Civil Procedure Flashcards
Rule 14 (a) of the FRCP
Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant in a lawsuit may bring a third party into the lawsuit when that third party “is or may be liable to [the defendant] for all or part of the claim against [the defendant].”
In addition, Rule 14 requires a defendant to bring a third party into the case by filing and serving a “third-party complaint” against that party. Here, the manner in which the woman brought the insurance company into the case was consistent with Rule 14. After filing a third-party complaint with the court, the woman (as third-party plaintiff) properly had a summons and the third-party complaint served on the insurance company (as third-party defendant).
Rule 4 (k) of the FRCP
Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the “territorial limits of effective service” of process for federal district courts. That Rule provides, in relevant part, as follows:
(1) In General. Serving a summons . . . establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant:
(A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located;
(B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or
(C) when authorized by a federal statute
Specific jurisdiction over the insurer
Several courts have held on similar facts that a state where an automobile accident occurred can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an insurer if an accident within the state was within the insurance policy’s territorial scope of coverage, even if the insurer had no other contacts with the state.
These decisions reason that the inclusion of a state within the scope of an insurance policy’s coverage is a “contact” between the insurance company and the state; that the occurrence of a
covered accident in the state is also a contact between the company and the state; that the insurance company could reasonably anticipate being haled into the state of the accident by virtue of its agreement to defend the insured; and that an insurance company that agrees to insure against accidents in a state has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business
in the forum.
Thus, a factual and legal analysis of this sort should receive some credit, although the 100-mile bulge rule provides a more straightforward basis upon which the court can exercise personal
jurisdiction.
Immediate Appeal
In most circumstances, appeals from the decisions of federal district courts can only be taken when there is a “final judgment” in the case—when all the issues in the suit have been finally determined by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the final-judgment rule proved particularly difficult to apply in cases with multiple claims and multiple parties, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) was adopted to identify those orders in a complex litigation setting that
determine finally the rights of a given party or a single claim so that an immediate appeal may be allowed.”
Rule 54 (b)
Rule 54(b) provides that a district court decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims in an action is not final unless the district court “expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay” of any appeal and “direct[s] entry of a final judgment,” thus certifying the matter as appropriate for appeal. Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Judgment § 2655. If the district court takes those actions, then an appellate court will treat the district
court’s order as satisfying the final judgment rule unless the appellate court concludes that the district court improperly applied Rule 54(b).
No just reason for delay
The determination of whether “there is no just reason for delay” is a matter that rests with the discretion of the district judge, who is charged with “weighing the overall policy against piecemeal appeals against whatever exigencies the case at hand may present.” Factors to consider include the length of time it may take to resolve the case as a whole, the hardship to the party if an immediate appeal is not allowed, the relationship between the two claims, and whether the
appeal can be fairly decided even though other issues in the case have not been adjudicated.
Insurance coverage disputes
Courts have held that insurance-coverage disputes are generally distinct enough to be certified as final judgments under Rule 54(b), thus permitting immediate appellate review. See Eberts v. Goderstad, 569 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2009). When the insurance-coverage dispute includes the question of the insurance company’s duty to defend, courts have stated that equitable considerations weigh in favor of Rule 54(b) certification and of staying the pending proceeding because, if the trial court’s decision on insurance coverage is in error, the insured party would have to incur the expenses of defending the action without the benefit of litigation insurance.
