Facts of the Case
The case involved a somewhat complex set of facts arising from an automobile accident. Donald Cionci was driving a car when he collided with a truck driven by Thomas Smith (Edward Dutcher, the car's owner, was not present when the accident occurred). John Harris and John Lynch were passengers in the car at the time of the crash. As a result of the collision, Cionci and Smith were killed, as was John Lynch. Harris, however, survived.
Provident Tradesmens Bank, the administrator of Lynch's estate, sued the estate of Cionci (the car's driver) in federal district court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. Cionci's estate, in turn, notified Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Dutcher's insurance company, alleging that Lumbermen's had a duty to defend pursuant to Dutcher's insurance policy. However, Lumbermens declined to defend Cionci's estate in the suit by Provident, asserting that Cionci had not had permission to drive Dutcher's vehicle and hence was not covered by the policy. The suit by Provident against the estate of Cionci was subsequently settled for $50,000 but Cionci, being penniless, could not pay.
Apparently eyeing Lumbermen's deep pockets and armed with a liquidated $50,000 claim from its suit against Cionci's estate, Provident brought suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that Cionci had permission from Dutcher to use the automobile. The only named defendants in the declaratory action were Lumbermens and the estate of Cionci. David Dutcher, the owner of the vehicle and the beneficiary of the Lumbermens insurance policy, was not named as a defendant.
The district court concluded that as a matter of applicable Pennsylvania law, the driver of an automobile is presumed to have the permission of the owner. Although the defendants sought to introduce testimony by Dutcher (the car's owner) concerning the restrictions he had imposed on Cionci's use of the automobile, the court held that under Pennsylvania's "Dead Man Rule" Dutcher was incompetent to testify, because his interests were adverse to that of Lynch's estate. Since there was no other evidence controverting the presumption of permission by Dutcher, the district court directed a verdict in favor of the Provident Tradesmens Bank.
Lumbermens appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that because Dutcher was an indispensable party and was not joined in the initial action, the suit must be dismissed. It held (1) that a person's whose rights may be affected by a judgment has a "substantive" right to be joined in the action, (2) that a trial court may not proceed in that person's absence, and (3) that since Dutcher could not be joined without destroying the court's diversity jurisdiction, the suit had to be dismissed.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to address the scope of the newly amended Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Supreme Court Decision
After reciting the full text of Rule 19, the Court assumed that Dutcher fell within the description in section (a) of persons who should be "joined if feasible." However, because Dutcher was from the same state as the plaintiffs in the case (Pennsylvania), he could not be joined without depriving the federal courts of jurisdiction over the case.
The Court then turned to the section (b) of Rule 19, which governs situations where joinder of the absent person is not feasible. The Rule articulates four factors to be considered by a court in deciding whether "in equity or good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed." The four factors were 1) the plaintiff's interest in an adequate forum, 2) the defendant's interest in avoiding relitigation of the issues before the court and in avoiding inconsistent and unfair relief, 3) the absent party's interests at stake, and 4) the interests of the court and the general public in complete, consistent, efficient settlement of controversies. The court noted that these factors should have been analyzed by the federal district courts before a judgment was issued. As a result of the fact that a judgment had already been entered, the court then analyzed the factors from the standpoint of an appellate review of the relief granted by the trial court.
The court concluded that 1) the plaintiff's interest in preserving a fully litigated judgment was controlling unless countered by greater opposing considerations, 2) the defendants' interests in joining Dutcher were foreclosed by their failure to move for such a joinder before judgment was entered, 3) the absent party's interests were not foreclosed by his failure to be joined and the judgment entered by the trial court therefore does not bind him and causes his rights no harm as a result, and 4) the efficiency of the judiciary may have been benefitted from an attempt to find a more suitable forum for the controversy before judgment was entered but, after judgment was entered, efficiency would best be served upon appellate review by preserving the trial court's judgment. For the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court determined that the case should not be dismissed because Dutcher's absence during trial would not violate any of his substantive rights.
As a result of the four factor analysis, the Court ruled that Dutcher was a necessary party but not an indispensable party. The difference between the two is that a suit may proceed without the former but cannot proceed without the latter. The Supreme Court also noted that the district court had misinterpreted Shields v. Barrow to incorrectly assume that a case must be dismissed wherever the interests of an absent party were affected. The Supreme Court explained that where an absent party's interests were affected in a suit, the four factors enumerated above had to be analyzed to determine whether the suit should proceed without the party or be dismissed.
A class action, also known as a class-action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.
Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties, as determined by the facts in evidence, which bind the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law involved in the suit. Without personal jurisdiction over a party, a court’s rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction. A similar principle is that of standing or locus standi, which is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.
The terms moot and mootness are used in both in English and American law, although with different meanings.
A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil action brought by a plaintiff demands a legal or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". The rationale behind issue preclusion is the prevention of legal harassment and the prevention of overuse or abuse of judicial resources.
In law, a summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.
In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives U.S. federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. Diversity jurisdiction requires two conditions to be met: first, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between a lawsuit's parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants; and second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these conditions, U.S. federal courts will normally lack the power to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.
An indispensable party is a party in a lawsuit whose participation is required for jurisdiction or the purpose of rendering a judgment. In reality, a party may be "necessary" but not indispensable. For example, if they claim an interest in the litigation, that interest may be impeded if they are not joined. That doesn't transform them into an indispensable party unless their absence threatens some other party's interest. Often, an indispensable party is any party whose rights are directly affected by disposition of the case. Many jurisdictions have rules which provide for an indispensable party to be joined at the discretion of the judge; this is referred to as a nonjoinder of party. In some cases, the inability to join such a party means that the case must be dismissed. In the United States, this is outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 19.
A non-suit or nonsuit is a legal procedure. A plaintiff drops his or her suit, under certain circumstances that do not prevent another action being brought later on the same facts.
Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the enforcement of extraprovincial judgments. The Court held that the standard for enforcing a default judgment from a different province is not the same as if it were from another country; rather the Court adopts the test from Indyka v Indyka, [1969] 1 AC 33 (HL) and the Moran v Pyle National (Canada) Ltd, [1975] 1 SCR 393 where there must be a "real and substantial connection" between the petitioner and the country or territory exercising jurisdiction.
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States extensively refined the abstention doctrine to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (1996), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and how federal courts are to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. The Court held that the New York state rule applied.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) to require that federal courts grant a party leave to amend a pleading absent special circumstances such as bad faith or prejudice to the opposing party. It has been recognized by both other courts and secondary sources as a leading decision on the interpretation of Rule 15(a).
The Florida Constitution, in Article V, Section 2(a), vests the power to adopt rules for the "practice and procedure in all courts" in the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in March 1954. The proper abbreviation for the rules is Fla.R.Civ.P. The rules may be amended, or new rules added, from time to time and upon the approval of the Florida Supreme Court.
The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (1952) is a federal law enacted by the United States Congress in 1952 which waives the United States' sovereign immunity in suits concerning ownership or management of water rights. It amended Chapter 15 of Title 43 of the United States Code. The McCarran Amendment gives others the right to join in such a lawsuit as a defendant. Prior to the Amendment, sovereign immunity kept the United States from being joined in any suits. The Amendment enabled suits concerning federal water rights to be tried in state courts.
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines, via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The case stemmed out of disputes surrounding one of the overseas investments and bank accounts of Ferdinand Marcos, Arelma S.A.. Marcos was President of the Philippines until being overthrown in the People Power Revolution.
