- Pleadings in federal cts – regime of notice pleading but in testing out individual pleadings, ct no longer will just endorse broad conclusions they used to endorse.
- Plausibility – what’s pled & form in which its pled, plausibly states a coa in the context of that particular case
- Didn’t overturn some of the forms of FRCP – just encouraged to plead more facts to support claim than you would be required prior to Twombly & Ickball
- RJ – in some Js that if you have fed & state claim, you should bring those up in the ct that has the best chance of hearing both claims. If you don’t there is a chance you will be barred by RJ.
- Rule 22 & 1335:Interpleader – only reason for Rule 22 is when the parties cannot get SMJ in fed ct under 1335, minimal diversity b/w the claimants – one has to be from a dif state than another. If all claimants are from state but stakeholder is from other state, satisfy Rule 22. Complete diversity uses Rule 22
- Fuentes v Tucker – case where D admitted liability in his answer at the last minute right before trial and P sought to introduce evidence as to liability at trial. SC said error to admit evidence of liability at trial b/c no longer an issue b/c D admitted it in pleadings. Prejudicial error rule – not every error is reversible, must be prejudicial
- SMJ for class actions – depends on whether it comes under CAFA (1332(d)) – amount in controversy requirement, only need minimal diversity b/w the class action P and a D. For all other diversity class actions that are less than $5 million requirement, then you need complete diversity b/w the named Ps and named Ds. Exxon Mobile case – if diversity then get sup J in regards to the class actions
- Offensive & defensive nonmutual CE –
- Offensive – used by the P in a current action who could have been a P in the prior action
- Encourages non parties to sit on the sidelines and not get involved in prior action b/c not bound by the decision in the prior action as non-parties but yet if D loses in first, use CE against D in prior action
- Disfavored b/c encourages wait & see attitude
- Offensive – used by the P in a current action who could have been a P in the prior action
- Rule 17(b) – capacity to sue – juridical entity recognized for brining suit or having suit brought against you. Rule 17(b) is Erie problem to look to the law in which it is organized. Law of the state where it is incorporated. If can’t sue in own name then have to name all members
- 1367(b) – Intervention – DC shall not have sup J over claims by P by persons made parties under Rule 24 – so intervenor intervenes as a D, P has no sup J over that D or over claims – intervene as a P – cannot use sup J. Whether come in as a P or a D, no sup J for intervention.
- Permissive counterclaim – to satisfy 1367(a) – power to assert sup J – if sup claim and original claim arise from common nucleus of operative facts, ct has power to assert sup J but has evolved to be more liberal
- Class actions – Rule 23(b)(1) – true limited fund situation, Rule 23(b)(3)
- CA privity doctrine – is more broad than it is in fed ct (Taylor v Sturgill) – appropriate doctrine of privity to be used in fed ct – developed as fed common law; since only fed common law, only controls in fed ct, not in state litigation so CA can use broader notion of privity. Binding a non-party to a judgment
- Impleader – Rule 14
- Fed ct doesn’t have J over P of persons made parties by Rule 14
- CA primary rights doctrine – second claim must rest on a dif primary right, not dif primary situation (car crash ex – personal & property injury)
- Sawyer – dif harm suffered or dif factual structure
- Cross claim must satisfy Rule 13 – just b/c party bringing the claim is not the P, is the D, RJ can still apply
- Joinder – can bring any claim against D so doesn’t have to be related. Will they be aggregated to meet amount in controversy for fed ct ($7,500) – yes. A P can aggregate all claims even if coa are unrelated to each other to satisfy the J amount
- Expert witness (Rule 26)