Law School Outlines - Civ_Pro_3

Prior Adjudication Claim Preclusion What constitutes the same claim? – whether the party COULD have brought the same claim under the previous suit Merger and Bar – all claims that could have been brought merge with the judgment in the first lawsuit, therefore the claim under the second lawsuit is barred Herendeen v. Champion International Corp. – First lawsuit was brought in state court . . . plaintiff claimed breach of contract relating to the oral agreement to agree re: new employment (including fraudulent inducement with respect to leaving thinking that he would have a new job.) He was seeking to recover pension benefits that he lost as a result of not getting the new job. At the time of the suit, he had already terminated his original employment. The first suit was dismissed for failure to state a claim (this is rare in Federal Court because of Rule of 11). The second lawsuit was about pension benefits that were withheld during his first employment. These were found to be separate claims Expansive approach to whether they are related in time, space and communication Err on the side on bringing everything together On the Merits – as long as it operates as an adjudication on the merits Rule 41(b) Issue Preclusion 764 – 783 784 – 815, 839 – 844 Parties Bound and Advantaged – only those who are parties to the lawsuit may be bound by the judgment Vicarious Representation ---Privity General Foods v. Mass. Dept of Public Health Choice of Law – what persons are bound by a valid judgment is determined by the local law of the State where the judgment was rendered Constitutional Issues – a non-party is protected from being bound by an in personum judgment unless he had directly or vicariously argued and presented evidence on his behalf. The Doctrine of Privity – the category includes parties represented by a formal agent or trustee; as well as members of a class action Mutuality – only a party may take advantage of the prior judgment Defensive Nonmutual Estoppel – defendant is asserting another party’s victory against plaintiff as a defense Berhard v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Savings Assoc. Indemnification Exception -Offensive Nonmutual Estoppel – another party’s victory against defendant to preclude defendant from contesting the issue of liability Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore – Litigating against the Government Interjurisdictional Preclusion – in some circumstances, preclusion may represent an incursion into the sovereign prerogatives of the enforcing state Full Faith and Credit – the judgment must receive the same respect in another jurisdiction State/Federal Preclusion – the policy of full faith and credit may defeat the substantive goals of federal law. Interstate Preclusion – Enforcement and Recognition of Foreign Judgments Based on acts implementing treaties Makes international decision hard to enforce 845 – 862 The Boundaries of the Lawsuit: Joinders of Claims and Parties Real Party in Interest – Rule 17(a) requires that the lawsuit be brought in the name of the person in possession of the substantive right to recover Joinder of Claims By Plaintiffs Common Law – plaintiffs could join claims in a single action only if the claims belonged to the same form of action Field Code – created categories under which plaintiffs could join claims; A contract Injuries by force to property or person Injuries without force to property or person Injuries to character Claims to recover real property Claims against a trustee Same claim Rule 18 – does not require any transactional relationship between the claims in order for them to be joined By Defendants and Co Parties Counterclaims Grumman Systems Support Corp. v. Data General Corp. Cross Claims – claims asserted between previously adverse coparrtie Rule 13(g) the purpose is to permit a defendant to state as a cross-claim a claim against a co-defendant growing out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action Compulsory Joinder Permissive Joinder 886 – 899 Impleader Common Law – a defendant could “vouch in” a third party who had given a warranty of title or who had agreed to indemnify the original defendant Modern Law – allows a defendant to join the third party in the main lawsuit, and it extends to any type of indemnification or contribution relationship May not be brought invoked by a defendant who asserts only that plaintiff has sued the wrong party. Intervention As of right – Rule 24 When a federal statute confers a right to intervene When the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may be as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties. Rule 24(a) – requires that the intervenor have a legally protected interest Permissive Intervention – Rule 24(b) Where a federal statute confers a conditional right to intervene When the applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common Within the discretion of the trial court Mandatory Intervention Interpleader Rules 19 – 24 protects the interests by either bringing potentially affected parties into the litigation, or by dismissing the litigation in their absence Class Actions and Other Complex Joinder Devices Class Actions 1035 – 1074 (ADR) Alternative Dispute Resolution Settlement Contract – an agreement entered into b the parties to a dispute for the purposes of rendering some or all of their claims Usually they can agree to whatever they want, but there are some exceptions; 23(e) class actions Settlement Negotiations and Strategic Behavior Imbalance of information Personal litigation styles Relationship between the attorneys Special Forms of Settlement Agreements Mary Carter Agreement – arises in a lawsuit that has multiple parties on either side of the dispute. One party, usually the defendant secretly agrees to settle its claims with plaintiff. Here, they do not alert the court of the settlement. As part of the bargain, the defendant agrees to help the plaintiff prosecute the other defendants (look upon with disapproval) High-Low agreement – the parties basically give themselves an insurance policy against extreme results at trial. This agreement sets a range of possible outcomes that the parties find acceptable. The Forms and Functions of ADR Adversarial Arbitration Alternative Mediation Supplemental Mandatory Arbitration Mandatory Mediation Mini-Trials and Summary Jury Trials Rent-a-Judge ADR and Public Values