Role of Juries/Judgments and Pleadings/Preclusion

What are juries finders of?

Fact.

Juries make credibility determinations

What are the two questions you must ask in deciding whether a case has a right to the jury?

1. Is it a case at law or a case at equity?

2. Does this particular claim necessarily contain a jury issue? (consider the interpretive skills and the statutory policies that ought to be furthered).

What happens if it’s a question of fact (jury) and question of law (judge)?

Where an issue falls somewhere between pristine legal and simple fact, the fact/law distinction at times has turned on a determination that, as a matter of the sound administration of justice, one judicial actor is better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.

Rule 50 - Judgment as a matter of law

If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

• A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.

• “If no reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant, the motion should be granted.”

Directed-Verdict. 50(a)

“Pre-Jury” JMOL. Submitted after the opposing party has been “fully heard.”

• Required for a 50(b) renewed JMOL.

Judgment not withstanding the Verdict

“Post-Jury JMOL.”

• Claims the jury made an inappropriate decision.

• Can only move on the issues brought up in the “warning” 50(a) motion.

Timing of JMOL

At trial…

• One party presents their case in chief

• Moving/Opposing party presents 50(a) motion for a directed verdict. (likely to be denied).

• Moving party presents their case in chief.

• Jury deliberates and delivers a verdict.

• Moving/Opposing party presents 50(b) motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict on the issue they brought up in their 50(a) motion.

Similarities/Differences between JMOL and Summary Judgment

BOTH.

• Safeguards against unreasonable juries.

• No weighing of evidence; no credibility determinations.

• All reasonable inferences viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

• Only granted if no reasonable factfinder could find for the nonmovant.

JMOL Unique.

• Can only look at admissible evidence (not reducible to admissible).

• Disregard evidence favorable to the moving party unless it is uncontradicted and unimpeached and comes from disinterested witnesses.

JMOL Hypo - 1

1) By looking at this fact pattern, we are at the trial stage of litigation, specifically at the point where a party may move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a). At this stage, the court must decide whether a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the nonmoving party.

JMOL Hypo - 2

Statute quote

• Analysis: does this meet the timing required?

• Analysis: Does the movant specify the judgment sought and facts that would entitle him to the judgment?

JMOL Hypo - 3

The court must not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. All reasonable inferences are to be drawn in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, and evidence in favor of the movant must be disregarded unless it is uncontradicted, unimpeached and comes from a disinterest witness. Unimpeached evidence is that on which there has been no doubt on the validity or integrity casted. Uncontradicted evidence is that no disproven or called into question by other evidence. A disinterested witness is one who is not biased and has no personal stake in the outcome of the litigation.

Evidence that is contradicted by the nonmoving party’s evidence cannot be credited. Where a direct conflict in testimony exists, the question must be left to the jury.

• Analysis: Is the evidence contradicted, impeached, or from an interest witness?

JMOL Hypo 4

Lastly, we ask if a reasonable jury could hear the movant’s evidence and rule in favor of the nonmovant. This last stage reflects that JMOL is only concerned with the burden of persuasion.

• Analysis: Apply the evidence to each element of the law.

Why would a judge deny a prejury JMOL and grant a post-jury renewal?

1. Save/get more time to decide

2. If it’s a prejury JMOL, it could potentially get appealed, causing a need for a new trial. If it’s a post-jury JMOL, the court could enter a verdict by reinstating the jury verdict.

General Verdict

“Liable/Not Liable.”

• Issue: Can’t tell if the jury appropriately applied the law.

New Trials - Rule 59

• A court can consider all evidence at trial. They don’t have to view the evidence in a light most favorable to either party.

Granted in three situations…

1. Verdict against the weight of evidence

2. Error in process - inadmissible evidence included; improper jury instructions; jury tampering.

3. New Evidence comes to light

Rule 60(b)

A party may seek relief from a judgment.

• Most commonly sought if they didn’t have notice.

When should a new trial be awarded when the verdict is against the weight of evidence?

• Judge is permitted to weigh the evidence.

• Does not have to view record in light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

1. If resolution depends heavily on assessment of witness credibility, judges should hesitate to order a new trial.

Additur

• Adding to a jury damage verdict.

• Will almost never be granted.

Remittur

• Reducing a jury verdict for damages.

• Allowed under the 7th amendment because a reduced jury award is “within” the amount found appropriate by the jury.

What amendment preserves the right to trial by jury?

7th amendment

Can you appeal a grant of a new trial?

No, appeals cannot be made on a grant of a new trial because this is considered an “interlocutory finding.”

• They must go through the new trial before appealing the grant of the new trial.

Appeals

• You don’t have to have a “verdict” to appeal. (think summary judgment).

• You can only appeal a final judgment.

• You can NOT appeal interlocutory findings.

Interlocutory finding

Intermediate - “Before final.”

• Not immediately appealable because appeal courts don’t have the jurisdiction to hear these issues.

What is a final judgment?

Established by 28 U.S.C. 1291

• Ends the litigation on the merits leaving nothing for the trial court to do but execute the judgment.

• Court of appeals only have jurisdiction on “final judgments” meaning one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the trail court to do but execute the judgment.

• “On the merits.” Means with prejudice.

What are the exceptions to a “final judgment” requirement for a court of appeals to hear it?

1. What you’re appealing is “self-executing.”

2. Subject to the Collateral Order Doctrine… must show

i. Severability (issue unrelated to the merits of the main dispute).

ii. Finality (A complete resolution of the issue, not one that is unfinished).

iii. Urgency (A right incapable of vindication on appeal from final judgment).

iv. Importance (An important and unsettled question of controlling law, not merely a question of the proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion).

Rule 54(b)

Dealing with litigation that has multiple claims. If one claim satisfies the final judgment rule, you can appeal that one claim.

1292(a)

Injunctions.

• Permitted to seek interlocutory appeals on injunctions

1292(b)

Controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion

1651 Writ of Mandamus

“To force the hand” of the trial court and withdraw what they did

Standards of Appellate Review: Clear Error

Great deference; must be firm conviction that a mistake was made.

• Disagreement is not enough.

• Applies to factual determinations by a judge (bench trials/finding of PJ)

Standards of Appellate Review: De Novo

No deference.

• Applies to legal rulings/JMOLS. (12b6/SJ/JMOL).

• “Fresh eyes.”

Standards of Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion

Greatest Deference.

• as long as there is a rational, reasonable explanation, court must affirm. Disagreement is not enough.  Applies when the trial court made a decision based upon a rule that gives it discretion: “may”

Preclusion Doctrine

Precludes relitigation of subsequent claims/issues.

• In suit #2, you have to apply the same preclusion principles that suit #1 would apply to prevent forum shopping.

• Policy Concerns: How should the court balance the tension between efficiency (rigid application) and fairness (allowing them to litigate)?

• Not applicable to nonparties because due process provides that everyone should be entitled to their own date in court.

“What, if any impact, should there be from lawsuit #1?”

Claim Preclusion

Prohibits the relitigation of claims that have been conclusively resolved in a final valid judgment on the merits between the same parties or their proof.

• Applies to all claims actually brought or “could have been brought”

• Raised as an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c )

• Exceptions: Jurisdictional issues

  • 1. State court lacks jurisdiction over a federal law claim.

  • 2. Federal court lacks supplemental/diversity jurisdiction of a state law claim.

Valid

The court has proper jurisdiction and the defendant had notice

Final

Nothing left to do but execution of the judgment

On the merits

The judgment is with prejudice

Elements of Claim Preclusion

1. Claim in the subsequent action must be the same claim that was raised or should have been raised in the previous action (Transactional Test/Same Evidence Test).

2. Prior action must have concluded in a valid, final judgment on the merits

• Valid: Prior court had jurisdiction

• Final: Nothing left to do but execute the judgment

• Merits: With prejudice

3. Parties in the subsequent action must be identical to, or in privity with, the parties in the first action.

• Do the exceptions of a “nonparty can’t be bound” by a judgment from suit #1 apply?

Transactional test - Is this the same claim or a claim that could have been brought?

• Does it contain the same group of operative facts?

• Form a convenient trial unit?

• Whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations/business understandings?

Same Evidence Test - Is this the same claim or a claim that could have been brought?

• two suits involve the same claim only “if the evidence needed to sustain the second suit would have sustained the first, or if the same facts were essential to maintain both actions

What does “in privity with” cover relationship wise for the “same parties or in privity with” element?

1. Nonparty who agrees to be bound (class action)

• A nationwide class sues a company for defective products → judgment entered → a class member later sues individually → barred.

2. Qualifying legal relationship (bailor/bailee)

• (a) Bailor / Bailee

• (b) Successive property owners (grantor / grantee)

• (c) Trustee / Beneficiary

• (d) Executor / Estate

• (e) Insurer / Insured

3. Adequate representation (interests were protected)

• Class actions (again)

• Guardians representing minors

• Trustees representing beneficiaries

4. Non-party assumed control of the 1st litigation

• Corporation secretly funds and directs litigation in someone else’s name

• Later tries to sue again → barred

5. Party from lawsuit #1 litigating by proxy in lawsuit #2

• Person A loses lawsuit

• Then convinces Person B to sue on the same issue for A’s benefit
  → barred

6. Statutory scheme (bankruptcy)

• Some statutes explicitly bind nonparties.

Extra Notes: “Adequate Representation” for “in privity with”

Virtual Representation is the “same thing” as adequate representation. Must show…

1. Interests of the nonparty and the representative are aligned

2. The party understood herself ot be acting in a representative capacity or the original court took care to protect the interests of the nonparty.

3. Notice of the original suit to the persons alleged to have been represented.

Issue Preclusion - Collateral Estoppel

Prevents litigation of the same issues or fact

• Only available if claim preclusion does not apply

• The party to be precluded must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the action.

“Was the issue in adjudication #1 actually litigated? Was the issue essential to the judgment?

“What issues in adjudication #1 should avoid relitigation?”

Issue Preclusion - Elements

1. Same issues of fact or law

2. Actually litigated and determined (challenged, fought, disputed).

• Determining what was actually litigated: point to discover or trial record to show the evidence and disputes that were fought about to the point to the issue litigated

3. By valid, final judgment

4. Which issue was essential to the judgment

5. In a subsequent action between the same parties or their privities

6. Where the party against whom preclusion is sought had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.

Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel

Will have one party from suit #1 and one totally new party who is not in privity. May be either…

• Offensive. New plaintiff v. OG defendant.

• Defensive. OG plaintiff v. new defendant

“Can a stranger bind an original party from suit #1?”

Defensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel

Occurs where a new defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim the plaintiff has previously litigated and lost against another defendant.

• New Party? Defendant

• Should not be precluded.

Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel

Occurs where a new plaintiff seeks to foreclose the defendant from litigating an issue the defendant had previously litigated unsuccessfully with another party.

• New Party? Plaintiff

• Preclusive effect? Maybe

Offensive Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel should be precluded when…

In cases where the plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action OR where the application of offensive estoppel would be unfair to a defendant, a trial judge should NOT allow the use of offensive collateral estoppel.

• Lawsuit 1 involves a small or nominal amount (may not defend vigorously)

• Risk of inconsistent judgments

• Procedural opportunities available in suit #2 that were not available is suit #1.