FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
1 – Purpose
2 – One Form
FRCP goal: to secure the just, speedy, & inexpensive determination of every action.
There is one form of action—the civil action (whether tort, contract, etc.)
3 – Commencing
A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court
(c)(1) – summons must be served w/ complaint (2) by a nonparty
(k)(1) – service of summons establishes personal jurisdiction over a ∆ who:
(A) who is subject to general jurisdiction of a state ct in the state where the Dist Ct is
located (via long-arm statute, etc. – but w/in due process)
(B) who is an impleaded/joined 3rd party (Rules 14/19) served w/in 100mi (“bulge”) of
the ct from which summons issues (party must still have minimum contacts w/
100mi area or forum state to satisfy due process)
(C) when authorized by federal statute (which may authorize nationwide service, as
long as ∆ has minimum contacts w/ the US to satisfy due process)
(k)(2) – service for claims arising under federal law establishes personal jurisdiction
over a ∆ who is not subject to PJ in any state, but has sufficient minimum contacts w/
the US as a whole (basically a federal long-arm statute)
(m) – service req’d w/in 90 days of filing complaint, or will be dismissed unless π can
show “good cause” for failure
RELEVANT CASES
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION & SERVICE OF PROCESS
4 – Summons
4(k)(1)(A) – equates federal PJ
to PJ of state the Dist. Ct. sits in
PLEADINGS & MOTIONS
7 – Pleadings
Allowed
8 – General
Rules of
Pleading
9 – Pleading
Special Matters
10 – Form
11 – Signing
Pleadings, etc.;
Sanctions
12 – Defenses &
Objections:
Judgment on the
Pleadings;
Waiving
Defenses
(a) – complaint, answer, answer to counterclaim designated as such, answer to cross
claim, third party complaint, answer to third party complaint; ct-ordered reply to answer
(a) – a claim for relief must contain (1) short & plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s (SM) jurisdiction, (2) short & plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, & (3) demand for the relief sought
(b) – in response a party must (1) state defenses to each claim asserted & admit or deny
the allegations – (3) good faith general denial of all allegations is allowed; (5) lacking
knowledge has effect of denial; (6) failure to deny = admit
(c)(1) – party must state all affirmative defenses, incl: accord/arbitration (already
settled), assumption of risk, contributory negligence, duress, estoppel, fraud, res
judicata, statute of limitations
(d) – party may plead (2) in the alternative; (3) as many claims/defenses as it has,
regardless of consistency
(b) – circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated w/ particularity;
malice/intent (conditions of mind) can be alleged generally
(c) – docs (exhibits) attached to complaints/pleadings = part of the pleading for all
purposes (meaning ct can consider them in 12(b)(6) motions)
(a) – every paper filing must be signed by the attorney
(b) – signing/presenting to ct certifies (1) no improper purpose (harass, delay, increase
cost); (2) warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous argument to change existing law;
(3) allegations have evidentiary support (or likely will after discovery); (4) denials are
warranted by evidence or reasonable belief or lack of info
(c)(1) – ct may impose sanctions for violations of 11(b) (firm jointly responsible) –
motion must be (2) separate or (3) by the ct; (4) sanctions limited to deterrence by
attny’s fees, fines pd to ct, or nonmonetary directives – 21 days to amend (safe harbor)
(d) – Rule 11 does not apply to discovery (rules 26-37)
(a) – generally a party has 21 days to answer
(b) – defenses made by motion (pre-answer or w/in answer):
1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction
2) lack of personal jurisdiction*
3) improper venue*
4) insufficient process*
5) insufficient service of process*
6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted – motion to dismiss
7) failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19
(c) – motion for judgment on the pleadings: after pleadings are closed (usually after ∆
answers) but early enough not to delay trial (acts the same as 12b6)
(d) – 12b6 & 12c motions can reference evidence outside the pleadings, but if too much
is attached, they’re treated as motion for summary judgment (Rule 56) & all parties
must have reasonable opportunity to present evidence
(e) – motion for more definite statement; (very rare – 12b6 = better strategy)
(f) – motion to strike: insufficient defense or redundant/immaterial/scandalous matter
(note for insufficient defense prob better strategy to move for partial 12b6)
(g) – all Rule 12 motions must be included in a single motion (except those preserved)
(h)(1) – party waives defenses in 12(b)(2-5) if omitted from motion
(h)(2) – 12(b)(6-7) defenses preserved for any pleading, motion, or at trial
Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers
(PA 1956) – sloppy general
denial misled π
Haddle v. Garrison – π stated
claim upon which relief could be
granted (retaliation) even though
he was at-will employee
Stradford v. Zurich Ins. – dentist
office flooding
Walker v. Norwest Corp. –
sanctions appropriate where atty
failed to investigate diversity
Christian v. Mattell, Inc. – Rule
11 sanctions confined to paper
filings (not behavior – that’s
contempt)
12(b) motions give ∆’s more
time to answer (until ct rules)
*waived if not included in first
response to complaint (tho prob
able to amend re: Rule 15a)
Conley v. Gibson – old standard;
claim failed only when “π could
prove no set of facts which
would entitle him to relief”
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly –
pleadings must rely on plausible
inferences
Ashcroft v. Iqbal – mere
conclusions ≠ entitled to
assumption of truth; ct will only
consider plausible claims
1
13 –
Counterclaim &
Crossclaim
14 – Third-Party
Practice
(Impleader)
15 – Amended &
Supplemental
Pleadings
16 – Pretrial
Conferences;
Scheduling;
Management
(h)(3) – 12(b)(1) lack of SMJ can’t be waived; ct must dismiss action if det. at any time
(a) – compulsory counterclaims → party must state any claim that (1) arises from the
same transaction/occurrence & (2) does not require adding 3d parties over whom the
court can’t get jurisdiction
(b) – permissive counterclaims → party may state any other claim it has (as long as
there’s independent jurisdiction for it; supplemental jx won’t work)
(g) – crossclaim against coparty → may state if from same transaction/occurrence or
relating to any property that is subject matter of original action (including contribution
or indemnity)  [note this triggers pleading rules for the coparty]
(h) – parties may be joined via counter/crossclaim if appropriate under Rules 19/20
(a)(1) – ∆ may bring in nonparty who may be liable (contribution or indemnity) via 3dparty complaint w/in 14 days of its answer, or w/ leave of ct after that
 (2) – 3d-party gets to assert any claims, defenses, counter/crossclaims it has v. 3dparty π (as long as ct has jurisdiction)
 (3) – original π may assert any claims it has v. impleaded party & party responds
(b) – π may bring in 3d party when counterclaim is asserted against π
(a)(1) – party may amend once as a matter of course w/in 21 days of first filing & (2)
thereafter by leave of ct or written consent of adverse party; leave shall be freely given
when justice so requires; (3) party must respond to amended pleading w/in original time
remaining or 14 days
(b) – issue raised at trial but ≠ in pleadings may be allowed (1) by ct over adverse
party’s objection if ct finds no prejudice or (2) implicitly if adverse party fails to object
(c)(1) – amendment can relate back to original date of pleading if:
(A) relation back permitted by law
(B) claim or defense arose out of same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth
in original pleading – NEW THEORIES OKAY BUT NOT NEW FACTS
(C) changing ∆ – only if the right ∆ knew about the original complaint & realized but
for a mistake, they would’ve been ∆ (v. rare, usually misnomers)
(d) – supplemental pleadings allowed to add claims based on events that occurred after
the original pleadings were filed (e.g. π punches ∆)
(a) – pretrial conferences – judge can call to control/manage the case, discourage
wasteful pretrial activities, prepare for trial, or facilitate settlement of the case
(b)(1) – dist judge must enter scheduling order after (A) receiving parties’ 26(f) report;
or (B) holding a scheduling conference; scheduling order (3) limits time to join other
parties, amend pleadings, file motions, & complete discovery; (4) schedule may only be
modified for good cause & w/ judge’s consent
(c) – matters for consideration at pretrial conferences incl. scheduling discovery, setting
timing/appropriateness of summary judgment, identifying witnesses/docs, settling, etc.
(e) – final pretrial conference to set trial plan must be as close to trial as possible; final
pretrial order may be modified only to prevent manifest injustice
(f) – sanctions for failing to appear at conference/obey scheduling/pretrial order
Plant v. Blazer Financial – π
sued for violations of Truth-inLending Act; ∆ counterclaimed
for π’s failure to pay loan → ∆’s
counterclaim was compulsory &
had supp. jx
Price v. CTB, Inc. – (chicken
coops); nail mfg can be
impleaded, even if unlikely to be
liable
Beeck v. Aquaslide – leave to
amend allowed where ∆ made
good faith mistaken admission
Moore v. Baker – π ≠ amend
informed consent claim to add
negligence (relation back)
Bonerb – π can amend negligent
maintenance claim to add neg.
supervision (relation back)
PARTIES
17 – π & ∆
18 – Joinder of
Claims
19 – Required
Joinder of
Parties
20 – Permissive
Joinder of
Parties
21 – Misjoinder
& Nonjoinder
22 –
Interpleader
(a) – every action shall be prosecuted in the name of a real party in interest
(a) – a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim may join
as many claims as it has against opposing party
(a)(1) – persons required to be joined if feasible (where joinder will not deprive ct of
SMJ), must be joined if:
(A) complete relief can’t be accorded w/o them
(B) judgment w/o them may (i) impair or impede ability to protect their interest
or (ii) leave the other parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple
or inconsistent obligations
(a)(2) – ct must order such parties to be joined, even if involuntary
(b) – if joinder ≠ feasible – ct must determine whether the action should proceed w/o
them or be dismissed (the absent party being indispensable) → considerations:
(1) extent to which judgment w/o them would be prejudicial to person or parties
(2) extent to which prejudice could be diminished through protective measures
(3) whether judgment in absence of party would be adequate
(4) whether π will have adequate remedy if action dismissed for nonjoinder
(a) – Persons who may join/be joined
(1) Parties can join as π’s if (A) they assert any right to relief arising from same t/o; &
(B) they have common question(s) of law or fact
(2) Parties can join as ∆’s for same reasons stated above ^^
(b) – ct may issue order for separate trials
Misjoinder ≠ grounds for dismissing an action. Ct may drop a party at any time (on
motion or sua sponte) or may sever any claim against a party.
Persons w/claims against π may be joined as ∆’s when claims are such that π may be
exposed to multiple liability → helps reduce redundant/inconsistent judgements,
no req’d claim joinder – but may
be subject to claim preclusion
Temple v. Synthes Corp. – joint
tortfeasors are merely permissive
parties
Helzberg’s Diamond Shop v.
Valley West Shopping Ctr. – 3d
party ≠ indispensable even tho its
interests may be implicated
Mosley v. GM – race discrim
joinder appropriate b/c common
question of law/fact → broad
permissive 20(a) joinder
Southern Farm Bureau v. Davis
– rule interpleader but no
2
23 – Class
Actions
ordinary rules of jurisdiction don’t always apply
(a) – Prerequisites:
1) class is so numerous that joinder of all members = impracticable
2) there are common questions of law/fact
3) rep parties have claims/defenses typical of class members’
4) rep parties will fairly & adequately protect the interests of the class
(b) – Types of class actions:
1) Prosecution of separate actions would (i) create risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications or (ii) would substantially impair/ impede ability to protect
non-party interests (used only in specific kinds of claims)
2) Party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
applicable to the class (declaratory/injunctive relief)
3) Common questions of law/fact predominate over individual claims & class
action = superior to other available methods for fair/efficient adjudication;
matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
24 –
Intervention
Class members’ interests in separate actions
Extent/nature of any litigation already occurring
Desirability of concentrating claims in a particular forum
Likely difficulties in managing class action
(c)(1) – Certification order: (a) Ct decides whether to certify; then (b) defines the class
& appoints class counsel per 23(g)  (c)(2)(B) Classes under (b)(3) require individual
notice w/ ability to opt out
(a) – intervention as of right, upon timely application →
1) When statute confers unconditional right to intervene
2) When applicant claims interest relating to property or transaction which is
subject of action and disposition of action may impair or impede applicant’s
ability to protect that interest
(b) – permissive intervention, upon timely application →
1) When statute confers conditional right to intervene
2) When applicant’s claim/defense and main action have question of law or fact
in common
Court shall consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice adjudication of
rights of original parties
statutory
Hansberry v. Lee – class must’ve
been adequately represented in
past litigation to be bound by the
judgment
Phillips Petrol v. Shutts – forum
state can reach PJ over (b)(3)
class members even w/o min
contacts
Wal-Mart v. Dukes – (a)(2)
commonality means class-wide
resolution is attainable (not too
much variation); (b)(2) classes
can’t seek $$ damages
NRDC v. US Nuclear Reg.
Comm. – intervention allowed
b/c party’s interest ≠ adequately
rep by diff-positioned ∆
Martin v. Wilks – intervention is
voluntary; non-parties can’t be
bound by judgment
DISCOVERY & DEPOSITIONS
(a) –
1)
26 – General
Provisions
Governing
Discovery; Duty
of Disclosure
mandatory initial disclosures, made at or w/in 14 days after Rule 26(f)
conference
 identity/details of individuals likely to have discoverable information
 copy, or description and location of, docs and tangible things that disclosing
party may use to support claims/defenses
 computation of damages claimed
 insurance agreement indicating insurer may be liable for all or party of
judgment
2) disclosure of expert testimony – disclose identity of experts who may be used
at trial and written report prepared and signed by expert re: testimony and
compensation paid; disclosures made at times directed by ct, but at least 90
days b/f trial date or w/in 30 days after disclosure made by other party
3) pretrial disclosures – names of witnesses expected to testify, list of docs
expected to be used at trial
(b) – discovery scope and limits
1) discovery re: any matter not privileged that is relevant to claim or defense of
any party; discovery need not be admissible if reasonably calculated to lead
to discovery of admissible evidence
2) ct may limit # of deps and interrogatories, and other discovery methods if (i)
discovery is unreasonably duplicative or obtainable from some other source
that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) party
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain info sought, or (iii)
burden or expense of proposed discovery outweighs likely benefit
3) discovery of docs prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial by or for
another party only upon showing that party seeking discovery has substantial
need and is unable w/o undue hardship to obtain substantial equivalent of
materials by other means; court shall protect against disclosure of mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of atty
4) party may depose any person who has been identified as expert whose
opinions may be presented at trial; party may discover facts known or
opinions held by expert who will not be witness at trial only upon a showing
of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party
seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other
means
Davis v. Precoat Metals (N.D.
Ill. 2002) – race, nat’l origin
discrimination complaints made
against ∆ by non-clerical/nonadministrative employees who
worked at the same plant as π’s
discoverable b/c relevant to
establish pretext
Steffan v. Cheney –information
re: whether π committed
homosexual acts was not
discoverable where he was
challenging discharge b/c he
admitted to being a homosexual
Butler v. Rigby – discovery rules
liberal and flexible and list of
total number of patients referred
to medical groups from Π’s law
firm is discoverable
Hickman v. Taylor (SC 1947) –
copies of statements of crew
members and summaries of oral
statements and attorney’s notes
not discoverable, even under
liberal discovery standards
Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp. –
evidence of voluntary romantic
conduct or sexually related
activities of other female
employees only discoverable to
extent it shows ∆’s conduct of
3
5)
claims of privilege shall be made expressly
(c) – protective orders appropriate where justice requires to protect a party from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense
(e) –parties under duty to supplement disclosures if disclosed information is incomplete
or incorrect, or amendment is required to correct prior response
(f) – conferences of parties and planning for discovery required at least 21 days b/f
scheduling conference scheduling order due
(g) – signing of disclosures, discovery requests, responses and objections
encouraging any employee to
engage in sexual activities
Thompson v. The Haskell Co. –
∆’s request for discovery of
findings of expert who evaluated
P15 days after she was
terminated is discoverable
Chiquita Int’l Ltd. v. M/V Bolero
Reefer – Reefer’s request for
findings of Chiquita’s marine
surveyor’s examination of vessel
not discoverable
27 – Depositions
Before Action
30 – Depositions
Upon Oral
Examination
31 – Depositions
Upon Written
Questions
32 – Use of
Depositions in
Court
Proceedings
33 –
Interrogatories
to Parties
34 – Production
of Docs/Things
& Entry Upon
Land for
Inspection &
Other Purposes
35 – Physical &
Mental
Examination of
Persons
36 – Requests
for Admission
37 – Failure to
Make or
Cooperate in
Discovery;
Sanctions
(a) – before action
(b) – pending appeal
(a) – party may take testimony of any person, including a party; must obtain leave of
court if more than 10 deps, the person is imprisoned, the person has already been
deposed in the case, or party seeks to take dep b/f time specified in 26(d)
(b) – notice of examination; general requirements; method of recording; production of
docs and things; deposition of organization; deposition by telephone
(c) – examination and cross examination; record of examination; oath; objections
(d) – schedule and duration; motion to terminate or limit examination → objections must
be stated in non-argumentative manner; deponent can be instructed not to answer to
preserve a privilege; sanctions for unfair examinantion
(e) – review by witness; changes; signing
(f) – certification and filing by officer; exhibits; copies; notices of filing
(g) – failure to attend or to serve subpoena; expenses
(a) – written dep may be taken of any person w/o leave of ct unless dep would result in
more than 10 deps, person is imprisoned, person has already been deposed in the case, or
party seeks to take dep b/f time specified in 26(d)

Party may serve cross questions w/in 14 days after notice and written questions
served; redirect questions may be served w/in 7 days after cross questions, recross
questions may be served w/in 7 days after redirect questions
(a) – use of deps (for purposes of contradicting or impeaching testimony of deponent
as witness, for any purpose if a person was designated to testify on behalf of public or
private corporation, partnership, or association or governmental agency, or deps used as
testimony if person is dead, more than 100 mi away or otherwise unable to attend)
(b) – objections to admissibility
(d) – effect of errors and irregularities in deps
(a) – written interrogs against any other party, not exceeding 25 including subparts;
leave to serve additional interrogs granted to extent consistent w/26(b)(2)
(b) – answers/objections w/in 30 days after service, all grounds for objection stated
w/specificity
(c) – may relate to any matters which can be inquired under 26(b)(1)
(d) – ok to answer by indicating location of business records
(a) – any party may request for other party to produce or permit inspection and copy
any docs or things, or entry upon designated land, which contain matters w/in scope of
26(b) and which are in possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the
request is served
(b) – request shall set forth items to be inspected w/reasonable particularity; the party
upon whom the request is served shall serve written response w/in 30 days but a shorter
or longer time may be directed by court or agreed to by parties
(c) – person not a party may be subpoenaed under Rule 45
(a) – requires good cause and that the physical or mental condition of a party or person
in custody of a party be in controversy
(a) – party may serve written request for admission of the truth of any matters w/in
scope of 26(b) that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of application of law to
fact → matter is admitted unless the party serves a written answer or objection w/in 30
days after service; the party who has requested admissions may move to determine
sufficiency of answers or objections
(b) – admission not sufficient for RJ or CE purposes
(a) – party may file motion for an order compelling disclosure; party who loses motion
to compel responsible for expenses (including atty fees), unless ct finds that motion was
filed w/o movant’s first making good faith effort to obtain disclosure w/o court action
or opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection, or moving party’s making of
the motion, was substantially justified, or that other circumstances make award of
Schlagenhauf v. Holder – bus
driver did not assert his
mental/physical condition in
support or defense of any claim
Poole v. Textron, Inc. (D. Md.
2000) – π suing manufacturer for
defects in golf cart, sanctions for
discovery abuse appropriate b/c
response to requests for
4
expenses unjust
(b) – failure to comply w/order compelling disclosure → court can order certain facts
established, strike pleadings, dismiss action
(c) – failure to disclose, false or misleading disclosure, and refusal to admit
– court may make such orders as are just, and party failing to act shall pay reasonable
expenses (including atty fees) unless ct finds that failure was substantially justified or
other circumstances make award of expenses unjust
(f) – failure to participate in framing of discovery plan → ct may require party to pay
reasonable expenses
admission not substantially
justified ∆ did not perform
adequate search for docs
TRIALS
38 – Jury Trial
of Right
(a) – right to jury trial in 7th A or by statute shall be preserved
(b) – any party may demand jury trial by serving demand upon other parties in writing
at any time after commencement of action but not later than 10 days after the service of
the last pleading
(c) – in the demand a party may specify the issues which the party wishes tried;
otherwise will be deemed to have demanded jury trial for all triable issues
(d) – failure to serve/file demand constitutes waiver of trial by jury
Chauffers, Teamsters & Helpers,
Local No. 391 v. Terry (SC
1990) – consider closest
comparison to 18th C cause of
action AND the nature of the
remedy
Amoco Oil Co. v. Torcomian (3d
Cir. 1983) – ∆’s get jury trial
upon asserting claim for legal
relief in compulsory
counterclaim
39 – Trial by
Jury or by the
Court
41 – Dismissal of
Actions
42 –
Consolidation &
Separate Trials
45 – Subpoena
46 – Exceptions
Unnecessary
47 – Selection of
Jurors
48 – Number of
Jurors –
Participation in
Verdict
49 – Special
Verdicts &
(a) – trial of all issues demanded will be by jury unless parties stipulate to bench trial
or judge finds that right to jury trial does not exist
(b) – issues not demanded for jury trial shall be tried by ct, but ct in its discretion may
order trial by jury of any or all issues where jury trial is of right
(c) – in actions not triable of right by jury the ct may try any issues w/advisory jury or
may order a jury trial w/consent of both parties
(a) – Voluntary Dismissal
1) Action may be dismissed by π w/o court order by filing notice of dismissal at
any time b/f opposing party serves answer or motion for SJ (whichever
occurs first) or by filing stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties;
dismissal w/o prejudice (B) unless otherwise stated in notice of dismissal or
stipulation, except that notice of dismissal operates as adjudication on merits
when π has already dismissed the case once b/f
2) In all other instances action shall not be dismissed except upon order of the
court; if ∆ has pleaded counterclaim, action shall not be dismissed unless
counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication; unless
otherwise specified dismissal w/o prejudice
(b) – Involuntary Dismissal – ∆ may move for dismissal for failure to prosecute or
comply w/ rules or order of court; dismissal other than dismissal for lack or jurisdiction,
improper venue, or failure to join party under Rule 19 operates as adjudication on the
merits unless specified
(a) – court may order joint hearing or trial of any or all matters when actions involve a
common question of law or fact
(b) – court may order separate trials for any claim in furtherance of convenience or to
avoid prejudice, or when separate trial would be conducive to expedition and economy,
always preserving right to jury trial
(a)(1)(A)(3) – non-parties compelled to produce documents, etc.
(B) attend deposition
(D) documents
Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the ct are unnecessary, it is sufficient that at
the time of the ruling or order of the court is made, the party makes known to the court
the action which the party desires to court to take or the party’s objection to the action
of the court and the grounds therefore; the absence of objection does not prejudice the
party if it had no opportunity to object
(a) – examination of jurors by the parties and the court
(b) – court shall allow # of peremptory challenges provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1870
(c) – court may excuse a juror from service for good cause
Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray
(7th Cir. 2003) – judge should
have asked whether potential
juror would follow his
instructions and suspend
judgment until she had heard
evidence
Not fewer than 6 and not more than 12 jurors
Unless parties otherwise stipulate, verdict shall be unanimous and no verdict taken
from a jury reduced in size to fewer than 6
(a) – court may require jury to return special verdict in form of special written finding
upon each issue of fact
5
Interrogatories
50 – Judgment
as a Matter of
Law in Jury
Trials;
Alternative
Motion for New
Trial;
Conditional
Rulings
52 – Finding by
the Court;
Judgment on
Partial Findings
(b) – along w/ forms for general verdict the court may submit written interrogatories to
the jury upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict;
when general verdict and answers to interrogs are harmonious, the verdict will stand;
when answers to interrogs are consistent w/each other but not consistent w/general
verdict, ct can grant JNOV or return to jury for further consideration of answers or order
new trial; when answers are inconsistent w/each other and also inconsistent w/general
verdict, court shall return to jury for further consideration or order new trial
(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law → where no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for
a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue; motions made at any time b/f
submission of case to jury
(b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial (JNOV) – may renew request by
filing motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment, and may alternatively
request new trial. Ct may allow judgment to stand, order new trial, or direct entry of
judgment as matter of law; may conditionally grant motion for new trial (if JNOV
reversed by ct of app), and any party which has judgment as matter of law rendered
against it may file motion for new trial no later than 10 days after entry of judgment
Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles
& Salt Lake RR (Utah 1911) –
verdict of RR’s negligence not
supported by evidence b/c also
evidence that Π’s gate was open
Penn RR v. Chamberlain (SC
1933) – merely conflict re:
interpretation of facts
Lind v. Schenley Industries (3d
Cir. 1960)
(a) – in all actions tried w/o jury, ct shall find the facts specifically and state separately
its conclusions of law and judgment; findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly
erroneous
JUDGMENT
54 – Judgments;
Costs
55 – Default
56 – Summary
Judgment
(a) – judgment = decree and any order from which an appeal lies
(b) – partial final orders – judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties
*when there are >1 claim or multiple parties, the court may direct entry of a final
judgment as to tone or more but not all claims or paries only if the court expressly
determines no just reason for delay.
(d) – unless provided in statute or in FRCP, costs other than atty fees shall be allowed
as of course to the prevailing party unless ct otherwise directs; includes procedures re:
requesting atty fees
(a) – when party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to
plead or otherwise defend as provided by FRCP
(b) – clerk can enter judgment if party has failed to appear and when Π’s claim is for a
“sum certain”; otherwise motion shall be made to the court and notice served on the
party against whom default is sought if that party has appeared in the action, at least 3
days prior to hearing
(c) – court may set aside default for good cause
(a) – π may file MSJ anytime after 20 days from start of action
(b) – ∆ may move at any time w/ or w/o supporting affidavits
(c) – motion served at least 10 days b/f time fixed for hearing and judgment shall be
rendered if pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
(e) – affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge and set forth facts as would be
admissible in evidence; adverse party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of
other party’s pleading, response must set forth specific facts showing that there is no
genuine issue for trial
Peralta v. Heights Medical Ctr.
(SC 1988) –D did not respond
and default judgment entered but
∆ claims he rec’d no notice of
suit → Due Process requires
notice, judgment for π reversed
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett – no
obligation on moving party to
“support its motion w/affidavits
or other similar materials
negating the opponent’s claim”
→ instead, moving party can
simply point out that there is no
evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s case
Bias v. Advantage Int’l, Inc.
(1990)
57 – Declaratory
Judgments
59 – New Trials;
Amendment of
Judgments
61 – Harmless
Error
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude judgment for declaratory relief
where it is appropriate
(a) – new trial may be granted for jury trial for any of the reasons for which new trial
have been granted in actions at law in courts of U.S. and in actions w/o a jury, for any
of the reasons for which rehearings have been granted in suits in equity in the courts
of the U.S.
(b) – motion must be filed w/in 10 days of entry of judgment; (d) – court can order new
trial w/in 10 days on its own initiative
No error in admission or exclusion of evidence or defect in any ruling or order or
anything done by ct/parties is ground for granting new trial or for setting aside verdict
unless refusal to take such actions appears to the ct inconsistent with substantial
justice; ct must disregard any error which does not affect the substantial rights of the
parties
PROVISIONAL & FINAL REMEDIES
65 – Injunctions
(a) – Preliminary Injunctions → π needs to post bond
(b) – Temporary Restraining Order
(d) – Form and Scope of Injunction or Restraining Order
William Inglis & Sons Baking
Co. v. ITT Continental Baking
Co.
6
68 – Offer of
Judgment
69 – Execution
At any time more than 10 days b/f trial begins, ∆ may offer to settle; if party accepts
offer w/in 10 days judgment will be entered; but if offer is not accepted and judgment
obtained is not more favorable than offer, offeree must pay costs incurred after making
of the offer
Process to enforce a judgment for payment of $ shall be writ of execution, unless court
directs otherwise
§1331 Federal Question: Fed ct shall have original jurisdiction for actions arising under the law of the US. Note that across almost
all federal questions, the jurisdiction is concurrent: you can choose to sue in state ct (even though you could’ve instead decided to sue
in Fed Ct).
§1332 Diversity: Fed ct shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where matter in controversy 1) exceeds $75K – AND – 2)
Diversity of citizenship (D/P fr diff states).
Why have diversity jurisdiction? Prejudice (concern that if forced to sue adversary in state ct, ct will favor local party against
foreign); also, some state cts just inadequate.
What about ∆? 90% of 13a claims involve ∆’s who made CC – prob is that a CC isn’t an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. So,
can the ∆ who wants to make claim make it? Yes, b/c of §1367.
§1367 Supplemental Jurisdiction: Very broad, initial grant of supplemental juris to cts over claims that are related to claims in action
that fall under Article III “case or controversy.” Purpose is to expand the narrow fed court subject-matter jurisdiction and provide a
means to adjudicate an entire case in the most fair matter – to avoid piecemeal litigation against states. This is how fed cts get
jurisdiction over compulsory CC but not permissive CC. Ancillary/Supplemental jurisdiction enables fed cts to resolve CCC for
which no independent bases of subj matter jurisdiction exists.
Venue
Removal
7