Complaints
For a complaint to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2)—i.e., survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim—it must satisfy the two tests for sufficiency:
Notice Sufficiency
Legal Sufficiency
What if you want to amend the pleadings and add a new claim, but the statute of limitations looks like it’s going to be a problem?
See if the Claim relates back- Rule 15(c)(1)
When does a claim relate back?
•An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when:
•(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading
•This occurs when the claims added by amendment arise from the same core facts as the timely filed claims, and not when the new claims depend upon events separate in “both time and type” from the originally raised episodes
What is the application for testing JMOL and SJ
Both are appropriate only when there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact (if no reasonable trier of fact could possibly find for the nonmovant)
Judge does NOT have discretion and does NOT weigh the evidence
What is the test for determining if a claim has the right for a jury trial?
The Chauffers 2-step method:
Historical Analysis
Relief Sought
For SMJ, Diversity Jurisdiction: what are the factors for
Corporation
People
Amount in controversy
Corporations- Citizenship for PPB and Incorporated
People- Domicile- Physical presence, and intent to remain indefinitely (at the time of the claim being filed)
Amount in controversy- over 75K
How to met the notice Sufficiency Test?
To satisfy the test, a complaint must put the Defendant on "fair notice" on what they are being sued for.
•Bubany sues Shannon over collision at 19th and Flint. Both parties swear that they had the green light. Bubany discovers that Chipp saw the collision. Chipp says that Shannon had the green light
•Is Bubany going to be required to “cough up” Chipp’s identity during initial discovery (i.e., without being asked)? Why
NO! Chip’s information would hurt Bubany’s claim.
Rule 26: parties are required to disclose (without being asked) the names of witnesses likely to have discoverable information they may use to support its claim or defense
Shannon has 50 cardinals saying Chip had the red light
Jury finds for Chip
Shannon renews 50 b motion – seeking JMOL or (in the alt.) New Trial
What if instead of testifying, Chip decides to simply rest on his pleadings (in which he alleged that he had the green light). How does this impact the analysis?
Under these circumstances, Shannon’s motion for JMOL should be granted. Pleadings are not evidence. So, by relying solely on his pleadings, Chip has failed to meet his burden of production because he has failed to supply any evidence. Without any evidence, a reasonable trier of fact (jury) would have no choice but to find for Shannon. Accordingly, if Chip decided to rest solely on his pleadings, Shannon’s motion for JMOL should be granted.
How do you do the Chauffers 2-step method for Relief sought
Look at the relief sought:
If it is monetary/legal, then it gets a jury trial
If it is equitable/injunction, then it doesn't get a trial
What is the test for Personal Jurisdiction (2 analysis)
Bonus if you can name what goes under each analysis
Statutory Analysis
-Rule 4K
-Long arm statute
Constitutional Analysis
Specific Jurisdiction
-Minimum Contacts + Fairplay
-Arises out of or relates to
General Jurisdiction
-Domicile and/or Citizenship
How to satisfy the legal sufficiency?
To satisfy this test: The P must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Steps:
(1) Strike all legal conclusion from the complaint
(2) apply the plausibility analysis to the allegations that remain
The parties have held their Rule 26(f) scheduling conference. Before A had sued B, B’s insurance company hired an investigator, V, who located a witness, W. V’s notes of her interview of W stated, “W told me that A had a green light but slammed on the brakes anyway to avoid running over ducklings that were crossing the road?"
After A sued B, B’s insurance company arranged for Lawyer to defend B, and, as part of this arrangement, gave V’s files to Lawyer. A, acting through her attorney, has served a document request on Lawyer that seeks “All documents in B’s possession or control containing information relevant to the cause or causes of the collision.” Should Lawyer turn over V’s notes of her interview of W in response to this request? What information, if any, should Lawyer provide A’s counsel regarding these interview notes in response to the document request
Discoverable under 26(b)(1) unless protected under work product, even if it’s not an attorney, and because a claim is so much it makes sense it's in anticipation of trial. Then bring in:
Rule 26(b)(3)- work product doctrine
Shannon has 50 cardinals saying Chip had the red light
Chip testifies himself that he had the green light
Jury finds for Chip
Shannon renews 50 b motion – seeking JMOL or (in the alt.) New Trial
Grant or Deny Motion for New Trial?
Shannon’s motion for New Trial (under Rule 59) should be granted. The judge, when deciding how to rule on a motion for new trial is allowed to make credibility determinations and weigh the evidence. The judge is allowed to order a new trial if the verdict goes against the great weight of the evidence. Here, it could be reasonably argued that the jury’s verdict (for Chip) goes against the great weight of the evidence (testimony of the 50 cardinals). Therefore, Shannon’s motion for new trial should be granted.
How to determine the historical analysis in the Chauffers 2-step method
It analogizes a party's claim to the closest 18th-century action, to determine whether, back then, a similar claim would have been heard in a court of law or equity
In England, claims arising in equity were traditionally heard by a judge, while cases in law went to a jury
Josh has lived In NY since graduating from college. He has a NY driver’s license, pays NY taxes, and lists his residence as NY on all state and federal tax forms. He is an attorney with a NY firm and a member of the NY bar. He has recently become engaged to a woman who lives in California. He has taken the California bar exam, and has obtained a job with a California firm, which will start as soon as he is admitted to the California bar. He and his fiancée have bought a house in California, and he will be moving there in a month.
Where is Josh domiciled?
-Every time Josh had been physically present in California (maybe to propose, to take the bar exam, to buy a home, etc.), he has intended to return to NY! Josh is domicile in NY
Rule 4 Service of process Test
Mullane Standard:
Due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them a reasonable opportunity to respond
B dues S over collision at 19th and Slide. G, B’s attorney, discovers the identity of C. After speaking with C, G writes the following note: “C says B had the red light. Seems pretty solid” S sends an interrogatory to G asking for list of witnesses.
Does G have to disclose C’s identity?
•C’s identity – not protected as work product
•The work product doctrine protects documents and tangible
•C’s identity is a fact and not a document or tangible thing
Shannon has 50 cardinals saying Chip had the red light
Chip testifies himself that he had the green light
Jury finds for Chip
Shannon renews 50 b motion – seeking JMOL or (in the alt.) New Trial
Grant or Deny JMOL?
Shannon’s motion for renewed JMOL (under Rule (50)(b)) should be denied. The standard for JMOL is the same as summary judgement – that no reasonable trier of fact could rule for the non-moving party (in this case, Chipp). The judge, when deciding how to rule on a motion for either JMOL or SJ, is not allowed to make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Here, it is possible that a reasonable jury could choose to believe Chip and find for him. The judge would not be allowed to make any credibility determinations; such determinations are left to the jury. Therefore, Shannon’s motion for JMOL should be denied.
What to do when a case has both equitable and legal claims
When a case involves both legal and equitable claims, a court should order the issues so that the issues decided by a jury (the legal issues) come first.
That means the cases for legal claims get a jury
And the claims for equitable claims get dealt with a judge
What is the analysis for Federal Question?
Well Pleaded Complaint Rule
Defendant was served with process for an action in federal district court. Defendant initially responded to the Complaint by moving to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Motion denied.
True or false: Defendant may not properly include the defense of failure to state a claim in defendant’s answer. EXPLAIN
False. Rule 12(g) talks about joining motions 12(b)(1-7) in one motion or answer together. Rule 12(g) specifically makes an exception under Rule 12(h)(2) and (3) that there are limitations on further motions. Moving to 12(h), it talks about waiving specific defenses once they have been originally plead in the initial motion. Rule 12(h)(1) says that rule 12(b)(2-5) are waived if they are not put into the initial motion to dismiss, leaving out motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Rule 12(h)(2) states that failure to state a claim, along with some 2 others, are not waived if they are not put in the first motion to dismiss and can be raised at, “in any pleading allowed or ordered under Rule 7(a), by a motion under rule 12(c) or at trial.” So the Defendant can bring a 12(b)(6) in his answer as it is not part of one of the waived defenses in Rule 12(h)(1).
Hypo: B dues S over collision at 19th and Slide. G, B’s attorney, discovers the identity of C. After speaking with C, G writes the following note: “C says B had the red light. Seems pretty solid” S sends an interrogatory to G asking for list of witnesses
What about the note?
•Ordinarily, a party may not discover
•(1) documents and tangible things;
•Note meets this requirement
•(2) that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial
•Prepared by an attorney, this requirement seems solid too
•(3) by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).
Now assume that the Complaint survived all of the preceding motions. The period for discovery has ended. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the issue of cause of death. In support of this motion, Defendant submits an affidavit from Dr. Ralph Ranger, who is responsible for animal safety operations at Yellowstone. In pertinent part, the Ranger affidavit states: “Grizzly bear attacks on humans occur approximately once per year in Yellowstone. In the backcountry, grizzly bear attacks occur on only 1 in 232,000 travel days.”
In response, Paula submits an affidavit from Dr. Coroner, who examined David’s remains for an official autopsy. In pertinent part, this affidavit states: “Decedent’s skeletal remains are heavily marked by grizzly bear teeth marks. This is consistent with decedent having been eaten by a grizzly bear.”
Assess whether the defendant should prevail on its summary judgment motion
The Defendant could possibly fail a Summary Judgment motion. Summary judgment is determined by Rule 56, stating that no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The standard in which judges determine this is that “no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmovant party.” Cobel states that the courts look at the evidence that is most favorable to the nonmovant.
Here Paula and CIC submitted affidavits to show whether David died from a bear attack or not. Courts when looking at this do not weigh creditability, but instead attempt to determine if a reasonable trier of fact could argue over if David died from a bear attack.
The courts could possibly believe this, there is evidence from both sides that prove otherwise to each other’s arguments and there is no evidence that contradicts any video. So the defendant would not prevail on a SJ motion because there is a genuine issue as to whether David died by a grizzly bear attack or other means.
Say Lucas gets into a car wreck with Mina. So Lucas is suing Mina for both the injuries involving the car wreck and he wants to have an injunction against Mina to keep her away from him.
What would the courts do?
The courts would allow personal injuries to get a trial
While the injunction can be dealt with by a judge
How to determine if there is a well-pleaded complaint?
Look only at the complaint and ignore everything except the claim itself
-Ask yourself: what information in the claim is necessary to survive a rule 12(b)(6) motion?
-The party’s claim must arise under federal law; including an anticipated federal defense in your complaint isn’t enough