Civ Pro Cases (Basic) Flashcards
Walker v. City of Birmingham
Formalism v. Federalism Policy
they violated injunction before going through the proper proceedings to challenge even though injunction would have failed
Pennoyer v. Neff
Early PJ
property was only attached after the case started so there was no jurisdiction because he was not in the state
concerned about state sovereignty
International Shoe
PJ Test
Corporation was not in the state. Only had salesman, but no offices or people so they said no PJ.
Court Reasoned they had established contacts in the state. Test: Needed minimum contacts, the contacts have to give rise to the action, and cannot offend notions of fair play
WWV Corp.
PJ (Purposeful availment)
Distributed vehicles to local dealership in NY, family got car and had crash in OK.
Court Reasoned that there has to be a purposeful availment into the stream of commerce and one car being in OK from their dealership is not.
Burger King
PJ (Contacts + Test)
Guys had BK franchise, fell behind on payments and got sued in FL while they were in MI.
Court Said that a contract is not enough to establish PJ, but had a lot of contact with Miami HQ.
J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD
PJ (Stream of Commerce)
Machine injured in NJ. MM sold the machine with an independent distributor to many states, no marketing or advertising in NJ
Court Said no PJ because they did not make any attempt to have direct activity with NJ. Availing themselves to the U.S. mkt is not the same as a state mkt
From WWV (has to be more than foreseeable)
Ford Motor Co.
PJ (Nexus Test)
Purchased cars in Montana had accident in different state than cars were produced in, so argued no nexus
Court Said there was PJ and nexus because of Fords advertising in the other state and having dealerships to maintain cars. Said that the claims either arise out of or relate to fords contacts.
Goodyear
GJ
Had lots of extensive contacts in NC where the GJ claim was being brought
Said no GJ because extensive contacts are not enough and require at least the place of incorporation or principle place of business (Nerve Center).
Daimler
GJ
GJ suit brought by Argentinians in Cal to hold a subsidiary of Daimler accountable for supporting the Govs crimes
Said agency can be used to establish Specific Jurisdiction but not GJ, it has to be the party itself. Extensive contacts have to be compared to defendant’s contacts in other forums.
Bates
Venue
Debtor sent abusive letter to Bates in Penn, it was forwarded to his address in NY. Bates brought the action in NY.
C&S said venue was improper, court said no because letter was sent to NY. Said venue proper under 1391 bc substantial events took place there
Piper Aircraft Co.
Venue (forum non conviens)
Plain crash in Scotland engine and propeller made in Penn and Ohio. Sued in Cal court, removed to Cal Fed court and transferred to MD of Penn
Moved on forum non conveniens grounds because one defendant was a foreign defendant. It would be easier to have one trial in Scotland
Mas
Diversity/citizenship
Two way mirror, Mr. Mas was a French citizen student, Wife was a Miss citizen
Citizenship is the last place you were domiciled with the intent to remain there permanently. Wife does not automatically take citizenship of husband
Mottley
Federal Question
Injured in train accident, took a deal for free transportation, Congress prevented fee tickets, Mottley’s invoked FQ jurisdiction anticipating a FQ defense
Court said Mottley’s claim arises out of state law, and they cannot bring to Fed Court by anticipating a FQ defense
Grable
FQ
Grable no taxes, property gets sold, sues to get it back saying IRS did not notify him properly. Darue removed. Grable says claim arises under state law
Court says there is a state law claim, but the resolution turns entirely on a fed issue. Grable Test:
Necessity;
Actually disputed;
Substantial; and
Non-disruptive
Gibbs
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Mine workers on strike after getting laid off, hired rival union. Gibbs sued them for a federal law thing and a state tort thing.
Court said they could hear both claims. Gibbs Test: is there claim granting Fed Jurisdiction? Is there state claim from common nucleus of facts as fed claim? Still allows discretionary use of supp jurisdiction
Kroger
Supp Jurisdiction
Owen got impleaded by other defendant into a diversity suit. Plaintiff brought new claims against Owen
Kroger destroyed diversity because new claims were brought against Owen. If new claims were not brought, Kroger would not have destroyed it after Owen was impleaded
Exxon Mobil
Supp Juris
Two cases both are diverse but some plaintiffs don’t meet amt in controversy.
SC said that the amt in controversy could be consolidated between the parties if in class action
Caterpillar
Removal
Defendant removed, however the parties were not diverse at time of removal, but the case proceeded
SC said that it was improper for the DC to grant removal, but diversity ended up being satisfied so the SC kept the removal bc it would’ve been a waste of resources to relitigate the case
Swift
Erie Doctrine
There was no state law on point, but plaintiff said state common law governed in fed court
SC said 28 USC 1652 only applied to statutes not common law
Erie
Erie Doctrine
Common law question, but state and fed courts have developed different rules for that question
SC said there is no general common law, and if the fed court has not been given specific power by the legislature, then the right falls to the state
York
Erie Doctrine
Shareholder dispute about if fed or state statute of limitations should apply. Difficult to tell if its substance or procedure
SC created a rule that asks if applying fed law would be outcome determinative, if so then it is substantive
Byrd
Erie Doctrine
South Carolina state law had an issue be tried by a judge, fed law required a right to a jury. Did not know if it was substantive or procedural
SC asked if the rule was substantive or bound up in substantive rights
Hanna
Erie Doctrine
Car accident, served by leaving copies at door, Service was proper under federal rules, not under Mass. Defendant claimed state rules should apply
Court said the proper question is to ask Would the difference in which law is used be outcome determinative?
Shady Grove
Erie Doctrine
Not paid on time and brought a class action. NY law prohibited seeking statutory penalties.
Court said there is a conflict between the rules and therefore the fed rule applies because it does not go against 28 USC 2072(b)
Aramco
Erie Doctrine
Injured by defective nail, served 2 days after statute of limitations expired in OK. In OK actions commence upon service. For fed, action commences upon filing.
Court said they conflicted and that the Fed rule modified or abridged the state substantive right bc the state law was meant to serve substantive policy goals, so the court said the state law applied.
Hamdi
Due Process
Captured in Afgan fighting war, was not given a trial; no adversarial process; SC said there needs to be some kind of due process;
SC said no full trial at time of war bc of cross examine; balanced gov interest with private interest; allowed a hearing but no x examining
Greene
Notice
Plaintiffs getting evicted; summons posted on door, kids take it down; Followed KY law for notice
SC said it was proper under KY law but not Due Process Clause; Said KY should mail instead of posting it on door
Jones
Notice
Owned house; divorced and moved out; taxes went unpaid; tax ppl attempted to give notice; Used cert mail but no one signed for it
SC said no proper notice; When you know a notice attempt fails, you have to make another attempt
Mid Continent
Notice
Broke contract from settlement; plaintiff attempted to serve default judgment; could not find defendant and cert mail was not signed; could not find residence; tried to give to council but council was not an agent of service
Court Said Service was not proper; said even though defendant knew about the suit, he still needed to be properly served
Swierkiewicz
Pleading
Plaintiff fired and then sued for age discrimination; gave dates, ages, events, and nationalities
SC said he met the pleading standard of a short an plain statement of the case; said it was sufficient even though it did not show a primie facie case
Twombly
Pleading
ILECs v CLECS. Offered some facts as evidence in complaint. Said there was parallel conduct and that there might be an agreement because the companies communicate. Also cited a strange quote.
Court said facts have to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery is going to produce evidence, plausible but not a prob standard. Cannot recite elements of the claim. Have to present more than a bare legal conclusion.
Iqbal
Pleading
Iqbal was arrested and alleged a bunch of violations of amendments. Says he was detained illegally after 9/11.
Court dismissed saying the allegations were conclusory and just recited elements of the liability without any real facts. Kind of drew inferences in favor of the defendant.
Swanson
Pleading
Swanson applied for a loan, was denied, claimed discrimination. Cited a weird comment, the appraiser valued her home less than an independent one. Couldn’t sign until her husband was there to cosign
Court does not dismiss but it doesn’t seem to fit with Tombly and Iqbal. Dissent says this is too much like Conley.
Trump
Pleading
Allegations of voter fraud, seeking relief that is not possible, seeking to amend complaint
Court said there were no facts to show that the election was conducted in a way that discriminated Trump voters. Lines up with the Twombly and Iqbal standard
Crompton
Pleading; Answers; and Amendments
Machine injured plaintiff. Crompton said they did not have sufficient evidence to admit or deny the claim. Turns out Crompton had not assumed liability when buying the machine from another company. Tried to amend their complaint to deny even after discovery had started.
Court had to determine if the lack of sufficient evidence answer should be admitted. Said Crompton either knew or should have known about the nonliability. Court said an amendment would create prejudice against the plaintiff because the statute of limitations had run out. Did not allow the amendment under Rule 15
Krupski
Pleading; Answers; and Amendments
Injured by a wire on cruise ship. Plaintiff made a mistake about the proper defendant to sue even though it was on their ticket. Moved to amend her complaint.
court allowed plaintiff to switch out for the right defendant and relate back to the original filing date because 15(c)(1)(C)(ii). Says Cruise ship should have known it would be the proper defendant but for a mistake by the plaintiff.
McCormick
Pleading Rule 11
Killled in car accident after leaving bar. Claim against the bar and the driver, but those are mutually exclusive because the other driver can’t be 100% at fault if the plaintiff was drunk.
Court did not impose sanctions saying you can claim two mutually exclusive claims in good faith, if you don’t know which claim has factual merit – however, when you find out which one has factual merit you can’t recover under both.
Zuk
Pleading Rule 11
Doctor made videos and then wrote a book. Did not really own the videos and they were used without permission.
Court found that the claims were egregious enough to warrant sanctions for failure in the precomplaint investigation. Even if a claim may not be frivolous, you can receive sanctions as a lawyer for not doing your due diligence for a claim you’re going to argue
Whitmer
Pleading Rule 11
Trump campaign suit against Michigan for election allegations. Legal remedies sought were not possible and there were not enough factual contentions
Court said submitting an action without checking whether the facts alleged were truthful because he believed them - pure belief is not the same as due diligence
Hickman
Discovery – Purposes
Tug boat accident, attorney had some private interviews with survivors, opposing attorney wanted the other memos and copies of statements from the interviews.
Court said not discoverable even though there was nothing in the rules at the time. Cited policy concerns about allowing attorneys to ride on the coat tail of another attorney’s work.
Davis
Discovery – Scope and Burden
Davis former employee suing for defamation. Wanted names of former employees to ask about employment; wanted Ross’ net income and net worth; and wanted her transactions with a law firm because they could be an important witness
Court said all of her requests for discovery were denied. Irrelevant till after trial to discover Diana’s net worth. Cited privacy concerns. Also did not want to pry into attorney client privilege. Said no to the employees because the question is whether davis was a bad employee not if Ross was a bad boss.
Kozlowsiki
Discovery – Scope and Burden
Child injured when pajamas fire. Defendant ordered to comply with discovery and did not comply. Court granted motion for default judgment under Rule 37.
Court said that they were not going to recognize the burden of discovery for not keeping up with a filing system. Also said discovery is not limited to evidence admissible at trial.
McPeek
Discovery – Scope and Burden
plaintiff requested Gov go through backup system for discovery, Gov said no its too burdensome,
court did a test run
Upjohn
Discovery – Privileges
Petitioner was a pharmaceutical company investigating potential corruption in their company. Attorneys conducted interviews and sent emails to employees on all levels of the company. Wanted to withohold the communication bc of attorney client privilege.
Court ruled that attorney-client privilege is extended to the employees in the company because lower-level employees can and do within the scope of their employment, involve the companies in legal troubles so they will oftentimes have information relevant and necessary to an attorney providing legal advice.
Adickes
Summary Judgment
school teacher, AA students. Went into the store and was refused. Alleged conspiracy between police and manager.
Court did not allow summary judgment bc the defense did not show or prove conclusively that there were no police in the store and those police did not communicate with the manager. Said they have to affirmatively show evidence that Adickes claim is false (NOT THE MODERN STANDARD).
Celotex
Summary Judgment
Husband died from exposure to asbestos. Celotex moved for summary judgment because plaintiff did not provide evidence during discovery to show her husband died bc of exposure during employment
Court said summary judgment was proper and that the moving party did not have to affirmatively disprove the nonmoving parties claim. Said it is enough to point out that the other side has not come forward with admissible evidence to support their claim. Said you have to rely on discovery record but you do not need to add to it.
Bias
Summary Judgment
Bias died of overdose, parents sued for life insurance policy that was supposed to be taken out. Did not matter bc insurance company would have never allowed a drug addict. So moves for summary judgment. Had testimony from teammates that he was a drug user.
Court said even though parents presented evidence against him being a drug user, the evidence was general in nature and did not rebut the specific claims.
Beacon Theaters
Pre-Trial and Right to a Jury
Theatre dispute. Sued for declaratory relief. Court construed request to also seek injunctive relief. The lower court decided the question of equity first which is decided by a judge. It would stop plaintiff from bringing the claim up in a jury trial
SC said the courts cannot sequence claims in a way that would take a question that would otherwise be decided by the jury away from the plaintiff/defendant. Can only do this under a set of circumstances where the legal remedy would be totally inaccurate.
Dairy Queen
Pre-Trial and Right to a Jury
Suing licensee that were using trademarks without permission. It was styled as a request in equity but court said that does not matter.
Court can’t take away right to jury trial just because they word the request like an equitable issue when it’s really a legal issue
Galloway
Post Trial motions
Veteran seeking an insurance policy against total and permanent disability. Weird fact outline with a blackout period. United States moved for Judgment as a matter of law
Court said a directed verdict does not impede the right to a trial by jury
Ahern
Pre-Trial and Right to a Jury
Singer of band suing manager for breaking agreement. Judge rejected both of his arguments
District courts need to see that the jury went against the clear weight of evidence to order a new trial, that they could not have come to that conclusion. Not enough that the alternative conclusion is simply possible
Walmart
Class Actions
Massive class action, they filed under 23(b)(2). However they were seeking back pay in addition to other relief. Claims for backpay are not permissible under (b)(2), those are for (b)(3).
The Majority said that the question of law or fact were not common to the class and did not satisfy 23(a)(2). Felt similar to the predomination requirement in 23(b)(3). Dissent disagreed and thought the majority were conflating (a)(2) with (b)(3).
Hansberry
Class Actions
African American family trying to move into a suburb in Chicago, they were sued by the homeowners association because of the racially restrictive covenant
Court found that interests are not sufficiently identical and violates due process. Since there interests are not identical they cannot be bound by the decision of an earlier group.
