Civil Procedure II Outline

Mackay / Civ Pro II / Spring 2012
 
 
I.            JOINDER OF CLAIMS
A.    Permissive Joinder of Claims by Plaintiffs – Rule 18
                                                1.      Once you establish jurisdiction over a Δ, you can join any other claims against them
                                                2.      Claims don’t have to be related at all, as long as it’s the same Δ (M.K. v. Tenet)
                                                3.      Severance: If trying claims to same jury would be confusing, Δ can move for severance
                                                4.      Supplemental jurisdiction probably doesn’t apply, so the joined claim must independently satisfy subject-matter jurisdiction requirements
II.            ADDITION OF CLAIMS BY DEFENDANT
A.    Compulsory Counterclaims – Rule 13(a)
                                                1.      Claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
                                                2.      Waived if not brought in response to original claim
                                                3.      Within a court’s supplemental jurisdiction; claim doesn’t need to independently meet subject-matter jurisdiction requirements
                                                4.      Four tests to determine whether claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence:
a.       Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
b.      Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on Δ’s claim?
c.       Will mostly the same evidence support or refute Π’s claim and Δ’s counterclaim?
d.      Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?
B.     Permissive Counterclaims – Rule 13(b)
                                                1.      Any claim that isn’t a compulsory counterclaim
                                                2.      Claim must independently satisfy subject-matter jurisdiction requirements
C.    Cross-Claims – Rule 13(g)
                                                1.      Claims by a co-party; claim against someone on the same side
a.       A+C v. B+D, then [D v. B] ß cross-claim
                                                2.      Must arise out of same transaction or occurrence
                                                3.      No independent subject matter jurisdiction required (doesn’t matter if it destroys diversity)
III.            JOINDER OF PARTIES
A.    Permissive Joinder of Parties – Rule 20
                                                1.      Πs & Δs: Same transaction or occurrence + common question of law or fact
                                                2.      Personal & subject matter jurisdiction requirements must be met for each new Δ or Π
                                                3.      Πs can aggregate AIC as long as one Π’s claim is >$75k, but each new Δ must meet AIC
B.     Compulsory Joinder of Parties – Rule 19
                                                1.      Supplemental Jurisdiction: Doesn’t apply; for diversity cases, each new party must meet personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, venue, and AIC requirements.
                                                2.      Necessary Parties: Parties who must be joined to avoid prejudice or to offer complete relief
a.       Must be joined if feasible, but if they can’t be joined for jurisdictional reasons (e.g., would destroy diversity), the action can still go forward
b.      Prejudice
c.       Complete Relief
                                                3.      Indispensible Parties: If the party cannot be joined for jurisdictional reasons (e.g., he would destroy diversity), the whole action must be dismissed
a.       Factors to decide whether a party is indispensible – Rule 19(b)
i.        Extent of prejudice to the absentee, or to existing parties
ii.      Possibility of framing the judgment in a way that mitigates such prejudice
iii.    Adequacy of a remedy that can be granted in the party’s absence
iv.    Whether Π will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed
 
 
C.    Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson (1968) [p.693]                                                 1.      Court looks at four interests to decide whether to proceed without Dutcher
a.       Π’s interest in having a forum
b.      Δ’s interest in avoiding multiple litigation, inconsistent relief, or sole responsibility for a liability that is shared with others
i.        Lumbermens doesn’t really have an interest here, because if they did, they should have raised it at trial
c.       Outsider’s (Dutcher’s) interest
i.        Court says that Dutcher’s interest here is relatively small. It is unlikely that he will be subject to liability. (weird… kind of predicting how the jury will rule)
d.      Interest of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies
i.        Wouldn’t want the judgment to get thrown out and force Lynch and others to file somewhere else; this would be a waste of resources
IV.            IMPLEADER – RULE 14
A.    In General – Rule 14(a): A Δ who believes that a third party is liable to him for all or part of the claim against the Δ can implead such a person as a “third party defendant”
                                                1.      Δ becomes “third party plaintiff”, new party becomes “third party defendant”
B.     Types of Claims: Indemnity, joint tortfeasors
C.    Time to File: Leave of court not needed if TPP impleads TPD within 14 days after the time the TPP served his answer to Π’s original claim. After this time, leave of court is needed.
D.    Supplemental Jurisdiction: TPD’s citizenship unimportant, and no need to meet AIC requirement
V.            INTERPLEADER
A.    Definition: A device designed to enable a party who might be exposed to multiple claims to money or property under her control to settle the controversy in a single proceeding.
                                                1.      Essentially, making it so that the “stakeholder” won’t have to pay the same claim twice
B.     Statutory Interpleader – 28 U.S.C. § 1335
                                                1.      Diversity: At least one pair of claimants must be diverse with each other
                                                2.      Service of Process: Nationwide
                                                3.      Amount in Controversy: Must be over $500
                                                4.      Deposit: Stakeholder must deposit the amount in dispute in the court
                                                5.      Denying Liability: Stakeholder may deny liability
C.    Rule Interpleader – Rule 22
                                                1.      Diversity: Stakeholder must not have same citizenship as any claimant
                                                2.      Service of Process: Ordinary rules apply (in state where district court sits, or pursuant to state’s long-arm statute
                                                3.      Amount in Controversy: Must be over $75,000
                                                4.      Deposit: No need to deposit
                                                5.      Denying Liability: Stakeholder may deny liability
                                                6.      When to Use: When all claimants are from same state (but different state from stakeholder)
D.    Federal Question:
                                                1.      Rule Interpleader: Doesn’t require diversity OR minimum AIC at all.
                                                2.      Statutory Interpleader: Still requires two diverse claimants
 
 
DISCOVERY
I.            GENERAL SCOPE OF DISCOVERY
A.    Rule 27 – Depositions to Perpetuate Testimony
                                                1.      Used “to perpetuate testimony” – to collect testimony of someone who likely will be unavailable at trial
                                                2.      In Re Petition of Sheila Roberts Ford (1997) [p.829] a.       Sheila thinks that someone in the police department shot and killed her husband, and is trying to use Rule 27 to find out who did it
b.      Court says that a Rule 27 deposition is used to preserve evidence, not to discover something new; as a result, S can’t sue anyone, because she doesn’t know who to sue
c.       Theories:
i.        Problem for allowing more broad use of Rule 27: how do you allocate costs when a suit has not even been filed yet against Δ?
ii.      Benefits of broader Rule 27: allows people to file a more detailed complaint, and get their suit into court
B.     Relevance – Rule 26(b)
                                                1.      Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.
                                                2.      Relevant but Inadmissible: Information sought to be discovered need not be admissible at trial. Such information may be relevant if:
a.       It is likely to serve as a lead to admissible evidence, or
b.      It relates to the identity or whereabouts of any witness who is thought to have discoverable information
                                                3.      BUT, “for good cause,” the court may order further discovery “of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” (returns discovery to its old scope)
C.    Proportionality – Rule 26(b)(2)(C)
                                                1.      Rul