Wed., Nov. 7

supplemental jurisdiction

U. S. Const. Article III. Section. 2 U.S. Const. Article III. Section. 2.  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; . . . --to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

P (NY) sues D1 (NJ) for brawl P joins D2 (NY) under R 20(a) P(NY) D1(NJ) D2(NY)

initial approach – even if pendent or ancillary jurisdiction is constitutional, look to the purposes of the statute providing SMJ to the “core” action to see if it is in keeping with the purposes of the statute

after Finley…

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.

P(NY) D(NY) I(NY) federal securities state law breach of contract fraud state law Insurance contract

(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.

A (NY) sues B(NY) under fed securities laws A joins state common law fraud claim against C (NY), an auditor for B who was also responsible for the fraud A(NY) federal 20(a) state B(NY) C(NY)

Finley v. United States (US 1989) Aldinger v. Howard (US 1976)

A (Cal.) sues E (Nev.) (B’s employer) under state law for a battery committed by B (Cal.) - E impleads B - B then brings a suit against A on the harm done to B in their fight

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, A(Cal.) E(Nev.) B(Cal.)

A(Cal.) E(Nev.) B(Cal.) 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,

Owen Equip & Erection Co v. Kroger

1) P (Cal) sues D1 (Cal) under federal securities law and joins an action against D2 (Cal) under state common law fraud. Same as 1), except P also joins a state law action for a battery occurring a few weeks before the fraud against D1. P(Cal) federal state D(Cal)

P (Cal) sues D (Cal) under federal securities laws P (Cal) sues D (Cal) under federal securities laws. D joins an action against P for battery, asking for $100k P(Cal) federal state securities battery D(Cal)

P (Cal) sues D (Ore) for state law breach of contract, asking for $100K. D joins an action against P for battery, asking for $25k. P(Cal) state state breach of contract battery D(Ore)

P (NY) sues D (NJ) for battery asking for $100K P (NY) sues D (NJ) for battery asking for $100K. D impleads X (NY) a joint tortfeasor for contribution. X brings 14(a) claims against P from damages from same accident P brings compulsory counterclaim against X

P(NY) battery battery battery D(NJ) contribution X(NY) 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,

P (NY) sues D1 (NJ) for state law battery asking $100k and D2 (NJ) asking $25K. P(NY) $100k $25k D1(NJ) D2(NJ) (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,

(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.

P1 (NY) sues D (NJ) under state law battery for $100k and joins with P2 (NY) who sues D for $25K. P1(NY) P2(NY) $100k $25k D(NJ) (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,

Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah (U.S. 2005)

P1 (NY) sues D (NJ) under state law battery for $100k P1 (NY) sues D (NJ) under state law battery for $100k. D makes a motion to join P2 (NY), who has a claim against D for $25K, as a necessary party P1(NY) P2(NY) R. 19 $100k $25k D(NJ) (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,

P1(NY) sues D (NJ) for $100k and joins with P2 (NJ) who sues D for $100K P1(NY) P2(NJ) $100k $100k D(NJ)

P1(NY) sues D1 (NJ) for $100k. P1 joins with P2 (NY) who sues D2(NJ) for $25k.

P1(NY) P2(NY) $100k $25k D1(NJ) D2(NJ) (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,

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

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

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

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

No P(NY) $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

How can a plaintiff receive a motion for a judgment on the pleadings?

evidentiary insufficiency

summary judgment directed verdict judgment notwithstanding the verdict

burden of pleading burden of production burden of persuasion

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

P satisfied his burden of production at trial concerning every element of the cause of action D offers no evidence directed verdict for P?

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)

could 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….

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

- 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

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 an element 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?