Yes, put forth best effort because they didn’t want to lose and have class action suit Did D have same in #1? procedural opportunities Ex. Small claims court v. normal court (one is more limiting) No, because it was in equity court, there was no jury Yes, right to jury didn’t change anything, nothing turns on it (Byrd) Had all procedural and evidentiary rules, no jury is not enough by itself to claim different opportunities Were prior inconsistent judgments? Normally, last judgment is preclusive, unless multiple inconsistent judgments, then unfair Because of offensive use of collateral estoppel, Parkland is, in case #2, proven fraud because of Case #1 Seventh Amendment Does Parklane have a to jury? Case #1: No, SEC #2: security at issue, so maybe security fraud didn’t exist in 1791 Ross Test (3): What’s the like? Fraud—tort of common law What the relief like? Legal Is the jury suitable? Eh, complicated financial matters, but SCOTUS put a lot of pressure on #3, so it doesn’t outweigh 1 or 2 Because #1 is equity and #2 is isn’t it a 7th amendment violation? Distinguished from Beacon because was same case/same transaction, this is not How does Beacon say that #1 is preclusive? Because findings by judge are equitable claims which are decided if judge goes first, no jury Would Parklane get a jury in 1791? Yes, because nonmutual collateral estoppel didn’t Why is this a problem now? Because the right here is procedrua, not substantive (Galloway, Redman) 7th amendment preserves substance Frankfurt: arguable substantive because it changes outcome (York) Substance: Dimmick: No additur because not done that way in 1791 Slocum: no jnov because not done in 1791 Procedure Galloway, Redman, Parklane: preserves substance, not procedure Binding Non Parties
Yes, put forth best effort because they didn’t want to lose and have class action suit Did D have same procedural opportunities in #1? Ex. Small claims court v. normal court (one is more limiting) No, because it was in equity court, there was no jury Yes, right to jury didn’t change anything, nothing turns on it (Byrd) Had all procedural and evidentiary rules, no jury is not enough by itself to claim different opportunities Were prior inconsistent judgments? Normally, last judgment is preclusive, unless multiple inconsistent judgments, then unfair Because of offensive use of collateral estoppel, Parkland is, in case #2, proven fraud because of Case #1 Seventh Amendment Does Parklane have a to jury? Case #1: No, SEC #2: security at issue, so maybe security fraud didn’t exist in 1791 Ross Test (3): What’s the like? Fraud—tort of common law What the relief like? Legal Is the jury suitable? Eh, complicated financial matters, but SCOTUS put a lot of pressure on #3, so it doesn’t outweigh 1 or 2 Because #1 is equity and #2 is isn’t it a 7th amendment violation? Distinguished from Beacon because was same case/same transaction, this is not How does Beacon say that #1 is preclusive? Because findings by judge are equitable claims which are decided if judge goes first, no jury Would Parklane get a jury in 1791? Yes, because nonmutual collateral estoppel didn’t Why is this a problem now? Because the right here is procedrua, not substantive (Galloway, Redman) 7th amendment preserves substance Frankfurt: arguable substantive because it changes outcome (York) Substance: Dimmick: No additur because not done that way in 1791 Slocum: no jnov because not done in 1791 Procedure Galloway, Redman, Parklane: preserves substance, not procedure Binding Non Parties