Rules decision act 1789 - borrowing state substantive law where it is needed in F cases
Conformity act 1872 – borrowing state procedural rules in federal court (overturned by
REA)
Rules Enabling Act 1934 - The Act in which Congress delegated procedural (NOT
substantive) rule-making power to the SC
Sibbach v. Wilson (SC 1941): P did not submit to a medical exam and was held in
contempt. SC reversed lower court’s decision to hold P in contempt for not submitted,
because this was not in accordance with FRCP 35 and 37 because the rule prohibited
“contempt” as a course of action. However, SC held that FRCP 35 and 37 are “purely
procedural” in accordance with REA Issue: Are all FRCP valid under the Rules Enabling
Act?
Rule 8 pleading
*12(c) judgement on pleadings v. 12(d)/56 summary judgment: 12(c) judgement on
pleadings must occur before any evidence is allowed by the court. If there is evidence,
it’s converted by 12(d) to 56 summary judgement. Must occur within 30 days of close of
discovery.
Rule 15 amendments
Krupski v. Costa Crociere (SC 2010) - P sued the cruise line and then realized she should
have sued their carrier instead. She waited 4 months and after SOL expired to do the
amendment, but the court allowed it because since the cruise line and carrier had the
same attorneys, they were properly on notice and P’s mistake was in line with what is
allowed under 15(c)(1)(C)
Foman v. Davis (SC 1962): Elements to determine “if justice so requires” an amendment
under 15(a)(2): (1) not in bad faith (2) not if the opposing party can prove the
amendment will cause prejudice (3) not if the court determines that they should not be
able to litigate on the merits of amended pleading
Conely v. Gibson (SC 1957): Notice pleading
Dioguardi v. Durning (D 1944) – High watermark of notice pleading
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics (SC 1993): D tried to dismiss the case for lack of
heightened pleading and tried to apply 9(b) to suing public officials. The SC denied this,
because the use cases for 9(b) heightened pleading is clearly defined in the rule.
Issue: Can the court require a heightened pleading standard, above and beyond the
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) for public officials?
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (SC 2007): Twombly sued D for anti-trust complaint. Issue: in an
anti-trust action, must facts be in enough detail to indicate that the complaint is more
likely than not to survive motion to dismiss?
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (SC 2009): Iqbal sued FBI director and U.S. attorney general for
discrimination in detaining him after 9/11. Souter (writer of Twombly opinion) dissented
saying SC used elements for intentional discrimination but should have used elements
for deliberate indifference to discriminatory practices.
Conely “Notice Pleading”
Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp. (C 1982) - P sued 2 of 3 possible parties
responsible for a construction site accident. Evidence was presented about all 3. At trial
the jury was given the 2 sued parties and the other ghost party to determine
contributory negligence. P objected to included the third ghost, but the court said the
ghost party had been tried by consent under 15(b)(2) because they didn’t object to the
evidence at trial.
Elements of consent under 15(b)(2): (1) is there a fair opportunity to defend? (2) would
the opposing party have brought different evidence
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation (C 1994) - P sued D for negligence in the upkeep
of a basketball court he was injured at as a part a mandatory treatment program at the
rehab center. A year later under new counsel, he amended the complaint to include
therapy malpractice and the cour allowd it under 15(a)(2)
Must provide fair notice
Rule 11 sanctions
Must provide fair notice and
“showing”
Hays v. Sony Corp. of America (C 1988) - Attorney got in trouble for not complying with
11(b). He didn’t do reasonable discovery of reaching out to Sony and wasn’t up on the
most recent copyright laws.
3-part test for plausibility: (1) determine what elements need to be satisfied for the
claim (2) eliminate conclusory material, and just look at well-pleaded allegations (3)
determine if the claim is plausible on its face. A nudge that makes it more likely than
not. Innocent behavior is not equally as likely
Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery (C 2002) - The lower court improperly sanctioned the
attorney, but this was vacated because the attorney was making a case to change a law
about discrimination that was up for debate in sister circuit so she was not outside of
the rule 11 bounds.
Rule 55 default
Rule 14 impleading
Virgin Records America, Inc. v. Lacey (D 2007) - How default and default judgement
work under rule 55
Erkins v. Case Power & Equipment Co. (D 1995) - P sues D manufacturer for an accident
after falling out of the bucket of the backhoe. D motioned to implead 2 other parties to
pass on liability for not conducting safety meetings if D was found liable. Court granted
under 14(a)(1)
Twombly/Iqbal “Plausible
Pleading”
Must be
possible
Must be
plausible
Beeck v. Aquaslide (C 1977) - The court granted Aquaslide leave to amend when they
found out after SOL had expired and right before trial that it wasn’t even their slide.
Used Foman factors.
Rule 12 motions and waivers
Matos v. Nextran (D 2009) - shows the boundaries of 12(e) more definite statement and
12(f) strike
Rule 13 counter and crossclaims
Hunter v. Serv-Tech, Inc. (C 2009) - 12(h) and 12(g) the waiver trap: if you want to make
a 12(b)(2)-(5) defense, it must be consolidated within the first thing you do.
King v. Blanton (NC court 2012) - P sued D for a car accident. They settled. Later, D tried
to sue P for the same accident. This was not allowed under 13(a) because D had a
compulsory counterclaim in the first lawsuit since it was about the same
transaction/occurrence
Ingraham v. United States (C 1987) - P’s sued D for medical malpractice. D’s counsel did
not assert 8(c) AD of TX statute of caps on med mal damages at trial court, and so they
waived it and circuit court did not allow them to raise it on appeal.
Rule 18 and 20 joinder
Elements for determining if something is an AD: (1) is it necessary to P’s cause of action?
(2) which party, if either has better access to relevant evidence (3) public policy: should
it be indulged or disfavored?
Hohlbein v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co. (D 1985) - 4 Ps joined under 20(a)(1) to sue a
company who had screwed each of them over separately in their hiring process. The
court allowed this as a generous interpretation of the same “series of transaction.”
Essay
I/C R A C
State jurisdiction
Site the prompt
All rules
Any cases?