Civil procedure I. Introductory Material

1. 
   28 U.S.C. §1335—Interpleader
   

• 
  Definition—suit to determine a matter of claim or right to property held by a usually disinterested 3^rd party who is in doubt about which claimant should have to property and who therefore deposits the property with the court over ownership; typically initiates interpleader both to determine which claimant should receive delivery or payment and to avoid multiple liability.
  
• 
  (a) DC shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader filed when worth $500 or more if:
  
• 
  (1) 2 or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property; and
  
• 
  (2) p has deposited such money or property into registry of the court.
  
• 
  (b) Such an action may be entertained although the titles or claims of the conflicting claimants don’t have a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another.
  

1. 
   28 U.S.C. §1397—Interpleader
   

• 
  Any civil action of interpleader under §1335 may be brought in the judicial district in which one or more of the claimants reside.
  

1. 
   28 U.S.C. §2361—Process and Procedure
   

• 
  DC may issue its process for all claimants and enter its order restraining them from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any state or US court affecting the property, instrument, or obligation involved in the interpleader action until further action of the court. Such dc shall hear and determine the case, and may discharge the p from further liability, make the injunction permanent, and make all appropriate orders to enforce its judgment.
  

1. 
   FRCP Rule 4(k)(1)©—Territorial Limits of Effective Service
   

• 
  Service of summons or filing a waiver of service is effective to establish jurisdiction over to person of a d who is subject to the federal interpleader jurisdiction under §1335.
  

1. 
   FRCP Rule 22—Interpleader
   

• 
  Persons having claims against the p may be joined as d and required to interplead when their claims are such that the p is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability—not ground for objection to the joinder that claims do not have a common origin or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another, or that the p avers that the p is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants—d exposed to similar liability may obtain such interpleader by way of cross-claim or counterclaim. Doesn’t limit the joinder of parties permitted in Rule 20.
  
• 
  This doesn’t supercede or limit §1335.
  

• 
  Statutory interpleader—provides for federal subject matter jurisdiction where there is minimal diversity between any two rival claimants (§1335). Can be brought in any district in which any claimant resides (§1397). Provides for nationwide service of process (§2361).
  

3. 
   Necessary and Indispensable Parties
   
   • 
     Bank of California v. Superior Court FRCP 19(a)
     
     1. 
        S brought action to enforce a k in which decedent promised to leave her entire estate to S. Brought action against bank, the executor of the will, and hospital, the residuary legatee who was to recover the bulk of the estate. The will named many additional legates, who S didn’t name as d.
        
        1. 
           Necessary parties are those who are so interested in the controversy that they should normally be joined in order to enable the court to do complete justice, but whose interests are separable so they are not indispensable parties, that is, parties without whom the court cannot proceed.
           
           • 
             Although necessary parties may be affected by the decision, they are not indispensable to any valid judgment. Considerations of fairness, convenience and practicability are relevant.
             
        2. 
           A party is deemed indispensable only if complete relief cannot be rendered unless he is joined or he claims an interest in the subject of the action such that to proceed without him would impair his ability to protect his interest or expose the existing parties to the risk of double liability or inconsistent obligations.
           
           1. 
              In this case, the other legatees are necessary but not indispensable because the court can enter a judgment that is binding only to those in the action and not on the other legatees so their rights won’t be impaired.
              
   • 
     Warner v. Pacific Telephone
     
     1. 
        2 Mrs. Caryl Warners in phonebook. 2^nd wife brought action to have the 1^st wife removed. Phone company demurred to complaint on the grounds that the p had failed to join an indispensable party.
        
        1. 
           This is like a property rights case—if decided for 2^nd wife, 1^st wife could bring suit—phone company is trying to avoid multiple suits.
           
   • 
     Haas v. Jefferson National Bank
     
     1. 
        P, of OH, brings diversity action against bank, in FL, for shares of stock that were supposed to be reissued to him by G, also of OH. Stocks not reissued because G was indebted. Court ordered p to join G as party, then denied his motion to dismiss G as a party, and dismissed because of incomplete diversity.
        
        1. 
           It doesn’t matter that the party joined was indispensable, there still must be diversity.
           
        1. 
           Under FRCP 19(b), when party cannot be joined, court can decide whether or not to proceed or be dismissed because the person is indispensable. Must consider: (1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties; (2) extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice would be lessened or avoided; (3) whether judgment in their absence would be adequate; (4) whether p will have adequate remedy if dismissed for nonjoinder.
           
           • 
             Here G indispensable because not joining could result in multiplicity of suits, inconsistent judgment. If dismissed, H can bring suit against G and then proceed against the bank.
             
4. 
   Intervention
   
   • 
     FRCP 24
     
     • 
       (a) Intervention of Right—permitted to intervene: (1) when statute of US confers unconditional right; or (2) when applicant claims an interest to property or transaction which is the subject of the action and applicant is so situated that disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest unless applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
       
     • 
       (b) Permissive Intervention—permitted when: (1) statute confers unconditional right; or (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. Court will exercise its discretion—considers whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
       
     • 
       Intervention must be timely.
       
     • 
       When subject-matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity, §1367(b) bars nondiverse plaintiffs seeking to intervene under 24(a).
       
   • 
     Smuck v. Hobson
     
     1. 
        Original action was class action against DC schools for racial discrimination. Found for school children, School Board decides not to appeal. Former superintendent, dissenting board member, and some parents attempt to intervene.
        
        1. 
           The federal courts allow intervention when the party has an interest to be protected, denial of intervention would impair the party’s ability to protect the interest, and the party is not adequately represented by others.
           
           1. 
              In this case, only allowed intervention of the parents—their rights would be impaired and inadequate representation. H no longer superintendent—he lost any standing to intervene when resigned. S was individual member of the board, but the principal party was the board as an entity—he has no interest as an individual.
              
              • 
                Because motion to intervene was made after judgment, strong showing is required to justify intervention. Must have an appealable interest plus inadequate representation and impaired rights.
                
   • 
     National Resources Defense Council v. NY Dept. of Conservation
     
     1. 
        API wants to intervene in a lawsuit brought by NRDC about air pollution. Has an economic argument. NRDC has different motive.
        
        1. 
           A different motive for litigating does not make the interest inadequately represented.
           
   • 
     Atlantis Development Corp. v. United States
     
     1. 
        P attempted to intervene in order to prove ownership and the right to several reefs.
        
        1. 
           Intervention should be permitted even though the original action would not be binding on the intervenor if the practical effect of judgment in the original action would be to establish precedent that would be controlling in an action instituted later by the intervenor.
           
        2. 
           Question of whether intervention as a matter of right exists often turns on the unstated question of whether joinder of the intervenor of the party was required under Rule 19. Look to whether interest, whether will be impaired if absent, whether adequate representation.
           
           1. 
              This suit will make final determination of who owns the land—if A not allowed in, then interest will be impaired. Neither party would adequately represent because both want ownership. Stare decisis in this case would pretty much bar A from bringing suit—court says this can be the disadvantage which warrants intervention of right.>>
              

A. Class Certification

1. Definition: The class action is a procedure whereby a single person or small group of parties may represent a large group, or class, of persons sharing a common interest.

• 
  May be used where joinder of all the potential co-parties is not feasible, either because the class is simply too large or insuperable difficulties of person jurisdiction, venue, or diversity.
  
• 
  In the class action, only the representatives must satisfy the requirements of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue.
  
• 
  Rule 23 Criteria:
  
  • 
    Size
    
  • 
    Common Question
    
  • 
    Typical claims (claims of representative must be typical of that class)
    
  • 
    Representation
    

2. Marisol A. v. Giuliani - P file suit to complain about child welfare problems in NY, Ds were appealing certification of class action suit; denied since all the people complaining will not have a problem with the same aspects of the welfare system

• 
  This case meets 23b (2) [Giuliani] “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief w/r/t the class as a whole.”
  
• 
  Class action is meant to adjudicate when many people have the same claim
  

3. General Telephone Co. v. Falcon - Mexican wants to sue because he has not been promoted; wishes to include others including those never hired in a class action suit; court says he is not typical of the entire class

4. Causey v. Pan American World Airways, Inc - crash in Asia, the person suing is the son of two of the people who died in the crash→ the courts position here is that they didn’t represent for everyone in the class since they were VA residence, there were different applicable laws

• 
  Rule 23 (b) states that class action should be used if it is superior and more efficient
  
  • 
    Not (b)(1) because no incompatible standards, d just will have to compensate some and not others. Also, mass accident p not bound by judgment in another’s separate suit against common d.
    
  • 
    Not (b)(2) because doesn’t apply to cases where damages are exclusively or predominantly money damages.
    
• 
  Court says that ordinarily it is not appropriate to have class actions for mass accidents
  
  • 
    In general class actions are most useful to deal with injunctions.
    

B. Due Process

1. Hansberry v. Lee - D sought to enjoin a sale of land to P on the grounds that the sale violated a racially restricted covenant. There was a class action that held that the covenant was in effect. In this suit, P said he shouldn’t be bound by that decision. →

• 
  The interests of the landowners in the first action were not similar enough to even be considered members of the same class. They were trying to restrict blacks from moving in, Hansberry was black.
  
• 
  Normally a party cannot be bound by a suit to which he was not a party, but class action is an exception because the members of the party are normally bound by the decision (because if he wins, they win, if he loses, so do they), but they will not be bound if they are not adequately represented
  

• 
  A consent decree mandating affirmative action does not have preclusive effect upon a subsequent challenge to those programs brought by persons not parties to the prior action.
  
• 
  People don’t HAVE to intervene even if they know about it—can’t place burden on potential parties a duty to intervene. This case is exception because Civil Rights Act of 1991 said parties who can intervene must, otherwise they will be bound by the judgment.
  

1. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin - P brings (b)(3) action on behalf of people who traded odd lots shares on NYSE—said d fixed commissions—there would be 6 million potential members, only 2,250,000 identified. Cost to send notice would be great, court authorized scheme to send notice to random 5,000 and publication for notice to the rest—and d was to pay.

• 
  In any class action maintained under FRCP 23(b)(3), (c)(2) provides that each class member shall be advised that he has the right to exclude himself from the action on request or to enter an appearance and that judgment will be binding on any member not requesting exclusion.
  
• 
  Court is required to direct to class members the best notice practicable under the circumstances including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable efforts—this is NOT discretionary.
  
• 
  Mullane directs that the means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it and that publication notice could not satisfy due process where names and addresses were known.
  
• 
  Here, would have had to send to all whose names and addresses were known.
  
• 
  Normal rule is that each side pays for his own costs. Here, p should have paid for notice to be sent
  

2. Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. – 2 claims adjusters bring sexual discrimination (b)(2) class action for injunctive relief—class was former, present and future female employees in claim department. After charges were filed, d changed practices so injunctive relief was no longer necessary.

• 
  In a class action discrimination suit brought for injunctive relief under FRCP (b)(2), the notice requirements of 23(b)(3) need not be met if events subsequent to filing make injunctive relief unnecessary.
  
  • 
    Reason for notice under (b)(3) is due to res judicata effect of class action. Here, each p has common problem, same claim, same interests, so (b)(2) is fine.
    
• 
  23(b)(2) offers a procedural protection for the Ps, the Ps would have to notify all members and they would have the option to option out
  
• 
  23©(2)(A)(iii) For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class members the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.
  

1. Amchem Prodcuts, Inc. v. Windsor - class action suit over asbestos brought by Ps who had developed symptoms and who had not yet developed systems → the Supreme Court held that it wasn’t a class because it didn’t meet the requirements; they looked at the proposed class strictly under the rule

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction – A class action based upon diversity, however, does raise two special questions: first, to which class members should the court look in determining whether there is diversity of citizenship and, second, to which class members should the court look in calculating the jurisdictional-amount requirements?

a) Synder v. Harris – (none of the Ps had an individual claim over $10,000) the Court held that each of several plaintiffs asserting separate and distinct claims must satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement if his claim is to survive a motion to dismiss

b) Zahn – multiple Ps with separate and distinct claims must each satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement for suits in federal courts

c) Leohardt v. Western Sugar Co. – relies on the statutes legislative history to support its holding, “not intended to affect the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1332 in diversity-only class actions, as those requirements were interpreted prior to Finley”

• 
  Zahn is the rule—each p must satisfy the jurisdictional amount. Just because one p meets jurisdictional requirement does not mean the court has supplemental jurisdiction.
  
• 
  The court has the correct decision and Zahn should not be overruled because legislative history says they didn’t intend to.
  

2. Personal Jurisdiction – do the traditional doctrines of personal jurisdiction apply to non-representative class members who are beyond the court’s jurisdiction?

a) Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts – P class was composed of all persons owning a royalty interest in certain oil and gas leases being exploited by the D. The claim was for interest alleged to be owed by Phillips to the class members on account of late royalty payments. On the 28,000 members of the class, fewers than 1,000 lived in KS, in whose state courts the suit was brought

• 
  KS class action rules, like those of most states and the federal system, rqd that all prospective members of the class be notified of the suit, and that they be given the opportunity to “opt out” of the class. Those who took advantage of the opt out were not bound by the results in the case, but could not take advantage of the favorable result either.
  
• 
  Those to whom notice fo the suit could not be delivered were also excluded from the class. But those who received notice and who remained silent were made members of the class.
  

1. Scope covered by Rule 26(b): applies to all forms of discovery, provides generally that parties “may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.”

1) preservation of relevant information that might not be available at trial

2) ascertain and isolate those issues that actually are in controversy between the parties

3) find out what testimony and other evidence is available on each of the disputed factual issues

1. 
   General Scope of Discovery - RULE 26(b)
   
   1. 
      Either party can discover anything relevant to the SM of the action which is not privileged
      
      1. 
         “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of either party
         
      2. 
         Two Principle Requirements
         
         1. 
            not privileged
            
         2. 
            relevant to some claim or defense in the suit
            
            1. 
               PRIVILEGE
               
               1. 
                  only party who may assert at trial may resist discovery on the grounds of privilege (i.e. - att/client, dr. patient)
                  
               2. 
                  
                  Directory: sba -> firstyearoutlines
                  sba -> Goals and Objectives for the Exploration and Investigation of the Solar System’s Small Bodies Assessment Group (sbag)
                  sba -> Business Administration Partner Identification & Management
                  firstyearoutlines -> Property Outline part 1 Basic Concept
                  firstyearoutlines -> Property outline
                  firstyearoutlines -> Table of Contents I. Structure of the Constitution 1 II. Judicial Power versus Congressional Power 1
                  firstyearoutlines -> What is Property Penner: The Idea of Property in Law
                  firstyearoutlines -> Adverse Possession
                  
                  
                  
                  Download 167.61 Kb.
                  
                  Share with your friends: