King v. RLDS – Relationships Who’s involved and what are their positions RLDS Owner Tri-Cote Prime Contractor King Sub Contractor.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Joinder of Parties Compulsory Joinder Part 2. 19(a) (1) 19(a) (2)(i) 19(a) (2)(ii) Feasible to Join? Proceed w/o Absentee Join Absentee Dismiss Case 19(b)

Advertisements

Remedies Against Govt Defendants – Some Basics 11 th amendment bars suits against the State, unless Lawsuit is against state officer in their official.

1 Agenda for 35th Class Supp J problems (continued) Introduction to Collateral Estoppel Res Judicata Assignments for next classCollateral Estoppel –Yeazell.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 40 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 27, 2002.

1 Agenda for 22nd Class Admin –Name plates –Handouts Slides Internet Jurisdiction –Lunch sign up This Friday, 12:30 Meet outside Rm 433 (Faculty Lounge)

Quackenbush & The Final Judgment Rule. Quackenbush – Proceedings Below Who was the plaintiff? State Insurance Commissioner In what capacity? Trustee of.

The Process of Litigation. What is the first stage in a civil lawsuit ?  Service of Process (the summons)

Order granting a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) – lack of subject matter jurisdiction? Order granting a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(2) – lack of personal.

© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION ATTACKING THE PLEADINGS.

© 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 3 Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Chapter 3 Litigation and.

1 Parallel proceedings in international arbitration Day 2 Arbitration AcademySpecial course Session 2012Prof. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – LA 310. FEDERAL AND STATE COURT SYSTEMS.

Mon. Nov. 25. claim preclusion issue preclusion.

American Tort Law Carolyn McAllaster Clinical Professor of Law Duke University School of Law.

UMW v. Gibbs Gibbs – What Were P’s Legal Theories? Federal –Secondary Boycott State –Tortious Interference –Unlawful Conspiracy.

Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Has the Supreme Court made a mess of Congress’ plan? Laura Kolb November 1, 2005 Roberta Morris’ Patent Law Seminar.

Broderick v Rosner NY law allows piercing the corporate veil concerning NY banks to get to shareholders NJ doesn’t like this and wants to protect NJ shareholders.

1 Agenda for 12th Class Admin – Name plates – Slide handouts – Court visits A-E. M 10/20. Starting at 10AM – Please clear your calendar 9AM-2PM F-J. M.

Introduction to Civil Procedure in the United States Wake Forest LLM Introduction to American Law Alan R. Palmiter – Sep

1 Agenda for 36th Class Admin – Handouts – Review class – Tuesday 5/ :15 I will stay in the room until at least noon to answer questions – Last.

Tuesday, Nov. 13. necessary parties Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties (a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (1) Required Party. A person.

All four doctrines were developed by courts in the context of judicial cases. The doctrines, however, are important to administrative law as well.

Tues. Dec. 4 2:00. issue preclusion If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided - litigated fairly and fully - and essential.

Tues. Oct. 29. venue in federal court Sec Venue generally (b) Venue in general.--A civil action may be brought in-- (1) a judicial district.

Mon. Dec. 3. claim preclusion scope of a claim Rest. (2d) of Judgments § 24. Dimensions Of “Claim” For Purposes Of Merger Or Bar—General Rule Concerning.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 22 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 6, 2001.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Choosing a Trial Court Choosing a Trial Court (Federal or State Court) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Personal (Territorial) Jurisdiction.

Tues., Oct. 21. practice midterm Wed. 10/ Room 119 Thurs 10/ Room 141 Thurs 10/ Room 127.

Fri., Oct. 17. amendment 15(a) Amendments Before Trial. (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 39 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 21, 2005.

Mon. Nov ) are people already adversaries? NO 2) does the cause of action concern the same t/o of an action already being litigated? NO forbidden.

Thurs. Nov. 1. waiver of defenses FRCP 12(g) Joining Motions. (1) Right to Join. A motion under this rule may be joined with any other motion allowed.

Tues. Nov. 27. terminating litigation before trial 2.

Depositions and Law & Motion

Tues. Dec. 4. issue preclusion If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided - litigated fairly and fully - and essential to the.

The Courts What reporters need to know. Civil and criminal  Criminal law covers harms done against the people.  Examples: Murder, theft, reckless driving.

Tues., Oct. 29. consolidation separate trials counterclaims.

1 Agenda for 26th Class Administrative – Name cards – Handouts Slides 2012 Exam – Prof. Klerman office hours for rest of semester W 12/2. 3:30-4:30PM (today)

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 40 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Nov

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 23 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law

Changing the Rules. Basic Principle Agencies are bound by their own rules and adjudications until they change them They are free to change them, but must.

James v. Paul. James v. Paul – Relationships Who’s involved Danny James Boyfriend – Stabbing Victim Robert Paul Angry Husband – Stabber State Farm Liability.

1 Agenda for 35th Class Review –Supp J –Res Judicata Collateral Estoppel Review Class –2011 exam –Questions you bring Other exams to look at –2000 multiple.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 39 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America November 24, 2003.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 16 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Sept. 28, 2005.

Tues. Nov. 26. exceptions to issue preclusion In initial action bound party… - could not get appellate review - had lower quality procedures - had burden.

1 Agenda for 34th Class Class Action Review Introduction to Res Judicata Supplemental J problems Assignment for next class– Res Judicata –US Constitution.

1 Agenda for 34th Class Slide handout Next week –Monday. No class –Wednesday. Regular class 10-11:15, Rm. 103 –Friday. Rescheduled class. 1:20-2:35, Rm.

If the action in the preceding question commences instead in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, and Demosthenes moves to.

 Before filing suit, the plaintiff must decide in which of the Texas trial courts the lawsuit should be filed  That decision is made by choosing the.

Agenda for 24th Class Administrative Name cards Handouts Slides

No-answer and Post-answer

Standard of Review & “Facts” on Appeal

Tues., Oct. 22.

Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion) Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards

Thurs., Oct. 12.

Agenda for 25rd Class Admin Name plates TA-led review class

SolarCity vs. Salt River Project

Conflict of laws Today we will talk about Conflict of Laws, which occurs when the laws of two or more different jurisdictions could apply to a particular.

Estoppel by record Estoppel by conduct

Agenda for 26th Class Administrative Name cards

Agenda for 26th Class Administrative Name cards

Presentation transcript:

King v. RLDS – Relationships Who’s involved and what are their positions RLDS Owner Tri-Cote Prime Contractor King Sub Contractor

King v. RLDS – Contracts What were the promises? RLDSTri-C King Pay $448K Fix Asbestos Pay $448K Fix Asbestos Pay $56K Supervise

King v. RLDS Performance and Breakdown? King does extra work ($7K) at RLDS’s direction. RLDS finds King’s work unsatisfactory. King is fired.

King I (King v. Tri-C & RLDS) Count I Defendants Tri-Cote RLDS Theories Tort? & Contract? v. Both D’s QM v. RLDS ($7K) Count II Irrelevant Count III Defendants? RLDS Not Tri-Cote Theory Interference with King’s ability to complete contract with Tri-C.

King I (King v. Tri-C & RLDS) What happened before trial? King waived all tort claims. What motions did King file at close of evidence? Motion to amend to conform to evidence & assert 3 rd party beneficiary contract theory How did Court rule on that motion Denied What then happened re Count I Re RLDS Ct dismissed big claim since RLDS not party to contract Let $7K QM claim go to jury which ruled for King Re Tri-Cote Jury awards $42K What happened to Count II Ct dismissed since RLDS not party to contract What happened to Count III Ct dismissed on basis that it is a tortious interference claim and King had waived right to assert tort claims. Remember earlier refusal to allow amendment to assert 3rd party beneficiary contract theory.

King II (King v. RLDS Only) Who are the parties? P – King D – RLDS What are King’s theories? 3rd party beneficiary Tortious interference D (RLDS) raises collateral estoppel as a defense On what issue(s) was D asserting estoppel? (Hint: the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t tell you) Have elements of collateral estoppel been met in this case: Identical issue Judgment on the merits PTB a party or in privity with a party in earlier case Full & fair opportunity No inequity Why weren’t the issues “identical”? What was the issue on which preclusion was asserted? Was it an issue in King I? Was it decided in King I? What issue was decided in King I? Some thoughts about Missouri’s “identical issue” requirement for collateral estoppel “Necessarily and unambiguously decided” “issues of ultimate fact” “Essential to decision” (see n. 4)

King II (King v. RLDS Only) Res Judicata Defense What’s the basic idea behind res judicata? Why would court’s adopt res judicata? Does the system work better with it or without it? Why? Elements of res judicata in King? Were PTB & PAP parties in King I? Could King have asserted claims in King I? Do the King II claims arise out of same acts, conduct, or transactions as King I claims? Was King I decided by valid final judgment on the merits? Same transaction standard “whether parties, subject matter and evidence necessary to sustain the claim are the same in both actions” What does that mean? What is court trying to figure out?

Res Judicata Defense What’s the basic idea behind res judicata? Why would courts adopt res judicata? King II (King v. RLDS Only) Elements of res judicata in King? Were PTB & PAP parties in King I? Could King have asserted claims in King I? Do the King II claims arise out of same acts, conduct, or transactions as King I claims? Was King I decided by valid final judgment on the merits? Same transaction standard Basic Formulation: “Same act, conduct, or transaction” Alternative: “Whether parties, subject matter and evidence necessary to sustain the claim are the same in both actions” What does alternate mean?

Could have been brought standard Speculative or unripe claims Jurisdictional problems King II (King v. RLDS Only) The problem of “valid, final judgments on the merits” Meaning of validity Meaning of finality Meaning of “on the merits” Res Judicata v. Collateral Estoppel The Baffling “Four Identities” Identity of thing sued for Identity of the causes of action Identity of persons and parties Identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made

Could have been brought standard Speculative or unripe claims Jurisdictional problems King II (King v. RLDS Only) The problem of “valid, final judgments on the merits” Meaning of validity Meaning of finality Meaning of “on the merits” Res Judicata v. Collateral Estoppel The Baffling “Four Identities” Identity of thing sued for Identity of the causes of action Identity of persons and parties Identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made