Civ Pro Flowcharts

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    1/24

    Civil Procedure ReviewII I T 1[ L Jurisdiction 1 ( II. Erie J [ III. Joinder J [ IV. Res fudicar )

    I T I. Subject Matter r " '"Jurisdiction I.a. Joinder of Claims 1. R es Judicatab. Permissive Joinder of Parties (Claim Preclusion)

    2. Personal Jurisdiction c, Compulsory Joinder of PartiesI '- .. I

    3. Due Process / 2. Collateral Estoppel2 . ( Is s u e P re c lu s io n)a . Count e rc l aim4, Service ofProcess b . C ro s s cl aim

    (Notice) c. 3 r d P a r t y Claims_/ 3 . Pa rt ie s15 . V e nu e Who issubject to claim/ . . . . , or issue preclusion?3.a. Intervention

    6, Removal b. Interpleader - E - (Not on Final)c. Class Action'- J( 7. Waiver )

    15a021b7 - 4 81 e -41 b 5 - 8 55 5 -a a ll e 5 8 81 898 .d o c - 1 -

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    2/24

    [. Jwisdittion Checklist

    !15There

    Subject Mauer Jurisdiction?

    United States Constitution. Article Ill: Federal Courts Are Courts of I i ll l it td l l 1 f7 s t li c li o ll :1 ~ l + +1 2 J ~ 5Federal Question Diversity Alienage Admiralt .... Disputes Between States,' .1 8 U .S .C . 13 31 18 U . S.C. B32 D8U .S. c. 1 333 18U .S. c. 1 333 Counsels. and Ambassadors

    JFcdeW Question Basics; 28V.S.C. U31a Does the claim miseHilder the constitution, treaties, or ~ of the U.S.?a Is the complaint well plead? E.g., does NOT plead possible defenses 3S basis for FQ?a Remember, NO S Amount limit: Can have SMJ over a S! dispute.a Federal jurisdiction may be t>."t/J{!ipe [0federal court (e.g. patent or copyright claims); ora Federal jurisdiction may be COllfllmlltwiili state court jurisdiction (e.g.civil rights or federal employment liability act (F'lEL\) claims),

    subject to the right of retllOlJ.J.

    &dtt~_QJ.Je8tion Flow ChanDoes the ' it 'swell pleaded complaint allege an express or implied federal cause of act ion?

    D oe s th e )'t's w e ll pleaded complaint allege a state law caus e of action inwh ic h f e de r al law isan essential element?

    Does the federal law that isan ejernent authorize a private r ight of act ion?

    000[ rely too much on this. I derived this rule from Smith_v. Kans~.:I:i!k and Merrell Dow v. Thompson. Aronovsky says the:COi\ are still splitand the SC has not ruled. So , in some circuits [h is would work but don't treat

    it as a hard and fast rule.There is~OFQJ.here is FQJ

    m Sa02Ib7-4Sle-41 bS-8555-aa21e5881898.dot: - 2-

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    3/24

    IsTHIERESUiBJECTMATTER JURISIDICTION?

    l ! ~ ~ ~! I 2 : J ;\; ~F e d e ra l Q u e s ti on Diversity Alienage Admiralty D is pu te s B e tw e en S ta te s .'18V.S.c. 1331 I 1 8 U .S .C . 13 32 18 U.S.c . 1333 18 U.S.c . 1 333 Co un s el s, a nd Amb as s ad ors

    U nite d S tate s C on stitu tio n, A rtic le 1 11 : F e d era l C ou rts A re C ou rts o f Um i tt d l ll li sd kt io n :

    DIVERSITY OF CiTIZENSHW BASICS1) COMPLETENBSS: D iv e rs it y m u st becompie t t . The re cannot be anyone on the le ft o f the "v" an d th e rig ht. A ll '/t's m us t b e d iffe re nt fro m all a 's .2) DA.TE: D iv er si ty i s calculated as of the date Ih e tKliop was i n /l i ll l !t d .3) CITIZENSHIP (DfJll l icik)

    a) PERSONs.. 'X 'h ere y ou w e re b orn an d co ntin ue s th ro ug h } 'oW' life u nle s s:i) Yo u physically c ha ng e } 'o ur s ta te ; a ndiJ ) Y ou have th e in te ntio n of re main in g in th e n ew s tate for th e in de fin ite futu re .iii) ] f pe rs on has m ultiple h om es in d iffe re nt s ta te s, loo k o f that pe rs on 's (ealer o f g r a u i t J r by l oo ki ng a t:

    (1 ) W 'he rc doe s the pe rs on live ?(2 ) W 'h crc is th e amily?(3) Where does the person pa y taxes?(4 ) \V he re d oe s mat p er so n w o rk ?(5 ) Wher e ar e th e cars l ic ensed?(6) W he re doe s the pe rs on vote ?

    b) CORPORA nONs.: E ve ry c orp ora tio n h as tw o d om ic ile s:~ s ta te of incorporation; an dit) its p rin cip le p la ce o f b us in es s (u su ally w h ere th e c orp ora te h ea dq ua rte rs is lo ca te d, T w o te s ts fo r prin ciple p la ce o f b us in es s:

    (1 ) Ne rve C ente r Te st - place w he re corporate de cis ions are m ade ; or(2) M us cle (plu rality ) Te st - place w he re the corpo ratio n do es m os t o f its m an ufactu rin g o r s ervice pro vid in g.

    c) UNINCORPORATED Assot i .a/ io1tS (e .g ., la bo r u nio ns , p artn ers hip s): C um u late d om ic ilia ry s tate o f e ac h m e m be r, So, a n atio na l la bo r u nio n lik e th eT eam ste rs co uld n eve : pas s th e fe de ral d ive rs ity te st b ecaus e it h as m e mb ers in all 5 0 s tate s.d) PARTIES IN REPIlESENT.A17VE ACTIONS (e .g ., re pre se nta tiv e o f a c hild , p ro ba te , o r de r iv o l i ue n t f ioo s or t la s s t K li o n mils:i) C la ss ic al R u le f or D e ri va ti ve A ct io ns &C las s A ctio ns : d ive rs ity is b as ed o n th e citize ns hip of th e re j>resmfl1l iut .it) MO tte rn R u le fo r P ro ba te a nd A ll O th ers : d iv ers ity is b as ed o n the citize ns hip o f th e "pre /BIJled p a r t Y .

    4) AMOUNT lN CONTROVERSY: m us t be O J . ' t ' r S 7 5 , O O O . excl l l s ipe o f mlmsl a n d cosls b ut i nc lu s iv e o f p un it iv e d am a ge s .5) AC.GREGATION RULES:

    a ) S in gle P artie s c an a gg re ga te a ll c la im s , e ve n if u nre la te d.b ) M ultiple paniC's: n o a gg re g at io n u nl es s th e c la im s a re jo in t. s uc h a s u nd iv id ed in te re st c la im s (i.e ., a 's joindy l iable) ; g'S allegation .o f a m ou nt s uf fi ce s

    u nle ss dis pro ve d as a l e g a l certain!) ', in ju nc tio ns s ho uld b e q ua ntifie d in $ value to m ee t the jurisdictional r equ i r ement .

    15 a0 21b 7 -4 81 e - 4 1 b 5 -85 55 -a :a2 1 e5 881 898 . do c - 3-

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    4/24

    ,\7

    IsTHERESUBJECT MATtER JURISDICTION?

    SUlPPLBMENTALJURISDlCTION CRE.ATBD BYJUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND CoDIFIED IN 28 U.S.C. 1367

    1 1 J , 1 1 11 ~ 21 J ~ 5F e de ra l Q ue s ti on Djversity Supplemental Alienage Admiralty Disputes Between States.18 V.S.C. '1331 18 V .S.c. t332 (pendant &Ancillary) 18 U .S.c. t333 18 U .S.c. B33 Counsels. an d AmbassadorslSU.S.C. U67SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION BAsiCS

    1) Pendant &Ancillary Jurisdiction: United Mine W2ckeO y,Gjbbs - state tort claim added to federal employment question. Supreme Court ruled thatfederal court could assume jurisdict ion over state claim because they all emanated from the same set of facts , This ruling. cal led the pendan t dOe/r if le, expandedthe definition of c a s e o o d c o n t r o v e r ! } under Article Ill.a) Anli l lmy l lo ims d o e J r i l 1 e allowed 1I:'sto bring a case and allowed 8's to assert iurisdictionally insufficient compulsory counter-drums, cross-claims, and 3 , , 1 party

    drums.2) 1367: A fl ee s om e r e st ri ct io ns in Owens and Finl~, Cong re s s c od if ie d G.i.hbi i n B67 .

    a) 1367(a): Matters o ri gi na ti ng f rom a ( & 1 J J 1 1 1 ( ; 1 I l iNdens o j fJptral iut fatts are n ow considered part of the sam e case or controversy fo r A rti cle I H p urp os e s.b) 1367(b): Codifies Krogg bu t rejects Finley. J i m i J s ml&.h o j j m i J d i r . t i O l } o n l Y il l m p e r s i ! J ' o n !) ' e a se s - exercise of jurisdiction must be consistent wIi332

    ( di ve r s it y s t at u [e )~ No supplemental jurisdiction; must have independent iurisdiction forrdaims bv na2ainst persons made parties by :

    (I) Rule 14 Ompleader). .} R em i'l i'l be r, t3 67 (b ) a pp li es O N L Y if dil 'e ~iD '(2 ) Rule 19 (ClInpu.l~lt}r Jrnndet of Parties) is th e tmk b as is f or b ei ng i n f e deml {fJllri .(3) Rule 20 (permissive Joinder of Parties) . ,(4) Rule 24 (Intervention)

    c) 1367( c ) - g iv e s C t d is cr e ti on to h ea r c as e s (l ik e :Gihbi - b ut n ot cle ar w he th er lis t is illu strative o r e xh au stive )~ Says that me Ce ma y d e cl in e (0exercise iif:

    (I) Claim raises a novel or complex issue of state Jaw(2 ) T he claim s ub stan tially pre do min ate s o ve r th e c1 aim {s ) o ve r w hich th e de has original jurisdiction(3) The Court has dismissed all c la im s o ve r which it has original jurisdiction(4 ) In exceptional circumstances - other reasons

    J) 1367(d) - Stature of Limitations will be tolled so long as federal court ishearing the claim, then + 30 days to file state claim (unless State al lows longer)

    15a021b 7 -48 ' 1 e - 41b5 -8555 - aa 21 e5881898 .doc: -4-

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    5/24

    S am e c as e or controversy?

    Ye sF ed e ra l Qu e s ti on

    orDiversity?

    iversitv OnlyClaim by 1t or A?

    P at ty a dd e d under whatRu l e?

    2 O ( x ) . 2 l

    I I pplcmental Jurisdiction Flowchart I I18 U .S.C . 1367 ".No NoS~fJ

    Fed . Ques,

    14 19 Z O (4) 24 N o S :\tJ

    This is a basic requirementof 1367(a).

    t36i(b) l im il al Km doe s noltf#.y I( ) I~dQne s .

    136 7{b ) l im i ta ti on do e s no lt l J ' P o ' to (kliRU bl'lJlIghll!] .d

    'T hi s i s t he 136i(b)limitation.

    Th e literallaJlbl1lage of 136i lets the claim in. Bu tthe legislative history indicates that Coogress wants

    the: claim to Slay out. Th e Courts of Appeal are spli t.The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2000,

    Justice: O'Connor recused, and the: r emaining justicessplit 4-4 in bon Lab. Inc.

    5a02 t b7 4 81 ( : 4 1 b5 -8 555 - aaZl e 5 8 8 i 98.doc

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    6/24

    PERSONAL JURISDICTION

    CONSTITUTIONAL BASES: STATUTORY BASIS J _ MODERN SERVICE ~

    I I ICONS.ENT DOMICILE PHYSICAL PIRESBNCE IN STATE EXPRESS: Carnival Cruise Lines Gordon v. Steele: K id (1/ Co/kge Tag Jurisdiction Uves! IMPLIED: Hess v, Pawloski II Milliken: If"}" D o m i c i le S e rv e d in CO BYDlham ~. Su~[ior Collll:Jt . WAIVER: Insurance Corp ofIrdaml E > . ..H " sb a n d S e n ft d I V -h il e V i s it in g K i tl s

    Contract / A.gem Aoll!l.immeDt .I Shows Ul l . to Litigate

    StateLongArmStatuteCan Restrict Constitutional Personalfurisdiction But Cannot Exp~Uld

    1 4 T H AMElNDMENTDUE PROCESSREQUIREMENTNotice And Opportunityto Be Heard

    ARTICLE IV , 1:FulLL PAITII &CREDIT CLAUSlEFull Faith and Credit Will BeGiven in Each State

    Rul e 4 (a -e , h . n )R e n s O J J o b! J C a l a 1 1a i r d Under ' ' ' r

    C i r m m s / t l l J t t . r to G i l l e No/ i t t !Mul1aney. Central Hanover Bank

    FederalRule 4(k)(2)

    T ra di ti on a l B a se s o jP e rs o na l J ur is di ct io n

    MODERN BASIS OF PERSONAL JURISDICTIONA must have sufficient minimum contacts within the forum state such that maintenance of the suit

    does not offend traditional notionsof fair play and substantial justice.

    SUFFICIENT MINIMUM CONTACTS(CAPPI)I. Cause of Action: Where did the cause of action arise?2. Activities: Scrutinize these a c ti v it ie s i n the forum state:

    a. Sys te matic &Cont inuous = GeneralJurisdictioDh. Sporadic = SFCific Jurisdictionc. Directvs . Indirectd. D ange ro us activ ity?

    3. Purposeful Avai llement: H.as.6. purposefully availed itself of thebenef i t s &protections of forum's laws? H@soo_y._Qenkla.

    4. Foreseeability: Could!J. foresee or expect being haled intocourt? World Wide Volkswagen

    5. Initiate: Did h. ini tia t e contact with forum s ta te?

    International Shoe Co. v. Washington

    FAIR PLAY AND SUlBSTANTIAL JUSTICE(BLIM FEW)

    1.2.

    Burden on the Parties: Economic, time, relative burdens .Law: What forum's law?Interest of the State: in providing a forum for &protecting itscitizens,Multiplicity of Suits: WiU they al l b e re s ol ve d ?

    3.4 .

    h. Forum: Alternative forum a va il ab le ? F a ir &convenient?Evidence: Where is the bulk of the evidence?Witnesses: ~'here are the witnesses?

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    7/24

    VENUE~Underlvin Policies: Iudicial Efficiency;. Limit Porum Shoppin2;. Convenience of Parties

    Possible Exam Questions

    Venue Rules: 28 U.S.C. U391Venue in diversity cases, 1391(a).

    1. Any dist, where any ~ resides, if a ll ~'sreside in the same state.

    2. Any d is t, Wh e re a . substantial part of th econtroverted events occurred or wherethe disputed property is located. C a nhave venue in multiple locations.

    3. Where an y a is subject to PJ only if DOvenue available under (1 ) or (2) above.

    Venue in all other cases. 1391(b).1. Same as in diversity cases, above,2. Same as in diversity cases, above.3. "''here an y ~ tiln b e j o l i l J d only if no venue

    available under (1) or (2) above. Differentlanguage, but probably means same thing.

    Venue of corporate ~'s 1391( c).1. Anywhere corp. is subject to PJ.2. Analyze: as if fed gov't is separate state.

    Venue for alkn& 28 U.S.C. 1391(d).1. Any alien, incl. alien corps., can be sued in

    any district,

    ISa021 b7 -4S1 e-41 b5-8555aa2 t e588 t 898.doc

    Transfer of Venue: 28 U.S.c. U404~Federal Coutts NEVER transfer to State

    Coures. Use FNC in such case.

    State COUfIS NEVER transfer to federalCoutts or todifferent States. Use FNC in

    such case.1404 Balancing Test

    Convenience of parties &witnesses +Interests of justice must slIbJ/an/jall! ollhJ'8igh 1I:'Sinterest in choice of forum.

    Choice of Law: DivelSity Cases OnlyLaws of the transferring state: apply unlessvenue was improper. in which case receivingCourt applies it's own laws.

    Venue Exam Tricks'Transferring Court can only send a case to acourt where the "action could have beencommenced. or initiated." Therefore. thereceiving Court must have aJ13.even if thetransferring Court doesn't.

    1. SubjectMatterJurisdiction2. Personal Jurisdiction3. Venue

    Forum No11 ConveniensPublic vs. Private Factors -Balancing TestPrivate Interest Factors1. Access to sources of proof2. Abili ty to compel attendance of witnesses3. Convenience to voluntary wimesses4. Difference in substantive law that will beapplied in new forum is not decisive in

    dismissing on grounds of r-NC. but couldbe relevant if the law inthe alternativeforum were completely inadequate. Piper.

    Public Interest Factors1. Local interest in having disputes resolvedlocally2. Court congestion

    3. Familiarity with law4. Avoiding unnecessary choice of law

    problems5. Jury duty burden Oft citizens in a jurisdiction

    having no contact with the dispute

    GeneratRuleFNC is tough Oil n's, especially in light ofstatutes of limitation and Pers, Juris. Couttsknow this and won't grant FNC unless :

    I. There is an alternative forum;2. 11waives sta tute of limitations defense;3. ~ consents to iurisdiction in alternative

    forum.

    -i.

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    8/24

    STATECoult J ,Removal; 28 u.s .e. l4!ll I I ~ I1. State to Federal ONLY;2. ALL '& 's mu s t consent;3. OR1GINAL 8.'s only; no counterclaim A's

    Federal Question ClaimsPa s s Th ro u gh Federal Question Filter28 US.C. B31

    FEDERAL Court

    4. Completely Discr tJ ionol ) '5 . Must h av e b e en q ua li fie d to grant original

    jurisdict ion.- 6 . May g ra n t supplemental j ur is d ic ti on a s l on gas at least on e sepatare an d independentf e de r al c la im e l ig ib le for removal .

    1 1 / .

    N on - F ed era l Question ClaimsPass Th ro u gh S u pp lem e n ta l J u ri sd ic ti on

    Filter28 U.S.e. 'l367

    '9Same Case or Controversy?yCommon Nucleus of Facts?y

    Mee ts S u pp lem e n ta lJ u r is d ic t ion Requ i remen t sunderB67?, ~,I Yes I ~() I! ~

    1441(a) N ot P art of SameCourt May Exercise or Cons ti tu ti on a l C a s eD e clin e P et A uth orityG ra nte d un de r 1 36 7'(c ) y Separate &

    Independent Claim?

    +1441(c)Court May KeepOrCourt May Remand

    -0-

    Federal Question FlIow Chart

    Does the 1t's ' - \ > ' e I I pleaded complaint allege anexpress o r im plie d fe de ra l c au se o f a ctio n?

    Yes

    D oe s the fe de ra l law that is an elementauthorize a private right of action?

    N u I n -S f d f4 De f l nMin D i l l lfS i t J l. ( )nlJ Ce s e :

    YesD oe s the 1t'Swe l l p le a de d complaint a ll eg e a

    state l aw c a us e of action in wh ic h f ed e ra l law isan essential element?

    1441(a)Court Must Hear

    [ S a021 b7 48 '1 c - 4 n bS -855S- aa 2 I e5881898 .doc

    No

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    9/24

    Waiver

    II I I"'hat May NEVER Be Waived? Wha t ~fay B e Wa iv e d? Consolidation of Defenses

    Rul c sl 2 (s7 .) a ndI 2 (h )I I~ I/' , r ,SMJ Is i\ Constiturional Is su e a nd C an no t Be Waived. 1. Personal JurisdictionPanics to an Acnon M ay N EV ER C onse nt to W aive r ofS MJ 2 . Notice3 . Service of Process

    4 . Venue"- ./ -, ..I

    lSa021b7-481e-41bS.SS55-aa21e5SSnS98 .doc -9-

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    10/24

    Erie Doctrine flowchartTIle discouragement of forum s ho pp in g a nd a vo id an ce of inequitable administration of th e la w s

    Is state laws ubs tan tive / b lack - ~letter law?

    YES

    S ta te la w a pp lie s(f/ Erie &RDA )

    Fed R.uleon Point?(look at tw in aim s of E rieb e fo re d e c id in g )

    YES

    Hanna HoldingApply Fed Rule if it's .nlid.

    Valid if reasonable personwould consider it procedural.

    Po s s ib l y /N 0( Gr ey A re a )

    ByrdTest1s state rule bound up with( implement ing of) Slate

    created rights& obligations?Does it regulate primarybehavior?

    Fed. CountervailingInterests (for fed law)(always have uniformity.but w e a k 00 its o w n. .l~)'rd

    was judge/jul},relationship whichoutweighed outcome

    determinacy)

    Rule of form&mode.BALANCE

    DoHOTH

    Hanna DictaA naly ze in tig ht o f tw in a im s

    of Erie .1. Forum Shopping?

    2. Ine qu ita ble ad min, of th elaw'S?

    Outcome determinativetest (for state law)

    R f outcome would b edifferent d ep en ding o nwhich l aw appl ie s (i.e.s tatute of limitations isvery determinative if itsrun in state an d not fed)

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    11/24

    I III. Joinder IJoinder of Claims3 Se nte nce s at most on e xam :

    1 . In foekl 'd prtJl fke (J It {tHl jo in 1l'!J' " :Wi n h e o r 1 1 1 e b as n g aifu f th e . . d .2 . J n :\ state fo llow in g th e FRep . a 1t can join any claims he or she

    h as a ga in s t the A because those are th e F ede ral Rules.3. If state X follow s the more t ra d it iona l r ul e of demanding a

    / m l l S t U l w t J . a i r e J o I i o t J S h i p , use (act analysis to show that all theclaims come from the same incident,

    Permjssiyejoinder ofParriesi 2ProngTestat most on exam.

    T&O + CQ = Permissive i l ? a t t ' j , Jo inde r1. Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction; AND2. There is a tOmmi)lJ ' I "e s / i on ojk J . I J J orjarl binding the parties.

    ~pu1sO itY_ Jo inde t of ParriesRule . .W;3)1. W'ho is necessary and should be joined ifpossible?

    a. Will p artie s b e in iu re d by failure [0join outsider?b . W ill ou ts ide rs be prejudiced b y resul t?

    Exam Tip: P ro ba bly o nly s itu atio n in which outsider is notcompulsory is tort action, Joim tortfeasors are N OTcompulsory; 1[ may only want or ne ed to sue th e rich A.

    2 . C an you jo in the outs ide r? If no t, why not?Bxam Tip: look out! R e as on co uld be SM J 2ndj or l I ? J . Ifs o ,be ready to pe rfo rm the e ntire an aly sis .

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    12/24

    Joinder- Big PictureJ\,ft/st satim' b o th J -< R C P a n d SAl lx.

    FRCP

    Joinder by nCla ims 18 (a)

    A party asserting ac la im to rel ie f as anoriginal claim,counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-partyclaim, may join, asmany claims as theparty has aga inst an

    O lhO~ in0" t'I~ r tv

    interest.Ori~illal claim s: claims byrr,against ~'s.Counterclaims: made by~'s against Tls, it is anindependent cause of

    action.Cross-claims: claimsbetween co-pa rties,3~rties: a party

    brought into the act ionby a current A.

    3rt! Part'\" claims; claim by~ act ing as 3 " t I Party n, to

    join a 300 party.

    DefinitionsReal Party in interest:one who will benefitf rom act ion, one whohas a ~IJh~t;lnti;l1 LOtb) ~epara te .nats. I-Ile

    court may make suchorders as will prevent aparty from beingembarrassed, delayed, orput to expense by theinclusion of a party

    against whom thepartyasserts no claim at']whoasserts no claim againstthe party , and may orderseparate trials or makeother orders to preventdelay or prejudice.

    OrPar ti es 20 (a)

    20(a) Permissive Joinder.All persons may join in(me action as plaintiffs ifthey assert any right to

    relief ... arising out of thesame transaction,

    occurrence, or series oftransactions or

    occurrences i I ! l d if anycommon question of lawo r fact common to al l

    these pefSons will arise inthe action.

    Ail persons may bejoined in one act ion asdefendants if there isasserted against them anyr ight to rel ie f . .. a rising

    out o f t he sametransaction, occurrence,or series of transactionsor occurrences and if an ycommon quest ion of Hawor fact common ItO all

    these persons will arise inthe action.

    1 5 a0 2 1 b 7 -481e-41 b5-8555-aa21 e5881898.d()c

    Joinder by f : t "Claims 13 (a, b, 2)(a) Compulsorr

    Counterclaims - A pleadingsha ll sta te as acounterclaim any claim ithas against any opposingparty, if it arises out of thetransaction or occurrencethat isthe subject matter ofthe opposing party's claimand does no t r equ ir e for it sadjudication the presenceof third parties of whomthe court cannot acquirejurisdict ion. But . .. (see

    exception).

    (b) PennissiycCounterclaims. A pleadingmay state as a counterclaim

    any claim against anopposing party not arisingout of the transac tion oroccurrence tha t isthesubject matte r of theopposing party's claim.

    (g) lfoss-cla1m ;'\~al1stCo-Party. A pleading may stateas a cross-claim any claimby one party aga inst a co-party arising out of the

    transaction or occurrencethat is the subject mattereither of the original actionor of a counterclaim thereinor relating to any propertytha t is the subject matte r of

    the original action.

    Pa rt ie s 14, 19lMa) Wh:n Ods:ndill lt ~[a):-Bfigg in

    T hi rd P ar ty , A t a ny t im e a ft e rcommencement of the action adefending party. asa third 'part)"

    pmainriff, ma y c au se a s um mo ns a ndc om p la in t t o be s e rv ed u po n a

    person not a party to the action whois or may be liable [0 : I h c third-party

    plaintiff for all or part of thep l ai n ti f fs c l aim a g ai n st the third-

    party plaintiff.

    14th' \ \ ' 1 \ < . ' 1 1 Plaimjfff\tla):Jldgg inlllird Part}, \ ' I C h C l l a c o un t e rc l aim i s

    asser ted against a p la in t i ff , t h eplaintiff mar cause a third par ty to bebrought in under circumstanceswhich under this rule would entide a

    d e fe n da nt t o do so.

    12(a) PerW05 tobe Joined ifF e as ib le . A p e rs o n w h o i s s u b je c t t oservice of process and whose ~Jinder

    will not deprive the court ufjurisdiction over t h e s ub ject matter

    (I f t h e a c t i on s h al l be j oi ne d a s aparty in the action if(t)in the person's absence completer e li e f c a nn o t b e a c co r de d :among

    t h os e a l re a d y p a rt i es . o r(2) the person claims an interestrelating to t h e s ub ject of the actiona nd i s s o s it ua te d m a t m e dispositionof the a ct io n i n the p e r so n 's a b se n c emay:(i) as a practical matter impair or

    impede t he p e rs on 's a bi li ty i torMr int(rl'!'.f nrO i) leave any of the pcrsonsalready parties s u b je c t t o a

    substantial riskof iocurriogdouble,multiple, or otherwise inconsistento b li ga ti on s b y r ea s on o f the claimedinterest.

    Subjec t Ma tt er Ix

    1331- FederalO l l~ !C :t i nn !C :

    - District courts shallhave original Jx arisingunder the Constitutionetc.Note: this isnot exclusiveT X"Arising Under" Inorder to invoke federalcourt jurisdiction thefederal i ssue mus t be asufficient or central partof the disoute.

    WeD Pleaded ComplaintR ul e- Fo r a litigant to ineoke

    f ed e ra l q u es ti on j ur , I t isn e ce s sa ry b ot h t ha t t he case"arise under" the constitution

    or s om e o th e r a sp e ct o f' f e d e ra llaw a nd t ha t t hi s f ac t a p p ea r o n

    the f aceo f a wcll pleadedcomplaint, If a substantiali ss ue i s n ot r ai se d a s a legi t imatepart of the plaintiffs own claim

    f o r r e li e f there i s n o federalquestion judsdicuon under [hestatute . issue that the D r ai se s

    i n [ he answer o r tha t thep la int i f f an t i cipa te s areif rdevant for jurisdictional

    pwposcs.

    Merren Dow-A complainta l le g in g a v i ol a ti o n o f a f e d er a lstatute ina statecause ofaction, when congress has

    determined that there should beno private, federal, cause ofaction tor the viotanon docs

    not s tate a claim "aris ing under"the Constitution or Laws of theUn it e d S t at e s ,

    ] 9 ( 1 2 ) Determination hr COlI' WOC!l(:ycr Joinder Nor Fca;

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    13/24

    Counterclaims, Crossclaittas, and Jtd Patty Claims (Impleader)

    Counterc la imsI. Compulsory: Rule 13(a); use it or J ose it. U nd erly in g p olic y c on ce rn s: e ffic ie nc y a nd e co nom} '. A counter claim is c om puls ory if it "milt! 0 11 1 ~fll . l t '

    SallIe t r a n s a c l i o n orocfllmlJcl' tha t is the subje ct m atte r of the n 's claim (c ou nte rc la im m us t b e p le ad ed )2. 4Part Transaction &Occurrence Test to definewhen a c la im o r c ou nte rc la im a ris es fro m th e s am e tra ns ac tio n: (fro m Plant v.Blazer

    Fimmdal Services) S ta te C o ur ts will u su ally r es pe ct R u le 13(a); but it is no t gu ar an te e d Le., if y ou fa il [0p ur su e y ou r c om p ul so ry c ou nt er cl aimin fe de ra l C ou rt. s ta te C ourt will probably not allow a ne w suit on the s am e facts,

    a. Are the i s sues of fact and law ra is ed by the claim a nd c ou nte rc la im la rg ely th e s am e ?b. Would r e s j l l d i r n t o i b a r a s ub se q u en t suit 011 A's claim a bs e nt t he c om p ul so ry counterclaim rule?c. W ill s ub stan tia lly th e s am e e vid en ce s uppo rt o r re fu te !t's c la im as w ell a s I::.'s co un te rc la im ?d. Is there an y lo gi ca l re la tio n b etw e e n th e claim and th e counterchimj'3. Permissive; Rule 13(b); e v er yt hi ng e ls e .

    4. Exam Tip: Rule 13 p re tt y m u ch a Il oWS :1 1::.o c ou nt er cl aim a ga in st a 1 1 : fo r a nyth in g h e wants. R e me mbe r P ug sle y s aid the t it le " pl ai nt if f' d oe s n'tm ea n s qu at ill Tort law; it ju st m ea ns y ou file d firs t.

    5. Diversity Acrioil18: If yow: compulsory c oun te rc la im u nd er R u le 13(a) is could not be plead alone S7sk or n o d iv e rs it y) . i nv ok e: l367S u pp lem e nt al J ur is d ic ti on a nd be s ure to use th e buzzwords:(I. CO/llmOIJ NllfkllS o fFp l ; !b . Sm ile C a s e o r C C l 1 l r o u e r : r J '

    Cross-ClaimsRule 13(g) (A vs, A)1. Allllq)IJ P t n l l i s s i l l e2. Can invoke B67 if c la im w on 't s ta nd alo ne .3. Exam Tip: W hen in doubt, examine Transaction & O cc urre nc e; it's pre tty m uc h th e basis of everything in C iv Pro , s o if y ou 're b la nki ng o ut. s ta rtwritinz about T&O.

    3rdParty Cla ims (Impleader)Rule 14I. Adding New Parities: Theor e ti ca ll y, a n i nf in it e numbero f ! pa rt ie s ma}'be a dd ed to th e ac tio n. from re ta ile r to m an ufa ctu re r, to each-and-every

    s up plie r in vo lv ed a lo ng th e way.2. Exam Tip: R emembe r that eve ry party a dd ed m ea ns y ou m us t e sta blis h pe rs on al ju ris diction o ve r all th es e pa rtie s. B ig e xa m points he r e .3. C an in vo ke B67 if claim won't s ta nd a lo ne .4. J t " d !party I : : . ' s c ou nt er cl aimi ng b ac k "rill probably be c om pu ls or y b ec au se p erm is siv e counterclaims are usua lly transactionally re la ted and thereforeNOT subjec t: to s u pp lem en ta l j ur is d ic ti on .S. R ule 14(a ) Am endment: origina l x may amend complaint to dire c tly ass e rt claim ag ain st n ew ly im ple ad ed 3 rd party A.6. KrQge r Rule: Original 'It cannot assert supplementa l 1367 claim against p artie s b ro ug ht u nd er Rule 14 (third party pra ctic e); R u le i9 &20 (Bas ic

    Joinder Rule s ) ; and Rule 24 (Intervention). It doe s NOT sa y anything ab ou t R ule 13 (counterclaim and cross-claim).'l, Draw a p ic tu re ; i t's the o nl y w a y to figure this crap out.

    ~"')

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    14/24

    JOINDER DIAGRAMS

    Rule 13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim

    Negligence or Tort1

    CompulsoryCounterclaim forNegligence or Tort

    r\ counter claim is compulsory if i i i. . . a ri,m O J II0 / I h e ! ll In e fmllStJtliofJ orOCfIIf'ffflfi' that is the subject maner of the :It'S c la im ( coun te r cl aim must b epleaded)4 Par~ Test to define when a claim or counterclaim arises from the sametransaction; (from Plant v. Blazer Financial Services)1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim

    largely the same?2) Wou.ld mj l /mea/ l l lYAI l ' a subsequent sui t on A's claim absent the

    compulsory counterclaim rule?.3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute 'It's claim as

    well as A's counterclaimi'4) Is there any logical relation between th e claim and the

    counterclaim?

    j5~021b7-48l e-41 b5-8555aa21 e5881898.doc

    I Rule 13(b) Permissive Counterclaim1t . I Negligence or Tort.>

    Rule 13(g) Ceossclaims

    Crossclairn for~ili~

    Existing CoA(Pany to Original Action)

    1[ I :\Iegligence or Tort- - - - - - - - - . . I ~cgtigen", orTon

    -14 -

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    15/24

    [ JOINDEIRDIAGRAMS

    Rule 13(h) Joinder ofAdditional Parties to Crossclaims or Counterclaims

    x I-------I N eg lig en ce o r T ort IN eg lig en ce o r T ort I

    In th is e xam ple , an o riginal 11crossclaims against anotheroriginal a AN D jo in s a 3 td

    part}' 6as well,

    ------). ~\A

    Cr(}~sclai III

    1 5a 02 l b7-481e -41 b5 -8555 -aa21 e5881898,doc

    Existing Ur.6(party eoOriginal Action)

    Joinder of Additional 1arrie s (N ot In O rig in alAction) ,I,?3 ' WNewly Joined)

    Rule 14(a) S1 - Adding Third Party Defendant

    It ------',~ L . . _ ~ _ e _ g ] _ i g e _ n c e _ c _ ) f _ ' t _ o _ r t _ . .6

    (3IdPartytl:)

    Contribution orIndemnity Claim

    - ; ~ -

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    16/24

    JOINDER DIAGRAMS

    Rule 14(a) S6 - TPD Can .Assert Claim .Against 1t

    11~

    ( 3 ; 0 1 Party 1 C )----,I II II ... Eo;! IIe:;-; II 0'- II'; !:' II~'~ II ::: 1.J II e -0 II u.s II IL .J

    ~ I L N _ ~_ _ l i _ g _ e n _ . c _ e _ o _ r _ T _ o _ r t_ ~

    Requires same Transaction orO c c u r r e n c e a s "It'S c l a i m a g a i n s t 3 r d

    Party z

    15a02 "l b 7 -4 81 e - 41 1b5- 85 55 -a a2 1 e5 881 89 8 .d oc

    3nlPany a

    Rule 14(a) S7 - ,; Can Assert Claim Against TPD

    1 1( 3 rd P a r ty : 1 l )1 ~ N_~ g _ ~ _ . _ e n _ ~_ o_r_T_o_tt_ ~ r-.....I II II II ~ II :i II ~ II ~ IlUiI II II I

    R equire s same Transaction orOccurrence as 1('8 claim against 3re

    Party "It~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~TPD ~'lUST assert al l

    d e fe n se s a va il ab le u nd e rR u le 12 a ndcounterclaims and

    crossclaims under Rulen

    - i () -

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    17/24

    JOINDER DIAGRAMS

    Rule 14(21.)9 - TPD Joining Another Third Party Defendant

    N eg lig en ce o r T ort I ~ (3 td Parry it)

    153021b7 -48 Ie -4 1 b5 -8555 -aa21e5881898.doc

    Contribution orIndemnity Claim

    ~3 " 1l P 3 1 1 : y .6l

    Contribut ion 0 1 1 'lndemnity Oaim

    Ru1IelS(~) Joinder of Claims

    " ~ b l _ N _ '- e _ g 1 i_ ' ; g e _ '_ l ! 1 c e _ o _ r_ ~ _ o _ r t _ ,

    ~ I Breach of Contract

    -p-

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    18/24

    JOINDER OF PARTIES DI RAMS

    Rule 20(a) S1Joinder of Parties '8

    Negligence or Ton

    Co1'[----'" ).J~Ii~i:nci: or Tort

    at most on exam.TO + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder

    I. Claims or defenses stem from [he same: transscdon; ANn2. There is a ( ommDn ' 1" e s fi ol l o f I l l ' &T1(1 (1 billding the panies.

    158021b7 a481 e-41 b5-8555-aa2 n e5881898.doc

    Rule 2O(a) S2Joinder ofPanies -A's

    ~c :g li g enc e o r Tort

    ~egligence or Tort ----- .. Co-A

    I at most on exam.TO + CQ = Permissive Party Joinder

    1. Claims or defenses stem from the same transaction; AND2. There is :II ((Jlnmon t j l les lKJH ojia, or fod binding the parties.

    1 S

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    19/24

    Intet:pleader Riede22, 28 U .S.C. U35"You all figure out who I need to pay if I am liable (which I may not be)"

    Interpleader BasicsDefined: Interpleader is an equity device designed to protect persons ill possession of propeny ( s t a k e h o l d e r s ) the ownership of which is or may be claimedby morethan one party. It is a device to resolve at onetime the claims of many persons to one piece of property or sum of money, such as a bankaccount claimed by more than one person.Polic.y Objective: So that the stakeholder will not have to pal ' the same claim twice.PrncricatAppHcation: Interpleader is a 7[';:; topl to join al l claimants at once; but may be :empk>yed by a A through use of cross-claim [Rule 13(g)],compulsory counterclaim [Rule 13(a)], or permissive counterclaim (Rule 13(b)].

    I s s u e 28US.C.~1335 Rule 22Sllbject MatteI Jurisdiction D i l' en i! J ' Minimal diversity; determined between claimants. (At least 2 Complete diversity; stake holder on one side and

    claimants diverse) claimants on the other A l l/ o ll n t $.500 in controversy $75,000+- - - - - - . . .PusonalJurisdictioll DIld Nationwide service of process

    ~liI l11riS~rviCe under Rule 4$i!t1rice of process

    Venue Residence of one or more claimants Resie ~nce of an y claimants (if al l from one state); districtw~ re dispute arose; district where property is; districtw ere any claimant found if no other basis for venue

    Injunctions Statu tory authority for injunctions (28 USC 2361) 0 }'basis is provision in 28 US C 2283 for stay "wherenecessary in aid of . .. jurisdiction"

    How to Invoke: stakeholder Post a bond with the COUi't to cover value of controverted I Deposit controverted property with the Court.invokes and iscalled 1t property. IR.8 I1Je1Ubef jOH n e e d P J o ll e r a U ' / ' e ( la im an tl ill o r d e rfor IV/k 22 ifllf!lpknder 1 0 1 I 10 r k!

    19

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    20/24

    Intervention Rule 24

    "I wasn't invited, but I am coming anyway"

    Rule 24(a): Intervention of RightAu tom at ic , u oo ou t. es tA ll e r ig bt i f:L Unconditional Right Granted by Federal Statute; OR.2. Applicant has interest in transaction or property + disposition will impair his interest - no existing [party can adequately represent his interest

    Rule 24(b): Permissive InterventionA o c discretioo of Cour t if:1. Conditional Right Granted by Statute; OR2. Common Question of Law or Fact; OR3. Limited Purpose Intervention: Courts my grant intervention for l imited purposes, such as contesting scope of protective orders an d

    confidentiality agreements. Example: Environmental Lawyers intervene to contest OilCo, sett lement agreement ordering destruction ofdiscovery documents which may show broader pat tern of abuse contrary to public policy,

    Rule 24(bl):Limited Purpose Interventionjudicial Expansioo of Rule 24(b);l, Limited Purpose Intervention: Courts my grant intervention for limited purposes. such as contesting scope of protective ordersand

    confidentiality agreements.2. Example: Environmental lawyers intervene to contest Oi l Co. set tlement agreement ordering destruction of discovery documents which may

    show broader pat tern of abuse, suppression of which arguably would be contrary to public policy.

    ISa021 b7-481 e -4 '1b5-8555-aa21 e5881898.doc - 20-

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    21/24

    I Step 1:STATUTORY.4.NALYSIS IDoes a Federal Stature grant/ J l J . c o l l l l i f i o n o i right of inrervention?

    I

    Yes

    D oe s a F ed era l S tatu ee g ramc o n d i / m u o ; right of intervention?

    Yes

    MUST Grant Ih is is R ule 2 4(a).1-__

    MAY GrantThis is Rule 24(b)

    C O N r t J l r j / J c o n si d er t il /q ) ' o r p r e j l l d k e /( 1origiJlai p a r t i l l .

    Step2:CAN'T SOMEONE ELSE DO IT? I

    Is (here a pa.rty [0the case who willadequately represent the applicant'slegitimate interest in the controverted

    maner?(Cti l l t i l l e x i . s l i n g p a r { ) t (J v er ) ' O u r t 1J s ? )Yes MUST Grant

    T his is R u le 2 4(a ).

    Step):CONSIDERATIONS OFJUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND PUBLIC POLICY.

    Is there:1) A JIIIIIIOn fJ l I8!IA' In of law or fac t?

    - 0)]'-2) A IiJ!Jitld p m p o s e that would servepublic policy?Yes

    15a02')b 7-481 e-4'1 b5-8555-aa21 e58818( )8 .doc

    MAY GrantThis is Rule 24(b)

    C f J . w r l # J i J i mnnt i e r t k ~ ' orprt j l l t ik l loo r ig i n J p a r t i es ,

    - 2 1 -

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    22/24

    I I I IClass Actions Rule 23: "We Were Alll Screwed Overt"

    23(A) CLASS PREREOUISITES (CEN C TAD)1. ~LASS; is rou ghly definable and ff is a member;2. ECONOMY: Judicial Economy is Served;3. Nu~mRous: Potential z's too numerous for joinder;4. COMMON LEGAL THEORY: Claims have a Common legal theory

    or arise out of the same transaction or occurrence;5. : J :ypICAL: Claim of named 1t must be Typical of the class;6. ADEQUACY OF REPIRESENTATION: Named parties must

    Adequately represent the class;t, B R ur ..E 23(B): Action must fall within one of three categories of

    Fed Rule 23(b) Identifiable Class Named 1t s (or &) are members of the class Numerosity Commonality Typicality -,t Adequacy of Representation

    JUR.1[SD[CTIONFederal Question: Normal Rule AppliesDiversnty: Class action is a r t p r e s e n l e J I i u l action.

    Diversity is based on the representative. JUSt make sure you pick a 1tfrom another stare.

    Amount in Controversy t t 1 1 1 n o l b e a g g n g a J e d . Ifi t' s classified as a 23(b)(2) injunctive claim, you would value the

    injunction and that could get you over the $7SkII Or }'OU could file it in state court.II But in a 23(b)(3) case ycu'd have a big problem if your individual

    claims were not each over the $75k requirement.Personal Jurisdicdon: Not the Shoe, Denkla, ~tf:st. Focuses moody onnotice.for 23(b)(3) d m u a g e s case, requires: Adequate representative t Notice tRightto opt out, Not required for 23(b)(1) or (2 ) cases.Supplemental JurisdictiotJ.: In diversity cases will run into the Smith - Merrcllproblem. See flowchart for supplemental jurisdiction, m p r a .

    23(H) TXfES Qf C~SSf:SClass Defined Policy Objective Practical Application23Cb)(l) Iii Mass version of Rule 19joinder. Avoid i n c o n s i s t e n t decisions or il/paimlellt of In a l it ll it et l f im d c a s e; if suits brought individually, Class members may NOT opt out and are interests of class members. Avoid harm to 8.'s first i't takes it all . Class Action protects other 1t"s.BOUND by the holding. and absentees.-. Civil rights cases.3(ro)(2) Limited to Injunctive or Declaratory Relief Protect rights where large numbers of persons :-.Jos damages are affected. Class members may NOT opt out23(10)(3) $Monetary Damages Judicial efficiency Class action for everyone who ..vas overcharged );Iust be superior to other available methods Ii Allows relief where individual x's could not '1 0 cents on every can of tuna they bought at Must present common questions of law or ecooornically pursue action Ralph's. No one would sue individuaDy. But as a

    fact. (predominance of common question) .. Could be only effective method of deterring class itwould make sense and Ralph's would itbears cost of notice to al l class members. behavior of some Il's (many small violations). have to react.,. Notice must inform members mayopt-outt. =

    t Sa02'1b7-48 '1e-41 b5-8555-aa21 e5881898 .doc - 2 2 -

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    23/24

    NILETM

    "Go Away , Leave Me .Mone, I Don't Want To TankAbou t It Anymore !"

    IV: Rh3JUDlCATA I ss u e N e c es s ar y to t he f ir st a ct io n?I de n ti ca l I ss u e s?Ac rua l lv L i ti ~ te d?

    S am e P ri m ar y rights involved?S am e Ev id e n ce ?S am e Ira ns ac tio n o r O cc ur re nc e?judg~cnt on the M erits

    ....II. . . .. . -. . . ... . _. .. . ~~==========================~~-~\\4. I I

    Res]udjcsta Basics1. D efinitions R J m eans you cannot re -litig ate a m atte r that you pre vious ly litig ate d or . r O i l ' " ! J a p e l i t igated.2. Merge r &Bat: T he co ntro ve rte d m atte r (c au se o ( actio n) is like a p ok er c hip . y ou only get tw o choice s: be t it or don 't be t it. You can't b re ak it in half

    a nd play part n ow an d part late r. A dd itio nal th eo rie s th at co uld h ave b ee n ple ad b ut weren't arc m erg ed in to th e firs t ju dg me nt an d fu rth er litig atio n isb arre d b y R J .3. C laim fo r R e lie f is The K ey: So. what's th e claim fo r re lie f (cau se o f act io n)? Is it litig atio n to pre se rve a rig ht o rto re me dy a wrongs Courts h av e h eldb oth w ay s an d a m in ori ty o f ju ris dictio ns s ti ll u sc th e rigJu-wmng te st. B ut th e m ajo rity po sitio n is to focu s on the transac tion. O n th e e xam . focus onfmll.Sotlio/J & (/(ellmHte. lf th e claim aris es (ro m th e s am e tran sactio n o r o ccu rre nc e, it 's pro bab ly co ve re d b y R J.

    a. Example: I n- ot he r- w or ds . i f 1[ b ou gh t a to as te r th at e xplo de d an d kille d h er pe t ig uan a, s he 's pro bab ly got h alf a d oze n th eo rie s o f re co ve ryu nd e r t or t a nd c on tr ac t l aw ( st ri ct l ia bi li ty . w a rr an ty . breach, e tc .). B ut all th os e actio ns aris e (ro m th e s am e occurrence - th e toaster explos ion.Most Cour t s would r ule th is a s in gle c au se -o f- ac tio n f or R JI purpos e s .4. Exam Tip: B e sure to le t th e p ro fe ss or kn ow y ou defined th e cau se -o f-ac tio n s o th at h e kn ow s y ou understand its central importance to the con ce pt of r e s

    j lulitll/a. .S. R em embe r the Polley Rationale: C o ur ts w il l i nt er pr et c la im s b r o m i ! J i n o rd e r to e n co ur ag e jo in de r a nd d is co ur ag e multiple l it iga t ion ( jud i ci a l e f f ic i e ncy ).B ut C ou rts w il l in te rp re t c la im s " a r r o w ! ! if the y are con ce rne d about the harshne ss of pre clus io n and the burd en on th e 1t.

    Coll lateral EStOwcl Basics1. Definition: CE m e an s y ou c an no t re -litig ate a n i ssue th at y ou p re vio us ly litig ate d o r c on ld h tW 8 l i t igated. IfR J is a m eat cle ave r. lo ppin g o ff th e e ntire claim,

    CE o is a s calpe l, s eve rin g o nly m e is su es pre vio us ly ad ju dicate d. T he re are 3 re qu ire me nts fo r CE :a. Sam e Is sueb . A ctu ally L itig ate dc. N ece ss arily D ecid ed (This is im.porl(lll/. T he is su e m ay pre vio us ly h ave : be en d ecid ed b ut wa s no t n e ce s s ar y to re so lu tio n o f th at c as e.

    2. Exampl le: D rive r A h its D rive r B . s ue s 8 fo r n eg lig en ce . an d w in s. A ss um e th at th ere w as n o c om pu ls ory co un te rclaim ru le . s o B n eve r co un te rclaim edaga ins t A. N ow D rive r lB wan ts to s ue D riv er A fo r h is in ju rie s.

    a. B is N OT batte d ibymjnmeafa b ecau se e ve n th ou gh h is c laim aris es (ro m th e s am e tran sa ctio n &o cc ur re n ce , < cl ai ms ar e s pe ci fi c t o t he 'lit, s o th ats in gle accid en t g ave ris e to valid claim s (o r b oth A an d B .b. But B will b e : es/upped fro m a ss erti ng a claim of ne glig ence aga ins t A . This is be caus e A ocfnai!J l i t i g a t e d an d I l e cessor i !J de te f11 l il l ed that B w as the

    n e g li ge n t d ri ve r in th e accide nt. F or purpo se s of the e xam , don 't worry a bo ut c om p ar at iv e n e gl ig e nc e c la im s .c. But, w hat i( the ve rdic t in th e fi rs t tria l c am e in a s c om pa ra tiv e n eg lig en ce . b ot h d riv ers n eg lig en t, 110 d am ag es arc aw ard ed b ecau se th ey w eree qua ll y ne g l ig e n t ? So the jury s e nds B horne a fre e m an. Now he de cide s to sue A. T he fac t th at th e ju ry fo un d B n eg lig en t in th e firs t cas e w asNOT n ea:s sa.ty to th eir fin din g th at A w as n eg lig en t, s o B isNOT e stoppe d (rom suin g A .i. Appeal: One w ay to s anity che ck your answ er is to look at w he the r the 1t in actio n #2 c ou ld h ave ap pe ale d th e ve rd ict in cas e # 1 . H ere ,

    B w on the firs t cas e (he did not have to pay A). so the re w as nothing for him to appeal . S o h is is su e w as n ot n ec es sa ril y d ec id ed .3. C onte xt is 'the K ey: W ith R J the claim s w ere the sam e so conte xt did no t m atte r. But w ith CE, the /Iltextof t he litig atio n c ou ld re -d efi ne th e c la im .

    I - -. -. . - . .- - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ ~Mutual i ty of Estoppel(\X bo o r w hic h p artie s a re s ub je ct to c la im o r is su e p re clu sio n>Re . " ludic.wI.(C l aim Pr e cl u s ion ) Collateral Estoppel( Is s u e P r e cl u s ion )

    15a021 b7 - 4 81 e - 41 b 5- 85 5 5- aa21 e5 88181)8. do c - 2.) -

  • 8/6/2019 Civ Pro Flowcharts

    24/24

    RESJUDICAT.4 (CLAIM PRECLUSION) FLOWCHART

    Do the issues il l. the current case srem from the same I r a l ls t1 f / ion orOC('IIlTtllCe as a previously litigated case?

    Yes1 ,\'(1as there a j i tJni j l fd l lnenl in the previous case? No(Final means all s teps in the adjudication except execution &appeal.) -

    No~ir Yes Jurisdiction

    Oi l VenueWas itconsidered "on the merits"? III Joinder of an Indispensable Party,I Ye8. . 12(b)(6) Default judgment or Consent decree

    II Summary judgment &Directed Verdict OMOL)Yes

    Was i t u o l i t P . No Proper court with subject matter and personal jurisdiction? . . 1738 "Full Faith &Credit." valid state court decisions arc binding -in federal court unless state court lacked competency.

    ,.YesDoes 2nd Act ion Involve Same Parr ies or Those In P r i l l i { J ' ? '\, ,(privity requires a legal relationship between the parties) -

    ,.Yes --- --- -LAIM PRECLUSION I NQCUIMPEntire daim isprecluded, including matters that were or should have I R J won't apply if the mbeen litigated. I and validly decided- - - - - 0iii0 ~ . . . . .

    1 5 a0 2 1 b 7 -4 81 e -4 1 b5 - 85 5 5- a a2 1 eS88189 8. .d o c

    ~-----RECLUSIONatrer hasn't b e e n f in al lyby a proper Court!

    _ J

    - 24-