Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt US Apr 19 2016 In re Barries Estate Baker v Gen Motors US 1998 In general injunctions and equitable decrees are subject to FFampC No roving public policy exception to FFampC ID: 554544
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Thurs. Apr. 21" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Thurs. Apr. 21Slide2
Franchise Tax Board of California v.
Hyatt (U.S. Apr.
19, 2016)Slide3
In re Barrie’s EstateSlide4
Baker v Gen Motors
(US 1998)Slide5
In general, injunctions and equitable decrees are subject to FF&CSlide6
No “roving public policy exception” to FF&CSlide7
Is there any Michigan obligation that is relevant to this Missouri case at all?Slide8
Assume that in Michigan state court General Motors had brought a declaratory judgment action against the Bakers to determine whether
Ewell
could testify in any suit they might bring. What result?Slide9
African-American applicants to a fire dept sue the department
The court enters a decree for an affirmative action program in hiring
Subsequently white applicants to the fire department sue the department challenging the program
Are they precluded?Slide10
Even if there us a Michigan obligation that is relevant, isn’t the obligation modifiable in Michigan and so modifiable in MO?Slide11
Scalia’s opinion…Slide12
What if GM sued for a declaratory judgment in MO federal court determining the
Ewell
can’t testify in the Baker case?Slide13
s
ubstance and procedure in the recognition of judgments…Slide14
P sues D in Cal., gets judgment
D has no assets in Cal.
D has house in Nev.
P sues D on judgment in Nev., but under Nev. law houses cannot be used to satisfy judgments (in Cal.
t
hey can)Slide15
Anglo-Am Provision v Davis
(US 1903)
NY ct allowed to refuse suit on foreign judgment between 2 foreign corps when judgment arose from cause of action arising out of stateSlide16
Kenney v Supreme Lodge (US 1920)
Ill
ct
refused jurisdiction for suit on Alabama wrongful death judgment against an Illinoisan
basis was statute forbidding actions for death outside stateSlide17
Ginsburg’s opinionSlide18
“Full faith and credit, however, does not mean that States must adopt the practices of other States regarding the time, manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments. Enforcement measures do not travel with the sister state judgment as preclusive effects do; such measures remain subject to the even-handed control of forum law.”Slide19
“Orders commanding action or inaction have been denied enforcement in a sister State when they purported to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority.”Slide20
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein (US 1996)Slide21
28 U.S.C. § 1738
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.Slide22
P sues D in state
ct
for state law fraud concerning securities
J for P (not settlement)
P then sues D in fed
ct
for fed securities law violations
Assume instead that P loses in state
ct
(no misrepresentation by D found)
P sues D in fed
ct
Issue preclusion?
Assume instead that P
wins in
state
ct
(misrepresentation
by D found)
P sues D in fed
ct
Issue preclusion?Slide23
Marrese
If, under
state law
, federal action would not be precluded by state judgment
then the federal court may not preclude the action
If, under
state law
, federal action would be precluded
then the federal court must preclude the action
unless the federal statute giving the federal courts exclusive federal subject matter jurisdiction for the federal action impliedly repealed federal courts' obligations under section 1738 to give full faith and credit to state court judgments.Slide24
d
oes it matter that this was a settlement?Slide25
d
oes
it matter that this was a
class action?