Civil Procedure Cases

Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise

boat insurance case that highlights substantial part of the claim for proper venue under 1391(b)(2)

MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co.

Drug maker wants to transfer case from D.C. to Massachusetts. Highlights private/public factors that are weighed when courts decide to authorize venue transfer under 1404.

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

Airplane crash in Scotland. Court uses forum non conveniens to dismiss case because factors weigh in support of Scottish jury hearing the case rather than a U.S. jury since remedy available in Scotland even though not as good of a remedy as American law might provide.

Black & White Taxicab v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab

Taxi cab company reincorporates in new state to sue federal court knowing it will choose what common law should be rather than use KY law; Federal courts were free to exercise their own independent judgement as to what common law to apply in diversity cases.

Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins

Lawyer files man’s train injury claim in federal court to avoid unfavorable PA tort law on duty to trespassers; When federal court must apply state law, that includes not only statutes but also a state’s specific common law even if court must take an educated “Erie Guess.”

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric

In dispute over damages for contract breach, parties fight over which state’s damages calculation should apply; Federal courts must follow conflict/choice of law rules of the state in which it sits.

MacArthur v. Univ. TX Health Center at Tyler

Nurse brings number of claims against hospital but only some go to jury and appeals but argues claims different from what she briefed; when a party fails to argue the claims they appealed on in their brief, they have abandoned their claims on appeal.

In Re Recticel Foam Corporation

Puerto Rican hotel fire case in discovery process and one of the defendants wants to appeal court order that splits a discovery fee among defendants; Appeals courts typically do not have jx over appeal until judgement final. For collateral order exception issue needs to be separable, final, urgent, and important.

In Re Recticel Foam Corp. II

Puerto Rican hotel fire case in discovery process and one of the defendants wants to appeal court order that splits a discovery fee among defendants; For a writ of mandamus, appellant needs to show (1) show special risk of irreparable harm and (2) clear entitlement to relief requested.

River Park Inc. V. City of Highland Park

After no luck in federal court, developer tries to sue city in state court over purposeful rezoning delay; Separate claims will be considered the same cause of action for purposes of res judicata if they arise from a single group of operative facts regardless of whether they assert different theories of relief.

Taylor v. Sturgell

FAA says man can’t sue for information on an airplane because his friend already sued; Non-party preclusion can happen when:

1. Person agrees to be bound by judgement in another case

2. Non-party has a substantial legal relationship with party

3. NP assumed control over the litigation that ended in judgement

4. NP was adequately represented by a party to the suit

5. Can’t use a NP proxy to relitigate for a party bound by judgement

6. Statute might expressly prevent NP from litigating

   1. Scheme must be consistent with Due Process

Felger v Nichols

Man raises defense of inadequate performance in lawsuit against his lawyer and then files a lawsuit for malpractice; Issues actually litigated and determined in the original action are barred from litigation in subsequent lawsuits.

Otherson v. Dept. of Justice, INS

Man convicted to two misdemeanors for abusing aliens and then fired from Border Patrol job;  Issue preclusion applies when issue was actually litigated, actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jx and preclusion would not be unfair (aka party had incentive to litigate).

Parklane Hosiery v. Shore

Company lost its SEC case and then sued by non-party for false and misleading statements. NP wants to use offensive issue preclusion; Offensive issue preclusion not allowed where plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where it would be unfair to defendant.

Blonder-Tongue Labs v. Univ. Illinois

A court had already said University’s patent was invalid so labs raised non-mutual defensive issue preclusion to bar the lawsuit against it.

Virgin Records v. Lacey

Record company served copyright complaint on defendant and defendant never responded; Rule 55 provides for default judgment when defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend

Hunter v. Serv-Tech

Plaintiff hurt in a boat accident and defendant filed a MTD for improper service then later files a second MTD for lack of pjx; Rule 12(h)(1)-if objection to pjx, venue, or service of process is not raised in party’s first responsive pleading, it is waived.

Matos v. Nextran Inc.

Man injured by cement truck sues and cement truck maker files Rule 12 motions; Rule 12(e)(more definite statement); 12(f) (strike something from pleading); 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim)

Pennsylvania RR v. Chamberlain

Worker killed when ran over by train cars;  Directed verdicts are appropriate when the evidence is so overwhelmingly on one side as to leave no room to doubt what the fact is.

Lane v. Hardee’s Food Systems

Customer slipped and fell in restaurant bathroom; JML is only appropriate when a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is NO legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party.

Slaven v. City of Salem

Plaintiff’s brother dies in Salem jail, so sues; NMP must show specific facts that there is a genuine issue for trial otherwise summary judgement is appropriate.

Tolan v. Cotton

Police incident ensued after system incorrectly said plaintiff stole car; On MSJ, evidence of NMP is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in their favor.

Celotex v. Catrett

Woman sues asbestos products manufacturers for her husband’s death; Rule 56 does not require MP support its MSJ motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating opponent’s claim

Hardin v. Ski Venture Inc.

Skier hit a tree while skiing then sued ski resort for running snow machines at time; Jury instructions need to represent law accurately, not confuse or mislead the jury and need to be more than merely statements of abstract principles of law with no relation to the facts.