Fed courts not bound to use state common law - it ruled that common law is not part of the "laws of several states" as mentioned in the Rules Decision Act (was overturned in Erie).  Fed should develop its own set of federal common law.

Resulted in forum shopping, unfair administration of justice.  

Guy walking by railroad tracks get hit by an open door on a passing train.  PA law said contributory negligence results in no compensation - Erie railroad said we be represented in PA so Thompinks could not get $.  

Overruled the Swift decision, Fed court can use state common law -there is also federal general common law - Erie says that must apply substantive state common law and federal procedural law - substantive law relates to the way the case will be ruled - what is trespass, etc.  does not deal with which state law to use.  fair forum for out of state participants.  

Some procedural rules that should be followed in Fed courts.  In addition, there is no certainly or probability that if we apply the fed rule, that the outcome would be different- 

The outcomes determinative only test is rejected and replaced by a balancing test to determine if fed or state rules apply (balanced by likelihood of different outcome against state or fed interest in applying specific law in this circumstance).  

Car crash, plaintiff served def properly under FCRP but not under a specific requirement in Mass procedural law.   

If a plaintiff serves a defendant properly under the federal rules, the plaintiff can proceed with a state-law claim that requires a different method of service for establishing liability. 

Refines and clarifies that erie is to apply substantive law and FCRP governs procedural process in fed case.  

Photographer loans photos to Center for Humanities, they get lost; Fed court awarded $450K in damages but state procedure/substantive law ruled award was excessive. 

Crt ruled that award should be under FCRP rules and not state rules because there is a large difference between state award and fed award – could encourage forum shopping.    A federal trial court may apply state-law standards for reviewing a jury verdict - focus on discouraging forum shopping.  

awards also  subject to review for abuse of discretion by a federal appellate court.  

In a class action employment discrimination case, individual plaintiffs’ claims may be joined in a single action, even if individual class members have suffered different effects from the alleged discrimination. 

Courts considered same STOO as all blacks were discriminated against and they fall under the same question of law or facts – the fact that different people suffered different effects was immaterial.  

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a), a defendant in a lawsuit may assert a claim against any nonparty who may be liable for some or all of the plaintiff’s claim.

FDIC or Roffman was the added third party

Necessary party must be joined but if they do not have SMJ/PJ it does not result in dismissal of suit.  An indispensable party is one that when cannot be joined will result in dismissal.   

Four factors to consider if party is necessary or indispensable: 1) will judgement be prejudicial to another party if the necessary/indispensable party is not there, 2) can court limit the prejudice through protective provisions, 

Prejudice and can reduce prejudice without necessary party. 

A third party has a right to intervene as a third party when:

1) they have interest in the subject matter of the litigation, 2) adjudication of the matter would impede their interest related to the SM ruling.  (if the result of the suit means they cannot mine uranium), 3) the interest is not represented adequately by the existing parties.  

Definition of rule 24 for Intervention - permissive intervention is allowed when 3rd party has a claim or defense that shares the main action or common question of law or fact.  

Beacon notified Fox theaters of antitrust concerns re first run showing contracts.  Before Beacon could file suit, Fox files injunction to prevent Beacons suit, beacon counterclaims Fox for antitrust and demanded jury trial.  Judge said beacons cclaim was equitable issues and ordered to be before district (not jury) court.  

When there are legal and ethical issues are present, legal issues must be resolved by jury trial first - required by Declaratory Judgement Act and FRCP and 7th amend right to jury trial.  

A traditionally legal issue such as a claim for money damages cannot be deemed an equitable issue simply because of the wording used in the pleading.

Wood had DQ licence, DQ was to pay wood $150K for exclusive rights to DQ in PA.  DQ did not pay, Wood tries to sues for equitable relief and right to use trademark but  complaint is really related to moneys owed.  

Courts will try to determine suits on money first, not equitable relief in injunctions, etc. 

The Seventh Amendment entitles either party to demand a jury trial in an action for damages under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968

Curtis was AA woman for not being allowed to rent apartment from Loether, sues under civil rights of 1968 and asked for injunction on renting apartment until suit settled, was granted injunction, was also awarded $250 but not lawyer fees.  She appeals.  

A breach-of-fair-representation claim against a union qualifies for the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

27 teamster truckers fired, sued for grievance and represented by teamsters union, the union also represented another client with adverse interest, lost their grievance issues and then sued the teamsters seeking damages and wanting a jury trial.  

Two step test to see if jury trial is appropriate -1)  historical would this be court of law (jury) or equity in 1800s.  and 2) if the complaining party is seeking traditional damages or equitable damages such as restitution.  If just normal damages, then goes to jury.  

The court (judge), because of its training in complex issues and knowledge of written documents, is more competent to correctly, fairly, and uniformly make decisions relating to the interpretation of a term of art.

Patent infringement claim for dry cleaners inventory control system.  Key term was inventory and was considered a "term of art", court said no infringement.  

The court, because of its training in complex issues and knowledge of written documents, is more competent to correctly, fairly, and uniformly make decisions relating to the interpretation of a term of art. 

Interpreting meaning of inventory. 

 Questions of law are for Judge to decide, question of fact are for the jury to decide.  A mixed question of law and fact arises when the historical facts are established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the legal rule

in order for a plaintiff to have standing to sue over a law being violated, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the government (local, state, or federal), was responsible for the violation, rather than a private actor.

A private litigant in a civil case may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race because the exercise or peremptory challenges invokes state action.

Legal cases relate to money and are entitled to a jury - courts prefer a monetary solution. 

Equitable cases are related to injunctions or other court orders demanding specific performance and are ruled on by a judge. 

Equity courts can address legal/money issues when the legal/money issue is ancillary. 

A cause of action may not be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. "Finality" has the following elements:

a) prior suit that proceeded to a valid judgement on the merits

b) present suit arises out of the same final claim as the prior suit

c) Same claimant against the same defendant or litigants in privy with them.  

Nestor won a state discrimination claim and was also allowed to also do a federal discrimination claim for additional damages allowed in fed statute.  Since the state and federal claims did not entirely overlap, she was allowed to bring forth the federal claim despite winning state claim.  

However, this was only allowed bc state claim vs fed claim - does not apply to STOO - negligence re pothole damage to car then negligence re pothold personal injury does not work.  

Same party must be same party or a party in privity with the same party.  A non party who succeeded to the first party’s interest in the property is bound by previous judgements.  

Ford and Enterprise action.  need to understand more. 

A dismissal in federal court does not preclude a claim to be raised in state courts.  A federal court dismissal does not count as a valid final judgement because there are still state law at issue and would encourage forum shopping.  

Was rejected in fed court based on statute of limitations, but was not litigated on its merits.   However, under MD courts they were allowed to proceed because it was not litigated on ITS MERITS

Look at rule 41b

A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.

Difference between vs Writ of Man vs Interlocutory Appeal – Writ of Mandamus down the chain asking for higher court to rule, Interlocutory appeal is asking a higher court (appellant court) to rule.  

Typically, a court will review the lower court's record for legal errors. The standard of review used by the appellate court depends on whether the lower court's decision was made by a jury or a judge. ... A de novo review is a complete review of the lower court's decision, including their findings of fact.

 ... At the commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment.

1. If it clearly appears from specific facts shown by an affidavit or by verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, AND

2. That applicant's attorney certifies to court in writing and efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.

14 day limit for TRO

Premept challenge allows the exclusion of a juror without the need for an explanation.  You get 20 in capital case, 6 in felony. See rule 24

Improper premtory challenges purposes are related to race and protected classes         

A claim cannot be precluded if the previous litigant is a different party and there is no legal relationship between the current and past litigants.

Privity determined in six circumstances - focus on contractual privity or already represented by agent:

1. under same STOO and class action party
2. Substantive legal relationships - same lawyer, agent
3. if adequately represented in previous litigation
4. If they assumed control over the litigation
5. Cannot relitigate under a proxy
6. special statutory schemes  bankrupty and probate