Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION FRCP Values FRCP 1 Purpose of FRCP is to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive determinations of actions/proceedings Service FRCP 4 Complaint FRCP 8(a) Answer: Admit/Deny FRCP 8(b) Answer: Affirmative Defenses FRCP 8(c) RELATED CASES/RULES GENERAL PLEADING Pleadings: Simple, Concise and Direct Pleadings: Construing FRCP 8(d) Pleading Special Matters – Fraud FRCP 9(b) FRCP 8(e) (c) Personal Service (d) Waiver (m) Time limit – 120 days after filing complaint Personal Jx is the same in federal court as in state court Function: Notice Requires short & plain statement of: (1) grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the claim showing entitled to relief; and (3) demand for the relief sought (1)(A) & (B) Defendant must state affirmative defenses and admit/deny allegations (5) Lack knowledge or information"" → Effect of a denial (6) Failure to deny → Admitted Some affirmative defenses (not exclusive): Contributory negligence; fraud; res judicata; statute of frauds; statute of limitations Admit/deny allegations Allegations must be simple, concise, and direct Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink Conley v. Gibson Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly King’s Pay-Per-View v. J.C. Dimitri’s Carter v. US “Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.” “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake…” Just FYI, must go beyond Rule 8 for fraud 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION Caption Signature FRCP 10 FRCP 11(a), (b) Sanctions FRCP 11(c) Answer: Time FRCP 12(a) Motion to Dismiss FRCP 12(b) Motion – Judgment on Pleadings FRCP 12(c) Caption req’d for pleadings (a) Atty signature (b) By signing, claiming that a pleading is brought in good faith, have reasonable basis in fact and law Subject to sanctions if the court finds that you did not in fact bring it in good faith Party Initiated or Sua Sponte Party-initiated: 21-day safe harbor provision, objective reasonableness standard Sua Sponte: No safe harbor, objective reasonableness or subjective good faith Does not apply to discovery If service is waived → ∆ gets 60 days If service is not waived → ∆ gets 20 days Challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, does not meet the Rule 8 requirements (1) Lack of subject matter Jx (2) Lack of personal Jx (3) Improper venue (4) Insufficient process (5) Insufficient service of process (6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (7) Failure to join a party under Rule 19 A failure to raise (2)-(5) waives those defenses – others can be raised throughout litigation Occurs after the pleadings have closed Court will examine all pleadings and determine if judgment in favor of either party is appropriate Either party can make this motion RELATED CASES/RULES Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP Frantz v. United States Powerlifting Federation Rule 37 (for discovery sanctions) 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION Motion – Other FRCP 12(e) Motion – Other FRCP 12(f) Amendment FRCP 15 Jury Demand FRCP 38(b) Deference to States FRCP 4 Due Process 14th Amendment (Section 1) Federal District Court Venue 28 U.S.C. §1391 Improper Venue 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) Motion for a More Definite Statement Must be so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot respond Not common Motion to Strike – Insufficient defense or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter Not common Amendments as a matter of course (within 20 days of serving the pleadings) Other amendments – after 20 days runs out (c) If after Statute of Limitations has ran, must relate back to original claim(s) If you want a jury, put a demand in your pleading RELATED CASES/RULES Dubicz v. Commonwealth Edison Co. Tran v. Alphonse Hotel Corp. Piper Aircraft v. Reyno PERSONAL JX For personal jurisdiction in federal court refer to state statute “…Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” VENUE Inconvenient Venue 28 U.S.C. §1404 US Supreme Court Article III (a) Diversity of citizenship (b) Federal question District Court can dismiss District Court can transfer to another DC where it could have been brought Can only transfer to another federal court Transfer for convenience Number of factors to consider Can only transfer to another federal court Constitutional authority SUBJECT MATTER JX 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION District Court – Federal Question 28 U.S.C. §1331 Allows Π’s claims and Δ’s defenses under federal question Anything that raises a federal question in defense can go Only Π’s claims for federal question “Well-pleaded complaint rule” District Court – Diversity 28 U.S.C. §1332 Complete diversity of parties Amount in controversy over $75,000 Supplemental Jx 28 U.S.C. §1367 Bring in state claims & add’l Δs as long as they arise out of the same case/controversy under Article III Must still have complete diversity Can go with only one Π that meets the amount in controversy requirement Allows Δ to move to federal court if Π could’ve brought the case there first Time limits In federal question cases, citizenship is irrelevant In diversity cases, no Δs can be a citizen of the state where the action is brought Removal to Federal Court 28 U.S.C. §1441 RELATED CASES/RULES Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson Grable & Sons v. Darue Sheehan v. Gustafson Peterson v. Cooley Del Vecchio v. Conseco Exxon Mobil v. Allapattah Spencer v. US District Court for the Northern District of CA Phillips v. General Motors DISCOVERY Motion for a Protective Order Mandatory Initial Disclosure FRCP 26(c) Judge can order to cease asking FRCP 26(a) Each party must disclose the identity of witnesses and documents, unless it would be used solely for impeachment Should occur within 14 days of discovery conference (2)(A) Expert disclosure Expert Discovery FRCP 26(a) 4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION Relevancy FRCP 26(b)(1) E-Discovery Expert Deposition Discovery Conference Signature and Sanctions FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) FRCP 26(b)(4) FRCP 26(f) FRCP 26(g) Depositions Interrogatories Requests for Production Physical & Mental Exams Requests for Admission Motion to Compel FRCP 30-32 FRCP 33 FRCP 34 Sanctions FRCP 37 Subpoenas FRCP 45 Scheduling Order FRCP 16(b) RELATED CASES/RULES (2)(B) Written report (2)(C) Court-ordered deadline or 90 days before trial (1) Signature (2) Sanctions Sanyo v. Arista Records Aubuchon v. Benefirst Gonsalves v. City of New Bedford National Hockey League v. Metro Hockey League Tower Ventures v. City of Westfield Acuna v. Brown & Root Riccuiti v. NY City Transit Authority FRCP 35 FRCP 36 FRCP 37(a) (a) Minor sanctions (b) Major sanctions (3) Required deadlines: Joining parties, amending pleadings, filing motions, completing discovery (3) Permitted deadlines: Providing Rule 26 disclosures, Scheduling pretrial conferences, starting trial (4) Can be modified only for good cause and with judge’s consent CASE MANAGEMENT, SETTLEMENT, & ADR 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION RELATED CASES/RULES Pretrial Conferences and Orders FRCP 16(c), (d) Final Pretrial Conference & Order FRCP 16(e) R.M.R. v. Muscogee County School District Mareck v. Chesney Chauffeurs v. Terry Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. Sanctions FRCP 16(f) Settlement – Damages Limitation FRCP 68 (c) Conferences (d) Orders Usually held after the completion of discovery Focuses on the conduct of the trial Most judges require the parties to submit a joint trial plan Sanctions for failure to appear at pretrial conference Sanctions for failure to be prepared for pretrial conference Sanctions for failure to comply with scheduling order If a claimant does not accept the Δ’s offer and does not do better in the end, the Π is liable for the Δ’s “post-offer” costs (usually not attorney’s fees) Costs: filing fees, etc. Fees: attorney’s fees JUDGE & JURY Right to Jury 7th Amendment Only applies to the federal government – not incorporated to apply to the states Jury Demand FRCP 38(b) Jury Composition Jury Selection – Peremptory Challenges FRCP 48 FRCP 47(b) 28 U.S.C. §1870 Must file no later than 10 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served Must be composed of 6-12 members Lawyers’ opportunity to strike without explanation or cause Limited Can’t be race-based May excuse for good cause Members of the panel show themselves incapable of performing their factfinding tasks Jury Selection – Excuses for Cause FRCP 47(c) 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION Jury Instructions FRCP 49, 51 FRCP 50(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law FRCP 50(b) Summary Judgment FRCP 56 Motion for New Trial FRCP 59 Unlimited The court determines the content of jury instructions Failure to object → Waived May be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury (as soon as an opposing side has been heard on an issue) Standard: Is there enough evidence that reasonable jurors could differ? May be made within 10 days after jury is discharged Can only be made if the moving party brought a Rule 50(a) motion during the trial and can only assert the same grounds addressed in the Rule 50(a) motion May include a joint request for a new trial under FRCP 59 Grounds: no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the party opposing the motion Standard: there enough evidence that reasonable jurors could differ? Seeking judgment on a party’s claim or defense Will be granted when there remains “no genuine issue as to any material fact” Must be filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment Should bring both a Rule 50(b) motion and Rule 59 motion at the same time Trial judge has broad discretion to determine whether fairness requires a new trial for prejudicial errors, misconduct, etc. Most commonly awarded when the verdict RELATED CASES/RULES Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Celotex v. Catrett Scott v. Harris Unitherm v. Swift 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION RELATED CASES/RULES is excessively large JOINDER Supplemental Jx 28 U.S.C. §1367 Compulsory Counterclaim FRCP 13(a) Permissive Counterclaim FRCP 13(b) Crossclaims FRCP 13(g) Joinder of Claims (In General) FRCP 18 Required Party FRCP 19(a) If П has federal question claim against Δ, П can join state law theories arising out the same nucleus of common fact against that Δ (w/o satisfying diversity reqmts) If П has federal question claim against a Δ, П can join state law theories against other Δs arising out of same nucleus of facts (w/o satisfying diversity reqmts) If any П has diversity claim against a Δ, other П s w/ same state law claim can join in the action even though less that $75K is controversy (still need diversity of citizenship) Δ must state as a counterclaim any claim against the Π that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the complaint. Δ may state as a counterclaim any other claim against the Π (but the claim must have an independent basis for federal jurisdiction) A pleading my state as a crossclaim against a coparty any claim that arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is liable for all or part of the claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant. A party may join , as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party. Party is necessary when: Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION (1)(A) The party is necessary for court to grant complete relief; or o (1)(B) The party has a legally protected interest that would be impaired or impeded or that creates the risk of inconsistent rulings and obligations When joinder of such a necessary party is not feasible, the court should determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed without that party Factors – (1) Possible prejudice to party or others; (2) minimizing prejudice by shaping relief; (3) adequacy of remedy without party’s presence; (4) adequacy of plaintiff’s remedy if the action were dismissed (a) Permissive joinder of other parties as plaintiffs or defendants allowed where: o (A) they assert any right to relief or a right to relief is asserted against them arising out of the same transactions or occurrences; o (B) any common question of law or fact will arise in the action (b) The court may issue orders to protect parties from embarrassment, delay, expense, or prejudice Rule interpleader: Available whenever there exists people with claims that may expose a Π to double or multiple liability Statutory interpleader: Interpleader uthorized by statute Basic idea: a large number of people (aka “class”) all find themselves in a similar legal situation as a result of a transaction or RELATED CASES/RULES o Required Party – Joinder Infeasible FRCP 19(b) Permissive Party FRCP 20 Interpleader FRCP 22 Class Actions FRCP 23 Alexander v. Fulton County 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION series of transaction that has created possible legal liability Sometimes mandatory Class members may sometimes opt out of the class Court must permit: o (1) Person had an unconditional statutory right; or o (2) Person claims an interest that may be impaired and no existing party will adequately represent that interest (1) Court may permit: o (a) Person has a conditional statutory right; or o (b) Person has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact (2) By Government Officer or Agency Bifurcation For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, etc. Intervention of Right FRCP 24(a) Permissive Intervention FRCP 24(b) Separate Trials FRCP 42(b) Final Judgment Rule 28 U.S.C. §1291 A losing party may only appeal when there remains nothing to be done at the trial level (with some explicit statutory exceptions) Claim Preclusion Rest. § 17 A valid, final personal judgment is conclusive between the parties o If the judgment is for Π → the claim is extinguished and merged in the judgment and a new claim may arise on the judgment RELATED CASES/RULES Grutter v. Bollinger Rush v. City of Maple Heights APPEALS JUDGMENTS 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules Chart STAGE ISSUE RULE DESCRIPTION If the judgment is for Δ → the claim is extinguished and judgment bars any subsequent action on the claim The claim includes all rights related to all or any part of the transaction or series of connected transactions out of which the action arose “Transaction” and “series” to be determined pragmatically considering: o Whether the facts are related in time, space, origin or motivation; o Whether the facts form a convenient trial unit; and o Whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim Exceptions to issue preclusion RELATED CASES/RULES o Scope of the “Claim” Rest. § 24(1) Scope of the “Claim” Rest. § 24(2) Issue Preclusion (General Rule) Rest. § 27 Issue Preclusion Exceptions Issue Preclusion in Subsequent Litigation Rest. § 28 Rest. § 29 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore Relitigating is also usually precluded in litigation with others with some exceptions 11
