Pleading
Antitrust case against a telephone company. Court held that the pleadings were not plausible in part because the complaint relied on allegations of parallel conduct without providing further factual context suggesting a conspiracy.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
Atlantis Development Corp. v. United States
Plaintiff brought suit alleging that her husband’s death was facilitated by exposure to products containing asbestos that were manufactured by the defendant. At trial, defendant's summary judgment motion stated that Respondent could produce no evidence that Petitioner’s products were the proximate cause of any injuries and further, that she could produce no witnesses to attest otherwise. The court held that the party without the burden of production at trial is permitted to move for SJ without presenting evidence, but rather pointing out a deficiency of evidence by the other party.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
A bunch of contractors and subcontractors sued each other. The anchor claim was dismissed on the merits, so the 3rd party claims between non diverse defendants were dismissed. The Court reverse this dismissal, holding that dismissal of an anchor claim on the merits does not remove jurisdiction of other claims. (It would remove jdx if the anchor claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds).
Fairview v. Al Monzo
Jacob v. CBS
A foreign national was arrested and detained following a terrorist attack. He tried to sue high level government officials claiming there was a policy to deny foreign nationals their constitutional rights. The Court held that his allegation did not have factual content that would enable them to come to the reasonable conclusion that the defendant actually is liable for the alleged misconduct. Moreover, the complaints were not plausible enough to raise the claim above the speculative level, but were mere conclusions.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Kedra v. City of Philadelphia
Plaintiff was shot by a police officer in front of his home. The court of appeals erroneously granted SJ to the defendant based on qualified immunity, even though there was conflicting evidence of the encounter.
Tolan v. Cotton
Outcome determinative test
Guaranty Trust v. York
Plaintiff was hospitalized for bipolar disorder, when he attempted to return to work his position had been eliminated. He first filed suit in state court under state discrimination law and lost. He then filed in federal court under federal discrimination law. The defendant argued that the claim was precluded (res judicata). The Court held that a plaintiff was not precluded by the state proceeding, because he could not have brought the federal claim there.
Staats v. Country of Sawyer
A deaf man sues a company for failing to provide disability accommodations on their website. The court held his pleadings insufficient for not stating a claim.
Access Now v. Southwest
A plaintiff sued a manufacturer of medical equipment over a defective spinal implant. The plaintiff sued the doctor who placed the implant separately in state court. The defendant claimed the action should be dismissed if the doctor could not be joined as a defendant. The court held that joint tortfeasors are not indispensable parties.
Temple v. Synthes Corp.
Plaintiff sued the Defendant in federal court alleging that there was a conspiracy between the Defendant and the police to arrest the Plaintiff when she entered Defendant’s store because she was in the company of African Americans. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff had not met an essential element of the claim. The Court held that the moving party in a SJ must produce evidence if they want to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim.
Adickes v. Kress
Man hit by train and under Pennsylvania law he would be treated a trespasser with a lesser duty owed to him, but he would get a more favorable outcome with the federal general law. Holding: Except in matters governed by the Constitution or the laws made by Congress, the law of the state applies (in diversity). There is NO federal general law (except admiralty and maybe some other stuff).
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
The defendant filed for a trademark with the Patent and Trademark Office but was denied because their product was likely to be confused with an existing product. The plaintiff of this case sought to use that judgment in their trademark infringement case against the defendant. The Court reasoned that even though trademark registration and infringement are not identical issues, they are judged by the same legal standard. Therefore, the court held that the issue was precluded by the admin proceeding.
B&B Hardware v. Hargis
Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging he was injured by a forklift owned and operated by Defendant’s employee, which Defendant generally denied in its answer to the complaint. After the statute of limitations had passed, discovery revealed that Defendant did not own the forklift and Defendant’s employee was not operating the forklift. Plaintiff sought a pretrial order that Defendant admitted ownership of the forklift and agency of the operator of the forklift, on the grounds that Defendant’s general denial was ineffective. The court held that ownership of the forklift was deemed admitted due to the ineffective general denial.
Zielinksi v. Philadelphia Piers
The defendant in a suit for discrimination counter claimed that the plaintiff owed them money. The court held that for the counter claim to be part of the same T/O (and therefore a compulsory counterclaim), it must satisfy the logical relationship test. The test asks whether the same sets of facts will be used to prove both claims and requires a closer relationship than same case or controversy.
Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
Plaintiffs husband was killed by a truck driver. Plaintiff sued the truck driver and the owners of the bar where the truck driver had drank before the accident. Plaintiff's theories of recovery in regard to each defendant were inconsistent. The court held that this is ok, but the complaint must be amended when evidence comes to light which disproves one of the theories.
McCormick v. Kopmann
Counsel for defendant conducted a confidential investigation of the company’s international offices following reports that some foreign managers were making “questionable payments” to various foreign government officials in violation of U.S. law. When the IRS attempted to obtain copies of questionnaires, memoranda, and interview transcripts relating to this investigation, defendants object. The Court held that A/C privilege extends to all employees of a corporation.
What's Upjohn? (Upjohn v. United States)
Defendant lost a prior case against the SEC. The plaintiff in the current suit would like to use the issue decided in that prior case offensively in the current one. The court held that this is ok if factors are met, which determine whether the litigant in the first had a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
Parklane v. Shore
Plaintiff was arrested by two police officers who allegedly twisted his hand and broke it. Plaintiff filed a complaint against three unknown police officers. When he found out the identity of the officers and amended his complaint, the statute of limitations was passed. The court held that the amendment did not relate back because the "mistake" exception of 15(c) does not apply to unknown parties.
Worthington v. Wilson
Plaintiffs husband was electrocuted working on power lines. Plaintiff sued a party in federal court on the basis of diversity. The defendant impleaded another party who was not diverse from the plaintiff. The plaintiff tried to sue the implead defendant, but the court held that there must be an independent basis of jdx for the plaintiff to sue the non diverse defendant.
Owen Equipment v. Kroger
A 9-year-old girl sued the defendant after she suffered unusually severe injuries when slicing her finger on a can of tuna. Her family also joined the suit seeking damages for emotional distress and medical expenses, under diversity jdx. The girl met the amount in controversy for her injury, but her family did not. The Court held that there is supplemental jdx over claims which form the same case or controversy, as long as one anchor claim is above the amount in controversy minimum.
Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods
1. Name the three categories of rules from Byrd.
2. Give the three steps of the updated outcome determinative test used when determining if a state law or federal common law applies.
Rules defining state rights and obligations, Rules that are bound up with state-created rights and obligations, Rules of form and mode
Outcome determinative, Countervailing considerations of essential functions of federal system, balance both
One antique plane enthusiast filed a freedom of information request with the FAA which was denied, and failed in litigation to compel them to produce the info. His buddy then tried again with a better strategy. The FAA argued the claim should be precluded based on a novel "virtual representation" theory. The court held that this did not exist and that the exceptions to non-party preclusion are well defined and. (Formal legal relationship, agreement, adequate representation, assumed control, statute, proxy).
Taylor v. Stutgell