A. Phillips petroleum Co. v. Shutts - Facts: Respondents brought a class action against petitioner in Kansas state court, seeking to recover interest on royalty payments which had been suspended by petitioner pending approval of price increases. RULES: In applying substantive state law the state must consider if there is a conflict with the substantive law of another state with an interest in the litigation. Due process analysis limits when a state can impose their substantive law. In reality, states can generally impose their own law. I. Bifurcated Justice A. Jurisdiction of Federal District Courts 1.Aldinger v. Howard - Facts: Aldinger had a civil rights claim against Howard - defendant one; and a state claim against the county - defendant two; arising out of the same operative facts. a.Pendent Party - occurs when plaintiff seeks to join in one action a federal claim against one defendant and a state claim against another defendant in an action arising out of a common nucleus of operative facts. P v. D1 Federal claim P v. D2 State Claim b.Pendent Claim - there is an effort to bring into the same action a state claim. The state claim is pendant to the federal claim and is heard with it, one plaintiff and one defendant. c.Ancillary Party Action - occurs when plaintiff seeks to join several defendants in one action dealing with federal questions arising out of a common nucleus of operative fact. RULE: When congress is silent on federal jurisdiction over a party the court may use discretion in exercising pendent party jurisdiction. 2.Finley v. U.S. RULES: If the congress is silent on federal jurisdiction over a party there can be no exercise of pendent party jurisdiction. 3.Removal - A defendant's device, only the defendant may move for removal and the removal can only be had if there is a federal question or federal diversity. a.Removal operates geographically. b.No removal is permitted if an act of congress so provides. c.Only defendant can remove. d.Can only remove that which could have been brought in federal court originally. e.Federal question case - any defendant can remove. Diversity case - only out of state defendant can remove. f.If defendant answers before requesting removal he waives his right for removal. 4.Diversity Jurisdiction - all plaintiffs and all defendants are from different states. a.Citizenship is determined on the day the action is instituted (filed). b.What is citizenship? (1)Individual - the place you are physically located with indefinite intention to remain. (2)Corporation - citizen of state of incorporation (birth). (a)Nerve Center Test. (b)Muscle Test. (3)Trust, partnership, labor unions (unincorporated) - add up all states of all members. (4)Representative Actions - citizenship of person being represented counts. c.Amount in Controversy must be more than $50,000. Against a single defendant plaintiff can aggregate claims to exceed $50,000. 5.Federal Question - case must arise out of a federal statute, constitution or treaty. Plaintiff must be relying on that as the basis for the claim. If the federal law is being used as a defense it doesn't count as a federal question and can't be turned into one by use of such a defense. No amount in controversy required. 6.Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill - Facts: Respondents commenced the action charging CMU with violation of federal and state age discrimination laws. The complaint was subsequently amended to delete the federal question. RULES: When the federal question is deleted the court has three options. a.Retain and decide. Court could go ahead and try the case if it wants to. b.Could dismiss the action. Statute of limitations might act as a bar to refiling. c.Remand to the state court. Advantage to the plaintiff is that it keeps the state court proceeding alive and the statute of limitations continues to be tolled, this is the most fair. Pendent jurisdiction is discretionary, diversity jurisdiction is mandatory. The Gibbs test is a doctrine of flexibility designed to allow courts to deal with cases involving pendent claims in the manner that most sensibly accommodates a range of concerns and values. See Page 541. 7.Abstention a.Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association - Facts: Lennox Hinds, an attorney against whom disciplinary proceedings had been brought, contended that a federal court should not abstain from hearing his constitutional challenges to those proceedings. RULES: Absent extraordinary circumstances there is a strong policy against federal court interference with pending state judicial proceedings. B. The Erie Doctrine 1.Rule of Decision Act 1789 - A statute which requires, except where there is a federal rule, the laws of the states control an action where the federal court is acting as a state court. 2.Swift v. Tyson - Interpreted the word law in the Rules of Decision Act as being only those laws which are statutory and not common law. 3.Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins - Facts: Plaintiff was a Pennsylvania citizen struck by an object protruding from a passing railroad car. Plaintiff filed a claim in federal district court in New York but argued that the court should have applied the law of the state where the injury occurred. RULE: Refuted Swift v. Tyson and held that the federal court, in diversity cases where there is no federal question, the court will apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits. 4.Klaxon - resolved the loose strings left by Erie and determined the types of law which were substantive: a.Burden of proof. b.Contributory negligence. c.Conflict of laws. 5.Guaranty Trust Co. v. York - Facts: Guaranty Trust Co. of New York contended that the state statute of limitations should bar York's diversity suit against it in the U.S. District Court. RULES: Developed the outcome-determinative test which stated that in diversity cases the outcome of the litigation in federal court should be substantially the same as if tried in a state court to the extent of the substantive law applied. If it affects the outcome of the litigation it will be considered substantive, an argument can be made that anything will affect the outcome. The difference between procedural law and substantive law will vary depending on the facts and issues. 6.Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp - Plaintiff challenged the requirement to post a substantial bond required by state law in order to bring an action. The court followed the rationale of Guaranty Trust. 7.Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America - Held for the proposition that almost anything could be considered substantive or procedure depending on how you view the issue. 8.Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative - Facts: Byrd was injured while connecting power lines for a subcontractor of Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, Inc. The state court denied the plaintiff a jury trial and awarded a judgment based on a judicial hearing only. RULES: Court moved away from the outcome-determinative test to a balancing test, looking at any countervailing federal interests. In this case the court found that the federal interest in a right to jury trial far outweighed the outcome-determinative effect of the following the state law. 9.Hanna v. Plumer - Facts: Plumer files tort action in Federal Court in Massachusetts, where Hanna resides, for an auto accident that occurred in South Carolina. RULE: In a conflict over procedural rules between state rules and a federal numbered rule the federal rule will apply. 10.Walker v. Armco - When there is no conflict between state rules and federal rules the state rule would apply. 11.Erie Doctrine Summary - If there is no clash the state law will apply but only if it is outcome determinative in a fairly important way. Preserves outcome determinative as a policy and principle with two exceptions: a.If a formal numbered rule exceeds the limits of the federal enabling act or is unconstitutional (theoretically possible, has not happened yet and not too likely). b.Where there is a strong federal policy in favor of a federal practice (jury trial in Blue Ridge). If there is not a direct conflict, if the federal numbered rule is not broad enough or directly on point then look to the balancing outcome determinative test. Considerations to look for in this test (the twin aims of Erie). a. Discourage forum shopping. b. Avoid inequitable administration of the law. Weigh against these two the strong federal interest to determine whether federal or state rules apply. Exam possibility: Look for Erie Doctrine question by looking at procedural device and apply Erie analysis. 12.Reverse Erie Doctrine a.Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Co. - Facts: Plaintiff sued in Ohio State Court based on a federal question. RULE: When a federal question is brought in state court the state is required to apply the federal substantive law. Any strictly procedural rules will be state rules. b.Cannon v. Kroger Co. - Facts: Employee filed a hybrid claim of federal and state claims of discrimination. She failed to meet the federal statute of limitations but received an extension through the state procedural rules. RULES: Federal cases in state court apply federal rules. C. Federal Venue 1.Van Dusen v. Barrack - Facts: Plane was supposed to fly from Boston to Philadelphia but flew into Boston Harbor instead. The defendant wanted to transfer under Sec. 1404(a) to Massachusetts. Venue was proper in Pennsylvania but liability was greatly restricted in Mass. The district court granted the motion based on convenience without addressing which state law would apply. RULES: The Supreme Court looked at a two step process in determining the choice of law to be applied under a Sec. 1404(a) transfer: a.If the venue statutes would allow the case to be brought in a court originally it may be transferred there. Not considering any state law issues or irrelevant federal issues, since the action from which the claim arose occurred in Mass. the claim could properly have been brought in Mass. b.Which state law applies. Where the plaintiff brought the action in a proper venue, the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the defendant seeks the transfer, the law of the transferor court will apply. This means the state choice of law rule will be applied to determine which state substantive law will apply. 2.Ellis v. Great Southwestern Corp. - Facts: Plaintiff allegedly suffered a fall while alighting from an amusement park ride at Six Flags Over Texas, she subsequently died. Her representative filed a claim after the statute of limitations. RULES: In Sec. 1406(a) transfer cases where venue has been transferred the transferee court must apply the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits. 3.In Re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983 - Facts: Flight 007, a commercial craft departing from Kennedy Airport in New York and bound for Seoul, South Korea, was destroyed over the Sea of Japan by Soviet Union military aircraft. Actions were commenced in a number of Federal District Courts, the cases were consolidated for hearing pre-trial motions. RULE: When an action is transferred among federal courts the transferor court does not have apply the law of the transferee court because there is only one body of federal law and any disputes among the district courts will be resolved by the Supreme Court. Exception - When cases are filed in various district courts and consolidated for pre-trial motions the ruling of the district court is binding because it becomes the law of the case. In most cases, however, when a case has been transferred for pre-trial motions it is rarely sent back to the original court. This case is distinguished from Van Dusen as it involved a federal to federal court transfer, whereas in Van Dusen it involved a state to federal court transfer. 4.Rules of Transfer a.Section 1404(a) Transfer - transfer when the original venue was proper. b.Section 1406 Transfer - transfer when the original venue was improper. The transferee court's state law should apply because a plaintiff should not have the benefit of choosing the law of a forum if that forum can't obtain jurisdiction over the defendant. c.If there is no subject matter jurisdiction, the forum district court must dismiss the action. d.If there is no personal jurisdiction to begin with the case can only be transferred to a court where personal jurisdiction can be obtained; and, the state law of the transferee court will apply. e.If personal jurisdiction can be found in the original forum but venue is improper under Sec. 1406 the court has the option to dismiss or transfer where personal jurisdiction and venue is proper and the state law of the transferee court will apply. f.If personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in the original forum it depends on who is asking for the transfer. If defendant asks then Van Dusen controls and the law of the transferor court applies. If the plaintiff asks there is a split of authority between the law of the transferor court applying. One says the plaintiff should benefit from the law in their choice of forum, the other says the plaintiff can't have it both ways with both choice of law and convenience. g.If a federal question is involved the law of the transferee court always controls because there is ultimately only one body of federal law and the Supreme Court will decide any divergence. Consequently the law of one circuit shouldn't be favored over another as they are all applying the same. h.Goldlawr v. Heiman - Note case, p. 626 - Personal jurisdiction over the defendant is not necessary in order for a court to transfer a case under Sec. 1406(a). The defendant may not waive any objections to missing requirements such as lack of personal jurisdiction. II. The Size of the Litigation A. Collateral Regulation of the size of the Litigation. 1.Claim Preclusion - applies not only to all claims respondents actually raised, but also to all claims that could have been raised. This has become an established principle in federal court -includes any state claim which could have been raised at the time the original federal question claim was filed. a.The Rule of Claim Preclusion - is that a judgment for or against a plaintiff on a cause of action or claim precludes reassertion of that cause of action or claim. 2.Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie - Moitie and six others filed a suit against various department stores on price-fixing charges in federal district court. The action was dismissed and Moitie attempted to refile in state court rather than appealing as the other petitioners did. RULE: Once a final judgment has been rendered (and either appealed or the time for appeal has passed), not even a change in the applicable law will prevent res judicata from operating. The fact that the losing party would, because of such an overruling of legal precedent, win the lawsuit if he were allowed to start it again, is irrelevant. Res judicata attaches when the trial court makes a judgment and is effective unless and until the appellate court overturns the judgment. 3.Sawyer v. First City Financial Corp - Facts: Parties were involved in a land sale and development deal that went sour. Plaintiff filed an initial action using contract law and a subsequent action using tort law. RULES: Claim preclusion takes either a transactional approach or primary rights approach. Transactional Approach - more than one claim with the same cause of action basis is precluded. Primary Rights Approach - claims involving different rights (one in contract, one in tort) but based on the same cause of action are not precluded. The approach taken depends on the court. 4.Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore - Facts: Plaintiff brought a stockholders action against Parklane. Before the case was tried the SEC brought another suit containing the same allegations. The plaintiff then sought to use the verdict in the SEC case to collaterally estop Parklane from relitigating the case. An issue preclusion case. RULES: Where a defendant in a second action seeks to assert estoppel against the plaintiff, this use of estoppel is said to be defensive. Estoppel is being used as a shield rather than as a sword. Where a plaintiff in the second action seeks to assert estoppel against the defendant, this use is offensive. Exceptions to offensive use of collateral Estoppel: a.If the action is for a small amount, the defendant may not litigate vigorously for a small amount; or if the action is for a misdemeanor. b.A series of inconsistent prior adjudications. c.A second action affords the defendant procedural opportunities unavailable in the first action that could readily cause a different result. (Right to jury trial). 5.Rynesburger v. Dairymen's Fertilizer Cooperative, Inc. - the first litigation was preclusive against all others who might bring an action. The reason was the first case was brought by the municipality and the court said the municipality was in privity with everyone within their boundaries and consequently the others were precluded. Cases dealing with privity are not always reliable precedents. B. Recognition of Judgments From other Jurisdictions 1.Fauntleroy v. Lum - Facts: The cause of action arose out of a debt in Mississippi. The case was tried in Missouri using/applying Mississippi law. The court misapplied the law. The plaintiff then sought enforcement of the judgment in Mississippi. The defendant claims the judgment cannot be enforced in Mississippi because the judgment would have been illegal. RULE: Erroneous judgments are entitled to full faith and credit. The only avenue of relief for the losing party is to appeal the erroneous judgment through the court system of the rendering state. This applies even if the rendering state misapplies another state's law. 2.Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons - Facts: Petitioners were denied membership in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Their applications were denied without providing a hearing or statement of reasons. The complaint was originally filed in state court but was dismissed. Plaintiff's refiled in Federal Court, defendant contended that the claims should have been dismisses since the state court dismissed with prejudice. RULES: Federal court must look to the state preclusion rules - if the litigation is not precluded the court may hear the case. If the litigation is barred under state rules the court should look to Sec. 1738 to determine if an exception can be granted. Full faith and credit clause applies between states. The full faith and credit act applies vertically to state court actions subsequently filed in federal court. 3.Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank - Facts: Petitioners allege that the First Alabama Bank fraudulently induced them to permit a third person to take control of a subsidiary of Parsons Steel and eventually to obtain complete ownership of the subsidiary. RULES: Even though a state court may have ignored a previous federal court judgment if the case reappears in federal court the federal court must look to the state preclusion law to determine if the state court judgment is res judicata. C. Joinder of Claims 1.United States ex rel. D'Agostino Excavators, Inc. v. Heyward-Robinson Co. - Facts: D'Agostino had entered into two sub-contract agreements with Heyward, the prime contractor. One of the contracts was for work for the federal government, the other was a non-federal job. A claim was brought for the federal claim and an attempt was made to join a claim for the non-federal contract on the same litigation. - Non-Fed claim can be brought in Fed ct because compulsory CC. - Ct says transaction or occurrence requirement was met. RULES: Under Rule 13(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a counterclaim is compulsory if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. 2.Under Rule 18 - a plaintiff may join any he claims he may wish against a single defendant, where the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.(Rule 20a). 3.Rules: a.Rule 13. Counterclaim & Cross-Claim: a) Same transaction requirement. b) May state a CC against an opposing party not arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. c)CC claim may not diminish, but can exceed amount of P's claim. f)CC may be set up by amendment. g) Arises out of same transaction. h)Persons other than original parties may be made parties to a CC. * Compulsory counterclaims under rule 13(a) may rest on Ancillary Jurisdiction, while permissive CC under rule 13(b) require independent jurisdictional grounds. *When actions are pending in the same ct that involve important issues in common, it is now routine that they be consolidated for trial. They may also be consolidated for pre-trial purposes. 13(a)P------------>D13(g) P------------->D P<------------D D General Rule: Must use compulsory CC during trial or lose it because of issue preclusion. Exceptions: 3d party can't be brought in, jx problems, etc. * Under 13(b) - permissive CC, D can bring CC later. *** Whether permissive or compulsory depends how broadly ct defines "transaction". b.Rule 18. Joinder of Claims & Remedies: a)A party may assert as many claims, or CC, against opposing party as he pleases. My join any claim as p against d, regardless if it arises out of same facts. - Join all actions p has against d, but ct must have jx to hear claim unless pendent or ancillary jx. c.Rule 20. Permissive Joinder of Parties: a)Any person may join an action as P's if they assert a right to relief arising out of same transaction ad if any common questions of law or fact are in common. - Diversity must be met. *** Possible to mount large lawsuits through rule 20. - Rule 20 is restricted by the requirement that each P joined must be of diverse citizenship from all D's and must satisfy the applicable venue req's. - For joinder of D's, venue req's must be met for each D. Ordinarily, the minimum amt. in controversy req. must be met. b)Court may separate trials if delay, embarrassment or delay would result. Effect of Joinder: Generally P has burden of proof & persuasion. However, P may be assisted in the proof by each D trying to implicate the others. D. Joinder of Parties: Rule 19: 2 tiered analysis. 19(a)Factors: 1. In the absence of non-party can complete relief be had to those who are parties? 2. Does the person to be joined claim interest in subject matter of action or dispute? - Non-parties interest will be impaired or impeded by litigation. - Not especially res-judicata, but may be persuasive. 3. Leave any person already parties double or duplicative litigation of action. Second part of analysis is Discretionary: Can appeal 1st factors, but not the Judge's discretion. Discretionary Factors: - Prejudice to non-parties(degree ques) - Can prejudice be lessened by protected provisions in judgement or creative relief. - Will P have adequate remedy if dismissed. ***Assuming Jx can be had over parties- - If factors can be met then have to join party, either as a D or involuntary P. Rule 19(b): What do you do when you cannot get Jx over party. - Should be joined if party is so important litigation cannot go on w/o this party. * Question of degree: How important is this party? - If indispensable, join and dismiss for lack of diversity. Flow Chart: Permissive Joinder: 1.Pan American World Airways v. United States District Court: - Facts: Pan Am was the d in a case brought after an airline crash. The dt. ct notified all potential P's using the passenger list. Rules: Cannot create a class by using rule 20. Cannot circumvent rule 23 by using rule 20. A Ct. cannot take it upon itself to notify potential P's, in the absence of statute or rule. The cts. should not act until a claim is brought to them; this type of behavior may facilitate lawsuits. * The USSC has recently ruled that cts are permitted to send out this type of notice, mainly in civil rights cases. Compulsory Joinder: 2.Haas v. Jefferson National Bank: - Facts: Haas (p), a citizen of Ohio, seeks damages on an injunction directing Jefferson Bank (d), a citizen of Florida, to issue him some shares of stock which he jointly purchased w/ Glueck, also an Ohio resident. Rules: The ct. ruled Glueck was an in rule 19, and when they added Glueck the parties violated complete diversity req's & dismissed the case. Ct was correct to dismiss, rather then proceed in his absence. - Failure of a Dt. ct to acquire jx over an indispensable parties to an action deprives the ct of jx to proceed in the matter and render judgement. - Fed ct is saying it is better to go to state ct where there is no diversity req's. - Sometimes it is possible to shape relief under rule 19(b). Haas case is 19(b). 3 Reasons for Compulsory Joinder: (1)POV of Ct. to work for administrative efficiency. (2)Protect parties from further inconsistent litigation. (3)Protects future parties. 3.All persons materially interested in the subject of the litigation ought to be parties to the suit, P's or D's, however numerous they may be. 4.A ct.lacks power to proceed in the absence in the absence of an indispensable party. III. Devices for Adding Parties: A. Impleading, Cross-Claims & Related Devices: 1.American Motorcycle Assoc. v. Superior Court: - Facts: A boy was injured in a motorcycle race sanctioned by the AMA. The child's parents signed consent form, but allege the race was not run properly. The AMA(p) file a cross-complaint seeking indemnity from Glen's parents, alleging they failed to properly supervise their son Rules: - Concurrent tortfeasors enjoy a right to obtain partial indemnification from other concurrent tortfeasors on a comparative fault basis. - A D has the right to file a cross-complaint against an alleged concurrent tortfeasor for partial indemnity, even if the party was not an originally named D. (1) The party seeking indemnification must arise out of same "transaction or occurrence" that was the basis of the original claim/complaint. (2) 3d party D must be liable to 3d party P for some or all of original P's claim. P----->D1----->D2 D1 is a 3d party P; 3d party is brought in by original D. * After D2 is brought in he is treated as original party; P can sue D2 & D2 can counter-claim. 2. Fairview Park v. Al Monzo Construction Co.: - Fairview, an Ohio Corp, which as a subcontractor provided labor & material under a construction K for Robinson Township (D). Al Monzo, (D) acted as a contractor for Fairview. Fairview completed its work, but did not get paid. P filed suit against both D's, & Township denies responsibility. Township is dropped dismissed & Monzo cross- claims Township. Note Pg. 747. Rule: If a D has a proper cross-claim against its co-D's this gives the ct. ancillary Jx even though all the parties to the cross-claim are citizens of the same state. *** Jurisdiction which has once attached is not lost by subsequent events. - Ancillary Jx supports cross-claim; no need for independent Jx. Ancillary Jx supports compulsory counter-claims, but not permissive counter-claims. - Ancillary Jx applies to both cross & counter claims. - Ancillary happens on D's side, where pendent happens on P's side. 3.Reed v. Streib: -Facts: Davis & Streib made a promissory note payable to Reed. Reed filed suit on the note against Reed & Reed cross-claims Davis. Rules: Under rule 13(g) Davis can Cross-claim Streib for the $ owed on the note. - Rule 13(h) has to be hooked to something; a cross-claim works when available. *** All 3d party actions are Impleader. - As long as Jx over original action, then Jx over any cross-claim or impleading arising from "same transaction or occurrence" are valid. 4.Rule 24 - Intervention Intervention allowed if existing parties are not adequately protecting rights and interests. a. Intervention of Right: (Upon timely application) When rt granted by statute or as a practical matter the disposition of the action would impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect his interest. (non-discretionary). Is supported by Fed Ancillary Jx. b. Permissive Intervention: (Upon timely application) Discretionary device where ct decides if intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. Not supported by Ancillary Jx. - Applicants claim or defense has a ques of law or fact in common w/ main action. * Intervention is budding into someone else's lawsuit. - No intervention if existing parties are adequately representing your rights. - P's and D's do not like other people interfering in their lawsuits. - Intervenor can come in on either P's or D's side; sometimes not even specified. * Discretion Factors: Interests of intervenor, interests of existing parties, public policy concerns. - Earlier a party intervenes the better; may possibly intervene after final judgement. 24(a) is appealable, 24(b) is not. 5.Atlantis Development Corp. v. U.S.: Facts: The D, a general contractor began to work on a series of reefs off the U.S. coast. The Govt. sued alleging the reefs were Fed property. Atlantis Dev. Corp. sought an intervention of right, claiming they owned the reefs. Rules: The ct held that there rights would be impaired by the ruling in its absence. If the Ct was to hold that the reefs belonged to the US almost certainly any later ct would follow that ruling under Stare Decisis. - Most cts would only allow permissive intervention in this situation. *** No real settled law when it comes to intervention. Intervention is similar to rule 19(a)(2)(i). a.Timeliness: Can intervene at beginning or end, but not usually in the middle. 6.Bustop v. Superior Court: Facts: Bustop (p), an org of parents opposed to mandatory busing, sought to intervene in the desegregation case filed by Crowford in the interest of minority children in Los Angeles. Rules: Prior to trial, any person having an interest in the litigation, or the success of either parties, may intervene in the action. - Neither of the parties in this case were adequately representing the interests of Bustop. This was a political ques more than a legal one. - Intervention at this point of lawsuit is ok because it is not disruptive. Many of these cases indicate that intervention has been politicized in Govt involved cases. 7.American District: Facts: Trying to keep $ w/in failing company w/o giving it to creditors. Rules: Liberalization of intervention of Right. Interest now read much more broadly then it used to be. _ Look at if disposition will impair or impede parties ability to protect their interests. - Court found "significant protectable interests". - Intervenor cannot ques venue, must take suit as he finds it; orig parties could raise venue ques. B. Interpleader: 1.State Farm v. Tashire: Facts: A collision between a Greyhound bus and a truck in Ca resulted in 2 deaths and 36 injuries. The injuried parties were from 5 states and Canada. A suit was filed in Ca seeking danmages in excess of $100K aginst the driver, Greyhound, the driver of the truck & the owner of the truck, all Oregon residents. The truck driver's insurer, State Farm, filed anan interpleader action in Oregon and paid its $20,000 to the Ct. State Farm, & later Greyhound and the bus driver asked that all claims be made against the interpleader action in Oregon. * This is stautory interpleader. - Claims will be over $1,000,000; get differnce from other D's. Rule: The interpleader was proper, but too broad; it could only bar suits against the $20,000, not against Greyhound or its driver. - Interpleader cannot be used to bring together all potential litigation from an occurrence. - The circumstance that one of the prospective D's had insurance is a Fortuitous event which should not shape the nature of the unsuing litigation. 2.2 Types of Interpleader: a.Rule 22 b.Statutory Rule 22: P, who would normally be a D, takes initiative to invoke interpleader as a protective decvice. - Get all potential P's, who are brought in as "D's" , into lawsuit. - P is tring to limit exposure/liability to double or multiple liabiltiy. - "D's" would have usually been P's agianst Ins. Co; Ins Co would usually have been D. - Can use interpleader through cross-claim or counter-claim. (1)Rule 22 has req's that must be met: (a)Must meet 50K jx limit (b)Complete divirsity btwn P's & D's. (c)Venue rules apply (d)Service of process only statewide (e) SMJ Rule 22 may be only avenue where P is diverse from claimants, but all of claimants reside in the same state but are not diverse from eachother. Statutory Interpleader: 28 USC, 1335 - Amount in controversy req. is minimal ($500) - Can serve process anywhere in country - "Miniamal Diversity" reqd.; only need 2 or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship. - Venue is proper in any district where any claimant made his residence. SECTION 1335 CLAEARLY PREFERABLE - P is usually an insurer in interpleader, but a D in normal litigation. *** Interpleader is supposed to stop the "race" to see who gets fund 1st. - Wait until all judgements have been entered, then bring claims against into interpleader action. - The Ct. controlling "fund" will pro-rate shares between judgements obtained & amount in "fund". - The Ct. will apply an arbitrary statute of limitations & say all claims must be made by "xxx date" Claimants can go after other culpable parties, not only the "fund". C. Substitution of Parties: 1.Intro: Substitution of parties is appropriate where a party to an action becomes unable to participate in the action, in the case of a natural person by death or incompetency, in the case of corp. by dissolution, or in the case of a public official by termination. 2.Rule 25: a. Death: Motion must be made w/in 90 days of notice of the death or action shall be dismissed. 3.Standing to Sue: Intro: The concept of standing to sue is relates to people who seek to challenge the legality of the action of a govt. official, Fed, state or local. Problems arise when the complaining person has suffered no "direct" injury. It is hard to decide if a party is directly injured, and if so does he/she have standing to sue? A) Valley Forge Christian College v. American's United for the separation of Church and State: Facts: A 77 acre tract of land was declared surplus property and given to the petitioner. The respondents filed suit alleging this conveyance violated the 1st amendment. Rule: At a minimum, Art. III requires the party who invokes the ct's authority to "show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the D/Govt". - Actual injury is the standard; injury in fact B) 3 Req's for Standing:(Art. III). (1) Real or threatenrd injury to yourself; can be physical or economic. (2) Injury in fact - Causation (3) Redressability - You may get either hurt or helped by ct ruling. *** If meet 3 Req's go to Prudential concerns C) Prudential Concerns: Self restrainnt exercised by Ct. 1. Zone of Interest: P's interest must be w/in zone protected by staute. 2. 3d party standing is frowned on. 3. Citizen/taxpayer staanding is almost always denied. 4.Various types of Parties/Nominal Parties: A) Comonly, the insurer who pays a casualty loss is subrogated to the rights of the insured against the person who caused the loss. If the insurance Co pays the loss, by virtue of subrogation it becomes the owner of the claim and the proper person to sue for the loss. B) Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp: Facts: P sued D when one of the power palnts D had built failed to operate. P settles w/ its Ins carrier & Ins carrier was to be subrogated to the rights of P in a suit to recover the $ it had paid out. D claims Ins carrier is the "real party in interest" & should maintain the suit itself. Rule: A partial subrogor is a "real party in interest" & may bring the suit in his own name. (Rule 17). Any party who has interset can sue as a real party in interest. - Rule 17 allows an action to be brought by anyone who posses the right to enforce the claim and who has a significant interest in the litigation, which covers both subroger & subrogee. - Some states do not allow Ins Co's to hide behind P's; Ins co's have to sue, or be sued directly. 5.Parens Patriae: The state may act as representative of ite citizens where an injury may affect the general population