Civil Procedure Jurisdiction: -To get into Federal Court have to have a dispute for over $75,000. Involve citizens from two states OR involve a federal question. Or it can involve maritime activities. Notice Pleading (Conley Standard): Rule 7(a) definition of a pleading. Rule 8 is the specifics of pleading Rule 15: Amendments to pleadings Notice Pleading: 1. Take all facts in the complaint as true 2. Make all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff 3. Motion is dismiss is limited to the 4 corners of the complaint 4. Don’t have to plead specific legal theories or each element of the legal theories. Summary Judgement (Rule 56) Does require evidence, but a motion to dismiss does not (Rule 12(b)(6) Dioguardi v. Durning: That is the case example of notice pleading Rule 8(a). The case about an Italian immigrant who modified his complaints many times, and the Leatherman Case: The case about a woman who sued the narcotics officers of her county after they served a search warrant and shot her dogs. Court wanted to force a heightened pleading, but the supreme court said no, cannot require more than what Rule 8(a)(2) requires. The Rules set out the only cases of heightened pleading. Heightened Pleading: Rule 9(b) for cases of fraud or mistake require a more detailed pleading with particularity. Also must include any “special damages” in pleading. Plausibility Pleading: Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007): alleged parallel conduct, responding to similar economic conditions in the same way. The plaintiff had to prove an illegal agreement. The pleading was “naked allegations.” Must allege enough facts to move it from possible to plausible. Rejects Conley standard. Court can use common sense when deciding is a claim is plausible. Enough facts to raise expectations that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement. Ashcroft v. Iqbal: Bivens action claiming a constitutional claim against a federal employee. Sues Mueller and Ashcroft for violation. Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient. Two-part Iqbal test: 1) find legal conclusions, cross the out. Take everything that’s left and well pled as TRUE. 2) DO these facts plausibly give rise to entitlement of relief. Plausibility is context specific task. Use judicial experience and common sense. Seemingly reasonable, believable. Defendant’s Possible Responses to Complaint: 1. Nothing. Leads to a Rule 55 Default Judgement 2. Pre-Answer Motions (Rule 12): lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service, and failure to state a claim 3. File an answer with defenses. Rule 8(b) Admissions and denials. Or 8(c) Affirmative Defenses (Rules 7-12) Default Judgement (Rule 55) To prove default, show that service/notice, maybe with a affidavit from process server. Short cut to go to the clerk with the sum certain. Then a hearing is scheduled. Often overturned “For Good Cause.” Default judgement is not preferred by the court. Rule 12(g): When making a rule 12 motion, do all of them at the same time, or you waive them! Answer: General Denial, denial in part, lack of knowledge, or admission. Once you admit allegations are true, you cannot dispute the fact later. Failure to respond is seen as a denial. Rule 11: Signing and Sanctions -Must make either an argument warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous law reforming argument. Factual assertations have evidentiary support and are not for improper purpose. Hays v. Sony Corp: Hunter v. Earth Grains Susman Rule 15: Amendment Pleadings Has to relate back to the original same conduct transaction or occurrence. When amending to add a new party must arise fom the same conduct, the party must have receivednotice, and the new party knew or should have known that they would have been named if not for a mistake. Bonerb v. Richard J. Carson Foundation: basketball court that was negligently maintained. Wanted to amend to add a claim of counseling malpractice. Krupski v. Costa Conciere: Rule 15©. Should have been on natice because it’s the same corporate entity. “Constructive Notice.” Mistakes recognized by Court: 1) Misspellings, other minor errors, etc. 2) Chose wrong party through true mistake. 3) NOT a deliberate coice to sue the wrong party. Joinder of Claims (Rule 18): Liberal joinder rule for convenience. Must have federal subject matter jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction based on an anchor claim. Holhbein (Rule 18 and Rule 20): Case with 4 plaintiffs who were hired under fraudulent pretenses. Not told everything about the probationary period of their new hire. Court denies the defendant’s motion to sever into 4 separate cases, because it’s still the same pattern of behavior (Same occurrence) rather than separate transactions. Shows a practice of misrepresentation. Courts favor joinder even over class actions. For efficiency. And clients don’t lose their autonomy in the case like in a class action. Counterclaims (rule 13 a-e): Claims back against plaintiff -2 types are permissive (Not necessary to be the same transaction or occurrence) -Compulsory: Has to be the same transaction or occurrence. Doesn’t require another party that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over. Exception: Not compulsory if it’s the subject of a pending action when the complaint was filed. -If compulsory counterclaims aren’t brought when complaint is filed, it is waived. Crossclaims (Rule 13 g): Claims against co-parties. -Never compulsory Impleader (Rule 14a): Defending party may bring in a 3rd party defendant by serving a summons as a 3rd party plaintiff. 3rd party defendant must be liable to the 3rd party plaintiff for all or part of the claim against it. Looking for contribution or indemnity. Joinder (Rule 19): Joinder, Persons required to be joined if feasible Rule 24: Authorizes non-parties to intervene on their own initiative if they may be affected by the litigation Joinder Step 1: Is joining the party necessary? -Often situations of community property. For example when 2 people are required to withdraw from a deal like a husband and a wife. Or if one person is necessary to complete the deal Joinder Step 2: Is joinder feasible? -Party must be subject to personal jurisdiction in the state where the court sits. -Joinder Step 3: To dismiss or continue? Torrington v. Yost (1991): Rule 24(a): Intervention of Right. 2 requirements. First, claims interest relating to property subject of action. Second, Disposing of the action may negatively impact movant. Unless existing parties adequately represent interest Permissive Intervention: Class Actions (Rule 23): -Certification requirements. Due Process requirements and Judicial discretion to manage the litigation. Settlement resolution process. -In order to enforce a judgement against absent class members there has to be adequate representation by attorney and the class representative. -To be certified must meet all requirement of 23(a) or at least one requirement of 23(b). 23(b)(2) is injunctive in nature, brought to remedy bad conduct. 23(b)(3) is “the damages class action.” This is important because 23(b)(3) triggers the right to notice opting-out, etc. Buchanan v. Warley: Government annot create racial living patterns. Washington Park residents decide to create a racially restrictive covenant. Corrigan v. Buckley (1926): D.C. Federal case challenging constitutionality of covenants. SCOTUS dismissed the appeal. Set a difficult precedent for Hansberry to overcome. Burke v. Kleinman: Olive Burke sues Kleinman for renting to AA. In the course of the case it’s stipulated as fact that the covenant is valid. Lee v. Hansberry: Arguments were that 1) The covenant was invalid because of a lack of signatures 2) Inadequate representation of the landowners who wanted to sell because they weren’t represented in the original case. Cannot have class members with conflicting interests. Rule 23: No opt-out options because the end result is an injunction or other policy change that either will affect all members of the class. -Cannot be just any common question of law or fact, but now it must be a central issue whose resolution could resolve the case. Typicality. Power to compel??: In interpleader, federal judges have th power to enjoin all pending and even future lawsuits in an federal or state…brought by claimants. Statutory vs. Rule 22 Interpleader: Statutory SMJ Minimal diversity between claimants $500 Rule 22 Complete diversity between stakeholder and claimants $75,000PJ Nationwide Rule 4 and *Long-Arm Statute Venue Residence of one or more Where claimants reside if all claimants the same. Where dispute arose. Where a claimant is from is no other. *Long-Arm statute says that a court can obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant on the basis of certain acts committed by defendant provided that the defendant has a sufficient connection to the state. Discovery Scope and Limits (Rule 26b). This is a sweeping rule. One of the most costly parts of litigation. May Discover: 1 )Matter, that 2) non-privileged 3) relevant to any party’s claim or defense 4) proportional to the needs of the case 5) whether or not it is admissible evidence. -Anything is “matter.” A feather, a song, anything. -“Privilege” is waivable. There is a process to claim privilege, it is not automatic. -Admissibility is related to FRE 407. If inadmissible could it lead to admissible evidence or show knowledge, etc? -Not just directly relevant, but if it could lead to relevant information. -Relevancy is meant to narrow the scope so that unrelated information (like sexually explicit emails) doesn’t have to be provided. Must state the relevancy. -Proportionality. Used to be under a different part of the rule so that it had to brought up as an objection. Now all parties have the burden to consider proportionality. **Not just those who are providing discovery. -In TN you can file a complaint and a request for discovery at the same time. FRE 407: Rule that says that some things are not admissible as evidence. This is in order to discourage companies from correcting problems for fear of liability.
