Complex Lit Flashcards

Question

# Anti-Injunction Act 1. What Rule is it? 2. General Rule? 3. Three Statutory Exceptions an injunction may be granted when there is a parallel state proceeding? 4. Equitable Requirements? 5. Key Principle

Answer 1

1. 28 U.S.C. § 2283 2. Restricts a federal court's ability to enjoin, or stop, ongoing state court proceedings. It generally prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions against state court proceedings, except in very limited circumstances 3. Injunction **may** be granted when (i) Expressly authorized by statute (ii) Necessaty in aid of federal JXD and (iii) Necessary to protect or effectuate federal judgements. 4. Even if allowed, federal injunction must satisfy equity principles: necessity, fairness. 5. Federal courts usually must hear cases even if a similar state case is pending (Colorado River doctrine), but they generally cannot enjoin ongoing state proceedings unless a narrow Anti-Injunction Act exception applies. | Fed court hears duplicat. case cannot enjoin pending state case (AIA).

Answer 2

* State court proceeding seriously impairs the federal court's flexibility and authority such that an unjunciton is "necessary in aid of JXD. | MDL court enjoins state case to protect federal management of MDL.

Answer 3

1. Fraudlent joinder occurs when a plaintiff includes a non-diverse or local defendant solely to defeat federal diversity JXD. 2. Defendant proves that there is no resaonable basis to assert against the non-diverse defendant so that there is no possibility of recovery. 3. Courts may dismiss the sham defendant and retain JXD under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. | P1 joins P2 (same state as D1) with ~viable claim to destroy diversity. ## Footnote *Standard is similar to MSJ standard but more plaintiff friendly, defendant bears the burden of affirmatively negating any possibility of recovery against the nondiverse defendant. *Fraudlent joinder is judged by the 12(b)(6) standard ---if the plaintiff pleads enough facts to state a possible claim against the non diverse or local defendant, then joinder is not fraudlent, removal is proper. *Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, a defendant must file a notice of removal 30 days after receving the complaint. * For Fraudlent Joinder, the 30 days for removal clock starts when fraudlent joinder befcomes apparent. * Voluntary dismissal via SMJ does not erase citizenship for diversity pruposes.

Answer 4

Federal courts have diversity JXD when: 1. Complete diversity exists between parties on either side of the "v," at the time of the filing. 2. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Determined by the plaintiff's allegations unless it is legally certain they cannot recover more than $75,00. | P3 and D25 from same state then ~diversity, ~be heared in fed court. ## Footnote **Determining Citizenship:** * Inidividuals: Domicile (residence +intent to remain indefinitely) * Corporations: Both state of incorporation and principal place of business * Non-Corporate Entitites (e.g., LLC): Citizenship of each member. **Home State Defendanat Rule:** * 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), even if complete diversity exists, a case cannot be removed to federal court if any properly joined and severed defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed.

Answer 5

1. FRCP 23(a) 2. (i) Sufficeint number of class members involved (**numerousity**); (ii) A common question of law or fact binding the claims (**Commonality**); (iii) Class rep. brigining the suit have claims typical to the other class members (**Typicality**); (iv) Class rep. is an adequate reprepsentative of the absent class members (**Adequacy**) | 100s harmed, same prod defect, same injury, rep can fairly represent all

Answer 6

1. Not having a Class prevents inconsistent obligations for defendant; or 2. Class members' separate lawsuits could practically decide or impair the rights of putative class members*** I.e., Failure to certify would materially prejudice absent class members' recovery. Case1 D wins. Case2 similar facts — but D loses. ; trsut jdg binds | D may face contem. in one crt. for complying with relief ordered by anot

Answer 7

If the defendant has acted (or refused to act) on grounds that apply generally to the whole class, making a single injunction or declaratory judgment appropriate for everyone, a Rule 23(b)(2) class can be certified. | Prison policy harms all inmates — single injunction fits 23(b)(2) class

Answer 8

1. **Court finds common issues dominate and class action is best method.** ***Predominance*:** The common questions (same legal or factual issues shared across the class) are more important and central to the case than individual differences. ***Superiority*:** Using a class action is better, fairer, and more efficient than having everyone file separate lawsuits. | Brake defect common to all people using same car; class action best way

Answer 9

1. A: Do class members want their own separate lawsuits instead of being part of a class? 2. B: Are lots of similar cases already filed elsewhere? 3. C: Is it a good idea to handle the whole dispute in one court? 4. D: Will managing the class action be too complicated or messy? | Small claims, few other suits, 1 forum efficient, easy to manage → class ## Footnote (A)–(D) are factors the court considers to decide if Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied.

Answer 10

1. The class must be defined in a manner that prvodes the current court and future court the ability to determine whether a person is or was within a class. 2. * Who the class is, * What claims/issues are being certified, and * Who the lawyers (class counsel) are. ## Footnote *Courts stuggle with the definition of a class reliant on the mental state of its members. Good (Ascertainable): "All people who bought Model X washing machines between 2020 and 2023." Bad (Not Ascertainable): "All people who were dissatisfied with their washing machines."

Answer 11

23(b)(3) classes (typically seeking money damages) → YES, must provide the "best notice practicable" → including individual notice (like mailing letters or emails) to all identifiable class members. 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) classes (typically seeking injunctions or declarations) → NO individual notice required (but courts may allow notice if appropriate). ## Footnote * Especially important for 23(b)(3) classes where you have to send individual notice to class members — you need to know who they are to notify them

Answer 12

* Class cannot be defined if the class is too vague and unmanageable * Defining the class cannot require subjective, specualative inquiries that would necessitate individualized fact findings. | Subjective class ("felt discriminated") = not ascertainable, no class.

Answer 13

* Joinder must be impractical, not merely inconvenient. * No fixed number * Practical considerations like geographic disperison and the difficulty of managing joinder--not just raw numbers.

Answer 14

* The more more individualized each instance, the harder to find commonality that can be reolved for all class members "in one stroke." * There needs to be a common injury that ties the class together. | Local manager bias, too individuaiized. = ~class-wide comm. of discrim

Answer 15

* Typicality and adequacy have overlap but each requires separate consideration from the court. * Representative party's interest in prosecuting his own case must simultaenously tend to advance the intersets of the absent class members. * Representative's clam need not be "identical" with that of each other class member, but the greater the variation, the more hesitation a court will have in finding that Rule 23(a)(3) has been satisfied. * "The named plaintiff fails to satisfy the typicality requirement." * Represetnative's claim arose must arise from the same conduct and legal theory as those of the class. | Diff. injury from ProdX rep’s claim ~typical of other injuries ~satisf.

Answer 16

* Looks at the proposed representatitve's **comptence** and **loyality** to the absent class. * Courts must consider personal qualities of the class rep. such as **vigor**, **tenaciousness**, and willingness to make a **financial** **commitment**. * Adequacy has due process underpinnings in that it prohibits representative litigation from binding absent parties when thier interest diverge from those of the named plaintiffs (*Inherently Conflicting Interests*). * Incentive deals, such as bonuses for being a class rep, with the class reps creates a *manufactured adequacy problem* b/c it creates a disconnect between the class and the class reps. * Firsthand knowledge on a technical issue as the class rep is not required as that would be too high of a bar. | Rep gets bonus for cheap settlement/incomptent=conflict=inadequate rep.

Answer 17

* Protects asent class members from prejudice when their interests might be imparied by not particpating in litigation. * The classic case for (b)(1)(B) is the Limited Fund Scenario where certification involves a finite pool of assets: Early claimants may deplete the fund; Later claimants may recieve little or nothing; Equal treatment requires centralized adjudication to avoid unfair outcomes. * Class certification under 23(b)(1)(B) cannot be based on speculative or abstract limits--a limited fund must be real, finite, and provable, with clear risk of prejudice to avsent cls members if not certified. * Charachteristics of a Truly Limited Fund Class Atction: 1. Fund is limited — Aggregate claims exceed available assets. the fund available to satisfy the claims; 2. Fund is entirely devoted — No improper carve-outs or diversions. 3. Claimants are treated equitably — No favoritism among class members. ## Footnote **Longer Example** A company with $10 million in insurance faces $100 million in claims from a factory explosion. → Early plaintiffs could drain the fund, so a (b)(1)(B) limited fund class may be certified to divide assets fairly among all victims.

Answer 18

* Designed for uniform injunctive or declaratory relief applicable to the class as a whole, not for individualziized damages, e.g., backpay. * Sometimes referred to as the equitable relief class action or the injunctive relief class action. Class cert. is appropriate under 23(b)(2) even if monetary relief is sought, as long as injunctive or declaratory relief remains the primary goal and the damages are incidential flowing automatically from the injunctive relief and can be mechanically calaculated without individualized hearings. | Injunction changing hiring practices = proper 23(b)(2) class action.

Answer 19

* Most frequent type of certified class action * Individualized damages alone does not bar certification where common questions about liability control. * Mass torts cases are not inherently unsuitable for class treatement where common questions perdominate. * **Perdominance:**Common questions shown in 23(a)(2) commonality requirement outweighs the individual Questions among the class claims. * **Superority:**A class action is superior to any other alterntative. * **Manageability:** The court can handle the case, both at pretrial and trial level effectively. | Asbestos: Exposure and damages common = predominance for 23(b)(3) class.

Answer 20

1. Opened the door to federal courts for many state-law based nationwide class actions. 2. Added 28 U.S. Code § 1332(d) to the general diversity statute for class actions. * Only need minimal diversity (look at every class member) * Total amount on controversey exceed $5 million (aggergation of all claims) * Class must have at least 100 members. 3.Removal process is easier: not all defendants have to agree to removal, can remove even if a defendant is a citizen of the forum state, and no 1-year limit on removal diversity cases. | CAFA: Minimal diversity, $5M+, 100+ members = federal jurisdiction. ## Footnote Big + Diverse + Federal interest = CAFA. Small + Local = No CAFA.

Answer 21

1. Federal Question (at least one federal claim) 2. Traditional Diversity 3. CAFA

Answer 22

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(4) 2. Federal Courts must decline JXD if: * >2/3 of Ps are citizens of the state the case was filed and; * At least one significant defendant is from that state and; * The injuries occurred in that state and; * No similar clsas action was filed in the last 3 years. | 70% of Ps and key D from TX where injuries occurred, ~prior similar case ## Footnote * CAFA strongly favors federal JXD, the local controversey exception is strictly construed.

Answer 23

1. Filing a class action tolls the SOL for all putative class members (continues until the court rules on class cert.) 2. The tolling doctrine applies to individual actions (either by intervening in the case or filing a seperate lawsuit). 3. Tolling does not extend to successive class actions, a new class action filed outside the SOL is time-barred. ## Footnote **Long Example** Class action filed in 2020. Court denies certification in 2022. Individual plaintiffs can still sue individually after 2022 because the SOL was tolled. But you can't start a brand-new class action in 2022 if SOL has otherwise expired.

Answer 24

* Class action settlements must be fair, reasonable, and adeqaute. * If settlement provides coupons, attorney fees must be based on actual redemption not on estimated face value. * Incentive awards must be closely scruitnized, Courts must ensure that awards do not undermine adequacy or create conflicts of interset with the class. ## Footnote **Long Example** Settlement gives $10 coupons for a product. Lawyers ask for $10 million based on theoretical coupon value. ✅ → Not allowed — fees must be based on actual redeemed coupons. Class rep gets a $50,000 bonus while everyone else gets $5. ✅ → Court may reject the settlement for creating a conflict of interest.

Answer 25

1. Plaintiffs do not need to but they can allege a class action. 2. Either the panel of MDL or the parties can request for the panels to determine that consolidation for pretrial under 1407. 3. Transferee court cannot transfer to themselves

Answer 26

1. Needs to be riaed early and not overlooked by the courts because it is not truly JXDictional. | Lcal cont. excep met but ignored or ~timely raised → can stay in fed crt

Answer 27

1. They are bound by the final judgement no matter what; cannot sue again if they lose (issue preclusion). 2. Not bound by the class judgement; cannot claim victories from the class action in their own later lawsuit (They have to prove their case independently). | Stay in=bound win or lose. Opt out = free but no benefit from class win.

Answer 28

1. 23(b)(1)(A) (inconsistent obligations) ==> YES. Class seeks uniform obligations; individual damages not at issue. 2. 23(b)(2) (injunctive/declaratory relief) ==> YES. Class seeks policy change; individual damages are separate. 3. 23(b)(1)(B) (limited fund) ==> NO. Fund is exhausted and distributed fairly — no more individual suits. 4. 23(b)(3) (damages class) ==> NO ONLY IF YOU Opt-in. Bound by judgment (win or lose); barred from relitigating.

Answer 29

1. Individual notice must be given to all identifiable (through reasonable effort and practical under the cirumstances) Rule 23(b)(3) class members in that it reasonabl informs absent class members of the case and their right to opt out. 2. First-class mail is no longer required: Electronic notice (like email, social media, text message) → can now be used, if it’s likely to actually inform class members under the circumstances.

Answer 30

1. Courts are more skeptical about certifying damages classes than injunction classes (High threshold). 2. Area of law "mature" and well-developed 3. If the lawsuit is based on a new, untested, or novel theory of liability, | Mature claims=class action more likely; new claims=wait for jury wisdom. ## Footnote Courts prefer to let individual cases shape the law before allowing a risky or untested theory to be handled through a single class action.

Answer 31

1. Class members' interest in controlling thier prosecution or defense as seperate actions? 2. The nature of any litigation concerning a controversy that has already begun. 3. The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of claims in a particular forum. 4. Alot of weight into whether the Court can effecitvely manage the class action at the trial and pretrial stages

Answer 32

Courts are not required to: 1. Provide individual notice to every class member, or 2. Allow class members an opportunity to opt out. (b)(1) (risk of inconsistent obligations) and (b)(2) (injunctive or declaratory relief) classes are considered mandatory classes.

Answer 33

If the class action seeks both: Injunctive relief, AND Significant individualized monetary damages (not just incidental backpay or small amounts), 1. Then courts may require notice and allow opt-outs to protect the absent class members’ due process rights. 2. Because once significant money is involved, it starts to look like a (b)(3) damages class, where notice and opt-out are required by rule.

Answer 34

When a court certifies or denies certification of a class action, That decision is subject to interlocutory appeal under FRCP 23(f) — (You can immediately ask the appellate court to review the decision, even though the case isn’t finished.) ## Footnote Even if a 23(f) appeal is happening, the trial court still has the independent 23(c)(1)(C) power to change its mind about the class.

Answer 35

1. The answer is to not to certify or to decertify class but to allow plaintiffs to find another class rep that has claims typical of the class. ## Footnote Looks more at (as compared to adequacy) in pursuing their own claim, will the class representative represent the interest of the class.

Answer 36

1. In common law claims, choice-of-law issues may undermine commonality if materially different legal standards apply across jurisdictions.

Answer 37

1. Federal court is managing a receivership over a business — can't have a state court start carving up the assets; Federal court is overseeing a foreclosure on land — can't have a state court seize the same land. 2. Two courts are hearing similar tort or contract claims → not enough — no property under exclusive federal control. | Doesn't apply to general overlapping suits about money/personal claims. ## Footnote Necessary in aid of jurisdiction" = almost always tied to control over property (res).

Answer 38

1. A federal court can enjoin a state court proceeding to protect or enforce a federal court judgment that has already resolved the same issue or claim. ## Footnote A.K.A relitigation exception

Answer 39

1. Certain federal statutes say that Congress has given Federal courts exclusive JXD. OR Statute may expressly authorize Fed Courts to enjoin State courts to answering federal questions ## Footnote Exceedingly narrow and rare

Answer 40

1.Even if subject matter jurisdiction is technically proper (like diversity or federal question), federal courts ***have discretion*** to decline to hear a declaratory judgment case — especially if there is a competing or parallel state court action on the same matter.

Answer 41

Under Colorado River abstention, if the state court has assumed jurisdiction over property (a res), this strongly favors federal abstention to avoid conflicting control. However, if the federal court has assumed jurisdiction, abstention is generally disfavored because federal courts protect their own jurisdiction.

Answer 42

When a plaintiff has suffered severe or emotional injuries, defendants often ask the court to sever ("bifurcate") the trial into two phases per Rule 42: **First Phase:**Trial only on liability — was the defendant at fault? **Second Phase (only if needed):** Trial on damages — how badly was the plaintiff hurt and how much money is owed. ## Footnote **Example of 42(a)&(b) Interplay:** Consolidation of a trial as to the products dangerousness, as to the warning labels, and then seperate for damages which are highly individualized.

Answer 43

Misjoinder of parties (wrongly joining too many or too few parties) is not a ground for dismissing the entire action. **Instead, the court has flexibility to:** * Add parties, * Drop parties, or * Sever claims (using Rule 42(b) if needed) to fix the problem and allow the case to proceed fairly. ## Footnote FRCP 21

Answer 44

* Rule 42(a) = Consolidate local cases (same district) both at pretrial and trial phase ordered by the district court. * MDL = Transfer national cases (different districts) into one court for pretrial only by the JPML.

Answer 45

1. Focusing on the defendant's activities then the more likely it will be the same T&O. 2. Focusing on the P's injuries, then it is much less likely that the it will be the same T&O.

Complex Lit Flashcards

Final Exam Prep (70 cards)