Civil Procedure Essay Rules Flashcards
Diversity Jurisdiction For Class Action Lawsuits
Diversity in a class action brought pursuant to Rule 23 will generally be determined by the citizenship of the named members of the class bringing the lawsuit. However, for class actions in which the amount at issue totals more than $5,000,000, diversity will be met if any member of the plaintiff class is diverse with any defendant.
Multiparty, Multiform Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 Diversity Jurisdiction
Under § 1369(a), for a civil action that “arises from a single accident, where at least 75 natural persons have died in the accident at a discrete location,” only one plaintiff need be of diverse citizenship from one defendant for a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction, if:
i) A defendant resides in a state and a substantial part of the accident took place in another state or other location, regardless of whether that defendant is also a resident of the state where a substantial part of the accident took place;
ii) Any two defendants reside in different states, regardless of whether such defendants are also residents of the same state or states; or
iii) Substantial parts of the accident took place in different states.
Even if those requirements are met, however, under § 1369(b), the district court must abstain from hearing the case if:
i) The substantial majority of all plaintiffs are citizens of a single state of which the primary defendants are also citizens; and
ii) The claims asserted will be governed primarily by the laws of that state.
The Act also provides:
i) That anyone involved in the accident is permitted to intervene as a plaintiff; and
ii) Nationwide service of process.
Can a class action be brought in federal court if a state law bars them?
Class actions can be maintained in federal court, despite a state law barring class actions to enforce statutory damages claims, if the action is authorized by Rule 23.
Rule 23(a) establishes four requirements for representative members of a class to sue or be sued on behalf of all members of the class: (i) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity); (ii) there must be questions of law or fact that are common to the class (commonality); (iii) the claims or defenses of the representatives must be typical of the class (typicality); and (iv) the representatives must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (adequacy).
Impleader
Example of improper joinder
Third-party claims (impleader) are claims made by a defending party against a nonparty for all or part of the defending party’s liability on an original claim. The impleaded claim must relate to the original claim against the defending party. In judging whether the claims are related, the test is whether they arise out of a “common nucleus of operative fact” such that all claims should be tried together in a single judicial proceeding.
Here, MedForms alleges that the company breached its contract with MedForms but does not allege that any part of its liability on the original sexual harassment and sexual discrimination claims is shared by the company. Instead, it alleges breach of contract. Nothing in the facts suggests the company had any involvement in the situation that forms the basis of the woman’s claims, i.e., her supervisor’s behavior. Nor do the facts reflect that the contract in question included terms on indemnification that may be applicable. Thus, MedForms’ alleged liability on the original claim appears to be unrelated to the company, and these claims appear to have no common-nucleus-of-operative-facts.
When service of process conflicts with state law.
State A and State B each authorize service of process on corporations only by personal delivery of a summons and complaint to the corporation’s secretary.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), service on a U.S. corporation may be effected either by delivering the summons and complaint to an officer, managing agent, general agent, or agent appointed or authorized by law to receive process, or by following state law in the state where the district court is located or where service is made. If a procedural issue in a diversity action is addressed by a valid federal law, then the federal law will be applied, even if a state rule or statute is in conflict.
Here, the federal rule applies because this is a diversity action. Although MedForms’ service did not comply with the law of State A, where the district court is located, or with the law of State B, where service was made, it did comply with the federal rule because it did serve the company’s chief executive officer. Therefore, service was proper and the court should dismiss the motion to dismiss on these grounds.
