Civil Procedure I Outline

Civil Procedure Spring 2012 Van Schaak Outline
I.                    Class Actions
a.       Hansberry v. Lee (Racially restrictive covenant)
                                                               i.      The United State Supreme Court found that in order for parties who are not part of the original suit to be bound to that suit, more than a simple fact or law must create that commonality among plaintiffs.
                                                              ii.      There must be adequate representation of the members of a class action or the judgment is not binding on the parties no adequately represented.
1.       To be bound by judgment:
a.       Must receive notice and opportunity to be heard
b.       Due Process in order to be binding
c.        Enough to be represented by a member of the class with similar interests
                                                                                                                                       i.      Not when there are conflicting interests
b.       The Federal Rule FRCP 23 Class Actions
                                                               i.      The Prerequisites
1.       23(a)
a.       One or  more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
                                                                                                                                       i.      Numerosity: the class is so numerous that that joinder of all members is impracticable
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Commonality: questions of law or fact common to the class
                                                                                                                                    iii.      Typicality:  the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
                                                                                                                                    iv.      Representation: the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
                                                              ii.      The Typology
1.       23(b) Three types
a.       A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
                                                                                                                                       i.      (b)(1)Prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:
1.       (b)(1)(A) Inconsistency: Inconsistent or carrying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
2.       (b)(1)(B) Limited Funds: adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
                                                                                                                                      ii.      (b)(2) Injunctive or declaratory relief is sought: the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or
                                                                                                                                    iii.      (b)(3) Opt-out Classes (common question of law or fact)
1.       Mass tort type situations
2.       Jury
3.       Requirements
a.       Superiority to other options
b.        Class claims predominant to individual actions
4.       Opt out rights
a.       When a pltf opts out, can still use collateral estoppel against the deft if deft lost in prior action
                                                                                                                                    iv.      If B(2) and B(3)
1.       Always tried by jury before injunctive relief granted
2.       Jury is waivable
2.       23(c) Notice
a.       Notice is not required for b(1) or b(2) since they cannot opt out
b.       Required for b(3)
c.        Mass notice can be costly
                                                            iii.      Certification and Implications
1.       Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. (Hemophiliacs)
a.       Class action certification may be unacceptable in situations where
                                                                                                                                       i.      a defendant is likely to win,
                                                                                                                                      ii.      and wherein a plaintiff will be awarded a large sum if they prevail,
                                                                                                                                    iii.      and irreparable harm would come to the defendant if the plaintiffs won the class action suit.
                                                                                                                                    iv.      Numerous plaintiffs, commonality (infected by tainted blood), typicality not clear (timing of infection and knowledge of infection)
2.       General Telephone Co. v. Falcon (employment discrimination case)
a.       Discrimination in promotion is not within the common questions or law or fact of hiring (no commonality or typicality)
                                                                                                                                       i.      His problem was not typical of other Mexican American employees
                                                                                                                                      ii.      No injury in common
                                                                                                                                    iii.      Should have filed two suits, one for promotions, one for hiring
3.       Multi-district Consolidation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407
a.       Judicial panel on multidistrict litigation may order the transfer of multiple cases to a single forum when civil actions involving one or more questions of fact are pending in different districts.
                                                                                                                                       i.      Pretrial purposes
                                                                                                                                      ii.      When one of the cases is pending
                                                                                                                                    iii.      When tried, returned to the forum of transferor court
4.       FRCP 23(f) Appeals
a.       Court of appeals may permit an appeal from order granting/denying certification under this rule if
                                                                                                                                       i.      A petition is filed within 14 days
b.       Appeal does not stay proceedings unless district or appeals judge orders
c.        Settlement Class Actions
                                                               i.      Amchem Products v. Windsor (asbestos)
1.       Appeal from order granting certification
2.       The entire class was sprawling
a.       Inadequate representation
b.       Little in common with each other
                                                                                                                                       i.      Current injury want quick money now
                                                                                                                                      ii.      Future want large pool
                                                              ii.      Martin v. Wilks (reverse discrimination firefighters)
1.       Civil Rights Act of 1991
a.       employment practice that implements and is within the scope of a litigated or consent judgment or order resolving a claim of employment discrimination may not be challenged in a claim under under the constitution or federal civil rights laws
                                                                                                                                       i.      by a person who, prior to the entry of the judgment or order had
1.       actual notice of the proposed judgment or order sufficient to apprise him that the judgment might adversely affect his interests and an opportunity is available to present objections; and
2.       a reasonable opportunity to present objections;
or
                                                                                                                                      ii.      by a person whose interests were adequately represented by another person who had previously challenged the judgment on the same legal grounds and with a similar factual situation, unless there has been an intervening change in law or fact
2.       review of order reinstating reverse discrimination action
a.       a consent decree in previous discrimination case is not preclusive to subsequent challenge when the person bringing it was not a party to prior action
b.       Rule 24 intervention is permi