Foundational Concepts
What does FRCP 1 dictate the other rules must be?
Just, Speedy, Inexpensive
What is the holding of Fuentes v. Shevin?
The FL & PA replevin statutes were unconstitutional because they worked a deprivation of property without procedural due process by denying the right to a prior opportunity to be heard before chattels were taken from their possessor
How does one change their domicile?
Change in domicile is only affected by (1) taking up residence in a different domicile (2) with the fixed intention to remain there.
When would court award punitive damages?
In cases where defendant's conduct is outrageous; will, wanton, and reckless indifference for the rights of others. May also talk about retribution and deterring harmful conduct
What does it mean to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party?
Assume the facts the non-moving party has supported with evidence are true and draw reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor, and then determine if plausible.
What does the due process clause state?
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
How did the court apply the three prong test from Mathews v. Eldridge, and which prong(s) did they favor most heavily in their final decision?
The three prong test from Mathews v. Eldridge is used in cases about Due Process. The test measures:
1. Private interest in the action
2. Risk of wrongly depriving such an interest
3. The government/public interest
Here, the court's reasoning differed from their final conclusion. They use prong one heavily and discuss her private right. However, they discuss how losing her child and the parent-child relationship posed a different threat than one to her physical liberty. Although the court thought she had a strong private interest, they still did not conclude for her because they felt the outcome would not have been different even with proper council.
Are mailing instructions or mailing premiums sufficient to being minimum contact and purposeful availment?
Instructions are not (Hanson) but premiums are (McGee)
What is the standard for a preliminary injunction?
1. likelihood of plaintiff success on the merits
2. likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief
3. balance of equities tips in the plaintiffs favor
4. an injunction is in the public interest
What was the holding of Anderson v. Liberty Lobby and what are its implications? Qui bono?
Holding: When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court should consider the substantive evidentiary burden of proof that would apply at trial. This largely benefits the courts because it ensures their time is not wasted trying cases where the plaintiff cannot make out a case that would meet the evidentiary burden the jury would need to find. However, this may harm a plaintiff who has a "close case", and the judge strictly holds them to the evidentiary standard, which may be subjective and different from how a jury would rule under that evidentiary standard. (btw I made all this up, I just think this is right -- nothing in our notes say this just wanted to as a qui bono question)
What are the elements of claim preclusion?
Prior suit ended with a final valid judgment on the merits. The present suit arises out of the same claim as the prior suit. The parties of both suits are the same, or in privity.
Why was VEPCO able to proceed without its insurer, INA? What rule is relevant here?
17 and 19(b); applying FRCP 17, (1) as subrogor, VEPCO entitled to bring suit for entire loss, (2) VEPCO has significant interest bc still seeking $ for itself; because joining INA would destroy diversity, looked at 19(b) to see if non-joinder would be prejudicial and based on four factors it won't be (D failed to show how nonjoinder would prejudice them and they can shape relief to protect, absentee (INA) fully protected, public has interest to prevent relitigation)
In what case did the court hold that the defendant corporation renting showrooms was indicative of intent to be in the state?
International Shoe
In Winter v. NRDC, SCOTUS presented four requirements for a preliminary junction: (1) case is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm without; (3) balance of equities tips for plaintiff; and (4) injunction is in the public interest. Which of these elements abrogates the former rule?
Irreparable harm - from "possible" to "likely"
In Matsushita, what was the court's reasoning to rule in favor of the motion for summary judgment?
The court was using the idea of plausibility, and a lack of motive to determine that there were other very plausible explanations about the company's behavior which did not give rise to an inference of conspiracy. The plaintiffs wanted the court to infer a conspiracy which the court was unwilling to do because of the other reasonable explanations, which they felt was not enough to show a genuine dispute of material fact.
What feature of civil procedure allows parties to appeal any motion before the case proceeds to final judgment?
interlocutory appeal
Why was the Hansberry family not bound to the prior class action lawsuit under res judicata?
Under the due process clause, res judicata can bind absent parties by prior litigation only if they were present or adequately represented in the prior action. Here, Hansberry family could not be bound to this action because they were specifically working against the judgment, meaning their interests were not adequately represented (in fact it was the opposite). Here the Interests of the absent parties was not aligned with the interest of the present parties, and the present parties did not fairly represent the absent parties during the proceedings. Thus, res judicata would not bind the Hansberry family.
In Mas v. Perry, what was the "fiction" the court was worried about when considering the domicile of Mrs. Mas?
Mrs. Mas married a french man, who was technically domiciled in France. Under common law, when a woman married a man her domicile would change to match her husband's domicile. However, in this case if they considered her domiciled in France, she would be unable to bring a federal case against the landlord because she would not be a citizen of France (so could not bring it as a foreign citizen), nor would she have any domestic domicile to prove there was proper diversity jurisdiction (both from different states).
FRCP 65(b) limits temporary restraining orders to 10 days, with possible extension. What is the policy reason behind this short timeframe, as well as the high evidentiary standards for pre-judgment relief?
restraint on Defendant's rights/restriction of liberty
Please explain the burden of production and the burden of persuasion, related to a motion for summary judgment. Please explain which parties (moving party and nonmoving party) have the burden and when. Use relevant rules and cases to explain.
Under Rule 56, the moving party (often the defendant) makes a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor as a matter of law. The party has the burden of production to show there is no genuine dispute of material fact. If they do not meet this burden, the nonmoving party does not have to produce any evidence to survive the MSJ. However, if they have met their burden to show there is not a dispute, the burden of production now shifts to the nonmoving party to either produce evidence or point to evidence already in the record that shows that there is such a dispute. The nonmoving party once again may point and say "there is no genuine dispute of material fact." The court will rule in favor of whoever has met this burden. As seen in Celotex, the moving party does not need to produce evidence (such as affidavits) to show there is no dispute of material fact and meet their burden of production. Rather they can point to the lack of evidence the nonmoving party presented (after the MSJ) or show the nonmoving party's evidence was inadequate to survive a MSJ. Finally, the plaintiff has the burden of persuasion at trial to win their case in front of a jury.
What do you do if you determine that absent required parties can't be joined? What rule and case would you cite?
19b and Pulitzer; look at/balance the interests of the plaintiff(s), defendant(s), absent parties, the public
According to the York court, what is the test to determine if a law is substantive?
A fed court in diversity case should follow state law if consequence will so intimately affect recovery or non-recovery (which is substantive)
What are the 3 (and one implied) reasons the Erie court gives for why Swift should be overturned?
(1) expansion of federal court rights, (2) discrimination, (3) federalism, (implied) forum-shopping
In American Machine v. De Bothezat, a patent case, the district court found "no justiciable controversy." However, on appeal, plaintiff was awarded relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. How did SCOTUS characterize the controversy brought by plaintiff on appeal?
Contingent/Pendent Controversy = "Actual Controversy"