#9144 - Civil Procedure Ii - Civil Procedure II

Cite Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction in each problem

Argue in the Alternative

1. Process for Filing an Appeal

2. Appellate Review:

   1. Review of decisions from state courts

   2. Final Judgment Rule

   3. Collateral Order Doctrine

   4. Interlocutory appeals

   5. Writ of Mandamus

3. Subject matter jurisdiction: Analyze all claims under both possibilities

   1. Federal Question: 28 U.S.C. § 1331

   2. Diversity Question: 28 U.S.C. § 1332

4. Personal Jurisdiction: Minimum Contact with State where action is filed

5. Supplemental Jurisdiction: 1) is there a claim with regular jurisdiction and does supplemental claim come from same nucleus of operative facts; if so, 2) in a diversity case, is P making an end-run around diversity requirements; and 3) district courts have discretion (based on a number of factors) whether to grant or deny supplemental claim

6. If diversity case, are there Erie issues? If yes, go through the chart

7. In federal question with supplemental jurisdiction, are there Erie issues?

8. Summary Judgment

9. R41: Dismissal

10. R60b: Relief from Judgment

11. Severance and Consolidation: R42

12. Joinder of Claims: R18

13. Counterclaims R13

14. Crossclaims R13

15. Joinder of Parties R19-20

16. Impleader R14

17. Intervenor R24

18. Interpleader: Statutory and Rule

19. Class Action: 23a requirements

20. Class Action: 23b requirements

21. Class Action: Notice

22. Class Action: Settlement

23. Claim Preclusion: Res judicata

24. Issue Preclusion: Collateral Estoppel

25. Preclusion Against Other Parties (non-mutual collateral estoppel)

26. Recognition of Judgments from other jurisdictions

1. Filing a Notice of Appeal

   1. Party who gets less than they want may appeal, but party seeking to vindicate a specific legal theory may not

   2. Only requirement for appeal is timely filing appeal papers with dct

      1. Payment required, but this is not jurisdictional

      2. Requirements of notice of appeal are liberally interpreted: specification of party taking appeal, designation of judgment appealed from, and name of the court to which appeal is taken

   3. FRAP rules on appeal as of right:

      1. Filing, required within 30 days of entry of judgment FRAP 4(a)(1)

      2. May be extended if there is “excusable neglect” FRAP 4(a)(5) and request to extend is filed within 30 days of initial appeal deadline

      3. Cross-Appeal: Other parties filing appeals must do so within either 30 days of entry of initial order, or 14 days of other party files appeal, whichever is later FRAP 4(a)(3)

      4. Dct may reopen time to file appeal under FRCP 4(a)(6) if:

         1. Moving party did not receive notice of entry of judgment

         2. Motion is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment and 14 days of moving party’s receiving notice

         3. No party would be prejudiced

   4. FRAP rules on appeal by permission:

      1. Must petition the circuit court for permission to appeal FRAP 5

      2. Must be filed within time in FRCP 4(a), unless some other time provided

   5. Federal Rules that toll the time limit for appealing:

      1. R50b motion for judgment

      2. R52b motion to amend the findings

      3. R59 motion for new trial

      4. R59e motion to alter or amend judgment

      5. R60 motion for relief from the judgment

      6. R54 motion for attorney’s fees but only if the DCt has extended the time for appeal under R58

2. Appeal Mechanisms

   1. Review of decisions from state courts: 28 U.S.C. 1257: Under Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, p. 1338, there are for situations in which the Supreme Court may review a state supreme court decision before final determination made of all of the issues:

      1. Cases in which there are further proceedings but where for one reason or another the federal issue is conclusive or the outcome of further proceedings is preordained

      2. Cases where federal issue, finally decided by highest court of state, will survive and require decision regardless of outcome of future state-court proceedings

      3. Situations where fed claim has been finally decided, with further proceedings on the merits in state courts to come, but in which later review of federal issue cannot be had regardless of ultimate outcome of case: i.e. where the person, if they lose, would be barred from further appealing federal issues

      4. Situations where fed issue has been finally decided in state courts with further proceedings pending in which party seeking review might prevail on merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of fed issue by Supremes, and where reversal of state court on federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action rather than merely controlling the nature and character of, or determining the admissibility of evidence in, state proceedings still to come

   2. Final decision rule: 28 USC 1291: Parties may only appeal final decisions of courts. However, three mechanisms allow review before final judgment:

   3. Interlocutory appeals: 28 USC 1292

      1. 1292(b): When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.

      2. 1292(a): Interlocutory orders granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court;

         1. (2) Interlocutory orders appointing receivers, or refusing orders to wind up receiverships or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposals of property;

         2. (3) Interlocutory decrees of such district courts or the judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.

         3. Both District Court and Court of Appeals must agree

      3. Rule 23f allows for interlocutory appeal of a grant or denial of class action certification motion in the discretion from the Court of Appeals. Must be filed within 14 days of denial of certification motion.

      4. This is discretionary, and the judge will indicate if it is possible. If so, the appeal window is 10 days. 28 USC 1292(b)

   4. Collateral Order Doctrine: not an exception to the final judgment rule, but just a practical construction of it. Digital Equipment Corp v. Desktop Direct, Inc. p. 1345.

      1. This doctrine applies and allows review where in cases where:

         1. District Court decisions must be conclusive

         2. Important issue that has broad significance

         3. Must be separate from the merits

         4. Or a case that would render such important questions unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action

         5. Digital Equipment: order denying effect to a settlement agreement, even if it involves a right not to stand trial altogether, is not sufficiently important enough to come within the narrow ambit of collateral orders. The private contract issue is not as important as a constitutional or statutory provision entitling a party to immunity from suit.

      2. Examples of what does and does not constitute a collateral order are on pgs. 1358-59

   5. Writs of Mandamus: 28 USC 1651

      1. Has been granted:

         1. Where judge refuses to disqualify self despite conflict

         2. Judge over-delegates to special master

         3. Judge never allows removal

         4. During 1990s, was used to review class certification decisions

      2. This is a drastic measure, to be applied only in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. U.S. District Court p. 1351

      3. Before this issues, appellate court must find:

         1. Party seeking issuance of the writ has no other adequate means to attain relief desired

         2. That party shows his right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable”

      4. Issuance of the writ is a matter of discretion with the court to which the petition is addressed

      5. Examples of granted mandamus are on pg. 1359

   6. Defy the Discovery Order and Face Sanctions Under R37, which is immediately appealable

   7. FRCP 52: A court may make final determinations on certain issues before the conclusion of the trial as a whole

   8. FRCP 54: allows a district court in a multi-claim or multi-party case to enter a final judgment as to any claim or party prior to termination of the entire litigation but “only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.

   9. Not Pressed or Passed Upon Below Rule: In order for a party to preserve an issue through state courts and up to Supremes, they must specifically plead that challenge through all lower court proceedings. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw p. 1360

      1. This rule is not jurisdictional, but prudential and protects comity to states and provides a fully developed record of the issues

   10. SCOTUS Review of state court decision: 28 USC § 1257

1. Subject-Matter/Original Jurisdiction

   1. Introduction

      1. Congress has no power to extend subject matter jurisdiction beyond the limits established by Art. III, Section 2, which extends the Judicial Power to all cases “arising under” federal law.

      2. Article III power has been extended to some areas not specifically enumerated in order to effect the policies of Art. III. Those include removal and supplemental jurisdiction.

      3. Limited jurisdiction because of federalism and states’ rights: There is a presumption against federal jurisdiction and...