CASE ERIE/CHOICE OF LAW Erie RR v.

Tompkins

DATE/ COURT

RULE

BRIEF FACTUAL SUMMARY

RULE INVOLVED

1938/US

Although the 1789 Rules of Decisions Act lead federal courts unfettered to apply their own rules of procedure in common law actions brought in federal court, state law governs substantive issues. State law includes not only statutory law, but case law as well. No federal common law The Erie Doctrine mandates that federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law, but where matters fall roughly between the two and are rationally capable of classification as either, the constitution grants the federal system the power to regulate their practice and procedure

Trespasser v. Train; forum shopping

USC 725

Hanna v. Plummer

1965/US

In a PI suit based on diversity, there was a large divergence between state and federal procedure regarding the methods of service

28 U.S.C.S. 2072 (Rules Enabling Act)

FRCP 4 (d)(1)

Netherland v. Eli Lilly FEDERAL QUESTION Louisville & Nashville RR v Mottley

1908/US

Alleging an anticipated constitutional defense in the complaint does not give a federal court jurisdiction if there is no diversity of citizenship between litigants

Mottley was awarded lifetime tickets as part of a settlement. Congress outlawed lifetime tickets. Plaintiff claimed to be a resident of France. USC 1332(a)(2)

DIVERSITY Redner v. Sanders

2000/Distri ct Court

Saadeh v.

1997/Distri

For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 1332(a)(2), the controversy must be between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, not merely residents of a foreign state Aliens cannot bring suit against

A Greek sued a

USC 1332

Farouki

ct Court

each other in federal court due to the requirement of complete diversity

Jordanian in federal court based on diversity. Default on a loan

Article III

SUPPLEMENTA L JURISDICTION In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation SzendreyRamos v First Bancorp

2007/Distri ct Court

2007/Distri ct Court (Puerto Rico)

Supplemental Jurisdiction is proper where there is a sufficient nexus between state and federal claims, and statutory discretionary factors do not weigh in favor of a decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where 1. The state law claims rise complex or novel issues or 2. The state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim. A district courts error in failing to remand a case improperly removed does not prevent adjudication if the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied at the time of judgment

Motion to FRCP 12(b)(1) dismiss state law claims that were USC 1367 based on the courts supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed an USC 1367 employment discrimination suit.

REMOVAL Caterpillar v. Lewis

1996/US

PLEADINGS Haddle v. Garrison Stradford v. Zurich Insurance Co. Towmbly and Iqbal

2007 and 2009 Supreme Court

Jones v. Block

Those cases held that pleadings must contain facts that show an alleged claim is plausible; a conclusory statement that an action establishes liability is not enough. The question for the court was who has the burden of showing that the prisoner had exhausted the administrative remedies. The court held that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an

a case was brought in federal court based on federal question subject matter

affirmative defense and inmates dont have to plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.

Walker v. Norwest Corp.

1996 8th circuit

Christian v. Mattell

9th circuit 1992

Beek v. Aquaslide N Dive Co.

8th circuit 1977

jurisdiction. It was a case between a prisoner and a guard of the prison. According to legislation, a prisoner must first exhaust administrative remedies before filing in court. He was sanctioned and the case A Plaintiffs was dimissed. On appeal the lawyer tried to court holds that Rule 11 sanctions assert federal were correct because it was the subject matter plaintiffs burden to plead diversity jurisdiction and they did not do so because, as because SOME the lawyer said, it would be too of the parties difficult. Court held that this is were diverse not a valid argument and that if (obviously this is you want to plead diversity you not the must identify the citizenship of standard). The the defendants. other side informs him of his mistake. A huge amount of monetary Barbie doll case. sanctions against the lawyer were A lawyer is cited ordered. On appeal the court said for a series of that sanctions were correct under violations, some Rule 11 because the lawyer did in of which fall fact misstate the law in a brief. under Rule 11 But the court remanded the cases and some that to recalculate the damages and do not. delineate between Rule 11 and other violations. In determining if a party should be Personal Injury. allowed to amend their answer, The court look at three factors decided that 1. Undue/Unfair none of these prejudice? three 2. Bad faith or dilatory considerations motive? were met so 3. Undue delay in they allowed the coming forward party to amend answer based on Note: the closer it is to try the less new information

Rule 11

Rule 11

They motion to file an amended answer so as to withdraw this answer pursuant to 15(a)(2)

Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers Inc.

likely a court is to grant a motion to amend pleading because there will be more prejudice to the other side. Rule 8 requires that in answer the defendant must be specific and deny/admit each allegation

that came out in discovery (manufacturer of slide) the defendant did not do so and they were not allowed to amend their answer

Rule 8

Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation AND Moore v. Baker

The cases of Moore v. Baker and Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation together tell us that if a party wishes to relate back to the original filing to amend a complaint, the amendment must assert a claim that arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence so as to put the defendant on notice of the claims against him. Northern The court compelled discovery District of finding that it was not too broad Illinois 2002 and sufficiently limited to the claims of the case. The court used the pleading to measure it against. a company refused to respond to a request for production because they found it too broad. Case about homosexual student at military school Rule 26

DISCOVERY Davis v. Precoat

Steffan v. Cheney

Dc circuit 1990

Silvestri v. GM Corporation

4th circuit 2001

on appeal the court decided that the lower court had abused its discretion by dismissing cases as a sanction against a plaintiff who refused to answer a irrelevant request for admission. The court decided that he did have the duty to preserve, and should have informed GM of the location (junkyard) of the car before it was destroyed. The court pointed out that without the car, GM would be unable to defend themselves, so despite the harshness, dismissal is the appropriate sanction.

Rule 26

Product liability Duty to claim brought preserve about an airbag in a GM car. The failed to preserve the car, so GM moves for sanctions, in particular the sanction of dismissal. The

Hickman v. Taylor

Supreme court 1947

Chiquita Int. v. M/V Bolero

Thompson v. Haskell Co.

Attorney for one of the deceaseds estate requested during discovery that the interviews be produced. The lawyer who conducted the interview denied stating that they were his work product. The court decided that because the witness was still alive, the information is readily available to both parties, and much of the information had already been revealed via interrogatories, he did not have to hand over the interviews. Unlike Hickman, the proceeding case, the court held that the work product protection was not overcome by any exceptional circumstances because the files that the defendant was seeking were still in existence. The court found that this information was discoverable because it was relevant, the plaintiff had waived privilege by putting depression at issue, and it was not otherwise protected. (Although the plaintiff alleged that it was protected by trial prep (26(b)(4)(B) the court held that so much time had passed and an examination today would not be the same thing, so the doctors report was given to the defendant.)

defendant said that he didnt have the duty to preserve because it wasnt his car. A boat sunk and people were killed and injured. Estates of the injured people sued the boat, etc. There was a public hearing about the incident. The attorney for the boat interviewed on of the witnesses.

26(b)(3) Trial Preparation Material otherwise protected

Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp

District court in Kansas 1996

The court holds that the information is relevant, not privileged, and not otherwise protected on the basis of privacy. They do, however, limit the

An employee alleged that she was sexually harassed and because she did not acquiesce she was fired. Her employer, the defendant, deposed her and found out that she was seeing a psychiatrist. Her employer then filed subpoena for the Doctor. Plaintiff wants to depose other Kmart employees in an action centered

26(b)(4)(B) Pretrial deposition of experts otherwise protected

26(c) protective orders

nature of the question in the deposition to sex with the cited supervisor initiated by the supervisor.

around a Kmart supervisor that sexually harassed Stalnaker, the plaintiff. Kmart, on behalf of the employee sought to be deposed, motioned for a protective order due to the highly intrusive nature of the questions.

PRESSURE FOR ADJUDICATION Peralta v. Heights Medical Center

Filed in Tx state court. Appealed to US Supreme Court

The default judgment and subsequent sale of property denied defendant of due process when he didnt have service of process (even if he didnt have a meritorious defense.)

Defendant never received service, it was sent after the 90 days required in Texas. He did not answer and thus a default judgment was entered against him. There was a lien placed on his property and sold. He moved for bill of review (equivalent of Rule 60(b) motion to reopen judgment). Denied. Appeal to supreme court for due process issues.

Rules 55, 60 re: Default Judgment

SUMMARY JUDGMENT Houchens v. American Home Insurance Co.

We dont actually know how he did or even if he died, so there are no genuine issues of material fact that should warrant a showing before a jury.

Breach of K from policy holder to insurance co. based on co.s failure to pay up

Summary Judgment Rule 56: Issues of genuine material fact?:

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

1986/Supre me Court

Bias v. Advantage International Inc.

Federal District Court DC

life insurance policy of husband. Husband disappeared out of the country, nothing known about his death. The movant (Celotex) has to prove Products liability the absence of evidence but they case. Maker of do not have to show the negative product moved for summary judgment saying that it wasnt actually the product that killed the s husband. did provide documents (but no affidavits.) At Supreme Court, said this was within the rule. No issue of genuine fact because College coaches evidence eliminated the basketball chance that he could have been player died for insured. drug overdose. Parents sued agent claiming that he breached his contract by not getting the player a life insurance policy as requested. Coach said he could not have been able to due to his drug use. Agent presented evidence that no companies at the time would insure him and that he was a

(Movant doesnt have to prove the negative, the non-moving party must prove the positive) 56

56

drug user. Parents provided less conclusive evidence. JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT OF LITIGATION Lockhart v. Patel

Federal district court in KY, 1987

Judge files show cause order for contempt. Makes them send a letter of apology, contempt is purged

Sanders v. Union Pacific RR

Dismissal can be used as a sanction

Mckey v. Fairbairn

Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City RR

1911, state court in Utah

If there is a pretrial conference, there must be a pretrial order. Pleadings control discovery, pretrial order controls during case. Standard for amending pre-trial order: 16(e) to prevent manifest injustice Where evidence is intended to support one inference, but instead supports equally one inference that renders the defendant liable and another that

Doctor (Patel) and his insurance agent purposely fail to comply with judges orders. Plaintiffs lawyer completely failed to comply with judges orders, other side had already undergone pain and expense, other people before same court would be troubled by the delay, and sanders case didnt involve important issues of public policy. For these reasons dismissal was appropriate. tries to amend pretrial order.

Rule 16 pretrial motion

41(b) Involuntary Dismissal and 16(f)(1)(B)

16

Cow killed by a railroad. Question of whether it was because of the

does not, the plaintiff must fai

railroads negligence or the cow owners negligence.

THE TRIER AND THE TRIAL Chauffers, Teamsters and Helpers v.Terry

Amoco Oil Co. v. Torcomian

This claim was not in existence in England in 1791. So the supreme court looked at 2 factors: 1. Closest historical analog 2. $ damages (more often legal) The majority said it should be treated like a legal claim. When claim is a mix of legal and equitable, jury goes first and hears the legal issues, then judge hears equitable issues and is bound by the jury Due to an appearance of bias, court grants recusal

Breach of duty of fair representation

Applying 7th Amendment preservation of jury trial to modern cases Rule 38demand for jury trial

In re Bostons Children First

Thompson v. Altheimer and Gray

Misseating of a juror can never be a harmless error

Son and dad sued by Amoco for ejectment, injunction, lost profit, and mesne profits. Writ of mandamus for the judge to recuse herself One jury apparently bias, judge didnt grant s motion to strike. won at trial, appealed

Rule 38

Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain

Lind v. Schenley Industries

Peterson v. Wilson

The court that if a reasonable jury would not have been able to find for the jury (legally sufficient evidentiary basis) directed verdict for defendant Court granted jnov (no legally sufficient evidence to get to the jury) and conditionally grants new trial because contrary to the substantial weight of evidence Jury can impeach own evidence based on internal influences or external influence

50(a) directed verdict

Rule 59 granting of new trial

RESPECT FOR JUDGMENTS Rush v. City of Maple Heights

Frier v. City of Vandalia Martino v. McDonalds System Inc. Searle Brothers v. Searle

Claim preclusion. In order to meet the one claim requirement, court applied the transaction test (as opposed to the primary rights theory.) Same claim, so preclusion applies. Federal court applied Illinois law which uses the primary rights test (as opposed to previous court).

Personal injury and property damage arose out of the same accident.

Claim preclusion: same claim

Claim preclusion: same claim

1978

On appeal the court remands saying that the brothers must prove their partnership with the father.

Taylor v. Sturgell

6 situations in which non-parties are found to be in privity (an thus preclusion applies)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Preexisting substantive legal reslationship Express agreement to be bound Adequate representation by someone w/same interests Party assuming control over prior litigation Litigating through Special statutory schemes (such as bankruptcy)

6. Gargallo v. Meril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith

After a divorce suit, brothers sue Mom claiming interest in her property. She raises preclusion. Plane aficionados FOIA request denied. Sued but court did not grant him the information. Then friend (same club) brought suit for same request

Claim preclusion: parties in privity

Claim preclusion: party in privity

Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Parks

The 1st judgment doesnt have preclusive effect in a federal court action asserting those claims because Ohio would not give claim preclusive effect to prior judgment upon a cause of action over which the Ohio court had not subject matter jurisdiction. Where a judgment can be based on either of 3 facts, party pleading had burden to prove one or the other. (SEE OUTLINE for the 4 fairness factors.)

Claim preclusion: After a final judgment

Parklane Hoisery Co. v.

Issue Preclusion: Issue actually litigated and determined Issue Preclusion:

Shore Pacific Bell v. Century Home State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Century Home Components Durfee v. Duke Application of 4 fairness factors Application of 4 fairness factors

Mutuality Requirement

Brandon v. Board of Education PERSONAL JURISDICTION *Pennoyer v. Neff

Court refused to vacate judgment. Affirmed on appeal.

Avulsion and accretion: who opened the land? Clerks office and lawyer made mistakes

Collateral Attack

Rule 60 motion to vacate judgment

1887/US

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

1945/US

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

1957/US

Shaffer v. Heitner

1977/US

*Where the object of an action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the parties, service by publication is ineffective to confer upon the court For a state to subject a nonresident defendant to in personam jurisdiction, due process requires that the nonresident defendant have certain minimum contacts with the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Due process requires only that in order to subject a nonresident defendant to the personal jurisdiction of the form, the suit be based on a contract that has substantial connection with the forum. Trend of expanding state jdx over foreign corporations and non residents- due to nationalization of business, communication, travel, etc. Jurisdiction cannot be founded on property within a state unless

Suit brought to recover legal fees

SEE INTERNATIOAN AL SHOE

International Shoe had salesmen located in Washington, but did not pay Washington unemployment taxes. Key issue was that the insurance company had solicited business within the California.

Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment

Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment

The plaintiff brought a

Due Process Clause of 14th

there are sufficient contacts within the meaning of the test developed in international shoe

World Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson

1980/US

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court

1987/US

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

1985/US

derivative suit against the directors of Greyhound for losses it suffered in antitrust action in Oregon. A state court may exercise This was an personal jurisdiction over a attempt to nonresident defendant only so establish long as there exists sufficient diversity in minimum contacts between him order to get a and the forum state such that case away from maintenance of the suit does not an unfavorable offend traditional notions of fair jury pool play and substantial justice. 4-4 split on whether entering A company with products into stream of no real ties to commerce was enough to California was constitute minimum contacts. 4 sued in said entering product in stream of California commerce is enough, the other because their side (stream of commerce+) said products were that you must make it for the part of a larger market or cater to that market. product that (But all agreed that in applying was sold and the worldwide balancing factors, used in it seems unduly unfair to asahi for California them to travel to California for court.) Direct and continuous contacts by Burger King a franchise with the franchisor brought action may lead to the franchise being against a subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisee from franchisors home forum. Applied another state. the world wide fairness/balancing factors. Personal jurisdiction may not necessarily be acquired over a defendant based on a posting on a passive website Plaintiff posted info on a website that allowed people to break DVD codes. He was sued by DVD companies. Lower court

Amendment

Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment

Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment

28 U.S.C. 1332(a) Due Process Clause State Long Arm Statute

Pavlovich v. Superior Court

2002/Califo rnia State Court

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.

1952/US

Whenever a foreign corporation carries on continuous and systematic corporate activities within a state, that state may subject such corporation to the jurisdiction of its courts in personam on any transitory cause of action, even if such cause of action did not arise within its borders and was not related to the business activities of the corporation within its borders

determined that he was subject to jurisdiction in California, where he had no real contacts, based on his posting Stockholder filed suit against a Philippines based business that does business in Ohio and was temporarily based there. An important note re: this case is that it was during WWII and the company had fled Philippines due to the war. Quote: What we are saying to Ohio is: You have decided this case on an adequate state ground, denying service, which you had a right to do, but you don't have to do it if you don't want to, as far as the decisions of this Court are concerned. Based on the deaths and injuries which

Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v.

1984/US

Contract negotiations and purchasing equipment alone does not constitute sufficient minimum

Due Process Clause

Hall

contacts to confer jurisdiction when they do not arise out of or relation to the cause of action.

Burnham v. Superior Court

1990/US

State courts have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the state

Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute

1991/US

Reasonable forum selection clauses contained in passenger tickets are presumptively valid

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust

1950/US

Gibbons v. Brown

1998/State Court

In order to satisfy due process challenges, notice must be by mean calculated to inform the desired parties and where they reside outside of the state and their names and addresses are available, notice by publication is insufficient A prior decision to file a lawsuit in a state does not qualify as sufficient activity in the state to confer personal jurisdiction A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss for forum non convenience merely by showing that the substantive law would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to him than that of the present forum

were the result of a helicopter crash that occurred in Columbia Plaintiff was served with divorce papers which visiting California Shute was injured on a cruise. The ticket contained a forum selection clause. This was regarding a banking issue

State Long Arm Statute

Due Process Clause State Long Arm Statute

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

1981/US

Passenger gave driver bad directions, which resulted in a car accident Suit brought in California despite the fact that the accident happened in Scotland

28 U.S.C. 1404(a).