Supplemental Jurisdiction and Collateral Estoppel: An In-depth Analysis, Slides of Civil procedure

Download Supplemental Jurisdiction and Collateral Estoppel: An In-depth Analysis and more Slides Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

Agenda for 35th Class

• Review
  • Supp J
  • Res Judicata
• Collateral Estoppel

Docsity.com

Supplemental Jurisdiction I

• Excellent discussion in last class
• My Test for Supplemental Jurisdiction is consistent with the approach taken by the Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil v Allapattah , 545 US 546 (2005) - Exxon Mobil dealt with case very similar to # - 13. A California plaintiff sues a Massachusetts defendant. The California plaintiff then amends the complaint to join another California plaintiff. The second plaintiff is requesting only $10,000 in relief. - Step 4. Is the claim brought by the plaintiff in the original claim? - If no, stop. There is supplemental jurisdiction under 1367(b) - If yes, go on to step 5 - “original claim” is claim over which there is subject matter jurisdiction without 1367, e.g. CA v MA. - “the claim” is MA v MA - Since “the claim” is not brought by the plaintiffs in the original claim, my test says there is Supplemental Jurisdiction - So no need to amend my Test to deal with #13 and Supreme CourtDocsity.com

Supplemental Jurisdiction III

• 4 approaches (cont.)
  • 3. Intentionalism II. Statute is ambiguous
    • Step 4 could be: Is the claim brought by the plaintiff in the original claim or by a plaintiff joined by the original plaintiff. Yes, so got to Step 5.
    • Step 5 could be: Was the defendant first made party to the claim by FRCP 14 or 20. Yes, so no J
    • Choose this interpretation, because it better accords with intent of Congress
    • Problem. Inconsistent with Exxon Mobil
      • which read statute in accordance with unamended Steps 4 and 5 for purpose of case like #
  • 4. Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil
    • “the presence of a single nondiverse party may eliminate the fear of bias with respect to all claims [and thus] the special nature and purpose of the diversity requirement mean that a single nondiverse party can contaminate every other claim in the lawsuit.”
    • Note. Case was about fact pattern like #13. Discussion of #12 was dicta Docsity.com

Collateral Estoppel

• Bars religitation of issue
  • Contrast to res judicata, which bars relitigation of claims
• Often called “issue preclusion”
• Policies similar to res judiciata
  • Save time and money
  • Prevent inconsistent outcomes

Docsity.com

Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel I

• Traditionally, collateral estoppel applied only when parties were the same in first and second suit (like res judicata)
• Some court allow person not a party to the first suit to assert collateral estoppel, as long as person against whom c.e. asserted was in the first suit (and 4 other requirements satisfied) - Called nonmutual collateral estoppel
• 2 kinds of nonmutual colleral estoppel
  • Defensive
  • Offensive
• Defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel
  • Plaintiff sues defendant1 for patent infringement
  • Court decides that patent is invalid
  • Plaintiff sues defendant2 for patent infringement
  • Defendant2 can assert collateral estoppel against plaintiff
    • Because plaintiff already litigated and lost on issue of patent validity
  • Now accepted in nearly all jurisdictions
  • “defensive” means asserted by defendant Docsity.com

Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel II

• Offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel
  • Plaintiff1 sues defendant for defective dam
  • Court decides that defendant’s dam was defective
  • Plaintiff2 sues defendant for defective dam
  • Defendant may be estopped from arguing that dam not defective
  • Very controversial
    • If defendant loses one case (1 st^ or 2nd^ or 99th^ case), would mean that defendant loses all subsequent related cases - But if one plaintiff loses case, then later plaintiffs not bound by c.e
    • Discourages joinder
    • Defendant may not have had incentive to litigate hard in first case
  • Federal courts have discretion to apply c.e. offensively. Factors:
    • Has there been inconsistent litigation outcomes?
    • Did plaintiff strategically wait (not join) so as to take advantage of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel
    • Did defendant have sufficient incentive to litigate issue aggressively in first case
  • “Offensive” means by plaintiff Docsity.com