M1: Appeals, Preclusion, State v. Fed. Flashcards
*Plaintiff, from State A, sued Defendant, also from State A, in federal district court. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant caused damages in excess of $10,000,000 by violating Plaintiff’s patent rights on a new electronic tablet design and software. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case. How should the court rule?
The court should deny the motion, because the federal court has jurisdiction over the case.
Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain types of claims, including patent rights, securities, antitrust, and claims arising under the Federal Torts Claim Act. Exclusive jurisdiction is the federal court’s exclusive power to adjudicate the claims. Here, Plaintiff is alleging a violation of patent rights, which falls under the federal court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Dennis was arrested at an anti-war rally. While the police officer was arresting Dennis, an altercation between the two broke out. Dennis claims that the police officer used excessive force in making the arrest. As a result of the arrest and altercation, Dennis incurred damages totaling $7,500 for medical expenses. Dennis filed suit against the police officer for violation of his federal constitutional rights in state court. The police officer filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the officer’s motion?
The court should deny the police officer’s motion to dismiss, as state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal questions, including this one.
Generally, the state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal question cases. In a few situations, federal statutes make federal jurisdiction exclusive over certain types of claims. In most situations, including a civil rights claim such as this one, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction so the plaintiff can choose to file the case either in state court or federal court. Therefore, the state court has jurisdiction and the motion should be denied.
The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, files a claim in state court alleging that the defendant, a Delaware corporation, violated her rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeks damages in the amount of $50,000. Does the state court have subject matter jurisdiction?
Yes, because the Civil Rights Act does not provide for exclusive federal court jurisdiction.
The question here is whether a state court would have subject matter jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over claims arising under all federal statutes except those few that vest federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction. The Civil Rights Act is not one of those few statutes.
*Defendant is a cattle rancher and owns 1000 acres of grazing land in Montana. Plaintiff owns a strawberry farm that is adjacent to Defendant’s land, but across the state line. Over the last five years, Defendant’s cattle frequently wandered onto Plaintiff’s land, destroying portions of Plaintiff’s strawberry patches during the growing season and interfering with Plaintiff’s ability to bring its produce to market. Plaintiff sues Defendant for trespass in federal district court, alleging diversity jurisdiction. During discovery, Defendant demands the right “to survey Plaintiff’s property (through a land surveyor who will determine the terrestrial boundaries of Plaintiff’s property) and to inspect the quality of the strawberries (to determine the quality) that Plaintiff harvests, upon such time as may be convenient to Plaintiff.”
Yes, because the Defendant’s request is relevant.
The federal discovery rules permit a requesting party to enter “onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party,” FRCP 34(a)(2), provided the request is relevant to the claim or defense of any party to the action and seeks non-privileged matter. See FRCP 26(b)(1). The request to inspect must “describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected,” FRCP 34(b), and in doing so, may not rely on boiler-plate language. See U.S. v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, 280 F.R.D. 232, 235 (D.V.I. 2012). Since the complaint alleges trespass, with consequent damage to Plaintiff’s fruit, an inspection and survey of the land seems relevant to both the claims and possible defenses in the action.
Defendant, the manufacturer of automobile tires, entered into a long-term sales contract with Plaintiff, a company that distributes used cars. Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the quality of Defendant’s tires and files a diversity action in federal court against Defendant and Defendant’s Director. The complaint alleges three claims: breach of warranty, strict liability, and breach of contract. The court grants Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the contract claim against both opposing parties in favor of Plaintiff, but orders trial on the two remaining claims. Defendant and Director seek to appeal the grant of partial summary judgment, and Plaintiff gives its consent to the motion, hoping that by quickly resolving the issue of liability, the parties can reach a settlement on the amount of damages and avoid a trial.
No, the appeals court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the grant of partial summary judgment is an interlocutory order.
Partial summary judgments are not final and do not fall within an exception to the federal requirement of finality. Courts of appeals “have jurisdiction of appeal from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1291. The question then is whether a grant of partial summary judgment is a final judgment or an interlocutory order. FRCP 54(b) addresses the finality of claims in actions that present more than one claim: “[T]he court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” FRCP 54(b). Otherwise, there is no final judgment. Id. An order granting partial summary judgment is not final, and thus it is not appealable under §1291. See Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 475 F.3d 465, 466 (2d Cir. 2007). Since the district court issued no express determination that its partial summary judgment order presented “no just reason for delay,” the defendants may not appeal it until all the claims are resolved. Thus, the appeals court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Finally, a defect in appellate jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent of the parties.
Plaintiff is a bookkeeper who works at Defendant’s company. He planned to testify in a federal lawsuit brought against Defendant by the Department of Labor for the company’s alleged failure to pay overtime wages to its workers. The day before the scheduled testimony, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant that stated, “We inform you that as of this day you are terminated from employment with our company.” In response, Plaintiff sues Defendant in federal court alleging that the termination violated federal law because it interferes with an on-going federal action. During discovery, Plaintiff propounds an interrogatory to Defendant requesting a copy of all memoranda “referring or relating to communications between Defendant and Defendant’s counsel concerning the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.” Defendant refuses to respond to the interrogatory, asserting the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff moves to compel discovery, and the court orders Defendant to disclose the documents.
Twenty days have passed since the court issued its order. Can Defendant secure immediate appellate review of the order compelling discovery?
Defendant can refuse to comply with the disclosure order, face contempt sanctions, and then seek appeal of that order.
The best strategy to secure immediate appellate review of the discovery order, which is a non-final order and so not reviewable as a final decision of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a). The Supreme Court has identified the mechanism of taking an appeal from a contempt citation as a way to “facilitate immediate review of some of the more consequential attorney-client privilege rulings.” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 111-112 (2009). A party who refuses to comply with a discovery order risks court-imposed sanctions. See FRCP 37(b). These sanctions can include holding “the noncomplying party in contempt,” and then the party resisting disclosure can take an appeal from that ruling. Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 111-112; see also Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S., 506 U.S. 9 (1992). Admittedly, although the discovery order is non-final, Defendant could try to seek immediate review as a matter of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (discussed in response to Answer (C)), or through a writ of mandamus if extraordinary circumstances are presented, see Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (2004). However, the most likely course of action is the one described in this choice.
A Pennsylvania plaintiff brought a tort action against a New York defendant in New York state court. The New York court dismissed the complaint because the claim had expired under New York’s relatively short statute of limitations. Plaintiff then refiled the same claim in a Pennsylvania state court because Pennsylvania has a much longer statute of limitations. Defendant moved to dismiss the Pennsylvania action under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
No, because a dismissal for failing to file within the governing limitations period is not an adjudication on the merits distinguishing the claim.
Although the states do not take a uniform position on this issue, a majority take the position that the expiration of the statute of limitations operates only to bar the remedy, i.e., to preclude the plaintiff from reasserting that claim in that jurisdiction. But as they do not find that the limitations period operates to extinguish the substantive cause of action, the dismissal is not deemed to preclude the filing of that same cause of action in a different jurisdiction with a longer (and unexpired) limitations period. (A minority of states adopt the view that the expiration of the statute of limitations does extinguish the substantive right and, therefore, a claim dismissed on that ground enjoys claim-preclusive effect in other jurisdictions.)
An Alabama plaintiff brought a tort action against a Florida defendant in Alabama state court. The Alabama court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Alabama. Plaintiff then brought precisely the same lawsuit against the same defendant in state court in Florida. Defendant moved to dismiss that action under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
How should the court rule on the motion?
The court should deny the motion to dismiss, because the first dismissal did not constitute an adjudication on the merits.
In order to invoke claim preclusion, the proponent of that doctrine must satisfy three requirements: (1) that the two suits in question involve the same parties (or their privies); (2) that the two suits contained the same cause of action; and (3) there was a valid judgment on the merits in the first decided case. Since the first case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, there was no adjudication on the merits and so the final requirement for claim preclusion (res judicata) was not met.
- Plaintiff Electronics Inc., a Georgia citizen, brought a breach of contract action in federal court in Atlanta against its customer, Defendant, a citizen of Florida, for failure to pay for the television that Defendant purchased from its store in Atlanta. In the answer, Defendant admitted that she had not paid for the television, but alleged that she had returned the television after she discovered its defective quality. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant-customer because it found that the defect breached Plaintiff’s warranty of merchantability and so Defendant’s refusal to pay was excused by Plaintiff’s material breach of the sales contract. Some months later, the same customer filed a tort claim seeking damages in the amount of $70,000 against Electronics, Inc. In this complaint, the customer alleged that when she turned on the television for the first time, it emitted sparks, which injured her and her property. Electronics Inc. moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds of claim preclusion. Should the court grant the motion?
Defendant-customer asserted an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and then used that same theory offensively as the basis for a claim in the second lawsuit. An essential element of claim preclusion is that a plaintiff cannot “split” one single, indivisible cause of action into two parts. Claim preclusion precludes re-litigation of any part of a cause of action that was the subject of a final adjudication on the merits, regardless of whether that particular portion of the claim was adjudicated in the first case. This means that claim preclusion precludes from re-litigation claims that were fully adjudicated in the previous case, but also claims that should have been adjudicated in the previous case. This same theory applies to what is called defense preclusion. Defense preclusion occurs where, as here, a defendant asserts a theory as an affirmative defense in one case and then reasserts it against that same opposing party in a second case as the plaintiff seeking affirmative relief. In effect, the courts will not allow a defendant to split up the same issue into an affirmative defense in one case and a complaint seeking affirmative relief in the second case.
*Plaintiff purchased a used car from Defendant. At the time of the sale, Plaintiff did not know that the car had defective brakes. While driving the car, Plaintiff crashed into a taxi that was exceeding the speed limit. Plaintiff sues Defendant in federal district court in Pennsylvania for personal injury, damage to property, and misrepresentation, and wins on all counts. Plaintiff then sues Taxi Driver in a separate action in federal district court in New York for personal injury and property damage. Taxi Driver raises the affirmative defense of claim preclusion, citing the judgment of the Pennsylvania federal court, and moves for summary judgment on that basis.
Which statement provides the best explanation of how the New York court should resolve the motion?
The court should deny the motion, because Taxi Driver was not a party to the Pennsylvania action. This accurately states and applies the rule of mutuality for when a nonparty can invoke claim preclusion as an affirmative defense. A stranger to a lawsuit cannot claim the benefits of or be subject to the burdens of a prior judgment in a lawsuit in which it did not participate (subject to exceptions explained below). Claim preclusion is a judicially created doctrine that bars the re-litigation of a claim raised in a prior suit. The basic rule of claim preclusion is that a valid and final judgment between the same parties (or those who are treated as the same parties) is conclusive and bars a second action by the plaintiff on the same claim. This rule, set out in the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 17 (1982), is followed by the federal courts and by all of the state court systems in the United States. Thus, a judgment will not have claim-preclusive effect unless the parties in the second lawsuit are identical to the parties to the first lawsuit. Taxi Driver was not a party to the first lawsuit and cannot show that he is in a legal relationship with a party in the first lawsuit that would convince the court to treat him as a party. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 894 (2008) (“nonparty preclusion may be justified based on a variety of pre-existing ‘substantive legal relationship[s] between the person to be bound and a party to the judgment”) (citation omitted). The Court has held that preclusion by “virtual representation” violates due process other than in six narrow and exceptional circumstances that are not present on the facts in this problem. Those exceptions are: (1) when a person agrees to be bound; (2) when a person is in a “pre-existing” and qualifying substantive legal relationship, e.g., bailee and bailor, successive property owners, and assignee and assignor; (3) when a person is adequately represented by someone with the same interests who was named a party in the prior suit, such as a fiduciary or guardian; (4) when a person’s interests were litigated through a “proxy”; (5) when a “special statutory scheme” explicitly forecloses “successive litigation by non-litigants”; and (6) if the nonparty “assume[d] control” over the litigation in which that judgment was rendered. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 893-895 (2008). Under these circumstances, Taxi Driver is a stranger to the lawsuit decided by the Pennsylvania court and cannot assert an affirmative defense of claim preclusion based on that judgment.
*Defendant was acquitted of a charge of bank robbery that had been filed against him in criminal court by the federal government. Shortly after his acquittal, Defendant was served with a civil complaint in which the government sought to recover possession of the money that allegedly had been stolen by Defendant.
Should the trial court in the civil case grant Defendant’s motion to preclude re-litigation of the issue of whether or not he stole the money from the bank?
No, because the standard of proof is higher in criminal than in civil proceedings.
This problem raises the question of the application of the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel). This doctrine is invoked to preclude the re-litigation of an issue that has already been fully decided in a prior case involving a different cause of action than is involved in the subsequent proceeding.
The consequence of invoking issue preclusion is merely to preclude re-litigation of that issue. This is different than the consequence of invoking claim preclusion because when that doctrine is invoked, it results in the dismissal of the entire cause of action.
The specific issue in this problem is whether the fact that the standard of proof governing the resolution of the same issue in the two proceedings is different means that the issue in the two cases is not the “same.” In the criminal proceeding, the government had to establish that Defendant had stolen the money by a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, whereas it need only meet the lesser “preponderance of the evidence” standard in the subsequent civil action. Since this change in the standard of proof means that it is possible that the same evidence would result in a finding against Defendant in the second action, issue preclusion does not apply in this situation. Keep in mind that “double jeopardy,” which prohibits a criminal defendant from being prosecuted twice for the same crime, does not apply in this scenario because the subsequent case is a civil action, rather than a second criminal action for the same offense.
*Defendant was convicted of a charge of bank robbery that had been filed against him in criminal court by the federal government. Shortly after his conviction, Defendant was served with a civil complaint in which the government sought to recover possession of the money it alleged had been stolen by Defendant.
Should the trial court in the civil case grant the government’s motion to preclude re-litigation of the issue of whether or not Defendant stole the money from the bank?
Yes, because the standard of proof is higher in criminal than in civil proceedings.
This problem raises the question of the application of the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel). This doctrine is invoked to preclude the re-litigation of an issue that has already been decided in a prior case involving a different cause of action than is involved in the subsequent proceeding. The consequence of invoking issue preclusion is merely to preclude re-litigation of that issue. This is different than the consequence of invoking claim preclusion because when that doctrine is invoked, it results in the dismissal of the entire cause of action. The specific issue in this problem is whether the fact that the standard of proof governing the resolution of the same issue in the two proceedings is different means that the issue in the two cases is not the “same.” In the criminal proceeding, the government had to establish that Defendant had stolen the money by a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, whereas it need only meet the lesser “preponderance of the evidence” standard in the subsequent civil action. Since the government obtained a conviction in the criminal case, Defendant would be precluded from re-litigating the issue of stealing the money in the subsequent civil action since the government had sustained the more rigorous standard of proof in the criminal case.
*Plaintiff, an environmental activist, is concerned that lakeshore development will destroy vegetation that fish need to spawn. She brings a lawsuit based on a federal statute, the “Fish Protection Act,” that provides, “Recognizing that overdeveloped shorelines are harmful to fish, homeowners are encouraged to maintain a 30-foot strip of natural vegetation between beach and lawn.” The lawsuit seeks to halt shoreline development that does not maintain the recommended 30-foot buffer, and seeks preliminary injunctive relief. Defendant, the owner of undeveloped shoreline property, opposes the motion.
Which statement best expresses how the federal court should decide the motion?
The court should deny the motion because Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief will not succeed; the federal statute upon which it is based is advisory, rather than mandatory or binding, and therefore Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, a necessary condition for the relief she seeks. A court will issue a preliminary injunction only if Plaintiff shows that she is likely to succeed on the merits, and can also demonstrates three additional factors: (1) the likelihood of irreparable injury if provisional relief is not granted; (2) a balance of hardships in favor of the movant; and (3) a showing that the requested relief is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A preliminary injunction is never awarded as of right; it is an equitable order and viewed as “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22.
Plaintiff cannot show that she will succeed on the merits because the Fish Protection Act (FPA) does not create a mandatory duty on homeowners. Nor does it generate a duty that the Plaintiff has a right to enforce in district court. The FPA does not require regulated entities to build 30-foot buffers— it only recommends that they do so. Thus, the FPA is aspirational in its requirements, and does not impose an enforceable duty. Because success on the merits is a necessary condition for a preliminary injunction, failure to prove success on the merits ends the analysis. The other three conditions only become relevant if a viable argument supporting the motion on the merits can be made.
You move to a new state and open a law practice. You lose a case and want to take an appeal. Where would you look to find which appellate courts exist in your state and which appellate court has jurisdiction over your appeal? Where would you look for provisions governing the structure and jurisdiction of federal appellate courts?
+ State statutes govern state appellate courts. Search the statutes/code that sets forth the structure, procedures, and jurisdiction of appellate courts.
+ State courts also have rules of procedure to use for guidance on how to handle the appeal.
+ U.S.C. governs federal appellate courts (geography, appointment and tenure, sessions)
+ Federal courts also have their rules of procedure
What is the record appendix?
for appeals, it is the collection of those portions of the trial court’s record (e.g., papers, exhibits and/or transcripts) relevant to the issues, facts, and arguments set forth in your brief.
Why did the Framers authorize federal courts to hear cases only listed in Article III, Section 2? In what way does each implicate an important national interest?
+ Common sense: Cases that are a matter of Constitutional or Federal law should be tried in a federal court
+ Framers understood that state courts alone to interpret Fed/Constitutional laws
+ US Supreme Court final authority
+ Some state courts can be biased (out of state litigants), Fed Judges are lifetime appointees and don’t have as much pressure to rule in favor of their constituents
+ When there’s a direct federal interest (ex: when the US government is a party), or foreign ministers/maritime cases, Fed courts make more sense.
If a plaintiff wishes to bring a case that falls within some category in Article III, Section 2, must she sue in federal court or can she choose a state court instead?
If a case meets the qualifications on the list in Article III, they have met sufficient conditions for subject matter jurisdiction. However, it’s not necessary that the case be tried in federal court.
Generally speaking, a case that gets brought into federal court may also be brought in a state court.
Up to plaintiff to decide
Concurrent jurisdiction exception: Congress may provide that a particular category of federal cases may only be held in federal court. “Exclusive federal jurisdiction”
H: Harris, a citizen of WI wants to sue Panil, a citizen of WI for violation of a WI statute. Can she bring this case in federal court?
What if Harris wishes to sue Panil under the Federal Age Discrimination Act, but she would like to do so in state court. May she do so?
No, because there is no diversity between Harris and Panil in this first scenario: both are citizens of the same state. Also, Article III holds that federal courts will only hear cases related to federal laws, not state laws.
Just because Harris could bring the case in a federal court doesn’t mean she has to. If this federal law has not been deemed exclusive, Harris could bring it to state court. BUT if Harris brings the case to state court, Panil could remove it to federal court.
Name at least three reasons for choosing to file in federal court over state court
Convenience Familiarity Jury pools Speed Case assignment to one judge Attorney control Out of state litigants Expertise
H: Janice hired Bornstein to build a garage next to her house and claims he built it too small. She also claims that his backhoe damaged her shrubbery in the process. Can she sue on both claims in a single suit?
Sometimes, yes, all of the claims can be settled in a single litigation. Depends on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules.
Claim #1: Breach of Contract, Claim #2: Negligence
Janet could also sue multiple defendants together for a single claim: Bornstein and his backhoe operator
What is voir dire?
choosing a jury by judge questioning or counsel questions to assure impartiality
True or false: An appeal must be filed within 21 days of the final judgment
False: Appeals need to be filed within typically 30 days after trial
