1 / 7

Agenda for 34th Class

Agenda for 34th Class. Class Action Review Introduction to Res Judicata Supplemental J problems Assignment for next class– Res Judicata US Constitution Article IV (Supplement p. 1); 28 USC 1738 Yeazell pp. 715-27 Questions to think about / Writing Assignment (optional) Yeazell p. 727 Q1

kennan
Download Presentation

Agenda for 34th Class

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agenda for 34th Class • Class Action Review • Introduction to Res Judicata • Supplemental J problems • Assignment for next class– Res Judicata • US Constitution Article IV (Supplement p. 1); 28 USC 1738 • Yeazell pp. 715-27 • Questions to think about / Writing Assignment (optional) • Yeazell p. 727 Q1 • Optional: Glannon Ch

  2. Last Classes & Office Hours • This Friday (11/30) is last regular class • Classes canceled week before exams • 12/3, 12/5, 12/7 canceled • Review class • W 12/12 10-12. Rm. 7 • Counts as regular class • 2012 exam essay questions • Your questions • Office hours • Today. M 11/26 4-5 • M 12/3 4-5 • W 12/12 1-5PM • TA office hours • As usual, through 12/7.

  3. Class Actions I • Class actions must be certified by court • Four 23(a) requirements. Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, Adequacy • One of 23(b) requirements • 23(b)(2). Injunctions • 23(b)(3). Money damages / mass torts • Must show that common issues predominate • Must show that class action superior to individual suits

  4. Class Actions II • Recent trends are hostile to class actions • Walmart. • Strict about commonality • Discrimination issue is not common to class, because discrimination at each store was different • In spite of argument that store discrimination was facilitated by central policy of allowing wide discretion to store managers • Also strict that 23(b)(2) can’t be used for monetary claims for backpay • Must be brought under 23(b)(3), which is harder to get, because common claims must predominate… • Rhone-Poulenc (blood transfusion hypo) • No class action where • Each claim under different state law • Claims large enough to be brought individually

  5. Supplemental Jurisdiction • Note that • Need to serve process on each defendant separately following FRCP 4 • Each defendant must serve an answer • See problems on handout

  6. Res Judicata • Sometimes one adjudication bars later adjudication • If plaintiff tries to bring second suit, then defendant has valid affirmative defense • Policies • Save costs • Prevent inconsistent judgments • Encourage consolidated litigation of related claims • Also called “claim preclusion” • Easily applies when same plaintiff brings exactly same claim against same defendant for which previously had lost (or won) after trial and appeal • But res judicata is not so limited

  7. 4 Requirements for Res Judicata • Same claim • Federal court. Claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence • Even if claim in second suit not actually raised or litigated in first suit • Some state courts may apply narrower rules • E.g. claim in second suit arises out of “same evidence” • Judgment on the Merits • Trial, summary judgment, default judgment • 12(b)(6), but not equivalent dismissals in some states courts • NOT dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or venue • Final judgment • Judgment entered on all claims • In federal court, still final if appeal pending; not in some state courts • Same parties • Except judgment against former real property owner bars subsequent owner • Perhaps other exceptions when interests of parties are very closely aligned • But exception narrowed by Taylor v. Sturgell

More Related