A rule while 1738ffc demand recognition of judgments

Info icon This preview shows pages 26–27. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
(a) Rule: While 1738/FF&C demand recognition of judgments of another state’s decisions, enforcement mechanisms can be localized 4. Hybrid Problem: FF&C, Erie/Diversity, Effect of Dismissal a. On the merits w/ regard to a dismissal creates a problem if not specifically cited as “w/ prejudice” b. Applying a state’s SOL while sitting in diversity will create a R41 dismissal, but this conflicts w/ the REA c. Cases: i. Rinehart v. Locke: Is a dismissal w/o prejudice preclusive? (a) Rule: even though a dismissal for a failure to state a claim doesn’t specify that it’s on the merits/with prejudice, it’s still RJ w/ regard to a subsequent action if the party doesn’t take the opportunity to amend or appeal. R41(b) states that except for specific instances (wrong venue, no smj, failure to properly join), a dismissal is on the merits ii. Semtek v. Lockheed: What’s the preclusive effect upon a fed crt sitting in diversity w/ regard to a state’s SOL? (a) Rule: A judgment in a fed diversity action on the merits isn’t necessarily preclusive, b/c if applying 41(b) would conflict w/ §2072 (REA), then the crt must look to fed case law (based upon an Erie/Hanna/Byrd analysis). A dismissal “on the merits” preclusion applies only to the same crt w/ the same claim iii. Analysis in Semtek is important b/c CA (F1) had a rule that said it’s SOL wasn’t preclusive to other state’s (a) Scalia: Hold on, R41 is just @ dismissal, not about preclusion. We have a crt sitting in diversity so it must apply the forum’s law (CA). That law says that you’re not precluded from taking the case to MD. R41 says it’s dismissed and precluded. If we do that, we’ve abridged, modified, enlarged a substantive right. (b) So, we’ve got to look at (1) Hanna 1 (Eries 2 aims) (2) Hanna 2 (is there a fed law that conflicts: yup, R41) (3) Balance the Byrd: Is the state’s interest greater than the Feds. Really not a big difference so apply the state rule (4) Go to MD and be strong my friends B. Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel) 1. A party is precluded from bringing a suit if a. Same issue is involved b. Actually litigated c. Fully decided d. Issue was necessary to the judgment in that prior action 26
Image of page 26

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
2. CE comes into play when a court finds for a litigant on two independent, sufficient grounds. a. Three Approaches to applying/considering CE if there are independent grounds for a COA: i. Restatement: deny the use of CollEstl to both independent grounds since we can’t know which was necessary to the decision. ii. Alternative #1: give collateral estoppel effect to both alternative determinations (same effect as Restatement Approach) iii. Alternative #2: a flexible middle-ground where the court will examine the structure of the holding on a case by case basis to determine if collateral estoppel is proper. 3. Direct Estoppel: basic issue preclusion between same parties, or parties in privity a. Little v. Blue Goose Motor Coach : Is an estate precluded based on the fact that previous suit determined that was the negligent party? i. Rule: A previous crt’s judgment will preclude an action where it involves the same issues, actually litigated and decided, with that issue being necessary to that prior judgment 4.
Image of page 27
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern