FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) Two key components that are necessary for federal court to be authorized to hear a case. Federal court cannot hear a case if it lacks either Constitutional Authorization or

Statutory Authorization. For a federal court to have SMJ, the case must fall under Article III, Section 2 of U.S.

Constitution AND either 28 U.S.C § 1331 or 28 U.S.C § 1332.

Article III, Section 2 of U.S. Constitution For a court to have SMJ, it must have a case that falls under Article III, Section 2. Article III, § 2 allows federal courts to decide on cases arising under…

o Constitutional law.o Disputes between parties of different states.o Disputes between different states.o Disputes between citizens and citizens of foreign states.

* General Note: You need to have Article III, Section 2 AND either 28 U.S.C §1331 or §1332 for a federal court to have SMJ.

28 U.S.C §1331 - Federal Question: Along with falling under Article III, Section 2, a federal court needs the case to meet

either § 1331 or §1332. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that arise under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the U.S. Under §1331, there is NO AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY and NO NEED FOR

COMPLETE DIVERSITY.

Federal Question (or “Arising Under”) Jurisdiction: Falling Under §1331 To meet requirement of a case “arising under” federal law, federal question must appear

on face of the π’s complaint. π cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the ∆ is

going to raise a defense based on the Constitution or on a federal statute. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule:

o Determination of whether claims arise under federal law based on π’s well pleaded complaint.

o Important to make only your claim and not make a claim based on what the defense is going to make later on ( This would justify removal from federal court)

o A well pleaded complaint states a claim created by federal law. Ex: L & N R.R. v. Mottley

28 U.S.C §1332 - Diversity of Citizenship/Amount in Controversy: Along with falling under Article III, Section 2, a federal court needs the case to meet

either § 1331 or §1332. Amount in Controversy + Claims Between :

o Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that meet the amount in controversy, claims exceeding $75,000 , and claims between:

Citizens of different states. Citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign state (that are not lawfully

admitted for permanent residence in U.S. and are domiciled in same state). Citizens of different States and citizens of a foreign state that are

additional parties. Corporations :

o A corporation will be a citizen of the State in which it chooses to be incorporated in and of the state in which it has its principal place of business.

Class Actions : NOT ON THE EXAMo “Class” All members of a suit (this consists of MANY, MANY, MANY

people; i.e. 1,000 members, not 3 members).o “Class Action” Means any civil action filed under Rule 23 or similar State

statute authorizing actions to be brought by one or more representative persons as a class action.

o “Class Members” Means the persons (named and unnamed) who fall within the definition of the proposed or certified class in a class action.

o Court will have jurisdiction of any matter that exceeds $5,000,000 and is a class action.

Diversity Jurisdiction: Falling under §1332 Under §1332, a federal court must have complete diversity to be able to hear a case (both

sides of the “v.” need to be from different states).o Citizens of a State is where a person or corporation is “domiciled.”

Domicile :o Person(s) can be residency by having intent to stay indefinitely in the State.o Person(s) must be IN THE STATE.

This can be proven by changing ones address/owning property, getting a drivers license, changing voters registration, etc.

Ex: Mas v. Perryo Corporations are domiciled where its “nerve center” is located and where it is

incorporated. Thus a corporation can be domiciled in two locations. Ex: Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Amount in Controversy: Falling under §1332 Sum claimed by π that is made in good faith and exceeds $75,000 in question. “Good Faith” Party has to show that the amount in controversy is reasonable pursuant

to the claims being brought. Claims that aren’t $ can be appraised (in good faith) to see whether it is greater than

$75,000.o Most things have statutory caps that place a maximum award on certain damages.o Caps make it so you only collect “x” amount due to “legal certainty.”

Rule 18: A single π is able to combine all its claims against a single ∆ to meet amount in controversy (+$75,000).

o This is only okay to do if none of the claims (on its own) are above $75,000.o HOWEVER, π cannot add more πs to combine claims to meet the +$75,000

requirement. Ex: ≠ π with claim of $50,000 combines its claims with a second π with

claim of $27,000. Rule 20 (Multiparty Litigation): Except where a claim is common and undivided, a π is

not able to combine all claims to suffice +$75,000. Counter Claim: Does not affect the amount in controversy and cannot be combined with

the original claim in an attempt to meet the +$75,000 requirement.

28 U.S.C §1367 - Supplemental Jurisdiction: Allows the federal court to hear additional claims “arising under a common nucleus” as

the original claim being brought even though the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claim independently.

Elements:o (a) Is there an action of which the federal court have original jurisdiction?

(ALLOWS SJ) There must be original jurisdiction, so you must meet §1331 or §1332. Are additional claims “so related?”

If they are not, stop your analysis.o (b) Is the action based on §1332 alone? (CAN TAKE SJ AWAY - EXCEPTIONS)

If so, make sure the claims/parties are not added under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24.

Rule 14 (Impleaders): o Gives ∆ the limited right to bring into the suit a new party

against whom the ∆ has claims related to the main action (3P∆ as means of protection).

Rule 19 (Required Joinder):o Parties may be ordered to join if they are required to fairly

adjudicate the case. o π has to join a second ∆ even if π doesn’t want to join it.

Rule 20 (Permissive Joinder):o Multiple πs can sue together.o One π can sue multiple ∆s if they assert claims arising out

of the same transaction or occurrence (or series of transactions or occurrences) and its claims against the ∆(s) will involve a common question of law or fact.

Rule 24 (Intervention):o Where a party may be joined to either π or ∆’s side even if

the π doesn’t want that party to be joined/intervene with the case.

If not, move onto (c)…o (c) Is there any reason the court would refuse to go forward with the claim?

(COURT CAN TAKE SJ AWAY IF IT WANTS) Reasons:

Claim raises novel or complex issue of state law (should the state make the decision?)

Claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the federal court has original jurisdiction (is the state claim the main claim?)

Federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Does the federal court even want to add the claim (it’s at its discretion to take the claim)?

Things To Memorize For Final: U.S.C:

o §1331, §1332, §1367 Rule(s):

o 14, 18, 19, 20, 24 Cases:

o Mas v. Perry Domicile (Person)o Hertz Corp. v. Friend Domicile (Corporation)o L & N R.R. v. Mottley Well Pleaded Claim

REMOVAL

U.S.C §1441 - Removal of Civil Actions: (a) ∆ must timely file the removal papers and must show a valid basis for federal court

jurisdiction for the transfer of an action from state to federal court.o ^ This is for removal to federal court ONLY.

(b)(2) Removal is not allowed if it is being removed to a federal court if one of the ∆s is a citizen in, which the action is brought.

o This coincides with the idea that if the ∆ is already at home, than it is going to get a fair trial.

o * Note: THIS IS FOR ONLY §1332 CASES thus why diversity is important here.

U.S.C §1446 - Procedure for Removal of Civil Actions: (a) ∆ can effectuate removal by filing a notice with the federal court.

o The notice must contain a short/plain statement + everything else.o The moment the notice is filed, the state court loses its ability to go any further on

the case. (b)

o (1) Notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after the receipt (of notice) by the ∆.

o (2)(A) When removed solely under §1441(a), all ∆s who had been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.

Everyone involved in the case has to agree to the removal.

o (2)(B) Each ∆ has 30 days after receiving service on that ∆ of the initial pleading or summons described in the notice of the removal.

o (2)(C) If ∆s are served at different times, and a later-served ∆ files a notice of removal, any earlier-served ∆ may consent to the removal even though that earlier served ∆ did not previously initiate or consent to removal.

o (3) It doesn’t have to be 30 days if ∆ does not know, and something happens after the time period (i.e. a new motion, pleading, order or other paper…)

(c)o (1) May not be removed based on §1332 more than a year after commencement,

unless there is bad faith on the ∆ part.o (2) If removal is sought on basis of jurisdiction based on §1332(a), the sum

demanded in good faith in the initial pleaded shall be deemed the amount in controversy except that…

U.S.C §1447 - Procedure After Removal Generally: (c) Motion to remand on basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction

must be made within 30 days after filing of the notice of removal under §1446(a).o If at any time before final judgment it appears that federal court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction, case will be remanded. (e) If after removal the π seeks to join additional ∆s whose joinder would destroy subject

matter, court may deny joinder OR permit joinder AND remand the action to state court.o Court can decide whether to blow case up and remand, or can say go back to the

state court if a party being joined that could ruin diversity.

Things to Memorize: U.S.C:

o §1441, §1446, §1447

PERSONAL JURISDICTIONPersonal Jurisdiction (PJ):

Imposes limits on the π’s capacity to sue the ∆ in the courts of the state that is most convenient or favorable to the π.

PJ hinges on two fundamental questions:o Whether the state has jurisdiction over the ∆ under its long-arm statute, ando Whether the exercising of jurisdiction is a violation of due process under the

Constitution (must meet traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice).

PJ Walkthrough: Does the state long-arm statute allow for this claim?

o Federal Courts must check the State long-arm statute under Rule 4(k)(1)(A).o * For the Exam: Usually dismiss this pretty quickly… it will always satisfy state

long-arm statute, but still be sure to mention the rule. Is Due process satisfied? (traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)

o Pennoyer v. Neff Due process has been satisfied if the ∆ voluntarily appears in court or

Personal service has been rendered in the forum state.o Prior Consent

Forum Selection Clause Clause that states what court the ∆ can be hailed into, thus giving it prior consent.

Ex: Carnival Cruises case.o ^ * Note: Due process is satisfied by any of these three options (Pennoyer or

Prior Consent). Is due process satisfied through purposeful availment?

o Did the ∆ have minimum contacts in the state?o Did the ∆ avail itself through the Stream of Commerce theory?

O’Connor/Kennedy View: Better for ∆s Conservative There’s more than just Stream of Commerce SoC+ Don’t call it this.

o Must be an action directed towards the forum state.o If you are designing the product specifically for a state,

then that, in it of itself, is purposeful availment.o Look for intent to sell product in that forum state…

Other/liberal-er views would say that you don’t need to “target” the forum state, so long as you just put the product into the SoC.

Brennan View: Better for πs Brennan’s view is more liberal, mirrors the more class SoC view. Basically, if the ∆ was aware or should be aware that its

good/product could enter the stream, then it can be brought into court in the forum state.

Stevens/Brayer/Alito View: Liberal, middle leading justices/view. There must be a continuous flow and a certain volume of the

good/product.o Can’t just be one or two products

Mirror Eddy Metaphor Idea that a stream is a big body of water, versus an eddy, which is just a small pool.

^ If this is how far it can go, then you should look at how long it was being sold for and the amount… Then also consider how extreme this SoC analysis can be.

o Should smack you in the face.o Calder Test: Did ∆ expressly aim at the forum state? (Separate from SoC, really

looking to the effects test of Calder v. Jones) NEED AN INTENTIONAL TORT TO USE THIS.

Are the effects of the ∆’s conduct felt in the forum state? Actions by the ∆ must be expressly aimed/toward π in the forum state for

it to be able to be called into court in the forum state. NOT ON THE EXAM

Does the court have general or specific jurisdiction? (*Exam Note: Pucillo likes this attacked at the end of the analysis)

o General Jurisdiction : Allows all issues to be brought up

Is the ∆ at home? Is it domiciled there? Is ∆ a corporation, does it have substantial contacts? Is ∆’s actions so continuous and systematic that ∆ is essentially at

home in the forum state. Perkins showed that it was subject to general jurisdiction since its

nerve center was in the forum state.o Specific Jurisdiction : Isolated incidence

Are ∆’s contacts not substantial, but highly related to the claim at issue? Apply the Asahi “Fairness Factors”: Weigh them

o What is the burden on the ∆ to litigate in forum state? Keep in mind geographic location and factors in foreign (out of country)

judicial system is different than U.S. law = severe burden.o What are the π injuries (what’s π’s interest in litigating in forum state)?

Normally, π’s interest in litigating in forum state is to get convenient/effective relief.

o What is the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute? Has its interest already been met through prior suits? Is this a matter that they feel the need to rule on? Was the π from the forum state already compensated, thus negating the

need to rule on case? If it has already been compensated, forum state has no interest

since its member has already been compensated.

Things to Memorize: Cases:

o Pennoyer v.Neff Due Process/Personal Serviceo Int’l Shoe v. Washington Evolution of Pennoyero Asahi “Fairness Factors”o Calder v. Jones ‘Calder Test,’ Express Aiming at the Forum State

VENUE* Exam Note: Bunch of multiple-choice questions on Venue.

28 U.S.C §1391 – Venue: (b) A civil action may be brought in…

o (1) A judicial district in which any ∆ resides, if all ∆s are residents of the State in which the district is located;

o (2) Substantial events or omissions occurred giving rise to claim making venue in both places okay.

o (3) If (b)(1) and (b)(2) don’t work, you can use any district where a person is from.

(c) Residency Multiple Choice Questions NATURAL PERSON(S) ONLY!!!o (1) A natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

in US, will be deemed to reside in the judicial district where that person is domiciled.

o (2) Any company that is made a ∆ must be court that has personal jurisdiction over it.

o (3) If a party is not a citizen (US), it can be brought in anywhere. The court may deny on personal jurisdiction, however.

(d) Residency of Corporations in States with Multiple Districts NOT ON FINAL

Venue Walkthrough: Step 1: Do SMJ Step 2: Do PJ Step 3: Is the π a Corporation or

Individual?o If π is a Corporation, it is residing where its principal place of business is

§1391(c)(2).o An individual is a resident wherever it is domiciled §1391(c)(1).

Step 4: Are ∆s Corporations or Foreign?o If Foreign, ∆s can be sued in any district §1391(c)(3).o If a Corporation, venue is proper anywhere the ∆ Corporation is subject to

personal jurisdiction §1391(c)(2). Step 5: Determine how §1391(b) applies.

o (b)(1) – Do ∆s reside in the same state? If so, venue is proper in the district where a ∆ resides. For an individual ∆, venue is proper where that ∆ resides.

^ Can’t use this if you have ∆s that reside in different states.o (b)(2) – Where has a substantial part of the events underlying the dispute

occurred? Venue is proper there. ^ Venue can be proper in many venues depending on the facts. Ex: Bates

o (b)(3) – What if neither apply? Suit can be brought anywhere the ∆ or any of the ∆s, if multiple, are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

TRANSFER OF VENUE AND FORUM NON CONVENIENS

§1404 – Change of Venue: (a) Allows a transfer of venue when venue was initially proper, but inconvenient.

o It’s a transfer from US district to another US district.o Still need to have personal jurisdiction.o Ex: Piper Transfer should not result in a change in the applicable law.

CONFLICTS LAW OF THE TRANSFEROR STATE IS APPLIED BY THE TRANSFEREE COURT.

§1406 – Cure or Waiver of Defects: (a) If venue is improper, the district court has the ability to dismiss or transfer the case to

a district it could have been brought in.o Still need to have personal jurisdiction.

CONFLICTS LAW OF THE TRANSFEREE STATE WILL APPLY HERE.

These steps are only necessary if the problem does not ask you to disregard them. Most problems won’t make you do both jurisdiction and venue.

*NOTE FROM REVIEW: Conflicts Rules = Choice of Law

Transfer Venue: From Spaeth 1404 Weighing Private Interest Factors for Transfer

o π’s privilege if choosing forum.o ∆’s preferred forum.o Location where the claim arose.o Convenience of the parties.o Convenience of the witnesses.o Ease of access to proof/evidence.

Weighing Public Interest Factors for Transfero Transferee’s familiarity with the governing law.o How backed up is the transferee court.

If it is backed up, should it stay in transferor court?o Local interest in deciding local controversies at home.

Forum Non Conveniens: From Piper Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens. Result is dismissal of the complaint with the expectation that it will be re-filed in another

forum. Case in US district, but will be sent to court outside the US, or back to state court. Dismiss and must re-file. Weighing Private Interest Factors for Forum Non Conveniens

o Access to sources of proof.o Obtaining witnesses.o View of premises.o Make trial easy, expeditious, inexpensive.

Weighing Public Interest Factors for Forum Non Convenienso Court congestion.o Local interest in having local issues resolved at home.o Having the trail of a diversity case with the law that must govern the action.o Ability to apply foreign law and conflict of laws.o Burdening jurors in unrelated forum with jury duty.

JOINDER OF CLAIMS & PARTIES

Rule 18 - Joinder of Claims: (a) So long as you have ONE claim that works, you can join as many claims as you

would like.

Rule 42 – Consolidation, Separate Trials: NOT ON THE EXAM (b) Court can say to leave claims in same action, as well as move for separate trials.

Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder of Parties: (a)(1) πs – Persons may join in one action as πs if:

o (A) The joined party(s) have come from the same event/incident(s); and

o (B) Any question of law or fact common to all πs will arise in the action. (a)(2) ∆s – Persons may be joined in one action as ∆s if: ( “may” gives court wiggle

room)o (A) The π’s claims logically relate to the ∆ somehow (out of the same

occurrence/transaction); ando (B) Any question of law or fact common to all ∆s will arise in the action.

Rule 21 – Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties: NOT ON THE EXAM Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal. At the court’s discretion, and at any time during trial, on just terms, can add or drop a

party. Court may also sever a claim against a party.

Rule 14 - Third-Party Actions: (a) When a defending party may bring in a third party…

o (1) Timing of the summons and complaint – A defending party may, as a 3Pπ, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.

Rule 13 - Counterclaims and Cross-Claims: (a)(1) A pleasing must state as a counterclaim any claim that, at the time of its service,

the pleader (∆) has against an opposing party if the claim: ^ *Note: You can’t later bring a counter, “must” do it at any time the court would allow

it. If you don’t, the claim cannot be added.o (A) Arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the

opposing party’s claim. (b) Permissive Counterclaim – A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an

opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.o ^ You can bring a claim that may be unrelated to the initial claim if you are

already heading to court.

Claim for Negligence against ∆.

v.

v. v. 3P

∆ filing action against the 3P∆ becomes a 3Pπ since it is filing its own action against a new ∆. *Note: Whether for indemnity or contribution, there must be a casual connection. If π v. ∆ falls apart, then ∆(3Pπ v. 3P∆ falls apart as well.

(g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty – A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action.

o Crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant.

Compulsory Joinder: NOT ON THE EXAMIntervention: NOT ON THE EXAM

PLEADING AND AMENDING CLAIMS AND DEFENSES*Exam Note: 1) Don’t use #s on the exam when discussing whether a claim is plausible or probably… Just make arguments justifying your reasoning. 2) Don’t say “more plausible,” just say “need the claim to be plausible.” 3) If you face legal conclusion(s), explain why you think it is a conclusion, don’t just state it is a legal conclusion.

Rule 8 – Rules of Pleading: (a) Claims for Relief – A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

o (2) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

o (3) A demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

(b) Defenses; Admissions and Denialso (1) In responding to a pleading, a party must:

(A) State in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it.

Short & Plain Statement:

Counterclaim against π for breach of “K” between π and ∆.

v.1

2

Same claim of negligence against ∆2 as ∆1. ∆2 can bring claim against ∆1 if the claim arises out of the came claim.

*Does not allow for cross claim outside the scope of the original claim No permissive crossclaims.

Short and plain statements need sufficient factual content in the complaint that makes a plausible suggestion of the claim.

o Factual Content plausible? Claim All the ∆ needs to do to have a claim brought forward is for the claim to be plausible…

Thus any other explanation will be “possible.”o To get nudged back up (from possible to plausible),the ∆ will need more in

claims to nudge it back (this comes with more specific claims being made), thus pushing the ∆’s claim up to plausible and moving the π’s claim back to possible.

A court must accept all fact allegations as TRUE. Legal conclusions are disregarded by the court.

o A legal conclusion is saying that the issue is something due to something happened.

o In Iqbal, π needed some form of evidence to make claim that it was MORE LIKELY something other than the fact that they were “profiling” only Muslim immigrants due to ties & connections with terrorists.

Need evidence/claim that would state “Get the Arab guys.”

Probable v. Plausible v. Conceivability: Probable is GREATER than 50% likelihood of something having happened. Plausible is something less. Conceivability NOT PLAUSIBLE.

o It’s possible, matter of individual judges thinking what is conceivable and plausible.

Rule 12 – Pre-Answer Motions: (b) Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive

pleading if one is required. A party may assert the following defenses by motion:o (1) Lack of SMJ.o (2) Lack of PJ.o (3) Improper Venue.o (4) Insufficient Process.o (5) Insufficient Service of Process.o (6) Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.o (7) Failure to Join Party Under Rule 19.

(h) When some are waived – A party waives any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) by:o (B) failing to either:

(i) Make it by motion under this rule; or (ii) Include it in a responsive pleading or in an amendment allowed by

Rule 15(a)(1) as a matter of course.

Possible/Conceivable Plausible Probable

> 50%

Rule 15 – Amended and Supplemental Pleadings: (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party

o (1) Amending as a Matter of Course – A party may amend its pleading one as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or; (B) ∆ files an answer and 21 days after or 21 days after service under

motion of Rule 12(b), whichever is earlier.o (2) All pleadings, party can only amend with opposing party consent or the

court’s leave. Standard: Judges have discretion to say yes freely. Things that get in the way of Rule 15(a)(2):

Problem of undue delayo Should they have known/did they know?o If they knew and delayed intentionally, then this is in “bad

faith” and cannot be allowed. Prejudice to the other party.

o Has there or would there be some other harmful impact due to amendment.

Things to Memorize: Cases:

o Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly Short/Plain Statemento Ashcroft v. Iqbal Short/Plain Statement Must Have Specifics Giving Reason

To Go To Discovery

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment: (a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment – A party may move

for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense, or the part of each claim or defense, on which summary judgment is sought. The court will grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

o Court considering pleadings in totality + other documents Summary Judgment.

^ How does party show no issue of material fact?o Must convince judge that only way this is the only way it can be settled.

Rule 50 – Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial Conditional Ruling:

(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial.o If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under

Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion.

o The movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:

(1) Allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) Order a new trial; or (3) Direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

In Sum: Summary Judgment Can be brought at any time during the trial. A party can motion

for Summary Judgment after it has made its claim stating that the other side does not have enough evidence to prove its claims wrong.

Judgment As A Matter of Law After a judgment has been passed, the losing party can motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the ruling is incorrect and should be found in its favor on a basis of law, even though the fact finder has found for the winning party.

RES JUDICATA

Res Judicata: ^ This can also be called “preclusion” Matter has been adjudicated. Two forms of Res Judicata:

o Claim Preclusion Could be called “claim splitting,” or Res Judicata. Claimant is barred by res judicata from asserting the same cause of action

in a later lawsuit. Once a claimant has received an award, it can no longer look for rewards

on that same claim.o ^ Application of Claim Preclusions:

Mutuality (same parties) Only party to the judgment who can assert claim preclusion against

each other for the judgment. Judgment on the merits

Court actually considered the merits of the claim. Same “claim” or “cause of action”

Different Elements…o But conception of claim means does it have substantially

similar underlying facts.o Would you need to apply substantially similar

underlying fact? If yes, should have brought the claims together.

^ Ex: Manego v. Orleans Board of Tradeo Issue Preclusion

Could be called “collateral estoppel.”

Judgment binds the π or ∆ (or privies) in subsequent actions on different causes of action between them (or their privies) as to issues actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action.

This conclusive effect of the first judgment is called collateral estoppel. Focuses on something relatively narrow an issue that was litigated and

determined in the first case, and that is relevant in a second case. In this scenario, the issue is deemed established in the second case without need to proffer evidence on it.

o ^ Application of Issue Preclusion: Same issue? Issue that was ACTUALLY LITIGATED and decided.

“Actually litigated” - Parties disputed it in relation to how issue should be resolved.

Necessary to the judgment. Not all courts use this…

Party against whom issue preclusion is sought had an opportunity to litigate (thus there has already been a ruling). KEY PART.

Non-Party Preclusion:Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel Still need to cover this.

Someone who is not party ro beginning litigation is now trying to use a finding in earlier litigation against someone who was already a party.

ERIE DOCTRINE

Erie v. Tompkins: NOT ON THE EXAM States that federal court sitting in diversity is required to apply generally the law of the

state in which the court sits. ^ This is done because courts do not want parties to forum shop and look for federal

courts to use “federal common law” that has been made by past cases ruled on.o Forum shopping would be between the State Court and the Federal Court.

Only reason Tompkins had filed in federal court was because he was forum shopping and would get a more favorable result in the federal court than if the state court applied state common law to his case.

*NOTE: NEED DIVERSITY FOR THIS TO BE APPLICABLE.

Shady Grove v. Allstate: Federal court is governed by lots of different provisions…

o How much of state procedure needs to be applied?o Shady Grove court ruled that the state courts influence on federal court can only

go so far. State court rules are not going to apply to federal procedure.

QUESTIONS RE: INFORMATION FOR EXAM

Venue: Residency for an alien π? Can they sue in US?

§1406/1404: Whose law is used on the transfer?

CITIZEN OF STATE: Natural Person(s)1) US Citizen2) Domiciliary of a State

a. Could be a domicilary of a state, but not a US citizen