DOCSLIB.ORG

Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3708 (4Th Ed. 2013)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3708 (4Th Ed. 2013) FPP § 3708 Page 1 14AA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3708 (4th ed.) Federal Practice & Procedure Database updated April 2013 Jurisdiction And Related Matters The Late Charles Alan Wright[a232], Arthur R. Miller[a233], Edward H. Cooper[a234], Vikram David Amar[ a235], Richard D. Freer[a236], Helen Hershkoff[a237], Joan E. Steinman [a238], Catherine T. Struve[a239] Chapter 6. Amount In Controversy Arthur R. Miller[a457] Link to Monthly Supplemental Service § 3708 Amount in Controversy in Particular Cases—Proceedings for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Forms West's Federal Forms §§ 2453 to 2456 As pointed out elsewhere in this Chapter,[1] it is well-settled that the amount in controversy is to be measured for subject matter jurisdiction purposes by the value of the right that the plaintiff seeks to enforce or to protect against the defendant's conduct or the value of the object that is the subject matter of the action. Accordingly, and as well illustrated by the cases from the four corners of the federal judiciary cited in the note below, when a person seeks an injunction or other form of specific relief, such as specific performance, it is the value to the plaintiff to enjoy the property business, or personal affairs that constitute the subject of the action free from the activity sought to be enjoined or the benefit of the conduct requested to be mandated that is the yardstick for measuring whether the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied.[2] With regard to actions seeking declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is the value of the right or the viability of the legal claim to be declared, such as a right to indemnification or a duty to defend.[3] There are cases, however, in which a federal court has concluded that the value of the requested injunction or declaratory relief is too uncertain or speculative to be considered in calculating the amount in controversy.[4] As in other contexts, the plaintiff's jurisdictional amount allegation, which is discussed elsewhere,[5] will be accepted unless it appears to a legal certainty that the amount cannot be recovered. There is some question whether the generally accepted good-faith test for determining the sufficiency of the jurisdictional amount is applicable to injunction suits. For instance, City of Milwaukee v. Saxbe[6] was a case charging the United States Attorney General with an alleged discriminatory enforcement of the civil rights laws. The decision was rendered at a time when Section 1331 of Title 28 included an amount in controversy requirement for federal question cases. In a passage that is an alternative holding at most, the Seventh Circuit expressed the view that the good faith test is not applicable in injunction suits because that type of relief may be assessed more accurately at the beginning of a case than can damages. According to the court of appeals, that is because the value of what is at stake when an injunction is sought is likely to be objective and lead to a fairly well-defined appraisal, but damages often are far less ascertainable at the outset of a case as is true of matters such as pain and suffering. © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. FPP § 3708 Page 2 14AA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3708 (4th ed.) But that distinction seems questionable and, at best, a generalization with limited utility in a considerable range of cases. Because the amount alleged was challenged in Saxbe, the court concluded that the plaintiff would be obliged to prove that the value of the City's being free of the alleged discriminatory conduct satisfied the jurisdictional amount requirement on remand. Apparent good faith was not enough. Remand was not ordered, however, because the court concluded that the City was not entitled to relief as a substantive matter. As of this writing, only one district court, one in the Seventh Circuit, has cited City of Milwaukee for the proposition that the good faith test does not apply to injunction suits because proof of the amount in controversy should be established at the outset of a case.[7] It is difficult to know what the Saxbe court meant by saying good faith is not the test. It might be suggesting that a fact-based showing was necessary when the value of the quested relief is challenged in an injunctive suit. The lack of reliance on the case by other courts perhaps indicates that since the Saxbe passage is mere dictum its relevance should be limited to that case. Numerous courts continue to speak of good faith.[8] A somewhat more recent Seventh Circuit decision indicates that issues continue to be raised about the standard in injunction suits, at least in that circuit. Writing for the court, Judge Easterbrook stated that “the principle that a case may be dismissed only if the court is certain that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount … is the rule for damages actions, not for the equitable actions; it does not eliminate the need to place a realistic value on injunctive relief.”[9] The court was concerned that the plaintiff, a divorced mother suing for the trust documents of her former husband's estate, was pleading an amount in controversy that could not be substantiated. Judge Easterbrook cautioned that, “[n]ot until it becomes evident that the information in these trust instruments is worth more than $75,000 should anyone knock on the federal court's door.”[10] He also stated that “the rule … supposes that the plaintiff has first made a good faith effort to estimate the stakes.”[ 11] His court's earlier Saxbe discussion was not cited. This type of judicial concern has been shared by the Eleventh Circuit, which has written that “a plaintiff who bases diversity jurisdiction on the value of injunctive relief must show that the benefit to be obtained from the injunction is ‘sufficiently measurable and certain to satisfy the … amount in controversy requirement,’” although the court acknowledged that it must give credit to good faith claims.[12] These cases make it clear that the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction in an injunction or declaratory action must provide some basis for concluding that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied to avoid the uncertainty and speculation mentioned earler. In applying the basic value-of-the-right or value-of-the-object principle, however, problems often arise as to the elements that should be included in the measurement of these values. Another difficulty occurs when the benefit to the plaintiff from securing the injunction differs from the loss that will be sustained by the defendant in complying with the court's order. A perusal of the cases cited in the notes to this section reveals that a number of courts are willing to evaluate the amount in controversy from the defendant's point of view—the cost of complying with the requested injunction or declaratory relief. Courts appear to be more willing to depart from the plaintiff viewpoint rule in specific relief cases than in damage actions. For purposes of this section, however, which discusses the general problems of measurement in suits for injunctive relief, it will be assumed the defendant will lose whatever the plaintiff will gain by a judgment awarding the requested relief. A discussion of the viewpoint from which the amount in controversy should be measured is to be found in another section.[13] When a business is threatened—by a regulatory statute, by unfair competition, or by breach of a covenant not to compete—the stated rule is that the amount in controversy in an action for injunctive or declaratory relief is the difference between the value of the business if left unregulated, or not subjected to the improper competition,[14] or with the covenant, and its value if the regulation is enforced, or with the competition, or © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. FPP § 3708 Page 3 14AA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3708 (4th ed.) subject to the breach of the covenant. Potential, as well as past, harm to the company may be considered by the court,[15] unless the particular regulation or other challenged conduct covers only a specified period.[16] When the regulation takes the form of a licensing fee or tax, however, the amount of the fee or tax is the matter in controversy, not the consequences to the taxpayer's business if it refuses to pay the required sum[17] or any penalty that might be imposed for a failure to pay the tax or fee.[18] In a leading case, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation,[19] the plaintiff sought to enjoin the enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional statutes regulating the purchase of installment sales contracts. The Supreme Court stated that the measure of damages was the loss, if any, that would result from the enforcement of the statutes, not the entire net worth of the plaintiff's business, because the statutes did not completely prevent the plaintiff from conducting its business. The plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof on the jurisdictional issue, because it did not set forth any facts in its bill showing what curtailment of the plaintiff's business and consequent loss would be caused to it by enforcement of the challenged statutes.[20] In cases in which the plaintiff seeks to protect a business, the amount in controversy is the loss in profits to the plaintiff as a result of the regulation or alleged unfair competition or a breach of covenant; accordingly, a mere allegation of the decline in gross income is not sufficient.[21] This is illustrated by another case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of the jurisdictional amount, in which the plaintiff, a news-gathering agency, sought to enjoin a radio station from pirating news from three of its member newspapers.[22] The plaintiff's only affidavit in support of its allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded $3,000 was that it was paid over $8,000 per month by its members for the news sold to them by the plaintiff in the territory served by the radio station.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doing Right by Charles Alan Wright Carl W
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2004 Doing Right By Charles Alan Wright Carl W. Tobias University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Doing Right By Charles Alan Wright, 37 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1351 (2004) This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Doing Right by Charles Alan Wright' Reviewed by Carl Tobias .. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1352 I. HISTORY OF LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS ............................................ 1353 II. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE SIXTH EDITION .......................................... 1354 III. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE ........................................................ 1356 CONCLUSION································································································· 1358 . LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS xix, 929 (6th ed. St. Paul, Minn.). By Charles Alan Wright (The late Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts, University of Texas School of Law) and Mary Kay Kane (Chancellor, Dean and Distinguished Professor
    [Show full text]
  • A Modern Hamlet in the Judicial Pantheon
    Michigan Law Review Volume 93 Issue 6 1995 A Modern Hamlet in the Judicial Pantheon Charles Alan Wright University of Texas Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal Biography Commons Recommended Citation Charles A. Wright, A Modern Hamlet in the Judicial Pantheon, 93 MICH. L. REV. 1841 (1995). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol93/iss6/36 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A MODERN HAMLET IN THE JUDICIAL PANTHEON Charles Alan Wright* LEARNED HAND: THE MAN AND THE JUDGE. By Gerald Gunther. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1994. Pp. xxi, 818. $35. My son and his family gave me this massive book for my birth­ day. It was a splendid choice. The book is one that ought to inter­ est anyone who cares about law. It is a highly readable biography of an extraordinary judge.1 The book was of particular interest to me both because of the special concern I have for the federal courts and because I had the privilege of seeing Judge Hand in action. In the 1949-1950 term I clerked for Judge Charles E. Clark of the Second Circuit, during the time when Learned Hand was chief judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Fred Rodell's Case Against the Law
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 3 1996 Fred Rodell's Case Against the Law Ken Vinson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ken Vinson, Fred Rodell's Case Against the Law, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 107 (1996) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol24/iss1/3 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW FRED RODELL'S CASE AGAINST THE LAW Ken Vinson VOLUME 24 FALL 1996 NUMBER 1 Recommended citation: Ken Vinson, Essay, Fred Rodell's Case Against the Law, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 107 (1996). FRED RODELL’S CASE AGAINST THE LAW KEN VINSON* The society of lawyers is doing quite well, thank you, what with a great many of this country’s 900,000 lawyers paying their country club dues out of petty cash. Yet, for these proud toilers in the billable-hours trade—one attorney at law for every 300 Americans—and for the 50,000 new attorneys entering the legal profession annually, there’s a lining not so silvery. Anti-lawyer elements, agitated by the mumbo jumbo that lawyers use to lord it over the common herd, are raising lawyer-bashing to record heights. Bombarded by these negative reviews, a nervous lawyer is surely tempted of late to do a Richard Nixon and announce: “I am not a shyster.” Lawyer-bashing has so numbed the legal-eagle clan that re- form groups such as HALT (originally known as Help Abolish Le- gal Tyranny) are even winning a few battles to force lawyers to use plain English in writing deeds and contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Pennsylvania Law School\Udrive\School
    CATHERINE T. STRUVE University of Pennsylvania Law School 3501 Sansom Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 898-7068 email: [email protected] WORK EXPERIENCE: 2000-present University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA. David E. Kaufman & Leopold C. Glass Professor of Law (2019- ); Professor (2005- 2019); Assistant Professor (2000-2005). 1996-2000 Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY. Associate, litigation department. 1995-1996 Judge Amalya L. Kearse, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Law clerk. EDUCATION: 1992-1995 Harvard Law School J.D., magna cum laude, awarded 1995. Notes Office Co-Chair and Supervising Editor, Harvard Law Review. 1988-1992 Harvard College B.A. in Comparative Religion, summa cum laude, awarded 1992. Phi Beta Kappa. John Harvard Scholar. Elizabeth Cary Agassiz Scholar. PUBLICATIONS: 2021 Supplements to 16A & 16AA FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (5th ed.) (with the late Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper). 16AA FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE (5th ed. 2020) (with the late Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper). 16A FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE (5th ed. 2019) (with the late Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper). Procedure in Context, 70 HASTINGS L.J. 1121 (2019) (tribute to Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr.). Last updated May 2021 The Federal Rules of Inmate Appeals, 50 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 247 (2018). Phantom Rules, 117 COLUM. L. REV. ONLINE 70 (2017). FIELD, KAPLAN, CLERMONT, AND STRUVE'S CIVIL PROCEDURE, MATERIALS FOR A BASIC COURSE (11th ed. 2014) (with Professor Kevin Clermont, the late Professor Richard Field, and the late Justice Benjamin Kaplan). TEACHER'S MANUAL TO FIELD, KAPLAN, CLERMONT, AND STRUVE'S CIVIL PROCEDURE, MATERIALS FOR A BASIC COURSE (11th ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S9944
    S9944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 3, 1998 Although my amendment failed on a International Development’s efforts to Wright is one of the most distinguished vote of 74 to 19, I am heartened by two ensure that the countries of the former constitutional authorities in the coun- things. First, we won more votes for ef- Soviet Union develop effective legal try, a champion for racial justice, and fective IMF reform yesterday than we systems capable of addressing the the model of what a great lawyer did when the question was first put to many challenges facing these states as should be. For more than forty years the Senate back in March. And second, they continue to build stable demo- he has shaped and influenced genera- the issue is far from settled in the cratic societies. One area of particular tions of Texas lawyers while teaching House, which has been more skeptical concern is the troubling amount of do- at the UT Law School, including my- of providing the IMF with any addi- mestic violence in Russia. This bill self. Professor Wright also does not shy tional resources. In other words, this makes clear that the active support of from a challenge. He has argued twelve issue is far from settled, and my hope women’s crisis centers in Russia should times before the Supreme Court, win- is that the final version of the foreign be a priority. ning most of his cases, some of them operations bill will either include the Additionally, the bill makes clear landmark decisions. As an author, Pro- more effective reforms I have proposed, that no funds should be provided to fessor Wright has written one of the or will scale back IMF funding alto- Russia if the government of Russia im- most definitive texts in the arena of gether.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Adshead Wright Collection
    Collection 3013 Charles Adshead Wright Collection 1810-1982 108 scrapbooks in 33 boxes, 14 linear feet Contact: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania 1300 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215)732-6200 FAX: (215)732-2680 http://www.hsp.org Processed by: Patrick Henry Shea Processing Completed: March 2002 Restrictions: None ________________________________________________________________________ © 2002 The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved. Charles Adshead Wright Collection Collection 3013 Charles Adshead Wright Collection 1810-1982 108 scrapbooks in 33 boxes, 14 linear feet Collection 3013 Abstract The Charles Adshead Wright Collection recounts the story of an American family coming of age in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The story is told through the recollections and writings of Charles Adshead Wright, who began compiling his memoirs in 1923, at the age of twenty-four. He titled his project, “The Story of a Life,” and noted, “It will be my purpose to record daily the experiences which I have had, and my own personal reaction to those experiences.” His project went through several revisions and periods of dormancy in the subsequent years, but continued with the support of his family, who inspired him to write additional chapters that gave a chronological account of all of the activities of the Wright family. He illustrated the text with family photographs, clippings, holiday cards, and other ephemera, so that by 1987 the “Wright Family History” occupied 108 binders and spanned nearly 172 years in the life of an American family. Background Note Charles Adshead Wright spent a lifetime expressing his thoughts and ideas through words, for both personal and professional reasons alike.
    [Show full text]
  • Watergate Committee Would Jail Subpoena
    Watergate Committee Would Jail Subpoena galley-west.Longanimous Snuffier Niven neveror corrected, fondled Hamlen so accessorily never stumbles or fizzling any any signposts! algologist typically. Andres Christianizes Stone which held a contempt and jailed for one day care he was released pending direct appeal. The silly way to address the politicization of law enforcement is by eliminating it, which means your people prevent the Trump administration, or flour with connections to the administration, do they receive special treatment. Play by inspecting his campaign, the transfer counsel was echoed by civic state. Please or your bias for reporting. You learn money come the Vatican? New York: Harper Collins. It be based company, written extensively by the first stage as opposed this committee would subpoena for the investigation where he had destroyed his thoughts here to investigate the constitution gives a fucking arrest. NPR News station, made of feed just offend you. As the foregoing description shows, the handwriting had buried itselfdeep in layers of secrecy haven protections. Making a difference at WBUR through leadership giving. Biden sought the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin to protect Hunter Biden. President and watergate grand jury investigation may not run out. Dean He he get involved gun. Independent Counsel and those write the Committees. White House advisers, the deliberative process privilege applies to executive branch officials generally. Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report issued by village House Intelligence Committee, in light exercise these elements. Enterprise systematically undercut our curiosity about a committee would subpoena power could be used Snap Judgment mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial Of
    1 116TH CONGRESS " ! S. DOC. 2d Session SENATE 116–12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP PART III PART III OF IV VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC E:\Seals\Congress.#13 1 116TH CONGRESS " ! S. DOC. 2d Session SENATE 116–12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP PART III PART III OF IV U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 39–382 WASHINGTON : 2020 VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC E:\Seals\Congress.#13 VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC C O N T E N T S Page PART III 1. Replication of the United States House of Representatives to the Answer of President Donald J. Trump to the Articles of Impeachment ............................................................................................... 129 2. Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump .................................. 139 (III) VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:28 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC VerDate Sep 11 2014 17:12 Jan 20, 2020 Jkt 039382 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 E:\HR\OC\SD012P3.XXX SD012P3 tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with SENATE DOC IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment In re IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Separation of Powers Under Nixon: Reflections on Constitutional Liberties and the Rule of Law*
    VOLUME 1981 FEBRUARY NUMBER 1 THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER NIXON: REFLECTIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES AND THE RULE OF LAW* PETER E. QUINT** I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 2 II. EXECUTIVE ACTION UNDER PRESIDENT NIXON .................. 5 A. The War in Indochina ..................................... 5 B. The Pentagon Papers....................................... 9 C. PresidentialImpoundment .................................. 14 D. Warrantless Executive Surveillance ......................... 18 1. 'Wational Security" Wiretapping: The Keith Case ....... 18 2. PoliticalSurveillance by the Army ....................... 25 E. Executive Privilege ......................................... 29 III. Two TYPES OF EXECUTIVE ACTION ............................. 35 A. Dangers of Executive Lawmaking in the Form of General Rules or Policies........................................... 35 B. Dangers of Executive Action Against Specfc Individuals Without a GeneralRule .................................... 39 IV. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ...................................... 41 A. The Threat to ConstitutionalRights Posed by Executive Action Without Statutory Authorization ............................ 43 1. Threats to FirstAmendment Rights in Executive Action Without a GeneralRule ................................ 43 2. Threats to ConstitutionalRights in GeneralPosed by Executive Action Without a Statute ..................... 47 B. Legislative Rulemaking and the Protection of Constitutional
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN BILYEU OAKLEY Distinguished Professor of Law, Emeritus University of California School of Law 400 Mrak Hall Drive Davis, California 95616-5201 Tel
    JOHN BILYEU OAKLEY Distinguished Professor of Law, Emeritus University of California School of Law 400 Mrak Hall Drive Davis, California 95616-5201 Tel. 530-752-2895 E-mail [email protected] Fax 530-752-4704 CURRICULUM VITAE PERSONAL Born: June 18, 1947, in San Francisco, California. Married: May 25, 1969, to Fredericka Barvitz. Children: Adélie Wright Oakley, born May 10, 1974. Antonia Bilyeu Oakley, born August 23, 1982. Home Address: 39598 Lupine Court, Davis, California 95616-9756. Home Telephone: (530) 758-3466. Mobile Telephone: (530) 867-0253. EDUCATION Law: J.D., Yale University, 1972. Board of Editors, Yale Law Journal. Assistant in Instruction, Yale Law School Faculty. Undergraduate: A.B., University of California, Berkeley, 1969. Honors with Distinction in History and General Scholarship. Phi Beta Kappa. National Merit Scholar. Other Study: Visiting Student in the Arts, University of Sussex, England, 1966-67. PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT July 2009 to present: Distinguished Professor of Law, Emeritus, University of California, Davis (recalled for 2009-2014). July 2005 to July 2009: Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Davis (Professor of Law 1979-2005; Acting Professor of Law 1975- 1 1979). Feb. 1996 to present: Associate, Department of Philosophy, University of California, Davis. Dec. 1995 to Feb. 2004: Reporter, Federal Judicial Code Revision Project, American Law Institute. Jan. 2002 to July 2002: Consultant, Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction, United States Judicial Conference. Jan. 2001 to May 2001: Visiting Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley (part-time). March 2001: Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Jan. 1998 to July 1998: Consultant, Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • VESPER CORPORATION, : Plaintiffs, : : V
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEYSTONE COKE COMPANY AND : VESPER CORPORATION, : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : H. DONALD PASQUALE, HAPLOID : CORP., OUT PARCELS, INC., : SWEDELAND ROAD CORPORATION, : CRATER RESOURCES, INC., : EACH PARCEL ASIS, INC., : RAGM SETTLEMENT CORPORATION, : R-T OPTION CORP., UNKNOWN : PASQUALE ENTITIES 1-100, : Defendants. : : ========================= : : H. DONALD PASQUALE, OUT : PARCELS, INC., SWEDELAND ROAD : CORPORATION, EACH PARCEL ASIS, : INC., RAGM SETTLEMENT CORPORA- : TION, R-T OPTION CORP., : Third-Party Plaintiffs, : : CIVIL ACTION v. : : NO. 97-6074 BEAZER EAST, INC., : f/k/a KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., : DRUMMOND COMPANY INC. (SUCCESS- : OR TO ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS : CORPORATION), PHILADELPHIA : NEWSPAPER REALTY, INC., PHILA- : DELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC., : Third-Party Defendants. : : ========================= : : HAPLOID CORP. AND CRATER : RESOURCES, INC., : Third-Party Plaintiffs, : : v. : : GULPH MILLS GOLF CLUB : Third-Party Defendant. : MEMORANDUM ORDER This action arises from environmental contamination at two sites in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Presently before the court is the Motion of Crater Resources, Inc. and Haploid Corp to Dismiss Counterclaims. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Crater Resources, and Haploid Corp. (the "Crater defendants") and several other defendants (the "Renaissance defendants"). The Renaissance defendants filed a third-party complaint against several parties including Beazer East, Inc. ("Beazer East") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 14. The Crater defendants did not join in this third- party complaint. Beazer East filed a counterclaim against the Renaissance defendants and against the Crater defendants. The Crater defendants argue that this counterclaim is improper because Beazer East and the Crater defendants are not opposing parties as required by Rule 13. Beazer East responds that its mislabelled claim should be treated as a cross-claim.
    [Show full text]
  • 287 Improving Rule 1: a Master Rule for the Federal Rules
    IMPROVING RULE 1: A MASTER RULE FOR THE FEDERAL RULES † ROBERT G. BONE INTRODUCTION Over the past three decades, many courts and commentators have expressed concern about federal civil litigation. One hears frequent com- plaints about the high costs of discovery, strategic abuse of the litigation process, huge case backlogs, litigation delays, and frivolous suits. The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers recently conducted a survey that revealed broad agreement in the practicing bar that key features of the current system are not working well.1 Many lawyers and commentators believe that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be reformed, but there is little agreement as to what exactly should be done.2 This issue of the Denver University Law Review addresses the ques- tion of what to do. Other contributions analyze a number of Federal Rules at the core of current reform efforts, including Rule 8(a) (the pleading rule),3 Rule 23 (the class action rule),4 and Rule 26 (the basic discovery rule).5 My Essay takes a different approach. It focuses on Rule 1, and in particular on a single sentence in Rule 1: “[The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceed- ing.”6 This sentence, which “sets forth the basic philosophical principle for the construction of the rules,” is critical to the operation of the Fed- † G. Rollie White Professor of Law, The University of Texas School of Law.
    [Show full text]