Notice, Erie & Joinder

Question 1

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust (1950) — notice standard?

Accepted Answer

Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and give them an opportunity to object. (Source: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950))

Question 2

Hanna v. Plumer (1965) — held?

Accepted Answer

Where a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is on point, it applies in diversity cases even if state law differs. (Source: Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965))

Question 3

What does 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provide?

Accepted Answer

Supplemental jurisdiction over claims forming part of the same case or controversy as claims within original jurisdiction, with limits in diversity cases (§ 1367(b)). (Source: 28 U.S.C. § 1367)

Question 4

What does 28 U.S.C. § 1441 provide?

Accepted Answer

Removal: a defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if it could originally have been brought there. (Source: 28 U.S.C. § 1441)

Question 5

Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes (2011) — held?

Accepted Answer

Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requires a common contention whose resolution will resolve an issue central to each claim; the nationwide class of 1.5 million employees failed. (Source: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011))

Question 6

Claim preclusion vs issue preclusion?

Accepted Answer

Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars relitigating claims that were or could have been brought in a final judgment between the same parties; issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars relitigating an issue actually litigated and necessarily decided. (Source: Restatement (Second) of Judgments)

1.Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust (1950) — notice standard?

2.Hanna v. Plumer (1965) — held?

3.What does 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provide?

4.What does 28 U.S.C. § 1441 provide?

5.Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes (2011) — held?

6.Claim preclusion vs issue preclusion?