DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Table of Contents Civil Procedure Overview P. 2 Contempt P. 3 Due

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Table of Contents Civil Procedure Overview P. 2 Contempt P. 3 Due Table of Contents Civil Procedure Overview p. 2 Contempt p. 3 Due Process p. 4-5 Remedies: Provisional Relief p. 6-7 Remdies: Final Relief p. 8 Enforcing Judgment p. 8 Complaints/Pleadings p. 9 Amending the Pleading p. 12 Answers/Motions/Affirmative Defenses p. 14 Joinder p. 15 Intervention p. 17 Counterclaims/Crossclaims/Impleader/Interpleader p. 18 Discovery p. 20 Judge/Jury p. 22 Sanctions (Rule 11) p. 23 Summary Judgment p. 25 Controlling/Overruling Jury p. 28 Personal Jurisdiction p. 31-37 Venue p. 38 Removal p. 39 Forum Non Conveniens p. 40 Notice p. 41 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction p. 42 Supplemental Jurisdiction p. 43 Issue Preclusion p. 46 Claim Preclusion p. 48 Attorneys’ Fees & Marek p. 51 Policy: Rules & Standards p. 53 Policy: Judicial Management p. 54 1 PROCEDURAL RULES & JUDICIAL POWER Three philosophies governing procedure: (similar to debate about rules v. standards) “Justice is served by predictable procedure”: It’s a predictable system, regardless of how it impacts individuals VS. “Procedure is the servant of justice”: context of the rules should matter and take into context The distinction between procedure and substance is not meaningful 1. Jurisdiction most important 2. What is the law that is applied in a federal court action? (Federalism) 3. Pleading There has been a movement away easy, liberal pleading standards 4. All Forms of Joinder 5. Discovery 6. Pre-trial adjudication/Summary Judgment how to get rid of cases before trial 7. Trial and Jury Control Procedures 8. Trilogy of Post-Trial Motions: New Trial, Directed Verdict/Judgment as Matter of Law, and JNOV or Renewed Judgment as Matter of Law 9. Appeal 10. Former Adjudication: Res Judicata/Claim Preclusion, Collateral Estoppel/Issue Preclusion Cognizability (whether law will give relief for actions complained of) Cause of action: facts match up to elements of cause of action Demand Letter (maybe) either mediation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Personal jurisdiction for defendant Pick forum state Which state has subject matter jurisdiction Venue (which geographic section of the state to bring the case, typically either where alleged action took place or where D resides) Notice to D of commencement of action (due process requires) Check long-arm statute of the state to make sure that D can be sued for torts committed by D in another jurisdiction (p. 186) Draft complaint in accordance with Rules of Civil Procedure for jurisdiction where complaint is being filed (if federal court, then Federal Rules) Check statute of limitations Ensure D receives service of process Consider whether to file joinder of causes of actions (joinder of claims in federal court) to raise multiple causes of action and/or joinder of parties to name more than one D in complaint D can file motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action D can file an in answer, in which s/he states affirmative defenses (defenses Ds have to Ps’ causes of action) D may file counterclaim against P for damages or relief Impleader or third-party practice (complaint for indemnification against a third party responsible for D’s actions ; impleaders may have claims against each other, cross-claims May be necessary parties, intervention, and class actions = more complex joinder issues If pleadings survive initial motions, parties then engage in discovery Interrogatories, depositions, requests to inspect documents Lawyers must be familiar with both federal rules, local rules, and standing orders of judges Burden of production: party with burden of proof (usually P) must have sufficiency of evidence for each element of at least one cause of action If D feels P has not sufficiently met his/her burden, can move for judgment as a matter of law, or directed verdict If P survives motion for judgment as matter of law, P must persuade factfinder by preponderance of evidence (burden of persuasion) After discovery, can be motion for summary judgment by either side, but usually D Renewed judgment as matter of law (or JNOV) Trial After trial, verdict becomes judgment Remedies include monetary award, injunctive relief -- temporary restraining order (prior to trial), preliminary injunctive (prior to verdict), permanent injunction (after trial) Appeal to intermediate, appellate court, and then supreme court Party can file an interlocutory appeal, but not appeal the decision necessarily except as indicated below Once final determination, res judicata applies, meaning the matter has already be adjudicated and decided, even if P wishes to bring another claim (say, negligence instead of battery) on the same facts; aka claim preclusion If an issue resolved in prior proceeding and becomes relevant for subsequent proceeding, the prevailing party in prior case can collaterally estop losing party from denying resolution of prior issue; known as issue preclusion (p. 192) 2 CONTEMPT Enforcement of Court’s rulings. Demonstrates how procedure ultimately allocates power within system of law. WALKER V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM (U.S. 1967) (p. 165): City obtained ex parte TRO to forbid civil rights leaders to participate in or encourage demonstrations of Birmingham’s racial segregation. King arrested during demonstrations, sentenced to 5 days in jail, and fined $50, along with other leaders. At contempt hearing, Ps challenged constitutionality of injunction because vague and overbroad, and restrained free speech. Ps also challenged Birmingham parade ordinance process because previously administered in arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Holding: The parade ordinance was not void on its face, and the injunction was not void on its face; therefore, the injunction and resulting contempt convictions are upheld. “No man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion.” Collateral Bar Rule: Noting that MLK had not moved for injunction to be dissolved or taken further steps to apply for permit, the Court refused to consider the constitutional questions , invoking collateral bar rule: if an individual violates a court order, he or she is thereafter barred from challenging it Dissents (Warren, Brennan, Fortas, Douglas): 1. Ps not acting as judges in their own case; rather, violating injunction to challenge its constitutionality is akin to violating a statute for the same reason. a. In fact, some cases require Ps to violate the statute in question in order to establish their standing to sue 2. Birmingham parade ordinance unconstitutional on its face: different procedures for different applicants, namely applicants with whose views city commission disagree amounts to censorship of free speech 3. Court should not place seal of approval on gross misuse of judicial process 4. Shows conflicting philosophies: Justice is Served by Predictable Procedure vs. Procedure should bend in the interests of justice. 3 DUE PROCESS, COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, AND JUSTICE The Values of Process and Elements of a Hearing Essence of due process = right to be heard in a meaningful manner at a meaningful time before being deprived of life, liberty or property, usually the latter –“a grievous harm” Rules/Features of Due Process: 1. Only government obligated to guarantee due process 2. Notice & Opportunity to be Heard: “At a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” (Boddie) 3. Whether certain process is due will depend on circumstance, whether P will suffer “grievous harm” 4. Process due: a. Usually pre-deprivation hearing where party facing deprivation can challenge evidence against him/her b. Access to a lawyer will depend c. Whether filing costs, etc will be waived Analysis: 1. Deprivation: whether 5th Amendment or 14th Amendment implicated 1. Is the government actor? (Cannot bring due process action against private citizen) 2. State or federal government federal govt is 5th amendment; state govt is 14th amendment 2. Is there a right at stake? – Life, liberty, or property 3. What process is due? 3-part Matthews test 1. What private interests are at stake? 2. What is countervailing government interest in curtailment? 3. The amount of error to be allowed - (could be similar to one of those cases) Due Process: Policy Debates Process Values of Administrative Procedures (Mashaw, p. 46) o Individual dignity o Equality o Fairness Value of Accuracy in Adjudication (Kaplow, p. 53) o Procedure has value but should be an ultimate cost-benefit analysis, there is an efficient amount of procedure (?) GOLDBERG V. KELLY, US 1970 (p. 68) Kelly alleged violations of Due Process (14th amendment) and Social Security Act requirement for ‘fair hearing’ because of welfare dept’s practice of cutting people off welfare benefits without notice or opportunity to appeal. Subsequent to filing of complaint, NY implemented procedures for notice & hearing – plaintiffs challenge these as unconstitutional because they allowed people to appeal only after benefits had been cut. Balancing Approach: seriousness of terminating someone’s aid with the potential gov’t interests in not paying someone who is undeserving and the additional costs of having a hearing. depriving someone of their very means to live was not justified only to save some gov’t costs. However: no need for judicial setting in pre-termination hearing if there is also an opportunity to appeal BODDIE V. CONNECTICUT (US 1971) (p. 68) Plaintiffs are welfare recipients suing in class action because state of Connecticut’s requirements for payment of court fees and costs for service of process restrict their access to courts in effort to bring an action for divorce. Connecticut charges $60 - $95 to file action in court ($45) and then to serve other party ($10 to $50). 4 Holding: Due process does prohibit State from denying, solely because of inability to pay, access to courts to individuals who seek judicial dissolution of their marriages in good faith. MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE (US 1976) (p.39): In determining whether deprivation of disability benefits requires pre-deprivation hearing, court balances: 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Kentucky Lexington Division
    Case: 5:05-cv-00137-JBC-JBT Doc #: 13 Filed: 10/11/05 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-137-JBC EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE, INC., PLAINTIFF, V. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT. * * * * * * * * * * * This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant, Greenwich Insurance Company (“Greenwich”), for leave to file a third party complaint (DE 4), and on the motion of Lexington Coal Company (“LCC”) to intervene and transfer to Bankruptcy Court (DE 7, 8). The court construes the plaintiff’s responses as motions to remand (DE 5, 9). The court, having reviewed the record and being otherwise sufficiently advised, will grant Greenwich’s motion, will reserve ruling on LCC’s motion, and will deny the plaintiff’s motion. Background and procedural history Plaintiff, East Kentucky Power Cooperative (“EKPC”), is a resident of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It filed a complaint in Clark County Circuit Court against Greenwich, a foreign company, alleging breach of contract and breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Greenwich removed the case to this court invoking diversity jurisdiction and now seeks to implead LCC and interplead LCC and EKPC. EKPC objects to neither procedural device. However, it is concerned that the impleader of LCC, also a Kentucky resident, will destroy this court’s diversity Case: 5:05-cv-00137-JBC-JBT Doc #: 13 Filed: 10/11/05 Page: 2 of 5 - Page ID#: <pageID> jurisdiction. Analysis Greenwich’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint Impleader is proper under Rule 14 where a third party may be liable to a defendant for all or part of a plaintiff’s claim.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOSSARY of LEGAL TERMS Ad Damnum
    GLOSSARY OF LEGAL TERMS Ad damnum: The technical name of the clause in the complaint that contains a statement by the plaintiff of the amount of the damages he/she is claiming. Additur: The opposite of Remittitur. An increase in an award by the Judge done in the Court's discretion if he or she feel the Jury's judgment is inadequate. Adjudicate: To settle in the exercise of judicial authority; to determine finality. Admissions: Confessions, concessions, or voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of certain facts. Affiant: The person who makes and subscribes an affidavit. Affidavit: Sworn statement of a witness, which is verified by a Notary Public. Affirmative Defense: A defense that must be specifically pled by the defendant to be asserted at trial. If such a defense is not raised in the answer, it is waived. An example of an affirmative defense is contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, etc. Appellant: The party who takes an appeal from one court or jurisdiction to another in the interest of setting aside or reversing the judgment. Appellee: The party in a case against whom an appeal is taken, that is, the party who has an interest adverse to setting aside or reversing the judgment (some times called the respondent). Arbitration: Alternative dispute resolution in which the case is decided by an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators, usually experienced attorneys, former judges, or administrative law judges. The case is decided after an informal hearing. Arbitration is almost always binding. Assumption of the Risk: This is an affirmative defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Pleading Template (Federal Court)
    Case 4:19-cv-01231-JSW Document 4-1 Filed 03/07/19 Page 2 of 30 1 Marísa Díaz, CSB No. 293072 E-mail: [email protected] 2 Christopher Ho, CSB No. 129845 3 E-mail: [email protected] LEGAL AID AT WORK 4 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94104 5 Telephone: 415.864.8848 6 Facsimile: 415.593.0096 7 Beth W. Mora, CSB No. 208859 E-mail: [email protected] 8 MORA EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC 9 18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 205 San Ramon, California 94583 10 Telephone: 925.820.8949 Facsimile: 925.820.0278 11 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor Ayesha Faiz 13 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 Case No. 4:19-cv-01231 18 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 19 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN 20 INTERVENTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 21 AYESHA FAIZ, 22 (1) TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Plaintiff-Intervenor, OF 1964; 23 (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1981; v. (3) CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND 24 FIDELITY HOME ENERGY, INC., a HOUSING ACT; 25 California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, (4) STATE TORT LAW; (5) CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 26 Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 27 28 29 30 {00569825.DOCX} Case No. 4:19-cv-01231 31 [PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION 32 Case 4:19-cv-01231-JSW Document 4-1 Filed 03/07/19 Page 3 of 30 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This is an action for relief from violations by Defendant Fidelity Home Energy, 3 Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 38 | Issue 3 Article 4 1972 Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E. Kennedy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation John E. Kennedy, Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation, 38 J. Air L. & Com. 325 (1972) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol38/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS AND IMPLEADER IN FEDERAL AVIATION LITIGATION JOHN E. KENNEDY* I. THE GENERAL PROBLEM: MULTIPLE POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS W HEN airplanes crash, difficult procedural problems often arise from the numbers of potential parties and the com- plexity of the applicable substantive law. Since under that law, re- covery can be granted to large numbers of plaintiffs, and liability can be distributed to a variety of defendants, the procedural rights to counterclaim, cross-claim and implead third-parties have become important aspects of federal aviation litigation. When death results the most obvious parties plaintiff are those injured by the death of the decedent, i.e., the spouses, children, heirs and creditors. Whether they must sue through an estate, or special administrator or directly by themselves will ordinarily be determined by the particular state wrongful death statute under which the action is brought, and the capacity law of the forum.' In addition, the status of the decedent will also have bearing on the parties and the form of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Civil Practice Guide
    Practice Series Illinois Civil Practice Guide Andrew W. Vail Colleen G. DeRosa © 2012 JENNER & BLOCK LLP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED www.jenner.com ABOUT JENNER & BLOCK Founded in 1914, Jenner & Block is a national law firm of approximately 450 attorneys. Our Firm has been widely recognized for producing outstanding results in corporate transactions and securing significant litigation victories from the trial level through the United States Supreme Court. Companies and individuals around the world trust Jenner & Block with their most sensitive and consequential matters. Our clients range from the top ranks of the Fortune 500, large privately held corporations and financial services institutions to emerging companies, family-run businesses and individuals. OFFICES 353 North Clark Street 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456 Los Angeles, California 90071 Firm: 312 222-9350 Firm: 213 239-5100 Fax: 312 527-0484 Fax: 213 239-5199 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor 1099 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 New York, New York 10022-3908 Washington, D.C. 20001-900 Firm: 212 891-1600 Firm: 202 639-6000 Fax: 212 891-1699 Fax: 202 639-6066 © 2012 Jenner & Block LLP. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide general information on legal matters. Transmission is not intended to create and receipt does not establish an attorney- client relationship. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication. The attorney responsible for this publication is Andrew W. Vail. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING 1 AUTHOR INFORMATION Andrew W. Vail is a partner in Jenner & Block’s Litigation Department and a member of the Firm’s Complex Commercial and Antitrust Litigation Practice Groups.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:19-Cv-23650-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES MARIA ELENA PEREZ, Plaintif
    Case 1:19-cv-23650-DPG Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-23650-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES MARIA ELENA PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. _______________________________________/ MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Counter and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MARIA ELENA PEREZ (I), Counter-Defendant and Cross-Claimant, and MARIA ELENA PEREZ (II), Third-Party Defendant and Cross-Defendant on Crossclaim of Maria Elena Perez (I). _______________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Third-Party Defendant and Cross-Defendant Maria Elena Perez’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant and Cross-Claimant’s Amended Cross Claim for Failure to State a Cause of Action Upon Which Relief Can be Granted Case 1:19-cv-23650-DPG Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 2 of 8 (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 57]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted. BACKGROUND1 This action stems from an ongoing family dispute over the proceeds of two life insurance policies purchased from Midland National Life Insurance Company (“Midland”) that insured the life of the decedent, Rolando A. Perez (the “Decedent”). Maria Elena Perez (“Perez I”), the Decedent’s widow, and Maria Elena Perez (“Perez II”), the Decedent and Perez I’s daughter, each claim to be the true beneficiary of the two life insurance policies. I. Factual Background On November 21, 1999, Midland issued a life insurance policy insuring the Decedent’s life for $97,000.00 (No.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court
    Case 1:18-cv-00231-BLW Document 46 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO WILLIAM WHITT, Case No. 1:18-cv-00231-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. PAPA MURPHY’S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Foreign corporation d/b/a PAPA MURPHY’S TAKE N BAKE, Defendant. _________________________________ PAPA MURPHY’S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Foreign corporation d/b/a PAPA MURPHY’S TAKE N BAKE, Third Party Plaintiff, v. C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; GRASMICK PRODUCE CO. INC., an Idaho Corporation; and MOES 1 through 30, inclusive,, Third Party Defendants. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Case 1:18-cv-00231-BLW Document 46 Filed 12/03/18 Page 2 of 3 The Court has before it Third Party Defendant Grasmick Produce Co., Inc’s Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint (Dkt. 44). No party has responded to the motion, and the deadline for responding has passed. Rule 14 permits third-party complaints. Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a). The decision whether to implead a third-party defendant is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Southwest Administrators, Inc. v. Rozay's Transfer, 791 F.2d 769, 777 (9th Cir.1986). The purpose of impleader is to promote judicial efficiency by avoiding separate actions against third parties who may be liable to defendant for part or all of plaintiff's original claim. 6 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ § 1442 (3d ed.). Impleader also helps avoid inconsistent outcomes for claims based on the same or similar evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to a Complaint: Washington, Practical Law State Q&A W-000-4121
    Responding to a Complaint: Washington, Practical Law State Q&A w-000-4121 Responding to a Complaint: Washington by Barbara J. Duffy, Lane Powell PC, with Practical Law Litigation Law stated as of 10 Jun 2019 • United States, Washington A Q&A guide to responding to a complaint in a trial court of general jurisdiction in Washington. This Q&A addresses the time to respond, extending the time to respond, pre-answer motions, answers, replies to the answer, counterclaims, crossclaims, third-party claims (also known as impleader), and defensive interpleader. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Responding to a Complaint: State Q&A Tool). Overview of Responding to a State Complaint 1. When must a defendant respond to the complaint? In Washington, a defendant must respond to a complaint within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint (Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 4(a)(2) and 12(a)(1)). If process is served by publication, a defendant must respond within 60 days from the date of first publication of the summons (RCW 4.28.110 and Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(a)(2)). If a plaintiff serves a defendant outside of Washington, the defendant has 60 days to respond to the complaint (RCW 4.28.180 and Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(a)(3)). 2. How, if at all, can one obtain an extension of time to respond (for example, by stipulation, so-ordered stipulation, ex parte motion, motion on notice)? Counsel should check the local court's website for additional information regarding extending time to respond to a complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice Book 101
    Practice Book 101 April 2, 2019 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. CBA Law Center New Britain, CT CT Bar Institute Inc. CT: 2.0 CLE Credits (General) NY: 2.0 CLE Credits (AOP) No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy of these materials. Readers should check primary sources where appropriate and use the traditional legal research techniques to make sure that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments. Page 1 of 141 Lawyers’ Principles of Professionalism As a lawyer I must strive to make our system of justice work fairly and Where consistent with my client's interests, I will communicate with efficiently. In order to carry out that responsibility, not only will I comply opposing counsel in an effort to avoid litigation and to resolve litigation with the letter and spirit of the disciplinary standards applicable to all that has actually commenced; lawyers, but I will also conduct myself in accordance with the following Principles of Professionalism when dealing with my client, opposing I will withdraw voluntarily claims or defense when it becomes apparent parties, their counsel, the courts and the general public. that they do not have merit or are superfluous; Civility and courtesy are the hallmarks of professionalism and should not I will not file frivolous motions; be equated with weakness; I will endeavor to be courteous and civil, both in oral and in written I will make every effort to agree with other counsel, as early as possible, on communications; a voluntary exchange of information and on a plan for
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Compulsory Joinder, Intervention, Impleader, and Attachment to the Letter of Credit Litigation
    Fordham Law Review Volume 52 Issue 5 Article 10 1984 Application of Compulsory Joinder, Intervention, Impleader, and Attachment to the Letter of Credit Litigation David C. Howard Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David C. Howard, Application of Compulsory Joinder, Intervention, Impleader, and Attachment to the Letter of Credit Litigation, 52 Fordham L. Rev. 957 (1984). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol52/iss5/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE APPLICATION OF COMPULSORY JOINDER, INTERVENTION, IMPLEADER AND ATTACHMENT TO LETTER OF CREDIT LITIGATION INTRODUCTION A letter of credit' is a device by which a bank or other issuer,2 at the request of its customer, engages 3 that it will honor drafts or other demands for payment if presented in compliance with specified condi- tions.4 The essential function of the letter of credit is to substitute the 1. For a general definition of a letter of credit, see Bank of Newport v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 34 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 650, 655 (8th Cir. 1982); East Girard Say. Ass'n v. Citizens Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 593 F.2d 598, 601-02 (5th Cir. 1979) (quoting 2 Tex.
    [Show full text]
  • Allergan PLC, Et Al.: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice
    Case 3:17-cv-00312-WHO Document 83 Filed 02/22/19 Page 1 of 2 1 Submitting Counsel on Signature Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 Case No. 17-cv-00312-WHO 13 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 16 ALLERGAN PLC, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:17-cv-00312-WHO Document 83 Filed 02/22/19 Page 2 of 2 1 On February 21, 2019, Judge Goldberg in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a 2 Stipulated Revised Order for Permanent Injunction and Equitable Monetary Relief in the case 3 styled Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 08-cv-2141 (E.D. Pa.). A copy of the 4 Stipulated Revised Order for Permanent Injunction and Equitable Monetary Relief (“Permanent 5 Injunction”) is attached as Exhibit A. 6 As of August 2, 2016 Watson Laboratories, Inc. (“Watson”) is a wholly-owned indirect 7 subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (“Teva”). 8 Under the Permanent Injunction, Teva and its subsidiaries, including Watson, are prohibited 9 from entering into any agreements similar to the agreement challenged in this case. (Permanent 10 Injunction § I.) The scope of this prohibition is consistent with the relief the FTC seeks in this 11 case. See Complaint, Prayer for Relief, filed Jan. 23, 2017 (Dkt. 1). Entry of the Permanent 12 Injunction, therefore, adequately addresses any anticompetitive conduct at issue in this case.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local
    Case 7:07-cv-00063-HL Document 28 Filed 04/18/08 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION VALLEY FORGE LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No. v. : 7:07-cv-0063(HL) : SHEREE A. ROCKMORE, VICKIE : STRICKLAND, and EUNICE NELL : RIDINGS : : Defendants. : : ORDER Defendant Sheree A. Rockmore, a claimant in this interpleader action, has filed a Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 24) against the other two Defendants. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Default Judgment is granted. I. FACTS On June 12, 2007, Plaintiff Valley Forge Life Insurance Company (“Valley Forge”) filed this interpleader action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 to determine which Defendants are entitled to the proceeds of a life insurance policy that Plaintiff issued to Henry D. Ridings. On August 6, 2007, Defendant Sheree Rockmore filed an Answer and Claim to the life insurance proceeds, asserting that she is the primary beneficiary to the life insurance policy. The other two Defendants never filed a claim to the insurance proceeds, and Defendant Rockmore filed a Motion for Entry of Default on January 14, 2008, which the clerk entered on January 15, 2008. On January 15, 2008, Defendant Rockmore filed this 1 Case 7:07-cv-00063-HL Document 28 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 4 Motion for Default Judgment. As of the date the Motion was filed, 148 days had expired since Defendant Strickland acknowledged service, and 73 days had expired since Defendant Ridings was served. Plaintiff served Defendant Ridings by serving her attorneys in fact.
    [Show full text]