product in the stream of commerce. The unilateral act of a consumers bringing the product to the forum state is not sufficient. P has not purposefully availed itself of the CA market. It does not do business in the state, conduct activities, maintain offices or agents, or advertise. Nor did it have anything to do with Cheng Shins distribution system, which brought the tire valve assembly to CA. Assertion of jurisdiction based on these facts exceeds the limits of Due Process. Concurrence: The state supreme court correctly concluded that the stream of commerce theory, without more, has satisfied minimum contacts in most courts which have addressed the issue, and it has been preserved in the decision of this Court. The stream of commerce refers not to unpredictable currents or eddies, but to the regular and anticipated flow of products from manufacturers to distribution to retail sale. As long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise.
Holding
product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise. The minimum contacts analysis is unnecessary; the Court has found by weighing the appropriate factors that jurisdiction under these facts is unreasonable and unfair.
Notes from Class Brennin - There is a contact if I put my product in the stream and I reasonably anticipate that it will get to C,D,E. Its enough that plaintiff placed his product in the stream of commerce. WWVolkswagon he was the dissenting opinion. So assahe purposely availed iteself to that forum. His reasoning is different from O'connor. He believes like O'connor that it must be fair for justice (international shoe). 4 reasons why: we would be subjecting this defendant to american legal system, the interests of the plaintiff to be in this
jurisdiction are slight ( 9 factors for minimum contacts), it is significant to brenin that is about idemincaiton, California has no regulatory interests in this case.
Oconnor - we need more than the other theory, we need the intent to serve state C, D, E. I had an intent to serve in CDE ( need more than the anticipation) Designing the product to fit with the laws of that state. Did it advertise in the forum state? Regular device to customers in that
Decided doesnt meet volkswagon test. IS NOT GOING BACK TO MAGHEE STANDARD. But she does think its unfair. She looks at the unique burden on asahi
BOTH DECIDED THAT CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION based on the constitution test: minimum contacts ! But disagree with
state? Was the product given to a distributor that the manufacturer knew sell to that forum state??
MOST JURISDICTIONS FOLLOW THE O'CONNOR LINE OF REASONING - YOU NEED TO SHOW SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST DROPPING
THE PRODUCT IN THE LINE OF COMMERCE.
rather It is unfair!!!!
Stream of Commerce, cont.: The substantial connection between the and the forum State necessary for minimum contacts must come from a purposeful action by the toward the forum State. The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, w/out more, is not a purposeful act toward the forum state. Purposeful acts may include: o Intent or purpose to serve the forum States market o Designing product for the forums market o Advertising in the forum State o Marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State
SHAFFER v. HEITNER (1977) Relevant Rules Facts
Heitner brought suit in DE court against Greyhound Corp. and its officers and directors. None of the directors were residents of DE. Heitner owned one share of stock in Greyhound. Greyhound is a DE corporation. Their corporate headquarters are in AZ. The alleged wrongful actions occurred in OR. Shaffer was not a resident of DE. DE courts froze the stocks of Greyhound based on the suit under the doctrine of in rem jurisdiction. When property is completely unrelated to the s cause of action its presene alone will not suffice to support jurisdiction. Presence of property in a state may bear on the existence of jurisdiction by providing contacts among the forum state, the , and the litigation. DEs assertion of jurisdiction over appellants in this case is inconsistent with that constitutional limitation on state power.
Holding
Notes from Class Traditional Categories of Jurisdiction In Rem pure property is subject of dispute Resolves rights as to all persons In the nature of rem (quasi in rem type I) i. Resolved disputed as to specific persons d. Quasi in rem (Type II) i. Property is NOT subject of dispute ii. Property used to EITHER satisfy obligation OR coerce OWNER to appear iii. Shaffer v. Heitner is a great example of this 2. In Personam a. Complete personal jurisdiction over a person 5. a. b. c.
VENUE:
1. 2. a. b. A convenience concept that determines the actual courthouse where a court case will be held. Factors for venue are: The location of property involved in the action The place where the cause of action arose
b. c. d. e. f. g.
The place where the cause of action arose The location of some particular event or fact in the case Defendants residence Plaintiffs residence Defendants place of business, and Plaintiffs place of business
Governed by 28 U.S.C. 1391 Venue A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in a. A judicial district where any resides, IF all s reside in the same state b. A judicial district in which a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or c. A judicial district in which any is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION:

The concept that the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of a case brought before it. Factors: Diversity of parties - 1332 d. and from different states Citizenship is based on domicile for individuals Citizenship based on principal place of business and location of incorporation for corporations e. Minimum amount in controversy must be > $75,000 Federal question f. An ingredient of the cause of action must arise under federal law. Determined if cause of action is created by federal or state law g. Cannot go to court on an anticipated defense under federal law.

Civil Procedure Complete Outline

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Civil Procedure Complete Outline

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Civil Procedure Complete Outline

Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:17 PM

Choosing a System of Procedure

Civil Procedure Page 1

Decker v. Lindsay. 824 s.w. 2d 247, 1992 Texas court of appeals.

Federal Court Powers

- Interstate: power to decide cases between two or more states

DESCRIBING AND DEFINING THE DISPUTE

GILLISPIE v. GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES (1963)

Civil Procedure Page 2

UNITED STATES v. BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS (1977)

the defense to a claim

the current law.

MITCHELL v. ARCHIBALD & KENDALL, INC.

Civil Procedure Page 4

plea for fraud under Rule 9-b.

Civil Procedure Page 5

Civil Procedure Page 6

A typical case for 13-b is this:

Holding Notes from Class

SWARTZ v. GOLD DUST CASINO, INC. Relevant

Civil Procedure Page 7

Relevant Rules Facts

Rule 15-b (Amendments to Conform to the Evidence)

Joinder of Claims, Parties

ESTABLISHING THE STUCTURE AND SIZE OF THE DISPUTE

Notes from Class

KEDRA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Civil Procedure Page 8

Notes from Class

Notes from Class

Problems on page 241:

Civil Procedure Page 9

CLARK v. ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORP. (1993)

Civil Procedure Page 10

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO. v. TASHIRE (1967)

Relevant Rules Facts

Rule 22 and 28 U.S.C.A 1335

Claims in Reply to B's Claims & Other parties

Rule 24 (Intervention) Rule 24(a) Intervention of Right

Natural Resources v. U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Civil Procedure Page 12

DAVIS v. ROSS (1985)

Holdin g Notes from Class

Civil Procedure Page 15

Civil Procedure Page 16

CORLEY v. ROSEWOOD CARE CENTER, INC. (1998)

IBM v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1975)

Notes from Class 11/7/2011

you have to be really doing something intentionally to get these sanctions.

CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Summary Judgment and DV/JNOV)

Notes from Class - Has to prove conspiracy among police officers.

Civil Procedure Page 18

Notes from Class

Civil Procedure Page 19

DYER v. MacDOUGALL (1952) Relevant Rules Facts

Holding Notes from Class

Notes from Class

Civil Procedure Page 20

Galloway v. United States - Directed Verdict case.

`PENNOYER v. NEFF (1877) Relevant Rules Facts

INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v. WASHINGTON (1945)

Civil Procedure Page 23