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.

Hohlbein v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co.

4 plaintiffs try to join together in lawsuit against company for fraud and misrepresentation in the hiring process; Plaintiffs can join in a lawsuit under Rule 20(a) if claims arise out of same transaction/occurrence/series of transactions/occurrences AND share some common question of law or fact

Erkins v. Case Power and Equipment Co.

Equipment manufacturer tries to implead company man that died worked for in lawsuit; Under impleader, can only add 3rd party that is or may be liable to defendant derivatively or secondarily; cannot join person who is or may be liable solely to plaintiff.

Grutter v. Bollinger

Groups of potential minority students seek to intervene in reverse discrimination lawsuits facing Univ. of MI; Proposed intervenors of right must establish (1)motion to intervene was timely, (2)substantial legal interest in subject matter of case, (3)ability to protect that interest may be impaired in absence of intervention, and (4)parties already before court may not adequately represent their interest.

King v. Blanton

Parties settled lawsuit about car crash and then one party brought a second lawsuit arising out of that same crash; To determine whether a claim arises out of the same transaction/occurrence can look at whether (1) issues of fact and law are largely the same, (2) substantially the same evidence is involved; and (3) there’s a logical relationship b/w the two actions.

Hays v. Sony Corp of America

Teachers hire lawyer to go after Sony for copyright infringement for computer manuals teachers created. Lawyer never practiced in federal court and not familiar with copyright law; Highlights objective standard for reasonable inquiry because lawyer who knew nothing about federal court or copyright law still sanctioned.

Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery

Court sanctions Hunter for bringing case where court’s precedent says Hunter should lose, but Supreme Court and circuits split on the issue. (SCOTUS eventually rules in favor of Hunter’s position in a subsequent case); Attempt to change law is frivolous only when it can be said a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could NOT have believed his actions to be legally justified

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.

Chudasama injured in crash and later sues Mazda but asks for crazy invasive discovery so Mazda asks to limit/narrow these requests. Chaos ensues with a horrible judge; Court should provide rulings on party’s objections to discovery requests; severe sanctions should only be a last resort.

Oxbow v. Union Pacific

Antitrust case where one side wants Mr. Koch’s emails;  To resist a motion to compel, a party must specifically object and show that a discovery request would impose an undue burden or expense or is otherwise objectionable; To determine proportionality of discovery, courts look at factors such as importance of Issues, Information Asymmetry, Amount in Controversy, Parties’ Resources, Importance of Discovery in Resolving Issues, and Whatever Burden/Expense Outweighs likely benefit.

Hickman v. Taylor

Lawyer for tugboat owner refuses to share his work product with lawyer for workers’ families; To overcome presumption that work product is not discoverable, party seeing discovery must prove that there is a substantial need for the materials to prepare for case AND they cannot, without hardship, obtain the substantial equivalent by other means

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg

Company deletes emails related to woman’s gender discrimination lawsuit claim; To determine whether to consider discovery cost-shifting, court will consider:

1. Data accessible or inaccessible?

2. Require responding party to take a small sample?

3. Cost-shifting analysis factors:

   1. Extent to which request is specifically tailored

   2. Availability of such information from other places

   3. Cost of production v. amount-in-controversy

   4. Cost v. resources available to each party

   5. Relative ability of each party to control cost and incentive to do so

   6. Importance of issues at stake in the litigation

   7. Relative benefits to parties obtaining the information

Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation

Plaintiff wants insurance policy documents while defendant does not want to disclose this; Initial disclosures can be delayed if parties agree to delay or court orders delay; Rule 26(a)(1) gives district court’s discretionary power to stay initial disclosures pending resolution of a motion to dismiss if the defendant makes a strong showing that the plaintiff’s claim is unmeritorious

Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Mottley

Congress law prohibits free train tickets, couple sues RR for loss of free tickets; Narrows the requirements for a claim to “arise out of federal law” in order to get into federal courts based on federal question jx.

Diefenthal v. C.A.B

Couple sues airline company because they had to sit in non-smoking section in order to stay in first class; Federal courts have jx if sum claimed by plaintiff is apparently made in good faith and likely to reach limit. Can dismiss if it appears a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than amount-in-controversy threshold.

Gordon v. Steele

College student in Idaho whose originally from Pennsylvania is suing for a medical malpractice suit that happened in Pennsylvania; Shows how for some courts, intent to not move home is enough to fulfill intent to reside indefinitely.

Mas v. Perry

 sued landlord for spying on her and her husband through a two-way mirror; Shows person does not lose domicile until acquire a new one even if they do not plan to return to domicile.

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

Californians sue rental car company; Principal place of business is the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities

Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.

Defendant used as basis to remove to federal court plaintiff’s language that said defendant violated “not only state law but also federal law”; subject matter jx, for removal purposes, cannot be created by vague reference to federal law.

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs

Could federal court hear respondent’s state law claims against petitioner even though it dismissed his federal cause of action?; Federal courts can choose to hear state claims that derive from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claim.

Owen Equipment v. Kroger

Party added via Rule 14; party and plaintiff both citizens of Iowa; When federal jx is based on diversity jx, the court may not exercise jx over plaintiff’s claim against a 3rd party if there is no independent basis for federal jx over the claim.

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King

NYC Jazz Club owner sues Missouri jazz club owner with same name; To determine whether a court has pjx over a defendant, must look at forum state’s long arm statute AND the due process clause

Daimler AG v. Bauman

Car manufacturer sued in U.S. courts by aliens for things happening in Argentina; A court cannot assert general jurisdiction over a corporation if the corporation’s affiliations with the forum state are not so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation at home in the state.

Burnham v. Superior Court

New Jersey man served with divorce papers while visiting California; Personal service while physically present in a state is sufficient for pjx

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson

New England car distributor sued for car accident in Oklahoma; Pjx can exist over non-resident only if minimum contacts between defendant and forum state exist and must be reasonable to require defendant to defend suit there

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Man makes contract with fast food chain in Florida but operates restaurant in Michigan where he ultimately defaults on the contract; Parties who “reach beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state” are subject to regulations and sanctions in the other state for the consequences of their activities

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California

Foreign parts manufacturer sued by foreign motorcycle maker in U.S. for liability in U.S. crash; Exercising pjx over an alien defendant is unreasonable and unfair if the burden on the alien defendant from being required to defend itself in a foreign court outweighs the plaintiff’s and forum’s interests in the forum state’s assertion of jx

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District and Bandemer

Whether plaintiff’s particular claims “arose out of” or were sufficiently related to car maker’s contacts with the forum states; “Arising out of” element for pjx can be satisfied by plaintiff showing either:

1. Claim resulted from defendant’s in-state contacts; OR

2. There is a strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

Shoe salesmen halfway across country from shoe manufacturer; Court can have pjx over a defendant even if they are not present within the territory of the forum if defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state

Dioguardi v. Durning

Italian pro se litigant who created his own complaint trying to allege his product stolen; There is no pleading requirement of stating “facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” but only that there be a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Doe v. Smith

Teen girl filed complaint against teen boy that videotaped them getting busy; Pleadings in federal court need not allege facts corresponding to each “element” of a statute. It is enough to state a claim for relief.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Man sued for discrimination for post-9/11 lock up because Muslim and foreign; A complaint will only survive a MTD if it alleges nonconclusory facts, that taken as true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Can have legal conclusions but need facts to back it up.

Gouwens v. Target Corp.

Lawsuit over “natural” label on fruit punch flavored water enhancer; Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its fact and gives defendant fair notice of the basis of the claims