Law Lecture
Prof. Jerry Kang :: Civ Pro Spring 2005
Navigation:
click
on "mindmap" in upper right corner to see full map
click
on "text outline" in upper right corner to see indented text of all
branches
navigate
main body to see content embedded in "text windows"
Class Page: http://jerrykang.net/civproclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Last OH before exam = May 05
1.1.1 moved to Thursday
1.1.2 a few slots left
1.1.3 Office hours
1.2 meet tomorrow same time
1.2.1 will finish today's assignment (Semtek, etc.)
1.2.2 review session will start
-------------------------------------------------------------
2 Cleanup
-------------------------------------------------------------
2.1 Erie v Tompkins (1938)
2.1.1 map
2.1.2 critique
2.1.2.1 flips Swift: Why?
2.1.2.1.1 statutory
2.1.2.1.1.1 some smart law professor found out what the RDA really means
2.1.2.1.2 policy
2.1.2.1.2.1 forum shopping
2.1.2.1.2.1.1 prefer one judicial forum over another
2.1.2.1.2.1.2 Taxi Cab companies
2.1.2.1.2.1.2.1 shop between federal and state
2.1.2.1.2.2 discrimination
2.1.2.1.2.2.1 point of diversity
2.1.2.1.2.2.1.1 protect the out of state party
2.1.2.1.2.2.2 perverse result
2.1.2.1.2.2.2.1 citizen is being discriminated against
2.1.2.1.2.2.3 diagrams
2.1.2.1.2.2.3.1 P (out) compared to D (in)
2.1.2.1.2.2.3.2 P (out) compared to P (in)
2.1.2.1.2.3 no uniformity advantage
2.1.2.1.3 constitutional
2.1.2.1.3.1 Cong lacks power to declare substantive FCL
2.1.2.1.3.2 who lacks the power?
2.1.2.1.3.2.1 entire federal government
2.1.2.1.3.2.2 or are we talking about just the judiciary
2.1.2.1.3.3 no power to create general federal common law
2.1.2.1.3.3.1 FCL remains
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.1 Constitutional grant of authority
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.1.1 Inferred from jurisdictional grants
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.1.1.1 Admiralty and maritime
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.1.1.2 Law between several states
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.1.2 Inferred from protection of substantive rights
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.1.2.1 Bivens (implying a cause of action)
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.2 Congressional grant of authority
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.2.1 Inferred from jurisdictional grants.
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.2.1.1 Lincoln Mills. Taft-Hartley Act gave federal courts jurisdiction to hear labor-management disputes.
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.2.2 Inferred from necessity of filling out interstices in statutory frameworks (more than mere "statutory interpretation")
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.3 Protection of federal interests
2.1.2.1.3.3.1.3.1 remember "federalizing warp"
2.1.2.2 Result
2.1.2.2.1 state law must apply
2.1.2.2.2 Tompkins loses horribly
2.1.2.3 Reed's concurrence
in judgment
2.1.2.3.1 substance / procedure distinction>
2.1.2.3.2 "The line between procedural and substantive law is hazy but no one doubts federal power over procedure."
-------------------------------------------------------------
3 Limits of State Law in Fed Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 1. Interp'ing Erie
3.1.1 Guaranty Trust (1945)
3.1.1.1 map
3.1.1.2 what's new?
3.1.1.2.1 Erie's lessons
3.1.1.2.1.1 RDA includes judge made law
3.1.1.2.1.2 no general federal common law
3.1.1.2.1.3 procedure v. substance
3.1.1.2.1.3.1 suggested by Reed's concurrence in Erie
3.1.1.2.2 accepted/rejected/
tweaked?
3.1.1.2.2.1 rejects the distinction
3.1.1.2.2.1.1 can't really distinguish
3.1.1.2.2.2 new test
3.1.1.2.2.2.1 would outcome be the same?
3.1.1.2.3 what alternative?
3.1.1.2.3.1 outcome determination test
3.1.1.2.3.2 substantially different outcome
3.1.1.2.3.3 fudge factors
3.1.1.2.3.3.1 "significantly affect"
3.1.1.2.3.3.2 if truly, truly procedural, apply federal procedure
3.1.1.2.3.3.2.1 "merely the manner and the means by which a right to recover ... is enforced"
3.1.1.3 application
3.1.1.3.1 sol had already passed
3.1.1.3.1.1 guaranteed victory for D
3.1.1.3.2 laches
3.1.1.3.2.1 big question mark
3.1.1.3.3 given that we have different outcomes
3.1.1.3.3.1 apply state law
3.1.1.4 progeny
3.1.1.4.1 * Tolling statute of limitations. Ragan (1949) (filing complaint v. service of process).
3.1.1.4.2 * Bond for shareholders derivative suit's. Cohen (1949) (no bond v. bond).
3.1.1.4.3 * Requirement that corporations pay taxes to get into court. Woods (1949) (silence v. taxes required).
3.1.1.4.4 * Enforceability of arbitration agreements. Bernhardt (1956) (must enforce v. not-enforced).
3.1.2 Byrd v. Blue Ridge (1958)
3.1.2.1 map
3.1.2.2 what's new?
3.1.2.2.1 softens the OD test
3.1.2.2.1.1 must check % whether different outcome will result
3.1.2.2.1.2 %s are high
3.1.2.2.1.2.1 go with state
3.1.2.2.1.3 %s are low
3.1.2.2.1.3.1 go with federal
3.1.2.2.2 CBA
3.1.2.2.2.1 federal side
3.1.2.2.2.1.1 federal policy
3.1.2.2.2.1.1.1 strong in favor of Jury
3.1.2.2.2.1.1.2 if so, go with federal
3.1.2.2.2.1.2 presumption?
3.1.2.2.2.2 state side
3.1.2.2.2.2.1 no state justified interest
3.1.2.3 application
3.1.2.3.1 federal interest analysis
3.1.2.3.2 state interest is zero
3.1.2.3.2.1 having judge decide is not "bound up"
3.1.2.3.3 OD analysis
3.1.2.3.3.1 not certain to determine outcome
3.1.2.3.3.2 judge and jury could decide same way
3.1.2.4 What result?
3.1.2.4.1 federal
3.2 2. De-(c)alizing Erie
3.2.1 Hanna v. Plumer (1965)
3.2.1.1 map
3.2.1.2 critique
3.2.1.2.1 Plumer's argument
3.2.1.2.1.1 Be Plumer's counsel.
(D)
3.2.1.2.1.1.1 what rule do you want?
3.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 state rule
3.2.1.2.1.1.1.2 which means that serve was defective
3.2.1.2.1.2 what arguments available
3.2.1.2.1.2.1 Guaranty Trust (od)
3.2.1.2.1.2.2 this will change the outcome
3.2.1.2.1.2.3 must use state rule
3.2.1.2.1.3 does Court buy argument?
3.2.1.2.1.3.1 no
3.2.1.2.2 what alternative?
3.2.1.2.2.1 guaranty trust
3.2.1.2.2.1.1 soft pedaled
3.2.1.2.2.1.2 OD was not meant to be "talisman"
3.2.1.2.2.2 byrd balancing test?
3.2.1.2.2.2.1 federal interest
3.2.1.2.2.2.2 state interest
3.2.1.2.2.3 look @ Erie policies
3.2.1.2.2.3.1 forum shopping
3.2.1.2.2.3.2 no discrimination
3.2.1.2.2.3.3 embraced
3.2.1.2.3 immunizing the FRCP
3.2.1.2.3.1 if specific collision, go with the federal rule
3.2.1.2.3.1.1 always
3.2.1.2.3.1.2 2 step process
3.2.1.2.3.1.2.1 satisfy REA?
3.2.1.2.3.1.2.2 is rule constitutional?
3.2.1.2.3.1.2.3 if both ok, feds win!!!
3.2.1.2.3.1.3 no rule has ever failed
3.2.1.2.3.2 Erie has never overruled a federal rule
|
| |