Schnapper Civil Procedure Fall 2015 Basic Outline:
Erie Doctrine Cases/Notes:
Rules of Decision Act (RODA)
Provides that federal courts must apply state law except where otherwise required by the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States (statutes), or treaties.
Stewart (About a statute)
When a federal law to be applied in a diversity action is a congressional statute, there are two questions the court must answer…
The chief question for the district court’s determination is whether the statute is sufficiently broad to control the issue before the court.
If so, the court then must inquire whether the statute represents a valid exercise of Congress’ authority under the Constitution.
Hanna (About a Rule)
Direct Conflict with a Rule? à(yes) Is the rule valid? à(yes) Is it authorized by Rules Enabling act and Constitutional à (yes) then use Federal Rule
The purpose of Erie was to
1) Discourage “forum shopping” and
2) Avoid inequitable administration of laws.
Walker
Hanna rule is for a clear conflict with a Federal Rule. Here, it is not a clear conflict/direct conflict so the rule from Hanna does not apply here.
Conflict with the rule has to be direct or clear.
Erie
Federal courts are required to follow substantive state statutory and state common law EXCEPT where a matter is governed by a specific federal statute or involves a federal question.
Guaranty Trust v. York
Outcome Determination Test
· As a result, whether a law is considered substantive under Erie should be determined by whether it “has a substantial effect on the eventual outcome of the case”
· If the outcome is substantively the same then the federal court can apply its own rules instead of state rules.
The standard = whether application of FEDERAL LAW would “significantly affect the outcome of the litigation”
If using federal law would have a substantial effect à it is substantive law à the court should use state law
Gasperini
Erie precludes a recovery in federal court significantly larger than the recovery that would have been tolerated in state court.
Federal court must be guided by the damage-control standard of state law.
Per Se Federal b/c district court judge can determine.
State standard for review of damages to be heard by state appellate—substantive
Federal trial court reviewed the damages according to state standards
Byrd
Where the federal rule is not constitutionally compelled, the court will engage in balancing federal and state interests.
Interest Balancing Approach
· Balance the “outcome determination” test with federal and state interests
· Relation between state rule in question and underlying state right
a. Is the state procedural practice an integral part of the state substantive right, or did the state system follow the procedural right for some other independent reason?
· Countervailing interests of the federal judicial system
a. Interest of smooth functioning of the federal courts including uniformity and coherence
· Likelihood of effect on outcome
a. “Outcome Determination Test”
Byrd Test:
Essential characteristic of federal judicial system?
Influence of the constitution?
Service (2)
GO THROUGH FRCP RULE 4 TO SEE IF THERE IS PROPER SERVICE:
Rule 4: Page 11
A.) Summons: Does it have everything in it that a summons should have?
B.) Issuance: Was there proper issuance?
C.) Service: Served with a copy of complaint? Person over 18? Not a party?
D.) Waiver: Has service been waived?
Maryland State Firemen’s Association v. Chaves [1st class mail, D didn’t respond, w/o consent, receipt of address does not = enough for def judg]
E.) Individual within US Judicial District: 1.) Follow state law? Or 2.) Any of 3?
Grossman v. Schnible [personal delivery on natural person in US juris]
Maryland State Firemen’s Association v. Chaves (4(e)(1)) [follow state service laws of state where action is brought, sent FC mail not certified]
National Equipment Rental v. Szukhent (4(e)(2)(C)) [delivered copy of summons and complaint to agent appointed]
Karlsson v. Rabinowitz and Williams v. Capital Transit (4(e)(2)(B))
F.) Individual in Foreign Country: 1.) Internationally agreed upon way reasonably calculated to give notice? Or 2.) If not an agreed upon way by one of those listed? 3.) By other means not prohibited by int. agreement as court ordered?
G.) Serving a Minor
H.) Serving Corporation
Insurance Co. of North America v. S/S “Hellenic Challenger” [served upon claims adjuster, worked b/c integrated within the organization]
Fashion Page v. Zurich Ins. [gave to VP assistant
e defendant.
· The threshold for satisfying minimum contacts is higher than in SJ cases.
· You can sue over anything. Not like specific where there is the one claim.
Ways to get general jurisdiction:
· Physically in the state and you serve them then you have it.
· If D is a citizen of the state then the state has general jurisdiction over the state.
· Can have it by consent (contract or in course of litigation (P files suit against D))
Cases:
· Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining
o General Jurisdiction here because of bulk of activities and continuous and systematic activities in the forum state.
o Can exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign company if they have continuous and systematic activities in forum state. Even if actions did not arise there.
· Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall
o For a court to exercise general in personam jurisdiction, the defendant must engage in systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state unless the defendant’s contacts are related to the cause of action.
· Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Robertson-Ceco
o Held that the exercise of general jurisdiction over the D was unreasonable in light of the 5 factor Asahi test for convenience factors.
· Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown
o A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the state are so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.
o Mere purchases of the defendant’s products in the forum cannot constitute “continuous and systematic” contact for “at home” general jurisdiction.
· Burnham v. Superior Court
o A state can gain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who was personally served with process while temporarily in the state, even if his purpose for being in the state is unrelated to the matter before the court.
· Daimler AG v. Bauman
o Whether the defendant’s activity renders the defendant essentially at home in the state.
