Thurs., Nov. 8

supplemental jurisdiction

28 U.S.C. § 1367. - Supplemental jurisdiction

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.

(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if - (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

recap of supplemental jurisdiction for diversity cases with co-plaintiffs and co-defendants…

No P1(NY) P2(NJ) $100k R 20 $100k D(NJ)

Yes P1(NY) P2(NY) $100k R 20 $25k D(NJ)

No P(NY) R 20 $100k $100k D1(NJ) D2(NY)

No P(NY) R 20 $100k $25k D1(NJ) D2(NJ)

P(Cal) sues D(Cal) in state court in Cal under 42 U. S. C P(Cal) sues D(Cal) in state court in Cal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his civil right. Joined to the action is an unrelated state law breach of contract action against D. May D successfully remove? P(Cal) federal state civil rights contract D(Cal)

28 U.S.C. § 1441. - Actions removable generally (c) Joinder of Federal law claims and State law claims.--(1) If a civil action includes— (A) a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (within the meaning of section 1331 of this title), and (B) a claim not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been made nonremovable by statute, the entire action may be removed if the action would be removable without the inclusion of the claim described in subparagraph (B). (2) Upon removal of an action described in paragraph (1), the district court shall sever from the action all claims described in paragraph (1)(B) and shall remand the severed claims to the State court from which the action was removed. Only defendants against whom a claim described in paragraph (1)(A) has been asserted are required to join in or consent to the removal under paragraph (1).

terminating litigation before trial

12(b)(6) failure to state a claim

12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings

evidentiary insufficiency

summary judgment directed verdict judgment notwithstanding the verdict

burden of production burden of providing evidence such that a reasonable jury could find in your favor

burden of persuasion if in doubt that the standard of proof is satisfied, then must find against the party who had the burden

Rule 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law

Rule 56. Summary Judgment (c)(2) The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

- P sues D for negligence - P offers evidence that at trial would satisfy the burden of production concerning negligence and damages but nothing concerning causation - D offers no evidence and moves for summary judgment

summary judgment for defendant concerning a cause of action no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff with respect to at least one element of the cause of action

- P sues D for negligence - P offers sufficient evidence concerning negligence, causation and damages such that a reasonable jury would have to find in his favor - D offers no evidence

summary judgment for plaintiff concerning a cause of action no reasonable jury could find for the defendant with respect to each element of the cause of action

- P sues D for negligence - P offers sufficient evidence concerning negligence, causation and damages such that a reasonable jury would have to find in his favor - D offers rebutting evidence concerning causation

partial summary judgment R 56(g) Failing to Grant All the Requested Relief. If the court does not grant all the relief requested by the motion, it may enter an order stating any material fact — including an item of damages or other relief — that is not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact as established in the case.

materials that may be submitted in support or opposition to summary judgment

56(c) Procedures. (1) Supporting Factual Positions 56(c) Procedures. (1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. (2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence. (3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record. (4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.

Slavin v. City of Salem (Mass. 1982)

how can summary judgment for the city be appropriate how can summary judgment for the city be appropriate? couldn’t a jury have simply chosen to not believe the officers?

what about role of pleadings what about role of pleadings? the plaintiff has an allegation that the officers knew or should have known about the suicide risk….

R 11?

what about the issue of the belt?

- P is suing D for age discrimination - P alleges in his complaint that D promoted X rather than P D did so because X was younger than P, not because X had performed better on the job than P - D makes a motion for summary judgment - In opposition to motion, P introduces an affidavit by P stating that D said to P at a meeting that D “did not want to promote old people” - D introduces 10 affidavits from the other 10 people at that meeting stating that D said no such thing - If P’s affidavit is the only evidence that he has that D’s motive for not promoting P was age, should D win on his summary judgment motion?

P sues Ds for violation of the federal antitrust law (Sherman Act) P offers as evidence of an agreement in restraint of trade the Ds’ parallel conduct - for example, that they do not cut in on each other’s territory

- two cars enter an intersection at right angles and strike one another killing both drivers and all passengers. - there are no eyewitnesses to the accident. - the only evidence available is that there was a working traffic light; thus one of the drivers, but only one, had to go through the red light. - the family of the driver of one car sues the estate of the driver of the other for negligence - the estate moves for a directed verdict - result? - what if the family of the driver of other car sued for negligence?

- X must take a certain pill once a day to remain alive - X must take a certain pill once a day to remain alive. The pill is highly toxic. To take two within 24 hours is fatal. - X is found dead in his bedroom and the evidence is clear that he took two pills that day. - the uncontradicted evidence shows that several hours before his death, X made out a new will, substantially different from the one previously in force. It also shows that at about the same time, X made plans to accompany several friends on a fishing trip on the following day - X’s family sues Insurance Co. for insurance proceeds on the ground that X’s death was an accident - Insurance Co. moves for summary judgment on the ground that no reasonable jury could find that the death was an accident and not suicide

Pennsylvania RR Co. v. Chamberlain (US 1933) - suit against RR for death of brakeman - was he thrown from car due to collision or did he fall? - RR had many witnesses saying that they did not see a collision - P had a witness who did not see a collision but did hear a crash an then looked and saw that the brakeman was no longer on the train - in addition witness for P said that at first trains were going at different speeds and then after crash sound they were going at same speed

SCt – directed verdict appropriate - why isn’t this weighing evidence?

There is no direct evidence that in fact the crash was occasioned by a collision of the two strings in question; and it is perfectly clear that no such fact was brought to Bainbridge's attention as a perception of the physical sense of sight or of hearing. At most there was an inference to that effect drawn from observed facts which gave equal support to the opposite inference that the crash was occasioned by the coming together of other strings of cars entirely away from the scene of the accident, or of the two-car string ridden by deceased and the seven-car string immediately ahead of it.

the scintilla of evidence standard

the movant has the burden of showing that summary judgment is appropriate. does that mean that a defendant being sued for negligence cannot successfully move for summary judgment unless she offers some evidence against the plaintiff’s allegations?

proof of the elements summary judgment disproof of an element summary judgment absence of proof for an element summary judgment

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

is summary judgment contrary to the 7th Amendment?

trial

jury selection

presentation of evidence

Rule 50: Judgment as a Matter of Law (a) Judgment as a Matter of Law Rule 50: Judgment as a Matter of Law (a) Judgment as a Matter of Law. (1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.…

why a directed verdict rather than summary judgment?

jury verdict

50(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment—or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged—the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may: (1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

why a judgment n.o.v.?

at the end of the evidence, D moves for a directed verdict it is granted. what happens if the trial court’s decision is reversed on appeal?

at the end of the evidence, D moves for a directed verdict it is denied the jury finds for the plaintiff D moves for a judgment n.o.v. it is granted what happens if the trial court’s decision is reversed on appeal?

motion for a new trial R. 59

judgment

motion for relief from a judgment R. 60