renvoi désistement

1. renvoi désistement

2. complex litigation

3. In re Air Crash Disaster near Chicago(7th Cir. 1981)

4. Filed in: CA, NY, Mich, Hawaii, PRP’s domiciles: CA, CT, Hawaii, Ill, Ind, Mass, Mich, NJ, NY, VT, PR, Japan, Netherlands, Saudi ArabiaD’s domicile: McDD: MO, American (NY or TX)Place of harm: Ill.Place of wrongdoing: McDD (CA – designing), American (OK – servicing)Punitives: Yes - MO, TX, OK No – Ill, CA, NY

5. 2nd Rest- claims against McDonnell-Douglas- Ill, place of injury (no punitives)- CA, place of wrongdoing (no punitives)- MO, place of P’s domicile (punitives)- ct applies presumptive law of Ill

6. class actions

7. RULE 23. CLASS ACTIONS(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if: (1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of: (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include: (A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

8. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985)

9. In re Agent Orange(EDNY 1984)

10. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988)

11. Kramer: “If choice of law is substantive (in the sense that it defines the parties' rights), then courts should not alter choice-of-law rules for complex cases. The reasoning is straightforward. We start with claims that everyone concedes would otherwise be adjudicated under different laws. We combine these claims, whether through transfer and consolidation or by certifying a class, on the ground that we can adjudicate the parties' rights more effectively and efficiently in one big proceeding. So far, so good. Then, having constructed this proceeding, we are told we must change the parties' rights to facilitate the consolidated adjudication. And that makes no sense. If the reason for consolidating is to make adjudication of the parties' rights more efficient and effective, then the fact of consolidation itself cannot justify changing those rights. To let it do so is truly to let the tail wag the dog.”

12. cyberspace

13. AOL v Nat’l Health Care Discount Inc., 121 F.Supp.2d 1255 (D. Iowa 2000)

14. Constitutional Restrictions on Choice of Law

15. Husband and wife from California get in accident in Nevada • Nevada has spousal immunity • California doesn’t • Case brought before Nevada court, which uses 1st Restatement, which law applied? • Case brought before California court which uses interest analysis, which law applied?

16. Home Ins. Co. v Dick (US 1930)

17. “Jurisdiction was asserted in rem through garnishment, by ancillary writs issued against the Home Insurance Company and Franklin Fire Insurance Company, which reinsured, by contracts with the Mexican corporation, parts of the risk which it had assumed. The garnishees are New York corporations.”

18. article 5545 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes • “No person, firm, corporation, association or combination of whatsoever kind shall enter into any stipulation, contract, or agreement, by reason whereof the time in which to sue thereon is limited to a shorter period than two years. And no stipulation, contract, or agreement for any such shorter limitation in which to sue shall ever be valid in this State.”

19. The statute is not simply one of limitation. It does not merely fix the time in which the aid of the Texas courts may be invoked. Nor does it govern only the remedies available in the Texas courts. It deals with the powers and capacities of persons and corporations. It expressly prohibits the making of certain contracts.

20. What if the contract said that the recovery was not possible unless the service in the suit was in-hand (and such specification was valid under Mexican law)?