CivPro2 FlashCards

Pennoyer v. Neff

Mitchell sued Neff in Oregon for unpaid legal fees. Neff was not present in Oregon, and service was attempted via publication. The court ruled Oregon lacked jurisdiction because Neff wasn’t served in-state and his property wasn’t properly attached.

Established the territoriality principle as the foundation of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction requires a defendant’s physical presence in the forum or attachment of property there.

Hess v. Pawlowski

A PA driver caused an accident in MA. MA allowed service through a state-designated agent, asserting jurisdiction under implied consent for drivers using state roads.

Implied consent to jurisdiction: States may deem activities (e.g., driving) as consent to jurisdiction, even without physical presence..

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.

A Texas insurance company sold a policy to a California resident. The Court upheld CA jurisdiction due to the company’s solicitation of business in the forum (reached out to get his business specifically, after change in company). Specific jurisdiction based on minimum contacts (single contact suffices if claim arises from it).

Pioneered specific jurisdiction for single, purposeful contacts. A defendant’s isolated contact with the forum suffices if the claim arises from it.

Hanson v. Denckla

A Delaware trustee was sued in Florida over a trust. The Court ruled FL lacked jurisdiction because the trustee didn’t purposefully avail itself of FL. Trustor moving to FL, didn’t unilaterally change jurisdiction. The Trustor would have had to do something more to bring in the Delaware trustee to FL

Jurisdiction requires defendants to deliberately engage with the forum, not just react to unilateral plaintiff actions.

Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.

Stream of Commerce Theory.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Titan Valve (an Ohio manufacturer) could be sued in Illinois because its valve, though sold to a Pennsylvania company, ultimately caused harm in Illinois. The court reasoned that by intentionally distributing products into commerce, Titan Valve availed itself of the Illinois market indirectly.

Gray makes assumptions that there is a connection between the Ohio manufacturer and the Illinois consumer, which may or may not have been there. Modern analysis would like to go through whether there was actual contacts, and not just a generic stream of commerce.

World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

A car sold in NY caused an accident in OK. The Court ruled OK lacked jurisdiction over the NY retailer distributor, as they didn’t target the forum. Foreseeability alone doesn’t establish jurisdiction; purposeful availment

Purposeful Availment: Jurisdiction requires a defendant to intentionally direct activities toward the forum state (e.g., advertising, sales, or business operations). Merely foreseeing that a product might enter a state (e.g., through a consumer’s relocation) is insufficient.is required.

Volkswagen did NOT target jurisdiction; later companies would. This is JUST about the dealership.

International Shoe

The case involved a Delaware-based shoe company with salesmen operating in Washington state who solicited orders but had no physical office there. The Supreme Court held that a corporation’s "minimum contacts" with a state (e.g., systematic business activities) could establish jurisdiction for lawsuits or taxes, even without physical presence, if it comports with "fair play and substantial justice."

Calder v. Jones

A libelous article targeted a CA resident. The Court upheld CA jurisdiction because the defendants intentionally directed harm to the forum. "Effects test" for intentional torts.

Effects Test: When a defendant’s intentional actions are expressly aimed at the forum state, and the harm is felt there, jurisdiction is proper.

• The National Enquirer(FL) circulated the article in California, knowing it would harm Jones’s career and reputation there. The defendants’ actions were "expressly aimed" at California, satisfying purposeful direction.

Walden v. Fiore

DEA agents seized cash from NV plaintiffs in GA. The Court ruled NV lacked jurisdiction because the agents’ actions weren’t directed at NV. Jurisdiction requires defendant’s forum-directed conduct, not just effects.

Directed Conduct Requirement: Jurisdiction requires the defendant’s conduct to be expressly aimed at the forum state. Merely causing harm to a forum resident is insufficient.

• The agents’ actions (seizing cash in Georgia) were not directed at Nevada, even though the plaintiffs resided there.

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

Michigander Rudzewicz agrees to franchise, however, he stops paying royalties to the front office. Burger King wants him to give up the restaurant, and he doesn't want to give it up.

Summary of all the factors.

1. Do we have purposeful minimum contacts?

A. Nature/extent of contacts
He went to Florida, he went to Hamburger U. He made phone calls there. Knew the Miami office was in charge of the whole thing.

B. Do those contacts give rise to the lawsuit?
He violated the terms of the contract

C. Purposeful availment, in the way that is foreseeable for you to be haled into the forum court?
He's the one who got into the contract. He got fair notice to be in the contract, even though he had no choice to be in it. He could have negotiated the choice of law provision.

2. Reasonable Fair Play factors

A. Convenience to the plaintiff

B. Burden on defendant

C. Interest of the forum and other states

He was a pirate accountant, he was well represented by a lawyer, and he knew all of this. He was paying money to the Miami office, and so pretty clear what was going on.

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court

• A Japanese valve manufacturer was sued in CA for a product defect.
  On Purposeful Minimum Contacts, they sold a lot to distributor, and knew it would end up everywhere in USA.

• Awareness is not enough, but it is enough to make the case close, especially considering VOLUME. Fairplay Factors considered.

• Plaintiff settled, only two foreign corpos, very far away, no interest in CA forum, suit took an international character.

If the case is CLOSE, go onto fairplay factors, international character tips away.

McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

A UK manufacturer’s machine injured a NJ worker. The Court ruled NJ lacked jurisdiction because the manufacturer didn’t target the forum. Purposeful targeting required. Limited sales to state that are not purposefully directed there are insufficient to establish minimum contacts. However, high volume sales directly targeting a state on purpose, can establish minimum contacts.

(but might have to look to fairplay factors like Asahi)

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

Over 600 plaintiffs (including non-California residents) sued Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in California state court over injuries from the drug Plavix. BMS was incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in New York, and sold Plavix nationwide. Specific jurisdiction requires in-state injuries.

• Specific Jurisdiction Requirement: A plaintiff’s claims must arise from or relate to the defendant’s forum-specific activities.

• Non-residents’ claims had no connection to BMS’s California activities (e.g., marketing, sales).

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court

Expanded Specific Jurisdiction:

A Montana resident died in a car accident allegedly caused by a defective Ford Explorer. (bought in Washington, exploded in Montana)

• Ford had extensively promoted, sold, and serviced the same car models in both Montana and Minnesota.

• Specific jurisdiction requires that a defendant's contacts with the forum state "relate to" the plaintiff's claims, not necessarily that they caused the claims.

• The Court rejected Ford’s strict "causation-only" test in favor of a "relates to" standard, allowing jurisdiction where the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state.

Shaffer v. Heitner

Delaware seized stock shares to assert jurisdiction over non-resident directors. There is no purposeful availment of the forum with quasi in rem, so it is no longer allowed. “Bad tradition isn’t good law.”

Burnham v. Superior Court

A non-resident was served while visiting CA, on a matter unrelated to the lawsuit. The Court upheld jurisdiction based on physical presence in personem jurisdiction. Traditional territorial jurisdiction remains valid.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown

Rule: A corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where it is “at home” — typically its place of incorporation or principal place of business.

Holding: North Carolina lacked general jurisdiction over Goodyear’s foreign subsidiaries (e.g., Goodyear Turkey), even though their products ended up in NC via stream of commerce. The subsidiaries' contacts with NC were not continuous and systematic enough to make them “at home” there.
Key Concept: General jurisdiction requires pervasive affiliation with the forum — not just occasional or indirect product flow.

Daimler AG v. Bauman

Argentine plaintiffs sued a German parent company in CA.

Holding: California courts could not exercise general jurisdiction over Daimler AG (a German parent company) through its U.S. subsidiary Mercedes-Benz USA, despite Daimler’s significant business activities in CA.
Key Concept: General jurisdiction does not follow subsidiaries or large-scale economic activity; it’s limited to “home” forums

Rilley v. Money Mutual

Minnesota had personal jurisdiction over a Nevada-based company that used targeted emails, Google ads, and interactive services to solicit thousands of Minnesota customers for illegal payday loans.

The Court found jurisdiction due to the targeting. Purposeful availment can be shown through targeted email communication and interactive advertising directed at forum residents.

Purposeful availment doesn’t require intentional targeting under Calder or Walden if the defendant profits from regular, direct business with forum residents.

Broad National Advertising would not count

Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

A trademark dispute over a website’s interactivity

Introduced the “sliding scale” test for internet jurisdiction:

1. Active websites (e.g., selling products) → Yes PJX.

2. Passive websites (informational only) → No PJX.

3. Interactive websites → Maybe PJX, based on interactivity and commercial nature.

Holding: Court found PJX over a California company that contracted with over 3,000 Pennsylvania residents for internet services.
Key Concept: The more interactive and commercial the website, the more likely the court will find purposeful availment.

faded in power now

Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee

The Supreme Court held that personal jurisdiction is a waivable right and may be established as a sanction when a party refuses to comply with discovery related to jurisdictional facts. The Court affirmed that personal jurisdiction protects individual liberty interests, not structural concerns, and can be lost through procedural misconduct.

If ICI complied, PJ would not have been waived, for future appeals.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

They had a carnival cruise from LA to Mexico. They already paid, and get terms and conditions AFTER a nonrefundable payment. The requirement was to sue in Florida.

Educated & Calculated risk for forum selection clauses that nothing will happen. HOWEVER, there's also logic to this. Florida is a sensible place, it is the PPB. If you pick an irrational forum like Cuba, then Carnival would lose.

Forum Selection clauses ARE presumptively invalid.

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Mallory lived in PA briefly, but got asbestos for his work on RR, in OH & VA. There are no minimum contacts. BUT, PA has a long-arm statute that requires companies doing business there to consent to jurisdiction. Court said OK.

State Long Arm Statute

You can use our courts to drag someone in from outside. This is statutorily based; the Constitution might limit it. It essentially lets you do the MAXIMUM amount of long arming that the Constitution will let you do. First must make sure you are within state bounds before addressing Constitutional ones.

1. Illinois Model: Laundry list of stuff that you can do.

Predictability is there; however is defendant-friendly. No need to continue litigating over PJ.

2. California Model:

A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States

Maximalist, covers everything they can possibly cover.

Ways to waive Personal Jurisdiction

1. must have it in your preanswer or 12b motion according to FRCP 12(h)

2. if you choose to not comply with jurisdictional discovery (bank of ireland), challenge it later

3. forum selection clauses (unless its in rando forum)(carnival cruise lines)

4. Consent to General Jurisdiction (mallory)(or implied consent (hess))

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950),

Notice must be practical and reasonably certain to inform affected parties — not perfect, but tailored to the situation. Constructive notice (like publication) may be okay for unknown parties, but actual notice (like mail) is required when names and addresses are known.

This Service of Process must be done so parties can be afforded an opportunity to present their objections.

Who can serve a complaint?

Rule 4C. over 18, not a party, can ask the court to have a marshal to serve

Waiver of Service

Rule 4D. If a plaintiff mails a request to waive service with the complaint, the defendant has 30 days to return the signed waiver. If the defendant waives service, they get 60 days to answer. If the defendant refuses without good cause, they may be required to pay the costs of formal service.

Service on Individuals & Corporations & US Government

Rule 4E, for individuals, deliver a copy to the defendant or someone of suitable age & discretion at his house, Rule 4H deliver a complaint to a corporate officer or authorized agent

FOR BOTH: follow service rules of the state where the court is or where the service is accomplished

Rule 4I:
serve the attorney general's office or agency

Bulge Jurisdiction

"Bulge jurisdiction" is a special rule that allows federal courts to assert personal jurisdiction over certain third parties within 100 miles of the courthouse — even if they’re outside the state where the court sits.

ONLY FOR:
Impleader (Rule 14) — When a defendant brings in a third-party defendant for indemnity or contribution.

Compulsory Joinder (Rule 19) — When a required party under Rule 19 is being joined.

Which PJ rules can a Federal Court use?

Rule 4K. Federal courts use the state’s long-arm statute where the court sits, or can use a specific federal statute.

For federal claims, if no state court has PJ but the defendant has minimum contacts with the U.S., the federal court can assert jurisdiction.

When would you use forum non conviens? What is it?

It is procedural common law, absolute dismissal, no more transfer. We are in the MOST convenient forum possible in the USA(or in the state, if state thing), but still not be able to be done because this case belongs in another country. Fairness & Convenience is the focus.

However, CANT use it if both parties have agreed to this court.

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

In Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, several people died in a plane crash in Scotland; their estates, California law firm, filed suit in California state court, the case was removed to federal court, and it was transferred to Pennsylvania (Piper's home). Dismissed because of forum non conveniens.

A court may dismiss a case for forum non conveniens when private and public interest factors strongly favor a more convenient foreign forum, even if the alternative forum applies less favorable law. A plaintiff’s choice of forum gets less deference if it is not their home forum.

What are some Public & Private Interest Factors for Forum Non?

PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS:
Local interest in the controversy, Administrative burden on the court, Familiarity with governing law, Avoiding conflict of law problems, Jury duty burden on an unrelated forum

PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS:

Access to evidence (location of documents/witnesses), Ability to compel unwilling witnesses, Cost of obtaining witnesses, Enforceability of judgment, Plaintiff’s choice of forum (stronger if it's their home forum)

Native American Arts, Inc. v. Earth Dweller, Ltd. (N.D. Ill. 2001)

Allegations: Earth Dweller falsely marketed non-Native-made products as "authentic Indian-made" goods in Illinois retail stores through labels and verbal assurances by clerks (1996–2001), to Native American Arts

Basis: Proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a "substantial part of the events" (misrepresentation and sales) occurred in the Northern District of Illinois.

What is Venue and its Source?

Venue is deciding the best juicial district for the trial.
1391 is the venue statute.
1406 is transfer from improper venue to proper one, does not have to be dismissed can just be transferred.

Where is Venue allowed?

1. Where defendant resides, unless all defendants in the same state, then any judicial district

2. Where substantial part of the events occurred

3. If no where else where PJ is.

However we give due deference to plaintiff forum choice, net gain ONLY to change it, if its proper.

What will allow a transfer of Venue?

1404, must be a net gain, is a transfer from one proper venue to another proper venue
1. Convenience of Parties
2. Convenience of Witnesses
3. Interest of Justice

State courts cannot transfer venue from one state to another. Federal courts can transfer it from one judicial district to another judicial district in another state.

Amount in Controversy

For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, pled in good faith, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is actually for less. Can combine all of your claims you have against defendant to reach $75k.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

1332(a) Allows federal courts to hear additional claims that are part of the same case or controversy as a claim with independent federal jurisdiction. MUST maintain complete diversity. Courts may also decline supplemental jurisdiction for reasons like novel state law issues or dismissal of the main claim.

Claim must be $75k alone, cannot be combined claims.

What is the source for complete diversity?

SCOTUS, Strawbridge v. Curtis.
We don’t want local bias.

Perry v. Mas

Perry was a landlord who secretly installed two-way mirrors to spy on tenants; the Mases sued him. The lawsuit raised a diversity jurisdiction problem because Mr. Mas was a citizen of France and Ms. Mas had uncertain citizenship between Mississippi and Louisiana.

USC 1391(c2)
A person’s citizenship for diversity purposes is determined by their domicile, which requires:

1. Physical presence (living there), plus

2. Intent to remain indefinitely.

Citizenship is fixed at the time the lawsuit is filed.

Where are corporations domiciled?

Hertz & 1332
Principal Place of Business & Incorporation.
Principal Place of Business = nerve center(executive decisions are made)

28 USC 1359

Rule:
A federal court cannot hear a case where a party was improperly or collusively joined just to manufacture federal jurisdiction.

Key Concept:
Courts focus on the real party in interest to prevent abuse of diversity jurisdiction.

What kind of cases can be removed? What is the source?

As long as BOTH defendants agree to remove then they can IF:

1. in PJ, we want to protect out of staters

2. In federal question, we want expert judges to preserve federal unity

Removal is an option for defendants, since we really care about this. (state —> federal court)

1441(a)
ONLY Federal Courts get to decide

28 USC 1441(b)(2)

In diversity cases, you may not remove in cases where the plaintiff sues in your own state. Plaintiff is free to file in their own state, though in federal court.

A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought

28 USC 1441(c)

Rule:
If a case includes a removable federal question claim and a non-removable unrelated state claim, the entire action may be removed, but the federal court must sever and remand the unrelated state claim.

Key Concept:
Federal courts keep federal claims but send unrelated state law claims back to state court after removal.

How to keep an action WITHIN state court?

HOW TO KEEP WITHIN THE STATE COURT?

1. find non-frivolous claims for state ppl to destroy complete diversity

2. dont bring up the federal question

3. sue for less than the threshold amount

4. sue a diverse defendant in her home state court in a diversity action

HOWEVER ultimately 1446(d), Federal Court decides NOT State Court.

What is the timing of removal allowability?

28 USC 1446(b?) A defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days after receiving service of the initial pleading, or otherwise learning that the case is removable.

However, 1446(c) it can’t be done more than a year after the case has begun, unless there was bad faith. Removal is allowed when a jurisdictional spoiler is voluntarily dismissed, but it can’t be done as a result of losing a SJ motion.

Louisville v. Mottley

Mottleys get free lifetime rail, Congress changes it so you cant. RR, revokes passes, and Mottleys sue.

The Mottleys (plaintiffs) improperly anticipated the Railroad’s federal defense (a law banning free passes) in their complaint. The Court ruled that federal defenses do not create federal question jurisdiction — only the plaintiff’s affirmative claim matters. (which was only state law)

Federal question jurisdiction must arise from the plaintiff’s own well-pleaded complaint, not by anticipating a federal defense.

28 USC 1257

Under § 1257, the U.S. Supreme Court may review final judgments from the highest court of a state if the case involves a federal question.

Even if the federal issue appeared only in the defense or later in the case, the Supreme Court — unlike federal district courts — can still review it because it looks at the entire record, not just the plaintiff’s complaint.

28 USC 1331

1331, district court has original jurisdiction arising under federal stuff: the Constitution, treaties, laws, limited by well pleaded complaint.
A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action (HOLMES TEST)(definition of federal question jurisdiction)

Grable & Sons Metal Producing Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing

Grable & Sons owned land that the IRS seized and sold to Darue. Grable's argues, IRS failed to give proper notice as required by federal tax law, which required personal service, making the sale invalid. Darue wants it in federal court.

SCOTUS said YES because federal courts have jurisdiction over state law claims with embedded federal issues when:

1. The state law claim necessarily raises a contested federal issue (here, the interpretation of IRS notice requirements was the only contested issue)

2. The federal issue is substantial (the Court noted the government's strong interest in tax collection and the need for clear title in tax sales)

3. Federal jurisdiction would not disrupt the federal-state balance of judicial responsibilities (the Court reasoned that quiet title actions raising contested federal issues are rare, creating only a "microscopic effect" on the division of labor)

This is a way AROUND the well-pleaded complaint.

Express vs. Implied Federal Q’s

EXPRESS:

EZ test, federal question is in the complaint. Classic Holmes use well-pleaded complaint rules.

IMPLIED:
The claim is technically based on state law (like trespass, quiet title, negligence), but deciding it requires resolving a significant federal issue.
P brought a state law claim to quiet title, but whether P owned the property depended on whether the IRS gave proper notice under federal tax law.

Use the Grable/Gunn factors to determine.

Gunn v. Mitton

Plaintiff sued his former attorneys for legal malpractice after losing a federal patent infringement lawsuit, arguing they failed to raise the "experimental use" exception. The Texas Supreme Court ruled the malpractice case should have been brought in federal court, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

Apply factors.
1. Necessarily Raised: ✅ & Actually Disputed: ✅
The malpractice claim required showing that the underlying patent infringement case would have succeeded if the "experimental use" exception had been properly raised, and they disputed whether P would have won under the original patent suit.

3. Substantial: ❌
The federal patent issue was hypothetical and affected only the parties involved; it would not have broader implications for the federal patent system or create federal precedent.

4. Capable of Resolution in Federal Court Without Disrupting the Federal-State Balance: ❌
Allowing federal jurisdiction would upset the balance by pulling ordinary state malpractice cases (traditionally under state control) into federal court, contrary to congressional intent.

Pendant Party Jurisdiction

Pendent party jurisdiction allows adding parties to a case who wouldn't normally be subject to federal jurisdiction, when their claims are related to claims that do have original federal jurisdiction.

Example (Rule 20): When a plaintiff sues a diverse defendant and then joins a non-diverse defendant because their claim arises from the same situation related to the plaintiff's original claim. The non-diverse party's claim is supplemental to the main claim so it can be heard in federal court too.

Pendant Claim Jurisdiction

Pendent claim jurisdiction allows a plaintiff to bring a state law claim into federal court when it's related to a federal claim that already has original jurisdiction.

Example (Rule 18): When a plaintiff brings a federal question claim and can then join a related state law claim that arises from the same case or controversy, even though the state claim alone would lack federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Ancillary Claim Jurisdiction

Ancillary claim jurisdiction allows certain responsive claims in federal court even if they would otherwise lack independent subject matter jurisdiction.

Example (Rule 13a): When a defendant files a compulsory counterclaim related to the plaintiff's federal law claim. The counterclaim is supplemental to the original federal claim even if it would not have independent federal jurisdiction.

Ancillary Party Jurisdiction

Ancillary party jurisdiction allows bringing in additional parties who wouldn't normally be subject to federal jurisdiction when it's necessary to fully resolve the case already in federal court.

Example: When someone is being brought in from outside the original case (such as through impleader, intervention, or interpleader) if their involvement is sufficiently related to the main action, even if there would be no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over them.

Efficiency Factors for Supplemental (Pendent+Ancillary) jurisdiction

It is NOT required if it passes pendent/ancillary, AKA supplemental jurisdiction, for the court to accept it. This rule 1367(a) was made on efficiency grounds. Here are some factors to consider:

1. Needless decisions of state law should be avoided as a matter of comity

2. Federal claims are dismissed before trial

3. State issues substantially predominate

4. State claim closely tied to federal policy

5. Other reasons...IE; jury confusion if claims are tried together

UMW v. Gibbs

Gibbs sued UMW for violating federal labor law and also brought state-law tort claims. The federal court had jurisdiction over the federal claim, but the issue was whether it could also hear the related state claims.

Federal courts may hear state law claims under pendent jurisdiction if the federal and state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. Gibbs claim was.

• Gibbs’s federal claim was for violations of federal labor law. His state law claims were for wrongful interference & conspiracy arising out of the same labor dispute.

Owen Equipment v. Kroger

Kroger sues crane company. Crane company impleads crane creator. Crane creator turns out to be from the same state as Kroger.

A plaintiff cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to bypass the complete diversity requirement by asserting claims against a non-diverse party newly brought into the case.

A DEFENDANT CAN.

No definitive way to tell a plaintiff is doing this, court can just tell ig

Merger vs Bar

Merger:
If plaintiff wins, their original claim merges into the judgment — no re-litigation allowed.

Bar:
If plaintiff loses, the judgment bars re-litigation of the same claim — claim is extinguished.

The plaintiff cannot bring a new lawsuit on the same cause of action to seek additional or different remedies.

Claim Preclusion & Basic Requirements

Claim preclusion prevents re-litigation of the same claim or cause of action once there is a final judgment on the merits between the same parties or their privies.
Requirements:

1. Final judgment

2. On the merits

3. Same claim (transactional nucleus of facts)

4. Same parties or parties in privity

NOT Rule 18, this is same issue, Rule 18 is unrelated issues same plaintiff.

Compulsory Counterclaim(13(a)) (basically what this rule is)

Issue Preclusion & Basic Requirements

Definition:
Issue preclusion bars relitigation of an issue of fact or law that was actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior case.
Requirements:

1. Final judgment

2. Same issue

3. Issue actually litigated and determined

4. No unfairness to the party being estopped, if the doctrine is invoked

Non Mutual Collateral Estoppel

• Defensive NMCE = A new defendant uses the old loss against the plaintiff to block re-litigation.
  (Example: Plaintiff already lost on "fault" once; defendant #2 says "You can't reargue fault against me.")
  

• Offensive NMCE = A new plaintiff uses the old loss against the defendant to shortcut proving liability.
  (Example: Defendant was already found negligent; new plaintiff says "Now I only need to prove damages.")

Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade

Facts:
Manego tried to open a disco club in Worcester and claimed that private groups and the city illegally conspired to block him. After losing a first lawsuit based on civil rights and antitrust theories, he tried to sue again under conspiracy to deny business.

Rule:
Claim preclusion bars re-suing on a new legal theory if the claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts.
Here, all disputes about blocking the disco — permits, approvals, conspiracies — were part of one transaction, so Manego’s second case was barred.

Little v. Blue Goose

Little in bus accident. Sues for negligence but fails. Estate then sues for wanton negligence, can’t use contributory negligence as a defense.

This would be true, issues must be actually and necessarily raised. BUT Illinois Laws requires showing that Bus company had no negligence under both theories, so it is unlike the common law; and therefore this is issue preclusion.

Hardy v. Johns Manville

• Facts: Workers exposed to asbestos sued multiple manufacturers after an earlier asbestos case.

• Holding: Issue preclusion did not apply because

  The specific issue was not actually litigated or decided in the first case(the defendant’s failure to warn. No specific jury instruction = No clear finding = No issue preclusion.
  
  Affects 4th Factor it WOULD be unfair to the defendant to bind them to this decision

Whole Woman’s Health

• Facts: Plaintiffs challenged different parts of the same Texas abortion law in separate lawsuits.

• Rule: New material facts or different statutory provisions can create a new claim, avoiding claim preclusion even if based on related subject matter.

new material facts” vs. “new legal theories
factors:

• Transactional Nucleus Test: Are the facts closely related in time, space, origin, and motivation?

• Nature of the Wrong: Is it a different injury or duty breached, not just a new legal theory?

• Timing of Facts: New facts arising after the first judgment favor a new claim; pre-existing facts don't.

• Plaintiff’s Knowledge: If facts were known or discoverable earlier, it's likely barred.

Benefits and Criticisms of Appellate Review?

BENEFITS:

1. Correct trial court errors

2. Counteract judicial bias’

3. More public confidence

CRITICISM:

1. Time Consuming

2. Costly

What are the requirements for the Collateral Order Doctrine?

These are for immediate appeals, before there is an actual final decision.

1. Conclusiveness (does the order represent a final determination of the question?)

2. Separability (is the issue separate from the merits?)

3. Unreviewability (does the order affect an important right that is effectively unreviewable later?)

Cohen v. Beneficial

In Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., a shareholder filed a derivative suit in federal court, but the defendant argued that under New Jersey law, the shareholder was required to post a substantial bond before proceeding.

• Conclusive – The district court made a final decision not to apply the bond requirement.

• Separate from the merits – The bond issue was procedural and unrelated to the merits of the shareholder's claims.

• Effectively unreviewable – If the case proceeded without the bond, the defendant's right under state law to security for costs would be lost forever, making later review meaningless.

Mohawk Industries v. Carpetner

In Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, a former employee sued Mohawk, claiming he was fired for reporting the company’s illegal hiring practices. During discovery, the trial court ordered Mohawk to disclose information it claimed was protected by attorney-client privilege, prompting Mohawk to seek immediate appeal.

Conclusive – Yes, the privilege issue was finally decided by the trial court.

Separate from the merits – Yes, the privilege issue was distinct from the underlying wrongful termination claim.

Effectively unreviewable – No, because the Court found that mistaken disclosure of privileged information could be remedied after final judgment and did not justify disrupting litigation with an interlocutory appeal.
(AKA can always get new trial at end)

Mohawk limits it by EFFICIENCY grounds, it should be used sparingly. Discovery disputes usually don’t apply, use mandamus, or get contempted to get final order.

What is manufactured finality?

Manufactured finality refers to a party's attempt to artificially create a "final judgment" to gain immediate appellate review, even though the case is not truly over. This usually happens when:

• A party voluntarily dismisses remaining claims (often without prejudice) just to appeal an unfavorable interlocutory ruling.

• The goal is to shortcut the final judgment rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which only permits appeals from decisions that end the entire case.

HOWEVER, if you get permission from the judge or the other in party, you might be able to do this.

How does 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) differ from Rule 54(b) regarding interlocutory appeals?

Interlocutory Appeals of Controlling Legal Questions

• §1292(b) applies to non-final legal orders, requires both district court certification and appellate court permission, and is used for important legal questions. That would materially advance the litigation or simplify the case.

VS

Final Judgment on Fewer Than All Claims

• Rule 54(b) applies to final judgments on fewer than all claims/parties, needs only district court approval, and does not require appellate discretion to proceed.

Will vs. US

In Will v. United States, a federal trial judge ordered the government to disclose its list of trial witnesses to the defense. The government opposed the order and sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to prevent enforcement of the discovery order.

The Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, only appropriate when a lower court has clearly exceeded its authority or usurped judicial power. It emphasized that simple legal errors or procedural disagreements do not justify mandamus; those must be addressed through regular appeals after final judgment.

MONSTER BIAS ONLY!!!

Gillespie v. US Steel

Seamen plaintiffs sued U.S. Steel under both state and federal claims. The district court dismissed the state claims and proceeded only with the federal ones; plaintiffs appealed. Was this a final decision?

It was NOT because Gillespie voluntarily consolidated; he had to wait for everyone else.

Moses Cone Hospital v. Mercury Construction

A federal court stayed proceedings in favor of a parallel state court case concerning arbitration. The stay effectively ended federal involvement, as the court would simply follow the state court’s resolution.

It was a practically final decision, because the federal court had nothing meaningful left to do once the state court ruled. It was ONLY administerial at this point.

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay

After a district court denied class certification in a securities case, the plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the case couldn’t proceed economically without class status. The Court found no final decision had been made, as individual claims still remained; just because it was no longer economically viable doesn’t mean anything.
“death knell” theory isn’t valid

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.

The plaintiff sued for both payment under a contract and for fraud. The court granted summary judgment on the contract claim and, due to financial harm from delay (interest differences), certified that part of the judgment for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), while the fraud claim remained unresolved.

This is allowed under 54(b) because the district court entered a final judgment and allowed the appeal as a result. (multi-claim litigation thingy)

Gelboim v. Bank of America

Gelboim filed an antitrust case that was consolidated with other LIBOR-related cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Her sole antitrust claim was dismissed while other claims in the consolidated docket remained.

Gelboim’s claims were FORCIBLY consolidated. As a result she had the ability to appeal immediately once one claim was resolved

Hall vs. Hall

Even if your case was consolidated under Rule 42(forced consolidation),
If parties are forcibly consolidated, you can appeal after your case is over. You don’t have to wait. Extended Gelboim

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank

A bankruptcy court rejected the debtor’s proposed reorganization plan and allowed him to submit a new one. The debtor tried to appeal, but the Court ruled that this was not a final judgment since the proceedings were ongoing.

The Court held that denial of a debtor’s proposed reorganization plan is not a final decision under § 1291, because the case remains active and the debtor can propose a new plan; allowing appeal would lead to inefficient piecemeal review.

In ordinary civil litigation, a case in federal district court culminates in a "final decision" when a district court disassociates itself from a case.

Ray Halluch Gravel

Pension funds sued Ray Haluch Gravel under ERISA for unpaid contributions and attorney’s fees. After winning $27,000 in unpaid pensions, they filed their appeal after attorney’s fees were later awarded—but the appeal was too late because it must be filed within 30 days of the judgment on the merits.

The Court held that the 30-day appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107 runs from the final judgment on the merits—not from a later ruling on attorney’s fees. Merits determine finality.

MUST file an appeal within 30 days, because you exceeded the deadline and the deadline is STATUTORY.

Bowels

The district court gave Bowles extra time to file a notice of appeal, but that extension was beyond the statutory limit. Despite following the court's instruction, the Supreme Court ruled the appeal was untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court held that statutory appellate deadlines (like the 30-day deadline under § 2107) are jurisdictional. Even if a district court erroneously extends the time to appeal, compliance with the statute—not the court's order—controls.

What is the difference between jurisdictional and rule-based deadlines in Civil Procedure?

Jurisdictional deadlines (e.g., appeal deadlines under § 2107) cannot be extended by courts and must be strictly followed. Rule-based deadlines (e.g., Rule 12(a)’s 21-day response time) are mandatory but subject to court discretion and extension.

Carson v. Americans Brands

Parties agreed to consent degree including injunctive relief, but the district court refused to enter it. This was about discriminatory hiring practices.

Interlocutory orders that have preliminary injunction can be immediately appealable if they pose “serious, perhaps irreparable consequences” and can only be effectively challenged through immediate appeal.

This was irreparable harm because:

1. it was an agreement they made they didnt want to go to trial

2. we want to change their discriminatory hiring practices, we dont want them to continue

There was ENOUGH of potential that we needed to be worried about it

TROs vs Injunctive Relief vs Permanent Injunction

TROs are for emergency measures, they are not appealable, wait for the court to give an order, then you can appeal. Injunctive Relief is on slower timescale, and so if it has potential to cause irreparable harm, you can interlocutory appeal it, under 1291.

Can’t do a permanent injunction because this is the reward from the case, wait until the end and appeal then.

Nystrom v. Trex & its difference from Moses Cone

Nystrom sued Trex for patent infringement, and Trex counterclaimed for antitrust violations. The district court stayed(halted proceedings) Trex’s counterclaims while allowing Nystrom’s patent claims to proceed; Nystrom sought to appeal the stay, arguing it was effectively final.

In Moses Cone, the stay effectively ended federal proceedings; in Nystrom, the stay merely postponed the resolution of counterclaims until after the main case, so it did not qualify as effectively final.

When does 1292(b) apply?

* District Court issues an interlocutory order, and believes that it must concern:

1. a controlling question of law OR

2. substantial grounds for difference of opinion OR

3. immediate appeal will materially advance termination of the case

* Court of appeals may permit appeal

Exxon Mobil/Rosario Ortega Cases

These are plaintiffs under Rule 23 & 20 in these two separate cases that were trying to get in on their respective original jurisdiction cases through supplemental jurisdiction.

They were allowed despite not having the AIC because for Rules 20 & 23 you don’t need it for supplemental jurisdiction, only need to keep complete diversity, as per 1367(b), because it mentions nothing about AIC for 20 & 23.

Merill Dow

The Court ruled that federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 does not arise merely because a state law claim incorporates a federal standard—unless the federal statute provides a private right of action. This is important in Civil Procedure because it limits the scope of federal subject matter jurisdiction, reinforcing that not every case involving a federal issue belongs in federal court.

1367 analysis

Supplemental Jurisdiction analysis
FIRST, is it being challenged on diversity grounds or federal Q? If its Federal Q, do not proceed. If its diversity proceed.

1367(a) Do the original parties have complete diversity & AIC? if yes then OK, proceed to 1367(b)

Are the supplemental parties being brought in for an end run around diversity? (kroger) Then NOT allowed.

Are the supplemental parties coming in on Rule 20 or 23, and only lack AIC? Then ALLOWED (exxon, rosario)

Keeton v. Hustler

The Court held that personal jurisdiction is based on the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum state, not the plaintiff’s. A publisher that systematically and continuously circulates magazines in a state can be sued there for libel, even if the plaintiff has no significant ties to the forum.

This and calder explain the “effects test”
(applies to intentional torts tho)

Rules of Decision Act 1652

It directs federal courts to apply state law—including state common law—in civil cases unless the Constitution, federal treaties, or statutes require otherwise, reinforcing Erie’s rule against federal general common law.

Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. § 2072)

It gives the Supreme Court the power to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so long as those rules are procedural and do not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.

What are the twin aims of Eerie?

1. prevent forum shopping

2. prevent the inequitable administration of laws

For example, if federal courts ignored state law, two identical cases (one in state court, one in federal court) could yield conflicting results, creating unfairness. The doctrine closes this loophole.

What is the outcome determination test?

First laid out in York, and clarified in Hanna. It is whether it will change the outcome of a plaintiff at the outset, that is how to determine if a rule is substantive or procedural.

If its procedural apply federal procedural law only, if its substantive apply the state law. Note, if its an important state right, courts try to preserve that.

What is Byrd Balancing? When is it used?

This test weighs the federal interest in applying its own procedural rule (such as the right to jury trial) against the state’s interest in enforcing its rule, even if the outcome might differ. If the federal interest is strong and the state interest is weak, the federal rule may apply—even if the result is outcome determinative.

This is used when analyzing the twin aims of Eerie.