civil procedure

Shapiro v. McManus

Issues

To what extent may a single-judge district court render a decision on the merits of a claim that is otherwise covered by the Three-Judge Court Act before the case is actually referred to a three-judge panel?

 

The Supreme Court will decide the scope of authority given to a single judge in cases that are otherwise referable to a three-judge panel. See Brief for Petitioners, Stephen M. Shapiro et al. at 1. Shapiro argues that the Three-Judge Court Act prohibits a single-judge district court from dismissing non-frivolous reapportionment complaints for failure to state a cause of action because the statute limits federal court review to subject-matter jurisdiction. See id. at 17. McManus argues that the Act creates a procedural framework wherein single-judge district courts may dismiss claims for failure to state a cause of action without convening a three-judge court for every reapportionment complaint. See Brief for Respondents, David J. McManus, Jr., et al. at 15–17. The Supreme Court’s resolution of this case could affect the ability of Americans to challenge the constitutionality of state election laws. See Brief for Petitioners at 9.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

May a single-judge district court determine that three judges are not required to hear an action that is otherwise covered by 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)?

In 1910, Congress passed the Three-Judge Court Act requiring that a panel of three judges collectively hear and determine certain allegations of unconstitutional government action. See Brief for Petitioners, Stephen M. Shapiro et al.

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Kevin M. Clermont of Cornell Law School for offering his insight and expertise to the writing of this case preview. 

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

substantial evidence

Substantial evidence is a standard of review used at the appellate level, usually to review an administrative agency’s actions or a jury’s findings. Substantial evidence is a deferential standard lower than preponderance of the evidence.

Taxonomy upgrade extras

trial on the merits

United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.

Issues

Does the government have the authority to dismiss a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act after declining to proceed with the action at the outset; and, if so, what showing must it make to have the action dismissed?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the government may dismiss a qui tam action over the objections of the relator when the government chooses not to proceed with the action at the outset. Jesse Polansky argues that the text, structure, history, and purpose of the False Claims Act indicate that when the government chooses not to pursue an action at the outset of a case, the relator has the exclusive right to decide whether to proceed with an action or request its dismissal. Polansky maintains that the government cannot retain its right to dismiss after it declines to proceed at the outset. Executive Health Resources, Inc. counters that the False Claims Act allows the government to dismiss a qui tam action at any time because the Constitution vests executive power in the President. Executive Health Resources contends that delegating executive power to relators, as Polansky suggests, would be unconstitutional. The case has significant policy implications because litigating qui tam actions is costly for all parties involved, and a ruling for unrestricted governmental dismissal authority could chill relators from bringing future qui tam actions, whereas a ruling for limited government dismissal authority could burden the government with meritless qui tam actions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the government has authority to dismiss a False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority.

Respondent Executive Health Resources, Inc. (“EHR”) is a “physician advisor” company that certifies health care services as having been properly billed for Medicare reimbursement. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res. at 380–81.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift Eckrich

Issues

May a court of appeal review the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial, when a party loses a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a), but then fails to renew the motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury has reached a verdict?

 

Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers a judge to determine an issue himself, rather than submitting it to the jury, when the evidence is insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude to the contrary. When the judge's determination of the particular issue makes it impossible for the losing party to prevail in its overall claim or defense, the judge will enter a "judgment as a matter of law" against the party. Because such a judgment deprives the losing party of its constitutional right to a jury trial, the rules governing the exercise of Rule 50(a) power are very important. This case addresses a significant question about these rules: may a court of appeal review the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial, when a party loses a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a), but then fails to renew the motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury has reached a verdict? The Supreme Court's resolution will greatly impact the speed and quality of review of trial court decisions by courts of appeal, as well as the power these courts possess to overturn improper verdicts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, and to what extent, a court of appeals may review the sufficiency of evidence supporting a civil verdict where the party requesting review made a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before submitting the case to the jury, but neither renewed that motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury's verdict nor moved for a new trial under Rule 59?

Unitherm Food Systems ("Unitherm"), a manufacturer and supplier of food processing machinery, sued Swift-Eckrich, doing business as ConAgra Refrigerated Foods ("ConAgra"), for defrauding the Patent Office, misrepresenting itself to Unitherm, improperly interfering with Unitherm's prospective business relations, and monopolistic practices in violation of

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt

Issues

1. If an organization has branches in states other than where it is headquartered, is it considered a citizen of all those states for purposes of litigating in federal courts?

2. Where a word used in a federal statute has an ordinary meaning but may be interpreted in different ways in the context of the lengthy and complicated statute, how should courts interpret the term?

 

Daniel Schmidt, a former Wachovia customer, sued the bank in state court after the IRS determined that the investment strategy Wachovia had recommended was illegal. Wachovia, which is headquartered in Charlotte, NC, successfully sought to remove the case to federal court because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties. After an adverse decision on the merits, Wachovia appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rather than address the decision on the merits, however, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the case altogether. It determined that the federal system never had jurisdiction to hear the case because Wachovia had branches in South Carolina, and therefore there was no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Wachovia appealed to the Supreme Court because it hopes to keep the case from being retried in state court.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. For the purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, is a national banking association a citizen of every state in which it maintains a branch, or is its citizenship more limited?

2. Is the word "located" as used in 28 U.S.C. ? 1348, the statute governing the citizenship of national banks for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, ambiguous?

Petitioner Wachovia Bank National Association ("Wachovia") is a national banking association with its main office in Charlotte, North Carolina. Respondent Daniel Schmidt is a citizen of South Carolina who used Wachovia as his personal and business banker. Brief for Respondents at 1.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon

Issues

Is international service of process by mail permitted under the Hague Service Convention?

In this case the Supreme Court will determine whether the Hague Service Convention permits parties to serve foreign defendants with process through the mail. Water Splash argues that Article 10(a) and surrounding provisions of the Hague Service Convention indicate that the term “send” was intended to include service of process by mail. Water Splash also asserts that sources beyond the text of Hague Service Convention portray this same intention. In opposition, Menon argues that the Hague Service Convention text unambiguously indicates that the word “send” does not include service of process, and the Court should not look to external sources where the text of the treaty is unambiguous.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

In 1965, the member states of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, including the United States, adopted a treaty known as the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”). Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention states:

“Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with — (a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad[.]”

The question presented is:

Does the Hague Service Convention authorize service of process by mail?

Water Splash, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Champlain, New York. Menon v. Water Splash, Inc., No. 14-14-00012-CV at 2 (14th Cir. 2016).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to civil procedure