Federal Jurisdiction and Civil Procedure > 1. Right Court? Flashcards
F. The Erie Doctrine
A federal court in a diversity case must decide an issue. Under the Erie rule, in deciding that issue, does the federal court have to follow state law?
Erie rule: In diversity cases, the federal court must apply state substantive law.
F. The Erie Doctrine
What 3 questions do we ask if there is a federal court diversity case in order to decide what law the court should apply to the issues?
(1) Is there a federal law on point that directly conflicts with state law?
- If yes, apply the federal law as long as it’s valid.
(2) If no federal law on point, Is this issue one of the easy ones?
- If yes, apply state law.
(3) If there is no federal law on point and the issue is not one of the easy ones, Is the issue “substantive?”
(a) Outcome determinative?
(b) Balance of interests?
(c) Avoid forum shopping
F. The Erie Doctrine
Under an Erie question, if there is a federal law on point that directly conflicts with state law, the federal court should apply federal law as long as it is valid.
What is the constitutional basis for this rule, and what makes a federal law “valid?” Give an example of a federal law that is probably valid.
Basis: Supremacy clause
Valid: Means the law does not modify substantive rights.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A FRCP is probably valid if the Rule is “arguably procedural.” NO FRCP has ever been held invalid.
F. The Erie Doctrine
Under a diversity suit, if no federal law directly conflicts with state law so as to make us apply federal law automatically, we next ask: Is this issue one of the easy ones?” What are the 4 “easy ones?” Why are they easy? What is the effect of the issue being one of these?
The 4 “easy” ones are: (1) elements of a crime or defense, (2) S.O.L., (3) rules for tolling S.O.L.’s, and (4) conflict/choice of law rules.
They’re easy because they’re all substantive issues.
The court must follow STATE law if the issue is one of these easy ones.
F. The Erie Doctrine
Under a diversity suit, if no federal law directly conflicts with state law and the issue is not one of the easy ones, we finally ask: Is the issue “substantive?” If so, court must follow state law. What is the 3 question/factor balancing test?
Come to a reasonable conclusion about whether the issue is “substantive” by weighing these 3 factors:
(a) Outcome determinative?
- Would applying or ignoring the state rule affect the outcome of the case?
- If so, it’s probably a substantive rule, so should use state law
(b) Balance of interests?
- Does either federal or state system have a strong interest in having its rule applied?
(c) Avoid forum shopping
- If the federal court ignores state law on this issue, will it cause parties to flock to federal court?
- If so, should probably apply state law (rarely tested)
G. Venue
What is the basic venue issue?
Subject matter jurisdiction told us we can take a case to federal court. Venue tells us exactly WHICH federal court. The plaintiff is suing in federal court and wants to lay venue in a proper federal district.
G. Venue
What are a federal plaintiff’s basic choices for venue?
Plaintiff may lay venue in any district where:
(1) all defendants reside (with special rule for same state/different district); OR
(2) a substantial part of the claim arose
NOTE: On exam discuss both bases, even though you need only 1.
G. Venue
Where do human and business defendants “reside” for venue purposes?
Humans: In district where domiciled (only 1 place)
Businesses: All districts where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for this case (same for corporation or non-incorporated)
G. Venue
A federal district court may transfer the case to another federal district court. But it can only transfer to a district where the case COULD have been filed. What does that mean?
The case can only be transferred to a 1) proper venue that 2) has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
G. Venue
What is the only exception in which a federal court can transfer to another district where the case COULD NOT otherwise have been filed?
The court can transfer to ANY district (even an improper venue) if 1) all parties consent and 2) the court finds cause for the transfer.
*NOTE: A plaintiff in reality would almost never consent.
G. Venue
When can the court transfer to another district if the original district is proper?
If it believes transfer is appropriate based on (a) convenience for the parties; (b) convenience for the witnesses; and (c) “the interests of justice.”
G. Venue
In deciding whether a court will transfer venue from an original proper district for convenience of parties or witnesses or for the interests of justice, what factors will it consider?
Public and private factors showing that the other district is the center of gravity that just makes more sense than the present court.
Public factors: e.g., what law applies, what community should be burdened with jury service, keeping a local controversy in the local court
Private factors: convenience–where are the witnesses and the evidence
NOTE: In general, courts are nervous about transferring to another district because transfer overrides the Plaintiff’s choice of forum.
G. Venue
If the original district is improper, what 2 things can the federal court do?
1) transfer in the interest of justice; or
2) dismiss
G. Venue
What is the situation leading to forum non-conveiens? What does the court do?
Like transfer, there is another court that is the center of gravity that just makes more sense than the present court. But the more convenient court is in a different judicial system (e.g. foreign country), and so transfer is impossible.
The court will either (1) dismiss or (2) stay the case.
G. Venue
What will a court consider in deciding whether to dismiss or stay a case under forum non-conveniens?
The same public and private factors as in transfer, however a VERY strong showing is required because forum non-conveniens results in dismissal or stay.
Public and private factors showing that the other district is the center of gravity that just makes more sense than the present court.
Public factors: e.g., what law applies, what community should be burdened with jury service, keeping a local controversy in the local court
Private factors: convenience–where are the witnesses and the evidence
