Cases

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Under the FRCP, a plaintiff's complaint is sufficient if it states a claim for relief.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the complaint contain short and plain statement of the plaintiff's claim, and a court may not require a heightened standard for pleadings alleging certain causes of action.

To state a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act, the complaint must contain enough factual material to suggest that an agreement existed between the defendants.

Under FRCP 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a short & plain statement (SPS) of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

• A claim has facial plausibility when PL pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable and plausible inference that DF is liable for the misconduct alleged, and doesn't allege a mere possibility.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), entry of a default judgment is proper where a defendant has failed to appear or defend a lawsuit after proper service.

A defendant's FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will only be granted if, when all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff, the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Under Rule 12(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), a party must assert any objection to personal jurisdiction, venue, or service of process in its first pre-answer motion to dismiss or responsive pleading or the objection is waived.

Under the Rule 12(f) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), a district court has discretion to strike an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.

Under Rule 8(c), affirmative defenses must be pleaded in a timely fashion, or else the defenses are waived.

Parties must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in drafting responsive pleadings.

Parties must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in drafting responsive pleadings.

Under FRCP Rule 11, an attorney may not be sanctioned for asserting a claim that contradicts precedent unless there is no basis for extending, modifying, or reversing the existing law.

FRCP Rule 11 sanctions are not proper against an attorney who files a nonfrivolous lawsuit, even if partially motivated by an improper purpose.

A party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or written consent of the adverse party and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.

Under Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), a court has discretion to amend the pleadings during or after trial to include a new issue if the parties expressly or impliedly consented tzo litigating the issue or amendment would not cause prejudice.

A claim relates back to the initial pleading when the claim asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts set forth in the original pleading.

Relation back under Rule 15(c) does not depend on the amending party's knowledge or timeliness.

Under the FRCP Rule 20(a), multiple plaintiffs may join their claims against a single defendant in one lawsuit so long as the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and involve common questions of law or fact.

Failure to assert a compulsory counterclaim constitutes waiver, and the party will be estopped from later asserting the claim if she was aware of the claim and had an opportunity to file before settlement.

Under Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), a defendant may implead any third party who may be liable to the defendant for part or all of the plaintiff's claim, even if the parties' liability arises under different legal theories.

FRCP 24(a)(2) allows a petitioner to intervene of right in a case, if existing parties are unable to adequately protect the petitioner's interest in the case's outcome.

Proposed intervenors must establish four elements in order to be entitled to intervene as a matter of right:
− (1) that the motion to intervene was timely;
− (2) that they have a substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the case;
− (3) that their ability to protect that interest may be impaired in the absence of intervention, and
− (4) that the parties already before the court may not adequately represent their interest.

• Rule: FRCP 23 permits individuals to sue as representatives of an aggrieved class.

To be certified, a putative class must first meet all four prerequisites set forth in Rule 23(a), generally referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

Pendent jurisdiction is a long-settled concept in federal jurisdiction permitting a federal court to hear a case that is premised both on federal and state law.

• If PL has both federal & state claims, although there may be no diversity jurisdiction, the federal court may exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state claim if both claims arise out of the same set of facts "common nucleus of operative fact.".

In an action in which federal jurisdiction is based on diversity, the court may not exercise jurisdiction over the PL's claim against a third-party DF if there's no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim.

• Ancillary Jurisdiction: Ancillary jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear a claim that would normally be outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction if it is substantially related to a second claim that is within the court's jurisdiction.
• Ancillary Claims: DF involuntarily brought into federal court can raise ancillary claims necessary to a defense, or to any claims that could be lost if not asserted.
• Pendent Jurisdiction: A state-law cause of action is justiciable in federal court alongside a federal claim if one would expect the two claims to be tried in one judicial proceeding.

Rule: Discovery must be relevant and potential to the needs of the case.
Six Factors to determine if discovery request is proportional:
− (1) the importance of the issues at stake,
− (2) the amount in controversy,
− (3) the litigants’ access,
− (4) their resources,
− (5) the discovery’s importance in resolving the case,
− (6) and whether the costs outweigh likely benefits.

• Rule: Opposing counsel must demonstrate necessity, justification, or undue prejudice for access to counsel’s written statements, private memoranda, and personal recollections.
• Rule: The attorney-client privilege does not extend to information which an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation.
− Nor does this privilege concern the memoranda, briefs, communications and other writings prepared by counsel for his own use in prosecuting his client's case; and it is equally unrelated to writings which reflect an attorney's mental impression, conclusion, opinions or legal theories.

Rule: Under the FRCP, the cost of producing electronic data should only be shifted to the requesting party if the discovery poses an “undue burden or expense.”

Rule: The court set a new seven-factor for determination of cost-shifting and discovery costs:
− (1) Extent to which request is specifically tailored to discover relevant info;
− (2) Availability of such info from other sources;
− (3) Total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy;
− (4) Total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party;
− (5) Relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so;
− (6) Importance of the issues at stake in litigation; and
− (7) Relative benefits to parties of obtaining the information.

FRCP Rule 35(a) permits a court to compel a party to submit to a physical or mental examination related to a condition that is “in controversy,” so long as there is good cause to do so.

− The burden is on the party seeking such discovery to make this showing.
− Moreover, a physical examination will not be ordered merely because a party has been in an accident.
− Rather, an exam may only be required after a “discriminating application” of the requirements of FRCP Rule 35(a).

Rule 26 requires federal district courts to actively manage the cases before them, including ruling on parties’ pretrial motions and objections to discovery requests.

− Under FRCP a district court is authorized to impose sanctions against a party that violates a discovery order.
− The propriety of sanctions depends on the propriety of the order that the party has violated.

Heightened the pleading requirement for federal civil cases by requiring for PLs to include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible or conceivable, that they be able to prove facts to support their claims.

The Erie Doctrine Rule: Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law and may only apply federal procedural law.

Rule: There are two main objectives of the Erie decision:
(1) to discourage forum shopping among litigants, and
(2) to avoid inequitable administration of the laws otherwise known as "Vertical Uniformity," and is rooted in the idea that in a given state, the outcome of the litigation should not be grossly different just b/c a litigant filed a claim in a state court rather than a federal court or vice versa.

Rule: The Erie doctrine today applies regardless of how the federal court may hear a state claim.
− Whether federal court encounters a state law issue in diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction, or bankruptcy jurisdiction, the federal court must honor state common law when deciding state law issues.

Rule: The federal court must determine if either
− (1) state law is clear as to the case in controversy, or
− (2) if not, then has the state's highest court ruled specifically on a similar case. If so, the state law or court ruling must be followed.
Rule: "'Erie Guess": federal court must determine how state's highest court would potentially rule on a matter.

Rule: There's no federal general common law.
Rule: Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state.

This approach suggests that unless there is a major countervailing federal policy that trumps the state practice, if ignoring the state law would lead to forum shopping by PLs and unequal administration of the laws (like in Yellow Cab above), the court should apply the state law.

(1) Hanna & Rules Enabling Act approach, per 28 U.S.C. § 2072 when there is a FRCP and statute that conflicts with state law; and
(2) Byrd-Erie approach when there isn't a conflict between a state and federal practice.

Under the approach in Hanna v. Plumer, the federal court of a state hearing a case based on diversity jurisdiction should apply state law in the event of conflict between state and federal law - or in the absence of relevant federal positive law - if the state law deals with substantive rights of state citizens.
• Rule: The Supreme Court has defined substantive rights as, "rights conferred by the law to be protected and enforced by the adjective law of judicial procedure."

Byrd suggests that unless there is a major countervailing federal policy that trumps the state practice, if ignoring the state law would lead to forum shopping by PLs and unequal administration of the laws (like in Yellow Cab above), the court should apply the state law.

Hanna says federal court of a state hearing a case based on diversity jurisdiction should apply state law in the event of conflict between state and federal law - or in the absence of relevant federal positive law - if the state law deals with substantive rights of state citizens.

Post Hanna decision that "blended" federal and state law.

Rule: In both Gasperini and Semtek, the common thread is that the blending is done in a way that is calculated to advance the aims of Erie (and York):
(1) non-discrimination between litigants,
(2) and discouragement of forum shopping.

Rule: Where its jurisdiction is founded on diversity, a federal court must apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the state in which it sits.

Hanna Part I
− Conflict between state law and federal judicial practice.
− "Twin Evils" of Erie.
− Was the federal rule rather than state rule outcome-determinative when complaint filed or removal available?
− Would using this federal rule promote improper forum shopping or result in an inequitable administration of law?

Hanna Part II
− Whether to follow federal or state rule...
(1) Is the federal rule on point? Is there a way the federal rule does not govern?
(2) Is the federal rule consistent with the Rules Enabling Act or is it outside of the scope?
(3) Is it constitutional?
− Conflict between state & federal procedural rule.
− W/in congressional authority as long as "rationally capable of classification as procedural."
− Satisfies Rules Enabling Act if "The test must be whether a rule really regulates procedure the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them."
− Violates Rules Enabling Act if abridges / modifies / enlarges substantive right.

Satisfied if "The test must be whether a rule really regulates procedure the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them."

Violated if abridges / modifies / enlarges substantive right.

Rule: Erie Doctrine, adopted in 1938, held that while Federal law was determinative in procedural matters, state law should control for substantive matters, thus preventing 'forum shopping' between state and Federal courts.

Rule: A federal court, exercising jurisdiction based strictly on diversity of citizenship, must abide by any state legal rule that would be outcome determinative if held in state court.

Rule: If a PL serves a DF properly under the federal rules, PL can proceed with a state-law claim that requires a different method of service for establishing liability.

Rule: Under the approach in Hanna v. Plumer, the federal court of a state hearing a case based on diversity jurisdiction should apply state law in the event of conflict between state and federal law - or in the absence of relevant federal positive law - if the state law deals with substantive rights of state citizens.

Rule 3 doesn't toll a state statute of limitations or preempt state tolling rules.

Rule 41 allows PL to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit without prejudice any time before DF has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment may only be granted when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, establishes that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Claim preclusion (Res Judicata) =
− (1) Case 1 & Case 2 = same Plaintiff & D?
− (2) Case 1 = Final judgement on the merits?
− (3) Case 2 = same claim (out of the same transaction or occurrence)?

Yes to all = Claim is precluded.

Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel) = Bars relitigating even with DIFFERENT parties if:
− (1) Litigated and determined in a prior suit?
− (2) Issue was essential to the judgement of the prior suit?
− (3) Prior suit ended on a judgement on the merits?
− (4) Party against issue asserted must have had full and fair opportunity as well as incentive to litigate the issue in the first suit?

Yes to all these = issue precluded

Rule: Res judicata applies when:
− (1) there has been “a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction,”
− (2) on the same cause of action,
− (3) between the same parties.

Rule: The same evidence test prohibits a second action “if the evidence needed to sustain the second suit would have sustained the first, or if the same facts were essential to maintain both actions.”

Rule: Under the more expansive transactional test, “the assertion of different kinds of theories of relief still constitutes a single cause of action if a single group of operative facts give rise to the assertion of relief.”

Prohibits a second action “if the evidence needed to sustain the second suit would have sustained the first, or if the same facts were essential to maintain both actions.”

“the assertion of different kinds of theories of relief still constitutes a single cause of action if a single group of operative facts give rise to the assertion of relief.”

Rule: Between the same parties upon the same cause of action, claim or demand, or subject matter, a judgment rendered on the merits constitutes an absolute bar, not only as to all matters which were actually raised, litigated and determined in the former proceeding, but also as to all matters which could have been raised and litigated.

A litigant who wasn't a party to a prior judgment may nonetheless use that judgment offensively to prevent a DF from relitigating issues resolved in the earlier proceeding, provided that:
− (1) PL couldn't easily have joined in the earlier action and
− (2) use of the judgment won't result in unfairness to the DF.