1. Lecture 24 Apr. 9, 2018

2. full faith and credit for judgments

3. Full Faith and Credit state for sister state – Art. IV, sect
Full Faith and Credit state for sister state – Art. IV, sect. 1 federal for state – 28 U.S. Code § state for federal – Supremacy Clause?

4. foreclosure of jurisdictional issues

5. Durfee v Duke (US 1963)

6. personal jurisdiction

7. subject matter jurisdiction

8. real property

9. Clarke v. Clarke (US 1900)

10. Fall v Eastin (US 1909)

11. Baker v Gen Motors (US 1998)

12. some basic points

13. in general, injunctions and equitable decrees are subject to FF&C

14. equity decrees for payment of money factual determinations in equity proceedings

15. also, no “roving public policy exception” to FF&C

16. now the problems

17. is there any Michigan obligation that is relevant to this Missouri case at all?

18. assume that in Michigan state court General Motors had brought a declaratory judgment action against the Bakers to determine whether Ewell could testify in any suit they might bring. What result?

19. and if there was preclusive effect on the Bakers, wouldn’t that violate due process?

20. African-American applicants to a fire dept sue the department
The court enters a decree for an affirmative action program in hiring
Subsequently white applicants to the fire department sue the department challenging the program
Are they precluded?

21. but sometimes court proceedings can have effects on third parties without due process being violated e.g. sealing of court records

22. even if there us a Michigan obligation that is relevant, isn’t the obligation modifiable in Michigan and so modifiable in MO?

23. Scalia’s opinion…

24. P dues D in Mich – gets a money judgment of $100 P then sues on the judgment in MO – what is P’s action under whose law?

25. GM is wrongly asking for a direct effect of the Mich injunction in MO court

26. what if GM sued for a declaratory judgment in MO court determining the Elwell can’t testify in the Baker case?

27. is the problem that GM is asking that the Mich injunction is given greater effect in MO than it can have in Mich?

28. but isn’t that commonly true of FF&C
but isn’t that commonly true of FF&C? P dues D in Mich – gets a money judgment of $100 P then sues on the judgment in MO where D’s money is the Mich judgment is given effect on MO $

29. substance and procedure in the recognition of judgments…

30. P sues D in Cal. , gets judgment D has no assets in Cal
P sues D in Cal., gets judgment D has no assets in Cal. D has house in Nev. P sues D on judgment in Nev., but under Nev. law houses cannot be used to satisfy judgments (in Cal. they can)

31. The city of Chicago, Illinois levied a “wage tax” upon everyone working in the city, including commuters residing in other states. D (a domiciliary of Wisconsin working in Chicago), refused to pay the tax and was sued by the city of Chicago in Illinois state court. D lost and a judgment was issued against her. Although no wage taxes are levied in Wisconsin, soon after Chicago enacted its wage tax, the state of Wisconsin enacted a law specifying that wage tax judgments could not be enforced through the attachment of real property. Under Illinois law, attachment of real property is a means of enforcing judgments, including wage tax judgments. The city of Chicago brought suit against D on the Illinois judgment in Wisconsin state court, asking that D’s real property be attached. May the Wisconsin court refuse to attach D’s real property?

32. jurisdiction for suits on judgments

33. can a state refuse jurisdiction for a sister state judgment under the public policy exception?

34. what about refusing under forum non conveniens?

35. Anglo-Am Provision v Davis (US 1903)
NY ct allowed to refuse suit on foreign judgment between 2 foreign corps when judgment arose from cause of action arising out of state

36. Kenney v Supreme Lodge (US 1920)
Ill ct refused jurisdiction for suit on Alabama wrongful death judgment against an Illinoisan
basis was statute forbidding actions for death outside state
US SCt held violation of Full Faith and Credit

37. Ginsburg’s opinion

38. “Full faith and credit, however, does not mean that States must adopt the practices of other States regarding the time, manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments. Enforcement measures do not travel with the sister state judgment as preclusive effects do; such measures remain subject to the even-handed control of forum law.”

39. “Orders commanding action or inaction have been denied enforcement in a sister State when they purported to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority.”

40. assume that an action had been brought in Mich state court by the Bakers to determine the availability of Elwell as a witness for their case in MO the Mich court says he cannot not testify is Ginsburg saying that isn’t entitled to FF&C?

41. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein (US 1996)

42. 28 U.S.C. § 1738
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

43. assume no settlement and no class action

44. P sues D in state ct for state law fraud concerning securities
J for P (not settlement)
P then sues D in fed ct for fed securities law violations
what are arguments for preclusion?
what are arguments against preclusion?

45. If, under state law, federal action would be precluded
Marrese
If, under state law, federal action would not be precluded by state judgment
then the federal court may not preclude the action
If, under state law, federal action would be precluded
then the federal court must preclude the action
unless the federal statute giving the federal courts exclusive federal subject matter jurisdiction for the federal action impliedly repealed federal courts' obligations under section to give full faith and credit to state court judgments.

46. when are state courts going to answer this question
when are state courts going to answer this question? P sues D in Del ct for state law fraud concerning securities J for P (not settlement) P then sues D in Del ct for fed securities law violations what happens…?

47. does it matter that this was a settlement?

48. P sues D in state court under state securities fraud there is a settlement agreement in which federal securities actions are included any problem?

49. does it matter that this is a judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement?

50. does it matter that this was a class action?

51. Erie

52. Tompkins (a PA domiciliary) sues Erie (a NY domiciliary) in NY state court concerning an accident in PA Can NY use its own standard of care? Can NY use its own statute of limitations?

53. Tompkins sues Erie in federal court in NY concerning an accident in PA Can the federal court apply a federal common law standard of care? Can it use its own federal common law limitations period?

54. Guaranty Trust v York (US 1945)

55. It is therefore immaterial whether statutes of limitation are characterized either as "substantive" or "procedural" in State court opinions in any use of those terms unrelated to the specific issue before us. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins ... expressed a policy that touches vitally the proper distribution of judicial power between State and federal courts. In essence, the intent of that decision was to insure that, in all cases where a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in a State court.

56. A Mississippi statute requires a corporation doing business within the state to designate an agent for the service of process before bringing suit. Should this statute be used by a federal court in Mississippi?

57. A New Jersey statute requires small shareholders bringing derivative actions to post a bond. Should this statute be used by a federal court in New Jersey for a derivative action under Delaware law?