Agenda for 25 rd Class Admin

Agenda for 25 rd Class • Admin – Name plates – TA-led review class • M 11/27. 10 -11: 50, Rm 101 – Review class. M 12/11. 10 AM Rm 101 – Slide Handouts • Today – Discussion of court visit – Long-Arm Statutes – Review Venue, forum non conveniens – 2012 exam – Introduction to res judicata and collateral estoppel 1

Assignment for Monday I • Res Judicata – US Constitution Article IV (Supplement p. 1) – 28 USC 1738 – Yeazell pp. 715 -27 – (WG 5) Briefly Summarize Frier • (WG 6) In what court could Frier have brought both his replevin and his due process claims? • (WG 7) Did the city raise res judicata as a defense in the district court? How? Why was that improper? How should the city have raised that defense? • (WG 1) Why was it proper for the Court of Appeals to consider the res judicata defense, given that the district court did not address it and the city did not cross appeal? • (WG 2) Yeazell p. 727 Q 1 2 – Optional: Glannon Chapters 26 & 27

Assignment for Monday II • Collateral Estoppel – Yeazell 744 -65 – Black. Board Questions on Collateral Estoppel Q 1 -5 – (WG 3) Briefly summarize Illinois Central • (WG 4) The suit in the first paragraph was actually heard in state court. If the suit in the first paragraph of the opinion had been brought in federal court, would the second suit be barred by res judicata? • (WG 5) If the suit in the first paragraph of the opinion had been brought in state court, but the main suit described in the case was brought in federal court, would the second suit be barred by res judicata. • (WG 6) Yeazell p. 749 Q 2 • Yeazell p. 751 Qs 3 (WG 7), 4 (WG 1) (Note you will want to do the Blackboard Questions first, because they give you the answers to Qs 1 & 2) • (WG 2) Briefly summarize Parklane • Yeazell pp. 759 ff Qs 1, 2 a&b (WG 3), 5 a&b (WG 4) 3 – Optional. Glannon Chapters 28 and 29

Court Visit 4

Long Arm Statutes I • West Dakota’s Long-Arm Statute says, “West Dakota Superior Courts shall have personal jurisdiction over disputes only if the defendant is a citizen of West Dakota. ” – International Shoe truck on way to Washington gets into accident in West Dakota. – No personal jurisdiction in West Dakota Superior court • Even though jurisdiction would be constitutional, it is not authorized by statute – No personal jurisdiction in federal court in West Dakota • b/c FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) says jurisdiction of federal court is the same the jurisdiction of West Dakota Superior Court • East Dakota Long-Arm Statute says, “East Dakota Superior Courts shall have personal jurisdiction over any dispute in which an East Dakota citizen is a party” – East Dakota citizen vacations in Washington state, gets into accident with International Shoe delivery truck in Washington – No personal jurisdiction in East Dakota Superior Court • Jurisdiction allowed by statute, but would be unconstitutional 5 – No personal jurisdiction in federal court in East Dakota, b/c of 4(k)(1)(A)

Long Arm Statutes II • South Virginia statutes says, “South Virginia superior courts shall have personal jurisdiction over any corporation doing business in South Virginia” – An International Shoe truck gets into an accident in South Virginia – Jurisdiction is proper in South Virginia superior court • b/c allowed by statute • Personal jurisdiction is constitutional – Jurisdiction is also proper in federal court in South Virginia • b/c of FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) • North Virginia statutes says, “North Virginia superior courts shall have personal jurisdiction whenever jurisdiction is not inconsistent with the US Constituion” – An International Shoe truck gets into an accident in South Virginia – Jurisdiction is proper in North Virginia superior court • b/c constitutional • b/c allowed by statute – Jurisdiction is also proper in federal court in North Virginia • b/c of FRCP 4(k)(1)(A) 6

Review Venue, Transfer, FNC • Venue – Main point is convenience (low litigation costs) – Statutory, not constitutional • 1391 is general federal venue statute • Other federal venue statutes • State venue statutes • Can transfer cases within judicial system – For convenience • Location of witnesses and evidence • If case would be more conveniently litigated in different legal system – Transfer not possible – Forum non conveniens dismissal – Change in law or procedure is not usually grounds to retain case where witnesses and evidence are elsewhere 7

2012 Exam 8

Assignment III – Suggested Chart for Q. 2 a on 2012 Exam District/ region N. D. E. D Location of Nothing S. D. E. D. Henri D’s factory Accident P’s home N. D. W. D Gharibaldi D’s HQ D’s engineering S. D. W. D Nothing Choice of Law Rule Substantive Law Rest. 2 nd Strict Place of engineering liability Rest. 2 nd, Strict Place of engineering liability Traditional Delay 18 months federal 3 years state Negligence 18 months federal 3 years state Traditional Negligence 18 months federal 3 years state Delaware D’s incorporation Rest. 2 nd, but unclear ? ? how applied 9

Assignment IV – Suggested Chart for Q. 2 a on 2012 Exam Court N. D. E. D (federal) S. D. E. D. (federal) Subject Matter Personal Jurisdiction Venue Choice of law Law applied Rule Delay Yes. Diversity [Fed Q? ] Yes. 391 b 1 or b 2, b/c factory in Henri Rest. 2 nd so place of engineering 18 months Yes. Specific, b/c Factory [General? ] Negligence, b/c Garibaldi, WD is place of engineering. Other Factors Overall Analysis Not good, b/c negligence Henri Superior Court, E. D. (state) Other court Other court (May need more rows) 10

Introduction to Former Adjudication • • • 2 concepts – Res judicata / claim preclusion – Collateral estoppel / issue preclusion Res judicata – Cannot litigate same claim several times • Finality – If two claims are closely related to each other (e. g. same transaction or occurrence) • Then must bring them together. Compulsory joinder • If litigate one claim and then try to litigate the other – Second claim will be barred by res judicata Collateral estoppel – If issue resolved in one case, cannot relitigate that issue in subsequent case – Suppose long-term contacts • Litigation I. breach in 1990. Court: contract is valid • Litigation II. Breach in 2000. cannot relitigate contact validity – Key issue is “non-mutual” collateral estoppel • Case I. A sues B for patent infringement. Court: patent invalid • Case II. A sues C for patent infringement. Can relitigate validity? – No estoppel if person against whom estoppel asserted was not a party in first case 11 • 2 nd court applies CE and RJ rules of court which decided first case