Civil Procedure I Outline (Midterm & Final) – Prof. Heiser, Fall 2013
FOR MIDTERM
Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Class action – welfare recipients (P) v. gov. officials (D)
Issue: does 14th amendment due process clause require a hearing before the
termination of their benefits
Before suit: only entitled to a post termination administrative fair hearing
Was a full blown hearing
After suit filed: D send out 7 day advance letter, can submit in writing & have a
meeting with someone “higher up”
Preliminary question: does the due process clause apply here? Is there a taking of property? Yes. Many property rights come from the government (license to practice law, etc.)
Require a hearing? When? TIMING QUESTION/ISSUE
Yes. Before termination of benefits
Submission in writing is not adequate
Court is “balancing interests”
On one side P’s it provides means to live, other side Gov. fiscal interest
Gov. also has interest in not terminating benefits to eligible recipients. (on P side of balance beam)
When can gov. take property w/o a hearing? Seizure of bad food not fit for humans etc. If harm to the public outweighs private interest
Concerns: (dissent) separation of powers? Judges making new law?
Who ultimately interprets constitution? Judges, so it’s up to the courts
Judges can be subjective in their interpretation, depends on who the judges are
If laws always changing, fair warning?
DUE PROCESS: FORM OF THE PRIOR-HEARING
1. informal hearing
2. oral presentation of evidence (recipients may not be able to write well enough)
3. right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (who’s telling the truth?)
4. impartial decision maker
5. right to retain an attorney (not one provided)
6. decision based on the evidence & legal rules
7. written decision, reasons for decision etc.
8. meaningful time & place
9. timely & adequate advance notice of the proposed termination
o state the reasons (so you can defend yourself)
o 7 days is okay
o entitled to a hearing/how to request it
Connect w/ civil procedure lawsuit process
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS – time limitation, dictates many decisions of
where to file a lawsuit (diff states, diff limits)
TROUBLESOME PART: “accrual” – something has happened so statute begins
to run
“commencement” – usually when filed with the court clerk
Accrual often look to legislative intent
1. time wrongful act occurred
2. when harm occurs
3. discover the injury
4. discover the injury & know its factual cause
5. know/suspect caused by wrongdoing
Statutes of limitations
“Accrual” – Kubrick, Jolly (CA)
when the statute begins to run
“Commencement” – what constitutes commencing an action?
when you file or when you serve
U.S. v. Kubrick
– Infection of femur, neomycin caused deafness
– 1969 told of injury and its cause
– 1971 told may be improper treatment
– Issue: when does the cause of action accrue under the Federal Torts Claim Act?
Lower court said 1971, when he knew injury & suspected wrongdoing
Purpose of statues of limitations:
– D usually wants accrual to get it over with and stop worrying about it
– **want to prevent stale claims (need fresh evidence)
– court says accrue when P discovers injury and knows its factual cause (1969)
– why? Want P to be diligent to pursue action
– he could have asked a doctor in his community
– P wants it to be when he knows it was wrongfully caused
– Gov. led him on & first denied it was responsible (misled)
– statute of limitations aren’t based on fairness – bright line tests
Dissent: if willing to delay accrual, why not a bit further to when P suspects the wrongdoing. More into fairness.
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (CA)
Mom took DES while Jolly in utero. Age 20 something, develops cancerous cells
Can’t discover who manufactured the DES – numerous manufacturers, prescribing doctor dead etc.
Waits to file suit until after Sindell, which allowed P’s to sue not just specific manufacturer
*Accrues when P suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing (exactly what Kubrick wanted, but didn’t suspect until later on)
– Doesn’t require when you suspect a legal right to relief
– Wrongdoing = used in its lay understanding, not legal wrongdoing
– 1978 Jolly admits she suspected wrongdoing
– She says yes, but I didn’t know who to sue
– Court says not the legal significance that matters, it’s up to P to find out who
Issue: if you sued all the manufacturers, may violate rule 11, all but one didn’t make the drug, frivolous lawsuit
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES – available to P at beginning of the lawsuit
1) mean
the action
2) risk of erroneous deprivation
3) gov.’s interest, including function involved & fiscal & admin. burdens
Here:
1) still in possession of house – but attachment is still significant
2) high potential for erroneous deprivation
Mitchell – determine a debt through documentary proof
Here – subjective, one-sided by P, usually can’t prove based on documents
“uncomplicated matters that lend themselves to documentary proof”
3) P’s interests are minimal, no pre-existing interest in the property, P doesn’t have to show exigent circumstances (sell, go to waste, giveaway property, etc.)
(IV in case) Does due process require a bond?(4 justices agree, NOT A RULING, dicta
Yes, hearing is incomplete, not a full trial, although useful. May not be able to determine actual winner/loser 4/5
Bond excuse a need for the hearing? No
– Amounts bear no relation to harm suffered by D
o Can’t take 2nd mortgage, can’t send kids to college, etc.
Even if a bond, need hearing to ensure less wrongful deprivations (not a ruling)
*most systems will require a bond
Concurring opinion – Rehnquist & Blackmun
This is a harder case than the majority makes it seem
Other cases have not allowed for a prior notice/prior hearing
Spielman Fond v. Hanson’s – no prior notice or prior hearing
Bartlett v. Williams – lis pendens, can’t sell (may not be all yours) if there’s a lawsuit pending, just lets people know there’s a lawsuit pending
Differences – P is claiming pre-existing interest in property in these cases
Gives P a heightened interest, didn’t have in Doehr
Based on these cases, how would you advise legislature to re-draft so consisten w/ due process?
– Bond (atleast 4/5 opinion sure)
– Pre-attachment hearing OR – case lends itself to documentary proof & immediate post-attachment hearing
– Factual showing (exigent circumstances OR pre-existing interest in the property)
