Agenda for 25th Class Admin Name plates Slide handout 2017 exam TA-led Review class Friday 11/30, 2-4PM, Rm 103 Will be recorded Optional Prof. Klerman review class Wednesday, 12/5, 2-4PM Rm 7 Office hours Wed, 12/5, 10-2PM, 4-5PM Discussion of court visit Venue Forum non-conveniens 2012 Exam Intro to RJ & CE

Assignment for Friday I Res Judicata US Constitution Article IV (Supplement p. 1) 28 USC 1738 Yeazell pp. 715-27 (WG1) Briefly Summarize Frier (WG2) In what court could Frier have brought both his replevin and his due process claims? (WG3) Did the city raise res judicata as a defense in the district court? How? Why was that improper? How should the city have raised that defense? (WG4) Why was it proper for the Court of Appeals to consider the res judicata defense, given that the district court did not address it and the city did not cross appeal? Optional: Glannon Chapters 26 & 27

Assignment for Friday II Collateral Estoppel Yeazell 744-65 BlackBoard Questions on Collateral Estoppel Q1-5 (WG5) Briefly summarize Illinois Central (WG6) The suit in the first paragraph was actually heard in state court. If the suit in the first paragraph of the opinion had been brought in federal court, would the second suit be barred by res judicata? (WG7) If the suit in the first paragraph of the opinion had been brought in state court, but the main suit described in the case was brought in federal court, would the second suit be barred by res judicata. (WG1) Yeazell p. 749 Q 2 Yeazell p. 751 Qs 3 (WG2), 4 (WG3) (Note you will want to do the Blackboard Questions first, because they give you the answers to Qs 1 & 2) (WG4) Briefly summarize Parklane Yeazell pp. 759ff Qs 1, 2a (WG5&6), 5a&b (WG7) Optional. Glannon Chapters 28 and 29

Review Jurisdiction & Internet Zippo Jurisdiction depends on how active the website was Note that Zippo was only district court decision Unclear theoretical basis Why should defamation be less likely to establish jurisdiction where viewed if posting was by website owner on passive website than if posting was by 3rd party on interactive website? Torts (Abdouch, etc.) “purposeful direction” rather than “purposeful availment” Imagine defendant launched missile in CA and aimed at TX. Jurisdiction in TX. Factors that support jurisdiction Defendant knew that injured person resided in forum state Posting involved events in forum state Posting targeted to forum state or had wide viewership there Defendant had other related contacts with the forum state (e.g. mailed letter there) Knowledge that injured person (plaintiff) is resident of forum is not sufficient by itself (Walden v Fiore) No special jurisdictional doctrines for internet “Purposeful availment/direction/targeting,” like other jurisdictional contexts Concern that posting material to web should not trigger world-wide jurisdiction

Venue Venue means what court within a state Federal court: CD of Cal (LA) or SD of Cal (San Diego) State court: LA Superior Court of San Diego Superior Court Purely statutory matter. Not constitutional Each state has its own statute Federal statute is 28 USC 1391 Map of federal districts http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/images/CircuitMap.pdf

Venue: 28 USC 1391 (b)(1). If all defendants reside in the same state, venue is proper in any judicial district in which at least one defendant resides For individuals residing in US, residence = domicile. (c)(1) Confusing, because domicile is usually defined as residence + intent to remain indefinitely Corporations are resident in any district in which they would be subject to personal jurisdiction, if district were considered a state. (d) If subject to personal jurisdiction in state, then resides in that state (b)(2). Venue is proper in judicial district where event or omission giving rise to claim occurred (b)(3). If no district satisfies (b)(1) or (b)(2), then venue is proper in any district in which in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. (c)(3). Defendant not residing in US can be sued in any district Joinder of person not residing in US disregarded in determining venue when multiple defendants IMPORTANT. Even if venue is proper, court still needs to have personal jurisdiction over EACH AND EVERY defendant.

Moving Cases Around From one federal court to another 28 USC 1404. cases may be transferred “to any other district …where it might have been brought .. for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Even if venue and jurisdiction was proper in the first place 28 USC 1406 says that court can transfer case if venue or personal jurisdiction was improper in the first place. Without statute, one might think that the court didn’t have power to do anything No comparable ability to transfer case between judicial systems E.g. from one state court to a court in a different state or foreign country E.g. from federal court to court in foreign country If judge thinks that her court has jurisdiction, but that a court in a different state or country would be better, the judge must dismiss the case Forum non conveniens No transfer or forum non-conveniens to move case from federal to state court or vice versa State to federal court. Removal; Federal to state. Abstention.

Transfer and Choice of Law 28 USC 1404 transfer Transferee court applies choice of law of transferor court So, if C.D.Cal. transfers case to M.D.Pa. M.D.Pa. applies choice of law of C.D.Cal Which means, under Klaxon, M.D.Pa. applies California choice of law Makes sense, because 1404 transfers are usually requested by the defendant for the defendant’s convenience. No reason that such transfers should change applicable law. 28 USC 1406 transfer Transferee court applies its own choice of law So if C.D.Cal. transfers case to M.D.Pa. M.D.Pa applies M.D.Pa choice of law Which, under Klaxon, means M.D.Pa applies Pennsylvania choice of law Make sense, because if applied transferor choice of law, plaintiff would initially file suit in place with most favorable choice-of-law, even if plaintiff know that jurisdiction or venue was inappropriate, so as to gain favorable choice of law

Forum Non Conveniens Questions Briefly summarize Thompson v Greyhound Briefly summarize Piper Aircraft For each court which ruled in this case, explain why subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue was or was not proper For each court, analyze what law would apply. For this purpose, assume that California and Pennsylvania apply the Restatement 2nd, and that Scotland applies the traditional rule. Suppose a chemical plant in India owned by an American company leaks gas into the surrounding neighborhood and kills 16,000 people and injures half a million. The victims sue in US court. Defendants move for dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs argue that dismissal is inappropriate, because Indian courts require a filing fee equal to 5% of damages claimed, which in this case could be billions of dollars. There are long delays in Indian courts. Indian courts have very few tort precedents and none relevant to mass torts. Discovery is usually very narrow, if allowed at all. Should the court grant the forum non conveniens motion? If it does, are there any conditions it should attach?

2012 Exam

Assignment III – Suggested Chart for Q. 2a on 2012 Exam District/ region Location of Choice of Law Rule Substantive Law Delay N.D.E.D Nothing Rest. 2nd Place of engineering Strict liability 18 months federal 3 years state S.D.E.D. Henri D’s factory Accident P’s home Rest. 2nd, N.D.W.D Gharibaldi D’s HQ D’s engineering Traditional Negligence S.D.W.D Delaware D’s incorporation Rest. 2nd, but unclear how applied ?

Assignment IV – Suggested Chart for Q. 2a on 2012 Exam  Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction Venue Choice of law Rule Law applied Delay Other Factors Overall Analysis N.D.E.D (federal) S.D.E.D. (federal) Yes. Diversity [Fed Q?] Yes. Specific, b/c Factory [General?] Yes. 391b1 or b2, b/c factory in Henri Rest. 2nd so place of engineering Negligence, b/c Garibaldi, WD is place of engineering. 18 months Not good, b/c negligence Henri Superior Court, E.D. (state) Other court (May need more rows)

Introduction to Former Adjudication 2 concepts Res judicata / claim preclusion Collateral estoppel / issue preclusion Res judicata Cannot litigate same claim several times Finality If two claims are closely related to each other (e.g. same transaction or occurrence) Then must bring them together. Compulsory joinder If litigate one claim and then try to litigate the other Second claim will be barred by res judicata Collateral estoppel If issue resolved in one case, cannot relitigate that issue in subsequent case Suppose long-term contacts Litigation I. breach in 1990. Court: contract is valid Litigation II. Breach in 2000. cannot relitigate contact validity Key issue is “non-mutual” collateral estoppel Case I. A sues B for patent infringement. Court: patent invalid Case II. A sues C for patent infringement. Can relitigate validity? No estoppel if person against whom estoppel asserted was not a party in first case 2nd court applies CE and RJ rules of court which decided first case