KEEP IN MIND:
– Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)
– Always assess SMJ; every claim assess individually
– Suppelmentary Jurisdiction – 1367 a Diversity; 1367 b ∏ cant
– Pleadings are just documents
Band Refuse as a Trial Model
– Complaint
– Answer
– Motion to Intervene by Capassos
– Amended Complaint
– Discovery, including Interrogatories
– Pre-trial hearings
– Trial
– Judgment Entered
– Appeal
I) Remedies
A) Prejudgment Seizure
i) Used to make sure that damages are available at the end of the case
ii) Method
(a) Temporary Restraining order – b4 Preliminary Injunction
(b) Preliminary Injunction
(c) Replevin
iii) Elements considered
(a) Pre-deprivation hearing
(b) Factual Showing
(c) Pre-Existing Interest
(d) Bond
(e) Review by Judge
(f) Post-deprivation hearing
(1) Immediate?
iv) Cases
(a) Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht
(1) Facts:
(2) Court’s Reasoning:
(3) Legal Principle
Ø Public seizure w/o hearing is fine in “extraordinary” circumstances like protecting of public interest or if there is a concern of property being destroyed
(b) Fuentes v. Shevin
(1) Facts:
(2) Legal Principle::
(3) Court’s Reasoning:
(c) Mitchell v. W.T. Grant
(1) Facts:
(2) Legal Principle::
(3) Court’s Reasoning:
(d) North Georgia v. Di-Chan
(1) Facts:
(2) Legal Principle::
(3) Court’s Reasoning:
(e) Connecticut v. Doehr
(1) Facts:
(2) Legal Principle::
(3) Court’s Reasoning:
(4) Three Part Test for Government/Public Seizure from Mathew v. Eldridge
Ø Private interest effected by the official action
Ø Risk of error & probability of other safeguards
Ø Administrative Burden
Characteristics of Procedure
Fuentes v. Shevin
(FL & PA)
Mitchell v. WT Grant (LA)
N.Georgia Fishing v. DiChem (GA)
Connecticut v. Doehr (CT)
Existence
of pre-deprivation hearing?
NO
NO
NO
NO
Nature of the factual showing? (conclusory, or based on facts, and what is the question that needs to be addressed in that showing) (narrow, broad)
Broad
Narrow, had to provide information related to debt
Broad, had to show apprehension about loss or injury to the property
Conclusory, not fact based. Based on what the presumed outcome would be. Skeletal affidavid; no underlying facts for judge to make a determination.
Pre-existing interest in property? (on both sides)
YES
YES
NO
NO
Existence of bond?
YES
YES
NO
NO
Judge review?
No, clerk/rubber stampper
YES
No, clerk/rubber stampper
Yes, Judge
Post-deprivation hearing? Is it immediate?
Yes, the opportunity exists, but it is a longer time period to get to a hearing; not automatic
Yes, and was relatively quick
No provision for an early hearing
Yes, but was not quick enough
Constitutional?
NO!!
YES!!
NO!!!
NO!!!
II) Post Judgment Procedure
A) Damages
i) Carey v. Piphus
(1) Facts:
(2) Legal Principle::
(3) Court’s Reasoning:
B) Equitable Remedies
i) Injunction
(a) Four Part Test
(1) A strong likelihood of success on the merits
(2) Irreparable ham should preliminary relief
(3) The balance of hardships strongly favors ∏
(4) Issuing the injunction will advance the public interest
(b) Bound parties
(1) Those given notice and parties (any connection) – 65(d)(2)
(c) Smith v. Western Electric Co.
(1) Facts:
(2) Legal Principle::
(3) Court’s Reasoning:
C) Relevant to Case planning
II) Pleading, Rule 7, and Pre-discovery Procedure
over a motion or motion is denied
iii) MUST
(a) Respond to allegation by ∏ – RULE 8(b)
(1) Admit
(2) Deny
Ø Failure to deny is admission
(3) IDK. Lack Sufficient Info Rule 8(b)(5)
iv) David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
(1) Facts:
(2) Legal Principle:
(3) Court’s Reasoning:
D) Failure to Answer
i) Default – Rule 55(a)
ii) Default Judgment – Rule 55(b)
(a) Setting Aside Default Judgment – 55(c)
iii) CASES
(a) Shepard Claims Service v. William Darrah & Associates
(1) Facts:
(2) Court’s Reasoning:
(3) Legal Principle:
E) Affirmative Defenses
i) Rule 8 (c)
(a) Injecting a new fact
(b) Classic Defenses
(1) Statute of Limitation
(2) Statute of Frauds
(c) If not raised in answer; its waived
F) Reply
III) Amendment- Rule 15
A) Permission
i) David v. Crompton & Knowles
(a)
B) Relating Back
i) Goodman v. Praxair
ii) Krupski v. Costa Crocione
IV)Alternative Litigations/Trial
A) Mediation
B) Arbitration
C) Settlement- Rule 68
i) Kothe v. Smith
(a) Legal Principle
(1) Judges cannot use judicial power to force a settlement
(b) Facts:
(c) Court’s Reasoning:
(d) Marek v. Chesny
(1) Facts:
(2) Legal Principle::
(3) Court’s Reasoning:
D) Negotiation
Ø
V) Jurisdiction
A) Personal Jurisdiction
i) What states can we sue the defendant in.
ii) Power
(a) Over the ∆
(b) Over the ∆’s property
iii) Kinds
