Eerie Doctrine
what was the Eerie Decision?
Federal courts are bound to apply the law in which they sit
Fed courts must respect what state decides as it relates to state claims in federal court
State Substantive and Federal Procedural
A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that at the time of service the pleader has against the opposing party if the claim:
Arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim, and
Does not require adding a party the court cannot obtain jurisdiction over.
When Joinder is not feasible the court must weigh these four factors when considering whether the action should proceed.
(1)the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;
(2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:
(A) protective provisions in the judgment;
(B) shaping the relief; or
(C) other measures;
(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and
(4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
Paula files a timely complaint against Dan alleging that Dan negligently injured her in a car accident on May 1. After the statute of limitations expires, Paula seeks to amend the complaint to add a claim that Dan was also driving while intoxicated during the same accident.
Dan moves to dismiss the new claim as time-barred.
What is the correct result?
A. The amendment is barred because new legal theories cannot be added after the statute of limitations expires.
B. The amendment relates back because it arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading.
C. The amendment is barred because amendments are never allowed after the statute of limitations expires.
D. The amendment is barred unless Dan consents.
Answer: B. The amendment relates back because it arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading.
what is Federal Law
A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or
of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action.
As for permissive joinder of party, Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if
they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
Plaintiff files a complaint in federal court. Defendant files a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss but has not yet filed an answer. Ten days later, Plaintiff files an amended complaint without seeking the court’s permission or Defendant’s consent.
Defendant moves to strike the amended complaint, arguing Plaintiff needed leave of court.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what is the correct result?
A. The amended complaint is improper because Plaintiff must obtain leave of court once a motion to dismiss has been filed.
B. The amended complaint is proper because Plaintiff may amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion.
C. The amended complaint is improper because amendments as a matter of course are only allowed before any responsive pleading or motion is filed.
D. The amended complaint is improper because amendments always require either consent of the opposing party or leave of court.
Answer: B. The amended complaint is proper because Plaintiff may amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion.
Paula timely sues Dan, believing he owns a delivery truck that injured her. After the statute of limitations expires, Paula discovers the truck was actually owned by Delivery Co., Dan’s employer. Paula seeks to amend the complaint to substitute Delivery Co. as the defendant.
The amendment will relate back only if which of the following is true?
A. Delivery Co. received notice of the action within the Rule 4(m) service period and knew or should have known the lawsuit would have been brought against it but for a mistake.
B. Delivery Co. agrees to be added as a defendant.
C. Delivery Co. and Dan work in the same industry.
D. Paula did not know Delivery Co. existed when she filed the original complaint.
Answer: A. Delivery Co. received notice of the action within the Rule 4(m) service period and knew or should have known the lawsuit would have been brought against it but for a mistake.
Twombly
T or F: A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.
True
As for compulsory joinder of parties, A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
(A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with:
the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
Paula sues Dan in federal court for damage to her car caused by a collision between their vehicles. Dan files an answer denying liability but does not assert any counterclaims.
After the case ends, Dan files a new lawsuit against Paula seeking damages for injuries he suffered in the same accident.
Paula moves to dismiss.
What is the correct result?
A. The lawsuit may proceed because personal injury claims are different from property damage claims.
B. The lawsuit may proceed because counterclaims are always optional.
C. The lawsuit must be dismissed because Dan’s claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence and was a compulsory counterclaim.
D. The lawsuit must be dismissed because only plaintiffs may bring accident claims.
Answer: C. The lawsuit must be dismissed because Dan’s claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence and was a compulsory counterclaim.
If there is a conflict of federal PRACTICE in which the law is not bound up by state related interests and there are no significant countervailing federal interest you must follow...
State Law
Paula files a federal lawsuit against David for damages arising from a car accident. David files an answer denying liability but does not assert any counterclaims. Later, David files a separate lawsuit against Paula seeking damages for injuries he suffered in the same accident.
Paula moves to dismiss David’s new lawsuit.
What is the correct result?
A. The lawsuit should proceed because counterclaims are always optional under the Federal Rules.
B. The lawsuit should proceed because counterclaims only apply if both parties were plaintiffs in the original action.
C. The lawsuit should be dismissed because David’s claim was a compulsory counterclaim that had to be raised in the original action.
D. The lawsuit should be dismissed because counterclaims may only be filed after judgment.
Answer: C. The lawsuit should be dismissed because David’s claim was a compulsory counterclaim that had to be raised in the original action.
Paula (a citizen of North Carolina) sues Dan (a citizen of Virginia) in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Dan argues that Morgan (a citizen of North Carolina) is a required party under Rule 19(a) and must be joined.
If Morgan is joined, complete diversity would be destroyed.
What should the court do next?
A. Automatically dismiss the case because the required party cannot be joined.
B. Refuse to join Morgan and proceed with the case because diversity jurisdiction already exists.
C. Determine whether Morgan is indispensable under Rule 19(b) and decide whether the case can proceed without Morgan.
D. Require Paula to refile the lawsuit in state court
Answer: C. Determine whether Morgan is indispensable under Rule 19(b) and decide whether the case can proceed without Morgan.
An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when:
(A) the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back;
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading; or
(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment:
(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.
Paula sues Dan and Morgan for injuries from a construction accident. Dan believes Morgan was entirely responsible and could be liable to him for contribution. Dan does not assert a crossclaim against Morgan in the lawsuit.
After the case ends, Dan files a separate lawsuit against Morgan for contribution.
Morgan moves to dismiss, arguing the claim should have been brought earlier.
What is the correct result?
A. The lawsuit must be dismissed because crossclaims are compulsory.
B. The lawsuit may proceed because crossclaims are permissive, not compulsory.
C. The lawsuit must be dismissed because contribution claims cannot be brought separately.
D. The lawsuit must be dismissed because only plaintiffs may bring claims.
Answer: B. The lawsuit may proceed because crossclaims are permissive, not compulsory.
Paula (a citizen of North Carolina) sues Dan (a citizen of Virginia) in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction for injuries arising from a slip-and-fall at Dan’s store. State law requires plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases to prove actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Paula argues the federal court should instead apply a more lenient federal common law standard that does not require proof of notice.
What law should the federal court apply?
A. Federal common law, because federal courts may create their own rules in diversity cases.
B. Federal common law, because federal courts always apply federal law to substantive issues.
C. State law, because federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law.
D. State law only if the parties both agree to apply it.
Answer: C. State law, because federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law.
Paula sues Dan in federal court for damages arising from a construction accident, alleging Dan’s negligence caused the injury. Dan believes that if he is found liable to Paula, Subcontractor Co. must reimburse him because Subcontractor Co. agreed to indemnify him for accidents caused by its employees.
Fourteen days after serving his answer, Dan files a third-party complaint against Subcontractor Co. without seeking leave of court.
Subcontractor Co. moves to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing Dan needed the court’s permission.
What is the correct result?
A. The motion should be granted because third-party claims always require leave of court.
B. The motion should be granted because third-party claims may only be filed before the defendant files an answer.
C. The motion should be denied because a defendant may file a third-party complaint within 14 days after serving the answer without leave of court.
D. The motion should be denied because any claim related to the lawsuit may be asserted through third-party practice.
Answer:C. The motion should be denied because a defendant may file a third-party complaint within 14 days after serving the answer without leave of court.
Five employees sue their employer in federal court alleging race discrimination in promotion decisions. Each employee was denied a promotion at different times over a five-year period, but all claim the employer applied the same discriminatory promotion policy.
The employer moves to sever the plaintiffs.
Under Rule 20, what is the most likely result?
A. Joinder is improper because the plaintiffs were denied promotions at different times.
B. Joinder is improper because each plaintiff suffered a separate injury.
C. Joinder is proper because the claims involve a series of related transactions and common questions of law or fact.
D. Joinder is improper because only one plaintiff may sue for employment discrimination at a time.
Answer: C. Joinder is proper because the claims involve a series of related transactions and common questions of law or fact.
Plaintiff files a complaint in federal court. Defendant files a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on March 1. On March 10, Plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of course. On March 20, Plaintiff attempts to file another amended complaint without seeking leave of court or Defendant’s consent.
What is the correct result?
A. The second amendment is proper because it was filed within 21 days of the motion to dismiss.
B. The second amendment is proper because amendments may be filed freely before trial.
C. The second amendment is improper because a party may amend only once as a matter of course.
D. The second amendment is improper because amendments are never allowed after a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Answer: C. The second amendment is improper because a party may amend only once as a matter of course.
Paula sues Dan and Morgan in federal court for injuries caused by a three-car accident. Paula alleges both defendants were negligent.
Dan files a claim against Morgan, alleging Morgan must reimburse Dan if Dan is found liable to Paula. Dan also files a claim against Taylor, a mechanic who recently repaired Dan’s brakes, alleging Taylor must indemnify Dan if the brakes failed and caused the accident.
Which of the following best describes Dan’s claims?
A. Dan’s claim against Morgan is a counterclaim, and his claim against Taylor is a crossclaim.
B. Dan’s claim against Morgan is a crossclaim, and his claim against Taylor is an impleader (third-party claim).
C. Dan’s claim against Morgan is an impleader claim, and his claim against Taylor is a counterclaim.
D. Both claims are counterclaims.
Answer: B. Dan’s claim against Morgan is a crossclaim, and his claim against Taylor is an impleader (third-party claim).