Hubbard, CivPro1, Fall 2013
A. Intro to Civil Procedure/Due Process
a. Elements of Due Process
i. Notice
ii. Opportunity to be heard
iii. Prior to deprivation
iv. Adjudication
b. Notice
i. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
1. Means chosen should be reasonably calculated to achieve actual notice of affected party. Don't need “actual certainty”.
2. Facts: NYBL permits bank to pool funds from trusts into single fund for more efficiency. CHB petitioned to settle first account – many beneficiaries not in NY. Notice given was 4-week newspaper ad – compliance with NYBL. When fund started, mail notice was given.
3. Some procedures may increase fairness or accuracy of adjudication, but all procedures increase expense of adjudication. Balancing costs vs benefits of different kinds of notice (mail, personal service, publication. Size of claim is factor in determining amount of DP.
4. Elements of 14th DP claim: deprivation of LLP, no due process, and done by state.
ii. Greene v Lindsey
1. Door notice not reliable, since kids were around and process servers knew that.
2. Dissent: Due Process provides minimum balance requirement, not BEST requirement. Don't know if mail is best balance of cost and reasonableness, and if it was DP doesn't require that.
iii. Dusenberry v US
1. Certified mail – prisoner never got it, and wasn't returned unclaimed. Held that certified mail was ok no reason to think it wont make it
iv. Jones v Flowers
1. Government should take additional reasonable steps to give notice, if the first attempt fails.
2. Even if you look at it from ex ante, sometimes two steps might be reasonable. If you get mail back, send again.
c. Opportunity to be Heard
i. Goldberg v Kelly
1. Facts – Terminating AFDC without pre-termination hearing
2. Narrow decision for specific rule. Welfare benefits are property.
3. Practical considerations: (majority) interests of eligible not on rolls vs ineligible on rolls.
ii. Fuentes v Shevin
1. Bond requirement is not adequate and no replacement for effective hearing, the only true safeguard against deprivation of property.
a. Counterarg – damages after fact compensate and deter and is accepted in other contexts in judicial system.
2. Also Firestone's property, but she has possessory interest and sufficient to invoke DP.
3. Case is about overuling contracts, not respecting them.
4. Temporary deprivation – still deprivation.
5. Facts: Financed property, Firestone had title but she had possession. Firestone claimed she missed payments, ordered writ of replevin seizing stove before Fuentes was served. Similar thing happened in PA with other goods.
6. Dissent – Cost considerations for Firestone is primary protection against arbitrary deprivation. Bad publicity.
iii. Mitchell v WT Grant
1. Holding: Law does not violate DP. Enough difference to distinguish from Fuentes – judge instead of clerk, have to swear more facts.
a. But isn't this the same process at the end of the day? Ex parte.
2. Dissent – This opinion is overruling Fuentes
iv. North Georgia Finishing Inc v Di-Chem
1. Pre-judgement garnishments not constitutional without additional safeguards.
2. Case different from Mitchell: bond, judge v clerk, less fact-based allegations
v. Mathews v Eldridge
1. Three factor test
a. Private interest affected by action
b. Risk of erroneous deprivation
c. The government interest
2. C/B app
before sale, two cases disappeared. P filed complaint
Conley v Gibson
As long as there are facts in the world that would support the complaint, you don't actually have to state them. Only dismiss if “NO SET OF FACTS” can be proven.
Complaint doesn't need to go into great specificity in order for D to get fair notice about what the claim is.
Facts: Railway Labor Act case of discrimination
d. Plausibility Pleading
Checklist
Take out conclusions
Plausible claim for relief
Probable and plausible
Competing inferences
Tellabs
Fraud – more particularity in facts
Common sense and experience
Discovery costs
Plausibility is different for different cases – simple vs complex cases.
Bell Atlantic v Twombly
Don't have to prove conspiracy, but need a fact that proves one thing at the expense of another thing.
Majority is concerned that if case doesn't have merit, plaintiffs will get settlement money just for threatening them with costs of discovery. Also, the lawyers will primarily benefit from these settlements.
Higher pleading standard to prevent high discovery costs. But discovery also has benefits – revealing facts.
Can't trust judge to manage discovery, could get out of hand.
Facts: Allegation that the ILEC's didn’t compete with each other, and also tried to bar competition from others. High-stakes case with lots of damages.
Conley wasn't overruled – the language was confusing it, so they are redacting it from the Conley opinion. Not
