CHECKLIST—CIVIL PROCEDURE

  1. Joinder
  2. Claims Rule 18(a)
  3. Parties
  4. Permissive Rule 20(a)
  5. Compulsory Rule 20(b)

a. TORRINGTON V. YOST

  1. Impleader—3rd party Practice Rule 14 (a)
  2. Class Action Rule 23
  3. CANT + ONE
  4. HOLLAND V. STEELE
  5. IN THE MATTER OF RHONE
  1. Discovery
  1. Required Disclosures Rule 26
  2. Initial
  3. Pre-Trial
  4. Expert Testimony
  5. Devices
  6. Depositions Rule 30 and Request for Production of Documents Rule 34
  7. Interrogatories Rule 33 and Request for Admissions Rule 35
  8. Physical and Mental Examinations Rule 36
  9. Scope 26(b)
  10. Relevant Information
  11. Limitations
  12. Exceptions
  13. Privileged

1)UPJOHN V. UNITED STATES

  1. Work Product

1) HICKMAN V. TAYLOR

  1. Experts Rule

1) In RE SHELL OIL REFINERY

  1. Sanctions Rule 37
  2. Motions (3)
  3. Court Orders for Non-Compliance Rule 37(b)

a. CINE 42nd ST. V. ALLIED ARTISTS

  1. Motions

A. Summary Judgment

  1. Standard
  2. Burdens
  3. ADICKES V. S.H. KRESS & CO.
  4. CELOTEX V. CATRETT
  5. ARNSTEIN V. PORTER
  6. DYER V. MACDOUGALL

B. Judgment as a Matter of Law

1. Directed Verdict

2. Judgment NOV

  1. LAVENDER V. KURN
  2. PA R.R. V. CHAMBERLAIN
  1. Erie Doctrine Template

The issue is which law applies in the current controversy. 28 U.S.C § 1652 provides that the laws of the several states shall be regarded as rules of decisions in civil actions in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply. Under the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson, federal courts sitting in diversity would only apply state statutes, not state common law. That doctrine was overturned by Erie v. Tompkins, where the court held that state substantive law, whether statutory or common, would apply in federal courts sitting in diversity, and preserved the power of the federal courts to apply federal procedural law in the same. The problem is determining whether a law is substantive (providing rights and obligations) or procedural (enforcing rights and obligations). Since a federal rule/statute is applicable, a different analysis is required.

Under Hanna v. Plumer, the first issue is whether the federal law conflicts with the state law. To determine the conflict, we look to the purpose of the respective rules and whether the federal law is sufficiently broad to cover the point in dispute (Stewart v. Ricoh).

  • Here, the purpose of the federal rule is...
  • The purpose of the state law is...
  • The federal rule is sufficiently broad to cover the disputed point because...
  • The respective laws conflict because...

Thus, the federal law is applicable and in conflict with the state law.

Since the federal law is applicable, the next step under Hanna is whether the federal law is constitutional, or whether the federal law is a valid exercise of congressional power. (Stewart). If the federal law present is a statute and is constitutional, the statute applies. If the law is procedural, it must be promulgated under § 2072, Rules Enabling Act, which states that the Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure in the U.S. District Courts. These rules shall not enlarge, abridge, or modify any substantive right. Since the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary committee, and congress participate in drafting and approving federal procedural rules, there is a presumption of constitutionality. Under Burlington, if the federal rule can be classified as procedural, the federal rule will apply if it is reasonably necessary to maintain the integrity of a system of rules even if the rule incidentally affects a party’s substantive rights.

  • Here, a federal statute is involved because...
  • It is constitutional because...
  • Therefore the federal statute applies.

OR...

  • Here, a federal rule is involved because...
  • It is promulgated under the REA because...
  • The rule does not enlarge, abridge, or modify substantive rights because...
  • Under Burlington, the rule can be classified as procedural because...
  • The rule is reasonably necessary to maintain the integrity of that system of rules because...
  • It may incidentally affect the party’s rights because...

Thus, the federal statute or rule is procedural and applies to the current controversy.

Assuming the federal law failed any part of the Hanna test, a true Erie analysis applies to determine whether the law is substantive or procedural. The test contains two parts. First, under Guarantee Trust v. York, the test of “substantive” was whether the law significantly affects the result of litigation (Outcome Determinative Test. The Court in Byrd v. Blue Ridge added to the outcome test a balancing of state’s interests and countervailing federal interests. In addition, the outcome test focused now on the likelihood of a different outcome rather than a possibility of a different outcome. The second step is the twin aims test from Erie. If the federal court ignores the state law and it would encourage litigants to go to federal court (forum shopping), or would result in an inequitable administration of laws, the federal law is substantive and cannot apply.

  • Here, applying federal law would significantly affect the outcome because...
  • Applying the federal law is likely to result in a different outcome because...
  • The state has an interest because...
  • There is a countervailing federal interest because...
  • The federal law would encourage forum shopping because...
  • Applying federal law would result in inequitable administration of the law because...

Therefore, the federal law is substantive and cannot apply. State law governs the dispute.

The next issue is which state law to apply. Most states have their own choice of law provisions. Historically, choice of law provisions were rigidly applied against parties according to the state where the injury occurred. (example, car accident in PA, PA law applied regardless of parties citizenship). Modern law recognizes a factor analysis—balancing the interest of the parties and the interests of the state to achieve fairness. Choice of law implicates due process but is a less difficult standard to meet than a “minimum contacts” test to obtain personal jurisdiction. The Brennan Test for choice of law considers the parties’ contact with the state and the convenience to the parties.

  • Here, the state has its own choice of law provision because...
  • Assuming there was no choice of law provision,
  • The states interest are...
  • The parties interests are...
  • Litigating in this state would be convenient to the parties because...
  • The parties have contact with the state because...

Thus, ______state law would probably apply.

  1. Appeals
  1. Final Judgments
  2. CAITLIN Standard
  3. QUACKENBUSH V. ALLSTATE
  4. GILLESPIE V. US STEEL
  5. Exceptions
  6. Collateral order doctrine
  7. COHEN V. BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP.
  8. DESKTOP V. DIGITAL

2. 1292 (a) Interlocutory Decisions

  1. Preliminary Injunctions Rule 65(a)
  2. Temporary Restraining Orders Rule 65(b)

3. 1292 (b) Interlocutory Decisions

  1. Judge certifies to Appellate Court

1) CARDWELL V. R.R. CO.

  1. Mandamus

a. WILL V. US

  1. Partial Final Judgment Rule 54(b)
  2. CURTISS WRIGHT V. GE
  3. GULFSTREAM V. MAYACAMAS
  1. Preclusive Effects of Judgment
  2. Res Judicata
  3. Same Parties
  4. Same Claim
  5. Transaction or occurrence
  6. Earlier claim is final valid and on the merits

a. MANEGO V. ORLEANS BOARD OF TRADE

  1. Collateral Estoppel
  2. Different Claims
  3. Different Parties, BUT BARRED IF:
  4. Identical issues
  5. Litigated decided and necessary to court’s judgment

1)Alternative findings not subject to collateral estoppel if

a) Incidental Collateral OR Immaterial to Judgment

1) HALPERN V. SHWARTZ

  1. Against a party who litigated the issue in the earlier case OR

1) Nonparty who controlled litigation in the earlier suit OR was

2) Adequately represented in the earlier suit

a)LITTLE V. BLUE GOOSE

b)BENSON AND FORD V. WANDA