Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

• Emerged from the 1938 Rules Enabling Act.
• Rules are drafted by the Advisory Committee, reviewed by the Standing Committee (usually affirmed), and then passed by the Judicial Conference (Supreme Court and Congress)
• 28 U.S.C. § 2071 allows courts to prescribe rules of conduct with appropriate public notice and comment periods.
• Courts have the authority to act immediately with changes if needed, but must allow for comments after the fact
• Courts cannot use rules to abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive rights.
• Rule 1 states procedure "should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."
• Rule 2 merges the civil action into one form of action.

Modern Pleading

• Before 8(a)(2)'s enactment, attorneys in England had to complete a writ that matched the past writ which lead to criticism because a lot were thrown out
• Then, went to field/code pleading, which required facts to be submitted in the original complaint, this also led to lawsuits being thrown out. Replaced by current notice pleading

Rule 8(a)(2)/12(b)(6)

• 8(a)(2) establishes notice pleading where a claim for relief needs a short and plain statement showing the pleader is entitled to relief
• 12(b)(6) provides motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
• Based on Conley, The Courts interpreted these two rules the same way for 50 years
• In Dioguardi, cause of action needs just a short, plain statement of owed damages.
  • Take the complaint as face value.
  • From the 2nd Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
• In Conley, A complaint shouldn't be dismissed unless the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support their claim and enable him to relief.
  • The point is for cases decided on merits, not technicalities to keep good cases in court.
  • Form 11 provides a template for claims under Conley standard
• Twombly changed standards: claim considered "plausible," factual matter is “taken as true,” conclusions are rejected and require more than labels or speculative allegations
  • First, do not accept as true any conclusory legal allegations
  • Second, are the remaining allegations plausible?
• Iqbal confirms that Twombly applies to all cases not just antitrust cases to draw on judicial experiences for what makes sense
• The standard changed because discovery costs caused premature settlements.
• Effects of this change lead to more motions to dismiss and fact-supported plaintiffs' complaints.

Rule 9(b) - Special Pleading

• 9(b) dictates the need to state fraud or mistake allegations with particular circumstances.
  • "Malice, intent, knowledge and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally."
• A normal complaint needs more facts because the allegations can't be serious without proof
• The Twombly standard of 8(a)(2) compares to 9(b) so it ends up similar despite no special pleading in Twombly
• Mortenson is the district court case.

Complaints

• Under Rule 3, a civil action starts with a complaint filed with the court
• (a) of Rule 7 mentions complaint, answer, etc. that establishes these
• (b) identifies that a motion must be written for a request for a court order unless you are at hearing or trial

Responding to Complaints

• Courts may make a motion
  • Under 12(b)(6): After the pleadings are closed or before delaying the trial, parties can motion for a judgement on the pleadings
  • Under 12(c): Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings happens after the pleadings are closed to delay the trial
    • Same standard as 12(b)(6), but happens after the answer is filed
  • Under 12(d): Conversion to Motion for Summary Judgement is if, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded
• Rubert-Torres states that conversion is disfavored when coming quickly, no reasonable notice of the conversion, and infancy of discovery
  • From the Federal District Court
• 12(e) Motions depend on if the pleading is too vague or ambiguous with no reasonable response
• 12(f) Motions strike matter if they dont do anything

Answer

• 8(b)(1): The party must state defenses in short and plain terms to admitt/deny claims
• 8(b)(3): Parties intending to deny allegations may do so by a general denial with grounds
  • To deny allegations without specifications, they must specify admitted allegations.
• 8(b)(4): The party is required to admit what is true and deny the rest
• 8(b)(5): You can state you lack knowledge which then has effect of denial
• 8(b)(6): An allegation aside from damages is admitted if a responsive pleading is required
• In Zielinski, an incorrect defendant was held to be the correct defendant because of failing to correctly providing information in the answer from the (Federal District Court)
• 8(e): "Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice"
• 8(c)(1) states there is an affirmative defense that precludes liability

Amending Pleadings

• The purpose is for parties with new information, so goals are liberal so claims are decided on the merits
• According to 15(a)(1), you can amend as a matter of course within timing requirements after even after defendant has made a motion/answer
• Before trial, other amendments are with opposing party's consent or court should freely give when justice requires according to 15(a)(2)
• The amendment states pleadings in terms of 15(c)(1) when:
  • (A): allows relation back with law providing applicable statutes of limitations
    • More generous than B and C
  • (B): claim asserts a claim or defense out of transaction or occurrence in original pleading
  • Changes naming of a party whom the claim is against
    • According to Krupski, plaintiffs may know a defendant's existence without knowing their role
  • Under the conditions of 15(c)(1)(B)
    • Notice by serving summons/complaint within a stated time so no prejudice
    • Party knew action would be against them, but a mistake in identity

Sanctions, Rule 11

• Rule 11 started in 1937 stating lawyers just needed good grounds, then the litigation explosion in 1983 changed the rule -Expanded rule to beyond pleading/discovery -Lawyers needed to factually support legal inquiries -Sanctions are now required -Punishment, Deterrence, and party compensation -Focused too much on compensation so people would change legal idea for discovery -Satellite Litigations/ Vigorous Enforcements occur -Affects civil rights case
• Made Sanctions discretionary, removed discovery from rule, and added safe harbor (correct violiate before receiving notice) by adding a change to tumultulous history in 1993" -More focused on deterrence
• The attorney must sign, certify there was inquiry, claims are with warrants, evidentiary support, and factual contentions is reasonably warranted

Additional Rule 11 guidelines

• Under c(1), the court can impose sanctions after an opportunity to respond
• c(2) the motion must be separate
• c(3) the court can order the party to demonstrate cause
• c(4) provides sanctions limited to deterrence for other conduct by people
• The court may not issue monetary sanctions
• The order needs to describe any sanctioned contact
• d is not applied to discovery Rodriguez – US District Court; Three policies that support the Safe Harbor Notice

Force non-mover to assess case • Saves court time and money • Real warning that you better have your case together

§ § 1927 Ο If attorney drags out a case, they may personally be required to pay fees Goal is to compensate and Rodriguez: The attorney should have dropped the case with bad faith

Discovery

• Under 26(b)(1): The Old Rule mentioned parties obtaining discovery regaridng relevant, nonprivleged matter not admissible at trial regardless After an amendment; The parties get discovery regarding nonprivileged matter that relevant proportionally to needs of the case for resources, its benefits, the parties' relative access to relevant info Adds on the proportional requirement with discovery being contended and the purpsoe is to lower discovery cost It did not need to be changed Must confer asap at least 21 day to before scheduling concference under disclosure unnder settle, preseevring 26(f)(1)(2) discuss poosible discovery, develkop and conference is not in person discovery pla etc wthin 14 day written report 26 (f)(3) must discuss changes, electronic storage, privilege under 26 (a) 12 (b)(3) Rule 16(b)(30 Parties must provide other information such as # 26 (a)(1) is Initial Disclosure Does not include inadmissible evidence but including only for impeachment. Rule 30 is for depositions You can depose any person, including a party, without leave of court. Leave of court required under Rule 33 Rule 34 To enter property and 30 days it must be labelled the usual course of business.

Rule 26b

• General court oders limits for unreasonableness Electonic limitations 26b2B Under protective orders and signers such. 37 is motion to compel discovery/dischargeCertification that conferred in good faithCourt may order payment of reasonable expenses including attorney fees if not comply.

Work Product and Attourney Privilage

• Work production means something cannot be discorverde id it prepared in anticpation that is a good reason for needing the info
• Court requires attorney to give best avdaice under best circumtance summary judgement occus after discovery or goal of efficiency If there is genuinely no disute as to any material fact

Rule 11

• 56 states the need for a court to summary of the judgement of the movant. Supreme court interpets whether jury can find for no moving party inssuficency and plausbillity
• 56 (b) needs must identifu the claim can at anytime of discoveries completion is ok for 30 days
• 56 (c) cite what the movment is asserting. An admistivility statement
• 55 d if a a non novant cannot present what its essential and allowed time. Trilogy supreme court makes its easier to grand summary.

Claim is to pluasbilify Non Movant has burden persuasion Harris V Scot

Issues with a judgement. Issue in civil rights worse and matter of law. 50(a) Court could not grant moviemnt for matter of law

Rule 50 and 56 must for a party on 28 day. . Rule 59 after after jry trial the court can give it for many legal reasons in at federal court

Preclusion

• Affirmative Defenses for precluding.

• FInality so we dont tey repatly.

• Defendant is at peace.

• Consistency with a chance it could yield different results and it is a waset of time

• Claimnt and must asssret claim through the Transaction Test. a claim encompasses all right to Relief by right of the transacition.

• The Party Who invokes preclusion must have been parties to the former action and For example for closely related.
  There must of been Final Judgements sues aB for collision then A sues B regarduing buisness

-Colltal ESTopll is a sperate

If it has been litagted a cannot do i againm.

General requriamnts or in privity.

Same isse of claim and has to have resolution fro mthe judements. Wantwred to liggate from crromwel from the payment,

Case for Neglgencde of Neglent and is sues for prelcsuion.

You must give somtjeing restciuve for somehtijn restricve and so mist fo with sonmehing restrictiev.

The same for all parties in.