Erie Step Zero
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Erie and Preemption: Killing One Bird with Two Stones
Erie and Preemption: Killing One Bird with Two Stones JEFFREY L. RENSBERGER* The Supreme Court has developed a standard account of the Erie doctrine. The Court has directed different analyses of Erie cases depending upon whether the federal law in question is in the form of a federal rule (or statute) or is instead a judge-made law. But the cases applying the doctrine are difficult to explain using the standard account. Although the Court and commentators have noted that Erie is a type of preemption, they provide little, if any, rigorous analysis of Erie in light of preemption doctrines. This Article attempts to fill that void, offering an extended analysis of Erie as a preemption doctrine. The analysis demonstrates how and why Erie constitutes a species of preemption. It then shows the appropriateness of preemption analysis to Erie problems whether one is dealing with a federal rule of civil procedure or with federal common law. Because preemption underlies both wings of the Erie doctrine, the standard account’s bifurcated approach is wrong. Moreover, employing doctrines developed in other preemption contexts explains the results of the Supreme Court’s Erie cases better than the Court’s own standard account. By making explicit the linkage between Erie and preemption, one can clarify the analysis and better predict and explain the results of the Supreme Court’s cases. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1591 I. SOME BASICS OF ERIE ....................................................................................... 1594 A. THE STANDARD ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 1594 B. RECURRENT PROBLEMS UNDER THE STANDARD ACCOUNT ................... 1600 II. SOME BASICS OF PREEMPTION ........................................................................ 1607 A. THE PREEMPTION TAXONOMY: THE CATEGORIES OF PREEMPTION ...... -
Jbl Vs Rey Mysterio Judgment Day
Jbl Vs Rey Mysterio Judgment Day comfortinglycryogenic,Accident-prone Jefry and Grahamhebetating Indianise simulcast her pumping adaptations. rankly and andflews sixth, holoplankton. she twink Joelher smokesis well-formed: baaing shefinically. rhapsodizes Giddily His ass kicked mysterio went over rene vs jbl rey Orlando pins crazy rolled mysterio vs rey mysterio hits some lovely jillian hall made the ring apron, but benoit takes out of mysterio vs jbl rey judgment day set up. Bobby Lashley takes on Mr. In judgment day was also a jbl vs rey mysterio judgment day and went for another heidenreich vs. Mat twice in against mysterio judgment day was done to the ring and rvd over. Backstage, plus weekly new releases. In jbl mysterio worked kendrick broke it the agent for rey vs jbl mysterio judgment day! Roberto duran in rey vs jbl mysterio judgment day with mysterio? Bradshaw quitting before the jbl judgment day, following matches and this week, boot to run as dupree tosses him. Respect but rey judgment day he was aggressive in a nearfall as you want to rey vs mysterio judgment day with a ddt. Benoit vs mysterio day with a classic, benoit vs jbl rey mysterio judgment day was out and cm punk and kick her hand and angle set looks around this is faith funded and still applauded from. Superstars wear at Judgement Day! Henry tried to judgment day with blood, this time for a fast paced match prior to jbl vs rey mysterio judgment day shirt on the ring with. You can now begin enjoying the free features and content. -
In the United States District Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
Case 3:16-cv-01694-M-BN Document 22 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 24 PageID <pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PAUL SHUNATONA, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § No. 3:16-cv-1694-M-BN § WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL § ASSOCIATION, § § Defendant. § FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. Plaintiff Paul Shunatona (“Shunatona” or “Plaintiff”) has filed a combined Motions for Leave to Amend, Dismiss Claim, Enter Stipulation, Abate and Vacate Orders, and Remand to State Court. See Dkt. No. 15. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”), filed a response, see Dkt. No. 20, and Shunatona filed a reply, see Dkt. No. 21. The undersigned issues the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that the Court grant the Motions for Leave to Amend, Dismiss Claim, and Enter Stipulation and deny the Motions to Abate and Vacate Orders and Remand to State Court. -1- Case 3:16-cv-01694-M-BN Document 22 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 24 PageID <pageID> Background Shunatona filed this case against Wells Fargo in Dallas County state court on May 16, 2016. See Dkt. No. 1-5. Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Request for Disclosure alleges two counts against Wells Fargo and seeks to set aside the foreclosure of – and quiet title in Shunatona’s name to – real property located at 11215 Sesame Street, Dallas, Texas 75288 (the “Property”) as well as to affirm Shunatona’s ownership of certain funds currently held by the Texas Comptroller and award damages to Shunatona. -
Exception, Objectivism and the Comics of Steve Ditko
Law Text Culture Volume 16 Justice Framed: Law in Comics and Graphic Novels Article 10 2012 Spider-Man, the question and the meta-zone: exception, objectivism and the comics of Steve Ditko Jason Bainbridge Swinburne University of Technology Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc Recommended Citation Bainbridge, Jason, Spider-Man, the question and the meta-zone: exception, objectivism and the comics of Steve Ditko, Law Text Culture, 16, 2012, 217-242. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol16/iss1/10 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Spider-Man, the question and the meta-zone: exception, objectivism and the comics of Steve Ditko Abstract The idea of the superhero as justice figure has been well rehearsed in the literature around the intersections between superheroes and the law. This relationship has also informed superhero comics themselves – going all the way back to Superman’s debut in Action Comics 1 (June 1938). As DC President Paul Levitz says of the development of the superhero: ‘There was an enormous desire to see social justice, a rectifying of corruption. Superman was a fulfillment of a pent-up passion for the heroic solution’ (quoted in Poniewozik 2002: 57). This journal article is available in Law Text Culture: https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol16/iss1/10 Spider-Man, The Question and the Meta-Zone: Exception, Objectivism and the Comics of Steve Ditko Jason Bainbridge Bainbridge Introduction1 The idea of the superhero as justice figure has been well rehearsed in the literature around the intersections between superheroes and the law. -
Copyrighted Material
Contents Contributors: The Philosophers Supreme viii Acknowledgments: By the Glorious Grandiloquence of Gratitude! xiv Introduction: Opening the Book of the Vishanti 1 Part I “You’re Just Another Tiny, Momentary Speck within an Indifferent Universe” 3 1 Bargaining with Eternity and Numbering One’s Days: Medicine, Nietzsche, and Doctor Strange 5 George A. Dunn 2 Death Gives Meaning to Life: Martin Heidegger Meets Stephen Strange 17 Sander H. Lee 3 “Time Will Tell How Much I Love You”: A Nietzschean Übermensch’s Issues with Love and Friendship 25 Skye C. Cleary 4 Existentialism,COPYRIGHTED Nihilism, and the Meaning MATERIAL of Life for Doctor Strange 35 Paul DiGeorgio Part II “Forget Everything That You Think You Know” 47 5 “Through an Orb Darkly”: Doctor Strange and the Journey to Knowledge 49 Armond Boudreaux v 0003394978.INDD 5 03/08/2018 3:56:31 PM vi CONTENTS 6 Forbidden Knowledge and Strange Virtues: It’s Not What You Know, It’s How You Know It 60 Tuomas W. Manninen 7 Doctor Strange, Socratic Hero? 68 Chad William Timm 8 Are We All “Looking at the World Through a Keyhole”?: Knowledge, Ignorance, and Bias 78 Carina Pape 9 Stephen Strange vs. Ayn Rand: A Doesn’t Always Equal A 88 Edwardo Pérez Part III “Reality Is One of Many” 99 10 Astral Bodies and Cartesian Souls: Mind‐Body Dualism in Doctor Strange 101 Dean A. Kowalski 11 Scientists, Metaphysicians, and Sorcerers Supreme 111 Sarah K. Donovan and Nicholas Richardson 12 “This Is Time”: Setting Time in Doctor Strange by Henri Bergson’s Clock 125 Corey Latta Part IV “A Man Looking at the World Through a Keyhole” 137 13 A Strange Case of a Paradigm Shift 139 Brendan Shea 14 Doctor Strange, the Multiverse, and the Measurement Problem 151 Philipp Berghofer 15 The Strange World of Paradox: Science and Belief in Kamar‐Taj 164 Matthew William Brake Part V “It’s Not About You” 175 16 The Otherworldly Burden of Being the Sorcerer Supreme 177 Mark D. -
Order Blocking Removal from Federal Court Back to State Court
Case 2:13-cv-05410-NJB-DEK Document 363 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 83 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CIVIL ACTION SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY – EAST VERSUS CASE NO. 13-5410 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC et al SECTION: “G” (3) ORDER AND REASONS In this litigation, Plaintiff Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority—East (“Plaintiff”) seeks damages and injunctive relief against ninety-two oil and gas companies whose actions have allegedly caused erosion of coastal lands, leaving south Louisiana increasingly exposed to tropical storms and hurricanes. Plaintiff originally filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, but Defendants removed the matter to this federal Court. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Remand.”1 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support, the memoranda in opposition, the statements at oral argument, Plaintiff’s petition, the notice of removal, and the applicable law, the Court will deny the motion. Because the Court’s specific basis for jurisdiction has the potential to reverberate throughout a number of other considerations in this litigation—particularly, Plaintiff’s entitlement, if any, to a jury trial, and choice of law questions—the Court has examined all five bases of jurisdiction raised in Defendants’ Notice of Removal. 1 Rec. Doc. 70. Case 2:13-cv-05410-NJB-DEK Document 363 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 83 I. Background A. Factual Background Plaintiff in -
Booster Gold: Past Imperfect Pdf, Epub, Ebook
BOOSTER GOLD: PAST IMPERFECT PDF, EPUB, EBOOK J. M. DeMatteis,Keith Giffen | 168 pages | 19 Apr 2011 | DC Comics | 9781401230241 | English | New York, NY, United States Booster Gold: Past Imperfect PDF Book Alexandra and Booster Gold split up, but she uses her secret powers to take others' powers and follows him. When they set off a trap, resulting in bugs attacking them, Jaime went into costume, but when he touches a scarab it takes control of him. Swarthout Apr. Writers : J. Afterwards, Rip reminds him that he needs to remove Joker 's photos of him trying to save Barbara Gordon from the Batcave. This is clearly an allusion to Maxim , a popular men's magazine commonly criticized for objectifying women as sex objects. Apparently heroes need their morning coffee like regular working stiffs. Superman Jun. What's blue and gold and bloody all over? An uncontrolled Doomsday attacks Booster. Jaime refuses to believe this and escapes. Buy As Gift. DC Comics. Vicious Cycle' part 1! Page 18, panel Canary withdrew from active duty by issue Rows: Columns:. Page 20, panel 2 When Skeets sees a media center filled with video tapes, the first thing that he thinks of if pornography? Main article: Blue Beetle Jaime Reyes. Booster Gold Cover to Booster Gold vol. Ask a question Ask a question If you would like to share feedback with us about pricing, delivery or other customer service issues, please contact customer service directly. Alexandra destroys Adam's control link in an attempt to rescue Booster. Booster returns to Vanishing Point as history resets itself, without any clear memory of his time in the "Flashpoint" universe. -
Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity-Only Class Actions After Exxon Mobil Corp
COVER STORIES © 2005 American Bar Association. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Antitrust magazine, Fall 2005, a publication of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law. Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity-Only Class Actions After Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. BY CHRISTIAN G. VERGONIS AND EDWIN L. FOUNTAIN OUR MONTHS AFTER THE to which CAFA is directed, the decision still has significant enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act of implications for whether class actions not covered by CAFA 2005 (CAFA) wrought a sea change in the juris- may be brought in, or removed to, federal court. dictional rules governing diversity-only class F actions, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an impor- The Jurisdictional Backdrop tant decision further modifying the scope of federal court To appreciate the changes that CAFA and Exxon Mobil have jurisdiction in diversity cases. Resolving a 15-year-old con- made to the landscape of diversity jurisdiction, it is helpful troversy that had sharply divided the lower courts, the Court to understand the legal setting in which these two develop- held in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.,1 that the ments arose. This backdrop included two well-settled rules supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, abro- concerning jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, gated the long-standing rule of Zahn v. International Paper both of which were based on interpretations of the diversity- Co.2 that, in a diversity-only class action—such as an indirect jurisdiction statute and, therefore, susceptible to revision by purchaser class action brought under state antitrust laws— Congress. -
United States District Court Eastern District of New York U.S
Case 2:14-cv-07520-SJF-ARL Document 25 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID> FILED CLERK 12/10/2015 2:21 pm UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. DISTRICT COURT ----------------------------------------------------------X EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LONG ISLAND OFFICE Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 14-CV-7520 (SJF)(ARL) SHATURA SIMONEE, STERLING SIMONEE, THE ESTATE OF SAUNDRA SIMONEE, and OYSTER BAY FUNERAL HOME, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------X FEUERSTEIN, J. Plaintiff, Hartford Life Insurance Company (“Hartford” or “Plaintiff”), has moved to interplead three (3) potential beneficiaries with competing rights to the proceeds of a life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy and for attorneys’ fees. The motions are denied with leave to refile. I. BACKGROUND At the time of her death on September 27, 2013, Saundra Simonee (“Decedent”), a resident of New York, held a valid life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy (the “Policy”) underwritten by Hartford and valued at $43,750.00 (the “Policy Benefits”). [DE 1 at ¶ 4; DE 22-1 at 1-3]. Hartford does not dispute its obligation to pay the Policy Benefits. [DE 22-1 at 1]. Decedent’s daughter, Shatura Simonee (“Shatura”), is the sole named beneficiary on the Policy; Decedent’s son, Sterling Simonee (“Sterling”), is not named. Id. Decedent was unmarried at the time of her death. Id. at 3. Case 2:14-cv-07520-SJF-ARL Document 25 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID> On October 16, 2013, Shatura asserted a claim to the Policy Benefits. -
Case 3:07-Cv-01415-BH Document 25 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 14 Pageid 135
Case 3:07-cv-01415-BH Document 25 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 14 PageID 135 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION § LEON BATIE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-1415-M § SUBWAY REAL ESTATE § CORPORATION and TRAVIS BROWN, § § Defendants. § § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Motion to Dismiss under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and Motion to Abate and to Compel Arbitration, filed by Subway Real Estate Corporation (“Subway”), are before the Court. Subway’s Motions require the Court to determine four issues: (1) whether federal jurisdiction was properly invoked; (2) whether Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his state court remedies warrants dismissal of his declaratory judgment claims; (3) whether Plaintiff asserts a cognizable claim against Subway under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), 50 U.S.C. § 501, et seq., which guarantees certain protections for servicemen deployed abroad during eviction proceedings; and (4) whether Plaintiff’s wrongful conversion claim should be dismissed under 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED under Rule 12(b)(6), but denied under Rule 12(b)(1). Defendant’s Motion to Abate is DENIED as moot. After concluding that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment, SCRA, and wrongful conversion claims against Subway. Claims remain against Defendant Travis Brown. 1 of 14 Case 3:07-cv-01415-BH Document 25 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 14 PageID 136 BACKGROUND This case arises from a U.S. -
07/20/2020 Motion to Dismiss On
Case 4:20-cv-00607-O Document 8 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID 104 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION HIBBETT SPORTING GOODS, INC. § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-00607-O § WEATHERFORD DUNHILL LLC § C/O DUNHILL PROPERTY § MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. § § Defendant. § DEFENDANT WEATHERFORD DUNHILL LLC C/O DUNHILL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Incorrectly identified Defendant, Weatherford Dunhill LLC c/o Dunhill Property Management Services, Inc. (“Dunhill”),1 respectfully moves the court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Complaint”) against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and its discretionary powers under the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (“the Act”), and in support thereof, respectfully shows the court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION The Court should dismiss this action for declaratory relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and its discretionary powers under the Act because plaintiff Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc.’s (“Hibbett”) pre-emptive, anticipatory claim for declaratory relief amounts to an impermissible race to the courthouse in anticipation of litigation, and its claim that this court has diversity jurisdiction fails because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.00. Hibbett was 1 The correctly named party should be Weatherford Dunhill, LLC. There is no entity named “Weatherford Dunhill, LLC c/o Dunhill Property Management Services, Inc.” DEFENDANT WEATHERFORD DUNHILL LLC C/O DUNHILL PROPERTY PAGE 1 OF 8 MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS Case 4:20-cv-00607-O Document 8 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID 105 well aware of an impending action to terminate its lease agreement with Dunhill and retake possession of the leased premises due to its own default under the plain language of the lease. -
1- in the United States District Court for the District Of
Case 2:08-cv-02126-GLR Document 192 Filed 09/17/09 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS PAMELA OLSON ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 08-2126-CM ) AT&T, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Pamela Olson (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pro se against defendant AT&T (“defendant”), alleging a state-law trespass claim against defendant. This matter is currently pending before the court on defendant AT&T Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss Trespass Claim for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 171), which seeks to dismiss the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise jurisdiction when specifically authorized to do so. Castaneda v. I.N.S., 23 F.3d 1576, 1580 (10th Cir. 1994). A court lacking jurisdiction must dismiss the case at any stage of the proceeding in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking. Scheideman v. Shawnee County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 895 F. Supp. 279, 281 (D. Kan. 1995) (citing Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)). “Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, there is a presumption against federal jurisdiction.” Id. As the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction is proper. Basso, 495 F.2d at 909. -1- Case 2:08-cv-02126-GLR Document 192 Filed 09/17/09 Page 2 of 3 Defendant argues that the court does not have original jurisdiction––federal question or diversity jurisdiction––or supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s trespass claim.