Civil Procedure Overview

A legal filing that is not supported by law or fact and filed for an improper purpose.

A period of 21 days after service where a challenged claim can be withdrawn or corrected without facing sanctions.

Court penalties for violating Rule 11(b), designed to deter future misconduct, by paying penalties, attorney's fees, or non-monetary directions.

A case highlighting that legal arguments against court precedent need no chance of success to be sanctioned.

A defendant has 21 days to answer after being served, or 60 days with a waiver.

A document filed by a defendant in response to a legal claim, detailing their defense.

The authority of a court to hear a particular type of case.

A case emphasizing that employee handbooks generally don't create employment contracts, unless there is a specific agreement.

Claims must be plausible on their face, going beyond mere labels and conclusions. Factual allegations must show a basis for relief, not just a possibility.

A two-part test to determine if a complaint states a claim: 1) identify conclusory allegations, and 2) assess if the well-pleaded facts plausibly show the desired conclusion.

Legal statements that restate the claim without providing factual support. They merely assert the elements of a legal cause of action.

The court demands more than a mere possibility of wrongdoing; the complaint must show a reasonable likelihood that the defendant acted unlawfully.

Allegations that simply restate the elements of a claim or statute without offering factual support to connect the allegation to the claim.

Allegations that are too vague or lacking in detail to be considered tangible or verifiable.

Defenses in a pleading that aim to disprove an element of the plaintiff's claim.

The defendant's response to the plaintiff's complaint, outlining defenses against each claim.

The extent to which each party in a lawsuit has access to the evidence needed to prove their case.

The financial and other resources of each party, affecting their ability to conduct discovery.

Discovery helps resolve issues in a lawsuit by uncovering relevant evidence.

Evaluating whether the cost of discovery outweighs the expected benefits in resolving a case.

A case where the court considered shifting discovery costs back to the requesting party.

A threshold for determining when discovery requests are excessive.

Discovery requests with no real goal but to gather information aimlessly.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure limiting the frequency and extent of discovery.

A person's true, permanent home, where they intend to return after absence.

Requires both a change of residence and intent to remain indefinitely in a new location.

In a federal diversity case, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant

Federal court's power to hear cases based on the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff's initial complaint relies on federal law.

Allows a civil lawsuit filed in state court to be moved to federal court, if there is federal jurisdiction.

Federal courts have limited powers to hear only certain types of cases.

Jurisdiction where only a federal court can hear specific cases.

A party can only send 25 written interrogatories to another party unless otherwise ordered by a court.

Interrogatories can cover any matter allowed by Rule 26(b).

A party has 30 days to respond to interrogatories, and must disclose information under their control.

Legal requests to produce documents, tangible items, or permit entry onto land for inspection.

Requests for electronically stored information (ESI) must specify a reasonably useful form for production.

Requests for tangible things need clear identification in the legal process.

Party can request to inspect land for legal purposes under Rule 34.

Requests for production must be detailed, specifying items, time, place, manner and electronically stored info format.

A legal standard deciding if a trial is needed based on the evidence. If no reasonable jury could disagree on the key issues, a summary judgment is granted.

In summary judgment, more is needed than mere metaphysical doubt. The evidence must demonstrate a plausible alternative outcome.

Determining summary judgment based on whether only one fair conclusion is feasible, considering differing inferences. The context shapes the plausibility of conclusions.

General evidence isn't enough to contradict specific, strong testimonies. To oppose a specific point of evidence, opposing evidence should be also specific.

An officer's conduct is immune from suit if a threat to others was so severe that force was reasonably necessary.

Assessing reasonable inferences must consider specific details, individual biases and perceptions influencing evidence.

Specific parts of the record must be pointed out in summary judgment motions. The defendant cannot provide new evidence in support of their claims.

A jury can find a conspiracy if it is reasonable to infer an agreement based on the facts (e.g., a police officer being present).