DOCSLIB.ORG

Civ Pro Short Outline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Civ Pro Short Outline Civil Procedure Outline (Short), Sachs Fall 2011 Goal of FRCP: just, speedy, inexpensive determination of every action To get into fed court need SMJ + PJ + venue To determine if PJ or venue proper, first figure out if consented w/ forum selection clause or waived oBjection 12(h) SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION – ABility of court to hear particular type of case. Cannot be waived. Constitution (Article III) + Statute (§1331, 1332). Fed courts have limited SMJ. Note states have very, very Broad SMJ. 1. Diversity Jurisdiction: The power of federal courts to adjudicate disputes Between citizens of different states if more than $75,000 at stake. a. Citizen of a different state (Article III). Need complete diversity: all Ps from different states as all Ds [Strawbridge] b. Amount-in-controversy statutory requirement exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest or costs (§1332). Legal certainty; reasonaBle to conclude that P’s injuries would support recovery of that amount [Difenthal, flight attendant treated passengers “brusquely”, no legal certainty that facts supported damage claim of $10k] • P can aggregate claims against single D • P cannot aggregate claims against multiple Ds • Co-Ps cannot aggregate claims. • Exceptions: supplemental jurisdiction & common undivided interest, joint claim that is “indivisiBle” How to define citizenship? *calculate as of date action initiated a. Individual – domicile (only 1) = present + intent to remain indefinitely b. Partnership – citizen of state where all partners domiciled c. Corporations – state of incorporation + principal place of Business, where high level officers direct, control and coordinate corporation’s activities, nerve center [f Corp., Breyer, usually the headquarters unless it is a mail drop Box or Bare office; must Be single location, test not perfect and can create anomalous results] d. Alien = domicile 2. Federal Question Jurisdiction §1331, the power of federal courts to adjudicate disputes arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the US Constitution defines outer Bounds of jurisdiction Congress may confer upon courts. §1331 interpreted more narrowly in that requires at least an essential federal ingredient [Merrell Dow, Grable]. a. Cause of action under which P sues is created By federal law i. Mottley (1908) – P’s original claim must arise under a federal law. P enforcing federal right. Court doesn’t have jurisdiction just Because federal claim-related defense is anticipated. Only look to P’s original complaint (no counterclaims) [P’s claim under state contract law not federal law; RR would need to bring federal law as part of defense] 1. Well-pleaded complaint rule – fed claim must appear on the face of the complaint 2. Holmes’s creation test – Suit “arises under the law that creates the cause of action.” Can claim proceed without reference to federal law? If yes, then doesn’t Belong in fed ct. *works for most cases 3. Rationale: easy to determine jurisdiction from onset b. Cause of action includes essential federal ingredient i. Grable (2005) – Claim that doesn’t follow creation test can Be tried in fed ct. if there is (1) essential federal element emBedded in otherwise nonfederal claim (2) federal ingredient must actually be disputed (3) federal ingredient must Be substantial (4) court should consider careful Balance B/t state and fed courts 1 1. Serious federal interest in adjudicating claim 2. Potential for disrupting Balance B/t state and fed cts. (federalism) 3. Impact on fed dockets 4. *Goes beyond Holmes but faithful to Mottley (looks to what P must prove) [resolution involves implication of notice statute in fed. tax law]. 3. Removal – §1441 if P Brings case in state court, D can remove case to fed ct. so long as fed ct. has “original jurisdiction” (this means SMJ must have existed). Fairness to D. a. Federal claims – regular FQ analysis b. Non-federal claims (state claims) – need supplemental jurisdiction (same case/controversy w/ common nucleus of operative fact, §1367(B) exceptions • File notice of removal w/ clerk w/in 30 days of service or 30 days after Becomes removaBle (amended pleadings), §1446 • Must move to fed district ct. “for district where action pending” *Venue §1391 does not apply to removed cases • All original Ds must join in notice of removal • Exception: §1441(B) Forum defendant exception: Bars removal of diversity case if D resides in state where suit Brought. D doesn’t need to Be protected B/c at home. Does NOT Bar removal of fed Q case • §1441(c) motion to remand must Be w/in 30 days of else waive oBjections (other than SMJ) PERSONAL JURISDICTION – ABility of court to exercise authority over D (require D to appear Before it and to render judgment that will be binding on D). Can be waived. Constitution (DP, notice and opportunity to Be heard and FF&C, full faith and credit will Be given in each state) + State statute (long-arm statute) + 4(k) (notice of lawsuit) *This answer assumes the state long-arm statute extends to the limits of DP with regard to the claim(s) at issue. Also assume contacts mentioned are D’s only contacts w/in forum state. 1. Basis for Personal Jurisdiction – cannot sue people wherever you feel like it; need DP a. Domicile b. Presence, service of process while physically and voluntarily present in forum state [Burnham (Scalia) transient presence, father visiting kids in CA when served, 4-4 split, Brennan: need to do Shoe] Note this is only for individuals, service ok But cannot oBtain PJ By serving officer of corporation (But not partnership) who happens to Be in forum state c. Consent: express (contract) or implied (Hess, PA citizen injured MA citizen in MA; voluntary act of driving in MA implied consent] d. Waiver: failure to waive w/in specified time 12(h) e. Minimum contacts: D must have sufficient contacts in state such that D has purposefully availed himself of privilege of conducting activities in state and thus should reasonaBly anticipate “Being haled into court.” Further, exercising PJ over D does not offend traditional notions of fair play and justice [Shoe, no offices or contracts or sale in WA but shoe salesmen were continuous and systematic contacts, received benefits/protections of WA laws] • D’Arcy (1851) – Need service of process in forum state or voluntary appearance in forum state. • Pennoyer (1878) – Need service of process in forum state or voluntary appearance or property in state and property attached Before litigation Begins (quasi in rem). DP req. actual notice. • International Shoe (1945) – Need minimum contacts. D suBmits to litigation in forum state if claim arises out of voluntary activities in forum state. This is fair to D and ok under DP [no offices or contracts or sale in WA but shoe salesmen were continuous and systematic contacts, received benefits/protections of WA laws] 2 Did claim arise out of D’s contacts with forum state? YES – specific jurisdiction (fewer contacts req.) NO – general jurisdiction (many contacts req.) 2. General Personal Jurisdiction: If D has continuous or systematic contracts with forum state such that the continuity of purposeful contacts w/in forum state is sufficiently great, can have PJ even if claim does not arise out of those contacts. Not unfair or inconvenient to D. Use for any claim P has against D. What continuous and systematic contacts suffice? a. Individual = domicile b. Corporation = (1) place of incorporation (2) principle place of Business (3) corporate office w/ significant Business or continued physical presence [Reyes, Hong Kong company w/ office in CA that conduced significant business] (4) essentially at home, rely on “carved out” test ex. Starbucks in NY, do everything in state as they would do if were own Business, Buying/selling in state not enough, need physical presence [Goodyear (2011), GinsBurg, no PJ b/c Goodyear not at home in NC, attenuated connections to state, no offices, do not ship products or solicit sales] i. Registered to do Business in state? ii. Physical presence in state? iii. Any advertising in state iv. Solicit business in state? v. Any employees in state? vi. Volume of in-state Business, relation to whole? vii. If “carve out” forum market, does it look like a local Business? • Not necessarily regular contacts [Robbins, 50 transactions w/ MD not enough] • Temporary principle place of Business ok [Perkins, Philippine mining company temporarily conducting business in Ohio] • Not necessarily purchases in forum occurring at regular intervals [Goodyear, no offices, does not ship products or solicit sales in NC; P should have argued single enterprise theory] 3. Specific Personal Jurisdiction: D has min contacts with state (can Be single act B/c of “quality and nature” [McGee]. Claim must arise out of D’s min contacts. Exercise of jurisdiction must Be otherwise consistent w/ traditional notions of fair play and suBstantial justice. Use for only claims arising out of D’s in-state contacts. Step 1: Minimum contacts with forum state. Contact exists when D has purposefully availed himself of privilege and Benefits of conducting activities in forum state. 1. Purposeful availment – did D purposefully avail itself of Benefits and protection of forum’s laws? [Hanson] D purposefully avails self of opportunity to conduct activities in forum state and could “reasonaBly anticipate Being haled into court there.” Lawsuit cannot Be a surprise. Distinguish foreseeability w/ purposeful availment. [Nicastro, Kennedy; if foreseeability sole criterion, then small farmer in FL who sells crops to large distributor could be subject to PJ in Alaska] a. Worldwide Volkswagen, must Be foreseeaBle that D could get sued in forum, not that product could get there [could foresee buyers taking cars to OK (product) but no PJ b/c had not purposefully availed of conducting activities in OK, solicit no business, sell no cars there] b.
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]
  • 2016 Class Action Year-End Review a Summary of Class Action Litigation in 2016
    2016 Class Action Year-End Review A Summary of Class Action Litigation in 2016 March 2017 bakerlaw.com 1 2016 CLASS ACTION YEAR-END REVIEW Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Developments in Class Action Procedure 3 A. Class Standing Issues 5 B. Offers of Judgment 8 C. Ascertainability 15 D. Class Settlements 17 III. Developments by Subject Matter 25 A. Employment and Waivers 27 B. Antitrust 34 C. Privacy 39 D. Consumer 54 2 2016 CLASS ACTION YEAR-END REVIEW I. Introduction 1 2016 CLASS ACTION YEAR-END REVIEW I. Introduction Written by Dustin M. Dow If you were paying attention to class actions in 2016, you already know the answers to the big questions. Generally speaking, unaccepted offers of judgment to named plaintiffs will not foreclose class claims (with some exceptions). And standing to assert class claims requires more than just a statutory violation – a plaintiff must establish some concrete, particularized injury that does more than recite a statute. Those edicts came down from the Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez and Spokeo v. Robins – the two most prominent class action decisions of 2016. Discussed in depth below, Campbell-Ewald and Spokeo wielded significant influence throughout the year and will continue to do so throughout 2017 and beyond. But if you found your way here to BakerHostetler’s 2016 edition of the Class Action Year-End Review, you didn’t need us to tell you about Campbell-Ewald and Spokeo. You may not, however, know about the exception to Campbell-Ewald or the different applications of Spokeo throughout the class action arena.
    [Show full text]
  • Order: (1) Approving Modified Class
    Case 3:16-cv-00370-GPC-LL Document 142 Filed 03/31/21 PageID.2353 Page 1 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICA RAEL and ALYSSA Case No.: 16-cv-370-GPC-LL HEDRICK, on behalf of themselves and 12 all others similarly situated, ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs, (1) APPROVING MODIFIED CLASS 14 v. ACTION SETTLEMENT, WITH 15 AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO THE CHILDREN’S PLACE, INC., a BE BIFURCATED; AND 16 Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 17 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Defendants. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 18 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 19 [ECF Nos. 73, 91] 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and 22 Incentive Award (“Motion for Attorney’s Fees”), and Motion for Final Approval of Class 23 Action Settlement. (ECF Nos. 73, 91.) In an Order issued on October 23, 2020 (“First 24 Final Settlement Order”), (ECF No. 105,) the Court deferred ruling on the two Motions, 25 and directed the parties to file Supplemental Briefs and corresponding Replies. (ECF 26 Nos. 132, 133, 135, 137, 138.) Having considered the entire case record, the Court 27 1 28 16-cv-370-GPC-LL Case 3:16-cv-00370-GPC-LL Document 142 Filed 03/31/21 PageID.2354 Page 2 of 39 1 APPROVES the modified class action settlement agreement and DENIES without 2 prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, with the attorney’s fees award to be 3 decided after the value of the class recovery is determined.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Procedural Third-Party Practice Minn
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1958 A Comparative Analysis of Procedural Third-Party Practice Minn. L. Rev. Editorial Board Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Editorial Board, Minn. L. Rev., "A Comparative Analysis of Procedural Third-Party Practice" (1958). Minnesota Law Review. 2751. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2751 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notes A Comparative Analysis of Procedural Third-Party Practice This Note compares the three basic types of third-party prac- tice found in American jurisdictions-first,the system requir- ing court permission before a third party can be impleaded; second, the system permitting impleader as a matter of right; and third, the hybrid system permitting impleader as of right before a set time, but requiring court permission in order to implead a third party after that time. The author concludes that the hybrid system best satisfies the standards of pro- cedural efficiency and fairness to all parties. TIRD-party practice, commonly referred to as "implead- er," is a procedural device by which the defendant in a lawsuit may assert a claim against a third person who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio
    No. 10-0275 In the Supreme Court of Ohio ________________________________ EDWARD B. WEST , on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant , vs. CARFAX , INC . AND POLK CARFAX , INC . Defendants-Appellants , CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, ET AL . Class Members-Objectors-Appellees . ________________________________ On Appeal from the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Trumbull County, Case No. 2008 T 0045 ________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPPOSING JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, ET AL. ________________________________ HUGH E. MCCAY (Bar. No. 0023017) DEEPAK GUPTA (pro hac vice ) Counsel of Record Counsel of Record TRACEY L. TURNBULL ALLISON M. ZIEVE ( pro hac vice ) PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1700 1600 20th Street NW Cleveland, OH 44115 Washington, DC 20009 Tel. (216) 443-9000 Tel. (202) 588-1000 Fax (216) 443-9011 Fax (202) 588-7795 [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] CHRISTOPHER M. MASON RONALD FREDERICK (Bar No. 0063609) NIXON PEABODY LLP RONALD FREDERICK & ASSOCIATES 437 Madison Avenue 55 Public Square, Suite 1300 New York, NY 10022 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel. (212) 940-3000 Tel. (216) 502-1055 Fax (866) 947-2229 Fax (216) 781-1749 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Appellants Carfax, Inc. Counsel for Objectors-Appellees and Polk Carfax, Inc. Center for Auto Safety, et al. CURTIS J. AMBROSY (Bar. No. 0022121) Counsel of Record JAMES J. FREDERICKA (0022130) AMBROSY AND FREDERICKA 144 N. Park Avenue, Suite 200 Warren, OH 44481 Tel. (330) 393-6400 Fax (330) 392-5685 [email protected] WILLIAM B. FEDERMAN FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 120 N.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Coupon Settlements: the Emperor's Clothes of Class
    COUPON SETTLEMENTS: THE EMPEROR’S CLOTHES OF CLASS ACTIONS Steven B. Hantler* Robert E. Norton Class actions can allow for the convenient and efficient grouping of plaintiffs sharing a common complaint to link up in a single lawsuit. Such suits have deep roots in English common law. When used correctly, class actions allow courts to resolve in one action many smaller, similar claims that might otherwise remain unheard because the cost of any particular suit would exceed the possible benefit to the claimant. Class actions also can allow defendants to focus their energies on resolving all claims in one lawsuit, and prevent courts from being flooded with duplicative claims. Over time, class action litigation has strayed from its usefulness as an efficient means of dispensing justice and has become, for the most part, the epitome of injustice. Class action litigation has become warped by the seduction of gargantuan contingency fees combined with a change in the court rules that allows people to be dragooned as plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit unless they affirmatively notify the plaintiffs’ attorneys they want out.1 Rule 23 was changed by jurists in 1966, reversing an “opt-in” provision to an “opt out” provision. As a result, countless thousands of plaintiffs have been conscripted into class actions, often unknowingly. So-called “coupon settlements” are the unhealthy offspring of this combination. Instead of cash awards, plaintiffs receive coupons or other promises for products or services, while their lawyers receive cash fees in many times the amount recovered by an individual plaintiff. As we have learned over the past decade, coupon settlements are subject to abuse and should be carefully scrutinized.
    [Show full text]
  • The Joinder of Claims to a Third-Party Impleader Without Independent Jurisdictional Ground - Herein Also of the Camel and His Pendent Fleas, 37 J
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 37 | Issue 3 Article 11 1971 The oindeJ r of CLaims to a Third-Party Impleader without Independent Jurisdictional Ground - Herein Also of the Camel and His Pendent Fleas Van P. Carter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Van P. Carter, The Joinder of CLaims to a Third-Party Impleader without Independent Jurisdictional Ground - Herein Also of the Camel and His Pendent Fleas, 37 J. Air L. & Com. 389 (1971) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol37/iss3/11 This Case Note 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. Note The Joinder of Claims to a Third-Party Impleader Without Independent Jurisdictional Ground- Herein Also of the Camel and His Pendent Fleas INTRODUCTION Since 1965,' the federal district courts, especially those in Pennsyl- vania,' have had difficulty reaching uniform decisions on third-party practice, the joinder of claims, and the distinctions between "ancillary" and "pendent" jurisdiction. This problem reached a climax in 1971 when the Third Circuit in Schwab v. Erie Lackawanna R. R.! held that a defendant who properly impleads third-party defendants under rule 14 of the federal rules of civil procedure may include a separate claim against the impleaded party even though the claim is without independent jurisdictional basis.' This note will outline the conflicting judgments of the federal district courts in Pennsylvania, examine Schwab in the light of established interpretations of the federal rules, and expose the inherent problems of the appellate court's decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining "Co-Party" Within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(G): Are Cross-Claims Between Original Defendants and Third-Party Defendants Allowable?
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 66 Issue 2 Article 5 Spring 1991 Defining "Co-Party" Within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g): Are Cross-Claims Between Original Defendants and Third-Party Defendants Allowable? John D. Bessler Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Bessler, John D. (1991) "Defining "Co-Party" Within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g): Are Cross-Claims Between Original Defendants and Third-Party Defendants Allowable?," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 66 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol66/iss2/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defining "Co-Party" Within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g): Are Cross-Claims Between Original Defendants and Third-Party Defendants Allowable? JoHN D. BESSLER* INTRODUCTION The courts cannot agree on whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow cross-claims between original defendants- and third-party defendants. Some courts allow cross-claims between such parties, ' while other courts restrict cross-claims to defendants on the same level of the caption. 2 Still other courts allow cross-claims between onginal defendants and third-party defendants only under certain circumstances. 3 At the heart of the controversy is the term "co-party," which the Federal Rules leave undefined.
    [Show full text]