Transcript Judgment as Matter of Law

Personal Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Rule 4(K)(1)
Rule 4(K)(2)
• (A) Subject to JX in state where
Dist. Ct. located
• (B) Joined under Rule 14 or 19 and
w/n 100 mls of ct. (bulge Jx)
• (C) Joined under interpleader
• (D)Auth. By fed. statute
or
• Claim under federal law
• No state has general Jx
(good for foreign D’s
• Exercise of Jx
constitutionally/statutorily
sound
Basis
State
Court
• Long Arm statute
• Persons: Consent, in -state
service, presence, domicile
• Corporations: Incorporation, nerve
center, consent - in state agent
• Civil Status cases
+
Minimum
Contacts
with the US
as a whole5th Ammend
Long Arm Statute
• Full extent of Constitution: CA
• Particular Circumstances: NY
• Specify exactly when can take
JX
• Particulars but construed
broadly: at full extent of constitution
Constitutional Analysis
Minimum Contacts
NOTICE &
SERVICE
Rule 4
Mullane letters;
Mennonite address:
Lehr “father”; posters
on door
• General: Persons- domic, pres; Corp--Incorp,
doing biz - “continuous and systematic” (Shoe)
• Specific: 1) Claim arise/relate to contacts 2)
Purposeful availment (McGee/Kulko/Keeton NOT
Hanson)
•Directed at forum (Calder,, driving)
•Stream of commerce: Gray (prob. Asahi—ads
required, O’Connors)
Reasonableness
•
•
•
•
•
State interest in hearing the case
Burden on Defendant
Plaintiff interest in relief
Judicial system intrst in efficient resolutn
Shared interest of several states in
forwarding public policy
• Balancing test (Burger King)
• Applies to in rem Shaffer
Objections: Either direct attack (special appearance) or collateral attack (allow default, challenge
domestication) - Note Rule 12 - must object at first opportunity or waive
Federal Subject Matter JX
Federal
Question: 1331
Federal creates cause
of action: express or
Impliedif unsure can bring &
dismissal on merits
OR
Federal law is central
but claim not arise
from it
NOT
Federal defense or
anticipated federal
defense (Mottley):
Well pleaded
complaint rule
P Master of the complaint
unless…Complete
preemption (Caterpillar)
Note: Rule 8(a)(1):
Complaint must have short
statement of grounds for
subject matter JX
Diversity: 1332
Supplemental- 1367
Source: Art III, but Sec. 1332 narrower b/c
include amt. in controversy req. and
complete diversity requirement
Complete Diversity
• Real persons: Citizenship = Domicile (last place
intended to stay indefinitely/”mind/behind”) (Mas
v. Perry)
• Artificial Persons:
• Corporations : Citizenship = State of
Incorporation + Principle place of business
• Place of Operations
• Nerve Center
• Total Activity/Primary Activity Test
• Associations: citizens of ALL states where
members are citizens
• Improper/collusive assignment or joinder NOT
permitted to defeat or create diversity
• If non-diverse D’s joined after removal, may be
remanded or joinder denied 1441 (c)
Amount in Controversy
• Min. amt. In controversy = $75K- met unless
“legal certainty” will not recover
• Value of injunctions- to either P or D (Glenwood)
• Aggregation: Single P can aggregate against
single D. But can’t aggregate claims of different
P’s (Zahn). Counterclaims generally NOT offset;
also issue w/ 1367 (b) and Zahn.
Watch out for: patent infringement v. breach of K related to patent
Must have direct reliance on federal law for substantive right
“Artful Pleading” to stay in ST crt when really can be removed b/c fed issue
Constitutional Basis
• Article III of the Constitution - must
be same case or controversy
• Look to Gibb’s test: Common
nucleus of Operative Fact
(CNOF)- same case or controversy
+
Statutory Basis
• Federal Question: 1367(a) Orig.
claim has Fed. JX and supp.
claims are part of same
case/controversy (Gibbs)
•Basically full reach of
constitutional authority
• Diversity Cases: 1367(b) supp. Jx
NOT extend to:
•Claims by P’s vs. parties joined
under 14, 19, 20, 24
•Claims by persons’ included as
P’s under 19 or 24
•Otherwise inconsistent w/1332
• Court Discretion 1367(c): may
decide NOT to exercise Jx if
Novel issue of state law;
supp. claim >original claim
dismiss all claims w/ orig. jx;
exceptional circumstances
Removal means
venue rules DON’T
apply. Can only
remove to area where
action is
pending.(Glannon)
Removal - 1441
• 1441: Any matter fed.
Cts have orig. jx can be
removed
Only D, only to Fed
Fed decides
NO appeal of remand
•Complete Unanimity
among D’s required
•“well-pleaded complnt”
applies (Caterpillar)
•Remove only to fed ct.
embracing state ct.
where action pending
•(b): If removal based
on diversity - can NOT
remove if any D is
citizen of forum state
•Removal OK even If st.
ct. did not have jx
remove to fed ct and
dismiss (12 b 2)
•1446: Procedure
•(b) W/N 30 days of
service of 1st of
summons or complaint
•Multiple D’s - cts. split
if get add’l 30 days;
later D can remand if
w/in 30 days
•Must still file w/n a year
if removal based on
diversity
1447 Post-Removal
(c) Motion to remand w/in 30 days after file notice
(d) Remands NOT appealable
(e) post-removal joinder which can destroy subj.mat jx.
Court’s discretion remand (allow) or continue (NOT)
VENUE and FNC
Venue1391/
1404/1406
• Diversity: 1391(a) - Venue proper if
• 1) Any D reside in the district provided all D’s reside in the state (“Reside” for maj of states = domicile)
• 2) Judicial district where “transitory rule” eventsclaim took place or “local rule” property subject of
action located
• 3) District where any D subject to under personal jx - if no district where action could be brought
otherwise
• Subject matter/Other:1391(b): (1) and (2) same as 1391(a)
• (3) District where any D may be found, if no other district where action can be brought - (served w/
process, but also poss to use personal jx)
• Corporate Defendants (not Ps) 1391 (c) : Defines corporate residence as particular District where D has
contracts - even if subject to personal jx in state - may not be proper venue • Resides in every district where the corp. is subject to personal jx - even if only specific jx for this claimtreat district like a separate state for min. contacts analysis
• Aliens 1391(d): Any district
• 1406 - If venue wrong or at discretion of the court - can dismiss or transfer to 1404-any other district where
could have been brought originally
Forum Non
Conveniens
•·Discretionary power to Ct. to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of
justice would be better served if action were brought and tried in another forum. (Piper)
ERIE
In Fed. Ct. under Diversity JX - Where fed. Law is not controlling, fed. Ct’s must apply state law
Arguably Procedural (Sibbach v. Wilson—not substantive just
b/c has to do w/ right; if procedural, really procedural)
No
Clearly SubstantiveApply State law (Erie—
willful v. negl.stdrd; Klaxton—choice of law <if PA
choice of law sends to NY law, use NY NOT PA>)
Yes
Procedures in conflict?
No
Apply Both - (Cohen v. Beneficial Life—
stockholderspost security <state>; <fed> silent on issue)
Yes
Federal rule, valid and on point
Yes
Apply federal rule if 1) w/n rules enabling act
2) Constitutional (Hanna svc of process on point Rule 4
No
express requirements [broad interp] and L. Walker Steel—
Rule 3 NOT on point b/c not intended to relate to stat of lim.
[construe narrowly] <Ragan-stare decisis.)
Outcome Determinative: (Hanna twin aims of
Erie - 1) Forum shopping 2) inequitable admin of laws//
modifies Guaranty Trust v. York—laches v. stat of
limprocedural BUT outcome determinative)
No
Apply Federal Law
Yes
Overriding Federal Interest (7th A rt to jury;
No
Apply State Law
div btw judge/jury, due process, div btw TC & AP,
liberal pleading, res judicata?
Yes
Apply Federal Law - Byrd Balancing Test
No
ByrdJdge/Jry decides if person was EEJURY 7th Am rt.
Able to accommodate both
Yes
Make accommodation: Gasperini-2 separate
Erie analyses: New Trstate b/c no rule on point;
AppealFed interest in review and separate
Trial/Appeal
Reverse Erie: Must have overriding fed. Interest
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dice-FELA judge (ST)/jury (FD)fed FELA overriding intrst in jury
Is the rule integral to the remedy?
Is the rule part and parcel to the remedy Congress intended?
Would state practice unduly interfere w/ P's opprtny to recover remedy?
<FED> Felder—uniformity goal w/ liberal Federal pleading procedure
<STATE> Johnson—interlocutory appeal is burden
Joinder of Claims
Possible Claims to be joined
PD
• Original Claim
• May add additional unrelated claims - Rule 18
DP
• Must assert compulsory counterclaims - Rule 13(a)
that arise out of same transaction or occurrence
• May assert unrelated, permissive counterclaims Rule 13(b)
D1  D2
• May assert cross-claim - Rule 13(g) - must be same
case/controversy
• Once assert valid crossclaim, may then add unrelated
claims - Rule 18
D2  D1
• May assert cross-claim - Rule 13(g) - must be same
case/controversy
• Must assert compulsory counterclaim 13(a) against D1’s
crossclaim
• Once valid crossclaim/counterclaim, may add unrelated
claims - Rule 18 or assert permissive counterclaims
13(b) against D1
Jx question
Joinder of parties/Intervention
Permissive Joinder Rule 20
Single Transaction
Intervener - Rule 24
Compulsory Joinder - Rule 19
As of right - 24(a)
Should they be joined?
(1) Statute gives right
Mechanics
+
Common question of
law/fact
Not need claims against
all parties- decide each
according to respective
rights
Jurisdiction
Join other P’s or
make co-D’s
Terr JX: Must have Jx over each
D - may be out of range even if jx
could be constitutional 4(k)(1)(B) must be w/n 100 miles ??
Subj. Matter:
Fed. Q - always permitted;
Diversity - No supp. Jx over statelaw claims v. non-divers Ds 1367; circuit split over P’s
(2) 3 -prong test
• Interest in subj matter based on
property or transaction
• Ability to protect interest would be
impaired
• Inadequate representation
Permissive - 24(b)
Common question of
law/fact
+
Discretion of court
Subj. Matter: Indep. Grounds req.
Fed. Q - permitted
Diversity - 1367(b) - Can not
intervene as a Plaintiff and have
subj. matter jx. If break diversity
• 19(a)(1) - If no complete relief in persons’ absence
• 19(a)(2) - If judgment in absence of party
• (i) As practical matter impair protection of parties’
interest
• (ii) impose multiple or inconsitent obligations
Can they be joined?
• Terr. JX - Must be subj. to service of process - can
be waived - Bulge Jx- 4(K)(1)(B) - must be w/n 100
miles
• Subj. Matter Jx: Joinder can not deprive of jx - note
for purposes of diversity - no supp. Jx if join as P’s
but yes if join as D’s
• Venue: No join if make venue improper
• Refusal: Can still be made involuntary P or
If they can’t be, but should be?
• Prejudice: Extent prejudice absent party
• Framing judgment: poss. frame judge. To mitigate
prejudice
• Adequacy of remedy: Can adequate remedy w/
absense
• Result of dismissal: Will adequate remedy if P
dismissed
Rule 14 and 13(h) Joinder of Parties
Rule/Mechanics - Power
D v. D: Cross
- claim 13(g)
• Must be related to P’s orig. complaint or previous counterclaim - same
transaction/relate to property test from 13(a) Comp. Counterclaim
• Never mandatory
• Must claim actual relief
D v. P + Other
party 13(h)
• On counterclaim/cross-claim - D can join additional parties to the
counter or crossclaim as long as joinder meets reqs. In Rule 20(a) Same transaction + Common question law/fact.
D v. 3PD 14(a)
• When: Anytime after commencement - if after 10 days of answer, need
leave of court (liberal)
• Derivative action: must be asserting 3rd party’s liability depends on D’s
liability to orig. P.
•Same Case/Controversy
• Additional Claims: Once properly impleaded 3PD can assert other
unrelated claims - 18(a)
• Denial: Can deny 1) Undue delay 2) Complication issues 3) Prejudice to
P - can separate suits
• NOT mandatory
D
1
2
Related
unRelated
3PD
3PD v. D/P/new 3PD
P
Claims /
Counterclaim
3PD
Counter
claim
Cross
claim
P v. 3PD
D
3PD
JX - Permission
• ALWAYS exists under 13(g) b/c same transaction req.
meets CNOF test and not
excluded by 1367(b)
• Original claim: Impleading
3PD by D, NOT affect jx over
orig. claim even if not diverse
• Impleader claim - must still
have supp. Jx
• Usually will under 1367(b)
- since excludes parties
joined by P’s under 14
• Venue: 3PD not taken into
consideration
• 14(a) allows 3PD to assert:
• Counterclaim against 3PP/Def. - not need to be related
• Cross-claims against any other 3PD- must be related
• Claims against orig. P that arise out of same transaction as orig. P/D
suit
• Defenses against orig. P and 3PP/Def
•Original P can assert claims against 3PD
•Must be related to orig. claim b/t P and orig. D
•Independent juridisdictional requirement - prevent collusion b/t D and P to
maintain diversity
• 1367(b) If claims by P’s
against parties joined under
14 - not have supp. Juris. If
orig. jx is based on diversity
Judgment as Matter of Law
Rule
Failure to
State a
claim:
12(b)(6)
Rule 56
Summary
Judgement
JMOL/
Directed
Verdict
Rule
50(a)
JMOL/
JNOV
Rule
50(b)
New Trial
Rule
59
When
Pre-answer
motion - not need
to make at first
opp.
Typically after
discovery since if not
suff. evidence, parties
can continue
discovery (56(f))
After non-moving
parties’ case in chief
or at any time before
sub. to the jury.
Poss. allow motion
after issue presented
After jury verdict: w/n
10 days of entry of
judgment - BUT make
JMOL motion before
submission to jury
After jury verdict: w/n
10 days of entry of
judgment
Evidence Required
• Solely on the pleadings
• Judge will ascertain whether
viewing the pleadings in light most
favorable to P whether states a
legally sufficient claim
• P given at least one opp. To
ammend
• Moving party has burden at trial:
Must show affirmative evidence
• MP NOT have burden at trial - no
affirmative evidence, BUT, must point
to specific places in evidentiary
record
• Burden of persuasion taken into acct.
• Based on evidence presented
at trial
• Must specify places in
evidentiary record- allow
ammendment
• Viewed in light most favorable
to non-moving party
Trial Std
Ap Std
Plaintiff can prove no
set of facts based on
the allegations in the
complaint that would
entitle him to relief
No genuine issue of
material fact an that
moving party entitled to
judgment based on
undisputed facts.
No legally sufficient
basis for a reas. jury to
find for the non-moving
party.
“
but
one
reasonable conclusion:
2 stds:
1) Consider only evidence
favorable to NMP and all
infer.
in
light
most
favorable to NMP. OR
De Novo:
Verdict
insuff. As
matter
of
Law
2) Include evidence by MP
that is not impeached
/contradicted by opposing
party evidence
• Based on evidence presented at trial
• Includes procedural factors
• Viewed in light most favorable to
non-moving party
Great weight of the
evidence.
Abuse of
Discretion
(Gasperini)
Summary Judgement - Rule 56
Moving Party has
Burden at trial - P
• Must present
Affirmative Evidence
Burden of
Production • Can not rely on the
pleadings
Moving Party not have
Burden at trial - D
• Must point to specific
places lacking in the
record showing no GIMF
- Celotrex
• Not require affirmative
evidence
• Who bears the risk of non-persuasion?
Burden of
Persuasion
• All reasonable inferences viewed in light most
favorable to non-moving party
• Take account of burden at trial - Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby
Opposing
Motion for
SJ
• Can not rest on the pleadings if opposing motion
for SJ - Rule 56(e)
• Must present affirmative evidence in substance but
not form admissible at trial
• If affidavits not available - court can issue
continuance for more discovery - 56(f)
Standard: No genuine issue of
material fact an that moving party
entitled to judgment based on
undisputed facts.
Partial SJ: Rule 56(d): SJ can be
granted w/ respect to certain claims -
Quasi-Interlocutory Appeal: Rule
54(b) but appeal can be had only if
express determination by judge that
final judgment
Post -Verdict Options
Renew JMOL
1) Renew JMOL - 50(b)
Grant
2) Move for New Trial - 59
• Tl. Ct has discretion in granting new
trial - less likely to cause 7th A probs as
JNOV
• Grounds for new trial - 59(a)(1): Any
reason granted in past include...judicial
error, prejudicial error, juror misconduct, verdict
against great weight of evidence; newly
discovered evid
3) Appeal
Grant
Deny
• If grant JNOV, must also conditionally
rule on new trial
Move for New Trial
• Must have motioned before submitted
to jury
Deny
JMOL granted and New trial
conditionally granted Can
appeal
Both JMOL denied and New
Trial GrantedNo appeal until
2nd trial is over
Appellate court can 1) Uphold
JMOL or 2) New Trial - Std.
Diff result in Trail 2: Loser can claim
new trial was abuse of discretion
review abuse of discretion will stand
Same result: Loser can appeal both
new trial and JMOL
JMOL granted and New trial
conditionally deniedCan
appeal
Both JMOL and New Trial
Motion deniedAbility to
appeal
Appellate court can 1) Uphold
JMOL or 2) Reinstate verdict or
3) Order new trial (Abuse
Appellate court can 1) Order
JMOL 2) New Trial 3) Let
Verdict stand
discretion)
Need Final Judgement + Substantial Stake+ Trial court Error (Procedural, misapply substantive law, or gross
misapprehension of facts) - note harmless error - Rule 61
Interlocutory Appeals: Collateral Order Doctrine: 1) Conclusive 2) Resolve important issue question sep. from
merits 3) Render effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judge OR Partial SJ and express det. Final
judgment
4) Relief from
Judgment 60(b)
Rule 60(b): Can make motion in action in which judgement was rendered: 1) Mistake, surprise, excusable
neglect 2) New evidence 3) Fraud 4) Judgement void 5) Judgement satisfied or judgement on which based
overturned (Reed v. Allen) 6) Any other reason justifying relief - exclusive of others
Other means of relief: Bring sep. equity suit if facts = “grave miscarriage of justice” or await execution
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
Res Judicata/Claim Preclusion
New claims on same set of events
Basic
Requirements
1) Same parties or privies
2) Same transaction or occurences
3) Final and Valid decision
4) On the merits
Barred in suit 2
• Claims under 18(a) arising out of same
transaction able to bring in suit 1
• Compulsory Counter claims under 13(a)
Not Barred in
Suit 2
• Claims under 18(a) not out of same transaction
or which could not have been brought in first
suit (b/c of exclusive jx or nosupp jx)
• Permissive Counterclaims under 13(b)
• Cross-claims under 13(g)
• Impleader - Rule 14 - but note collateral
estoppel if try to bring in suit 2
• Permissive joinder - Rule 20 - note collateral
estoppel
Collateral Estoppel/ Issue
Preclusion
Same issues on new set of events
1) Same parties or privies
2) Same issue of fact/law actually litigated
3) Actually decided - must be part of decision
4) Necessary to the judgement - not
alternative theories
• Issues that were decided on - not in the
alternative - must be necessary to the case