P’s affirmative defenses NOT (NO fair trial, as litigated” “actually per federal court)… BUT, nonetheless, (majority rule in have been litigated” … “could CA) Miscellaneous In arbitration b/w 2 parties result reached, confirmed Vandenberg v. Sup. Ct., as judgment… then, losing party attempts to sue 3rd party (NOT involved in arbitration) … preclusive effect of arbitration as to non-parties… NO upon non-parties, unless agreed to (though, unlikely issue preclusion for non-party to agree as such)… BUT, w/ many open-ended exceptions… though, states that arbitration award has CCP § 1287.4 same force … “the as a judgment… and effect” If read literally, then YES issue preclusion… BUT, public policy does NOT literal reading litigating party … may NOT have litigated as forcefully as subsequently-barred (potential to turn arbitration into litigation) CA Civ Pro Federal Civ Pro $25+K for $75K for Amount-in-controversy unlimited case diversity (“AIC”) jurisdiction from NO Case for less than AIC Reclassification diversity jurisdiction to (if filed (case dismissed must be unlimited limited as refiled in state court) unlimited) Arranged by county Arranged by federal district Venue Enforceable to select state Enforceable, depending on Contracting around venue (if reasonable)… but, NOT convenience/serving justice, to select county within state arms-length/bargained-for (if conflicting w/ CA rules) Alternative forum NOT Alternative forum MAY be For forum non conveniens, rendered unsuitable unsuitable (an important if alternative forum does consideration) NOT permit litigation of subject matter in dispute… YES NO Form complaints Code pleading vs. notice Code pleading Notice pleading pleading YES NO Statement of Damages D bringing suit against P/ Cross-complaint Counterclaim/crossclaim/ co-D/3rd party impleader
P’s affirmative defenses NOT “actually litigated” (NO fair trial, as per federal court)… … BUT, nonetheless, “could have been litigated” (majority rule in CA) Miscellaneous In Vandenberg v. Sup. Ct., arbitration b/w 2 parties result reached, confirmed as judgment… … then, losing party attempts to sue 3rd party (NOT involved in arbitration) preclusive effect of arbitration as to non-parties… NO issue preclusion upon non-parties, unless agreed to (though, unlikely for non-party to agree as such)… BUT, w/ many open-ended exceptions… … though, CCP § 1287.4 states that arbitration award has “the same force and effect” as a judgment… If read literally, then YES issue preclusion… … BUT, public policy does NOT literal reading litigating party may NOT have litigated as forcefully as subsequently-barred (potential to turn arbitration into litigation) CA Civ Pro Federal Civ Pro Amount-in-controversy (“AIC”) $25+K for unlimited case $75K for diversity jurisdiction Case for less than AIC Reclassification from unlimited to limited (if filed as unlimited) NO diversity jurisdiction (case dismissed must be refiled in state court) Venue Arranged by county Arranged by federal district Contracting around venue Enforceable to select state (if reasonable)… but, NOT to select county within state (if conflicting w/ CA rules) Enforceable, depending on convenience/serving justice, arms-length/bargained-for For forum non conveniens, if alternative forum does NOT permit litigation of subject matter in dispute… Alternative forum NOT rendered unsuitable Alternative forum MAY be unsuitable (an important consideration) Form complaints YES NO Code pleading vs. notice pleading Code pleading Notice pleading Statement of Damages YES NO D bringing suit against P/ co-D/3rd party Cross-complaint Counterclaim/crossclaim/ impleader
Civ-Pro-II_Bakhshian-Fall-2009.docx