The Complaint
True or false: technical forms of pleading are required in federal civil cases.
FALSE: Technical forms of pleading are not required in federal civil cases. In other words, a party may use plain language to describe its claims or defenses.
True or false: in a responsive pleading, if a party does not know whether an allegation is true or false, they should deny the allegation.
FALSE(ish): A party that does not have enough knowledge or information to determine the truth of an allegation must say so. This has the same effect as a denial.
A similar issue can arise if a party believes that an allegation is false but lacks sufficient knowledge to deny the allegation definitively. In this situation, courts often allow the defendant to deny the allegation so long as the defendant has enough information to form a good-faith belief that the allegation is false.
True or false: Defending parties must assert crossclaims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim against them or waive the claim.
FALSE: this is the rule for counterclaims, cross claims are permissive and won't be waived.
True or false: a party can implead someone who may be directly liable to the plaintiff.
True: a party can implead someone who may be directly liable to the plaintiff, as long as the impleaded party may ALSO be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff's claim.
TRUE OR FALSE: A Rule 23(b)(2) class is unnecessary if prospective relief will benefit all members of a proposed class without class certification.
TRUE -- this is the Galvan doctrine from Galvan v. Levine. Rule 23(b)(2), the "injunctive relief" class, is frequently invoked for civil rights or employment discrimination claims. The class is unnecessary if prospective relief will benefit all members of a proposed class without class certification. This is only applicable when a defendant affirmatively states that it will apply any remedy across the board -- so it did not apply to Floyd.
Rule 11 provides that, by presenting a paper to the court, an attorney of record or a party certifies that the presenter believes, after conducting a pre-filing "reasonable inquiry", that the paper has:
Rule 11: When presenting a paper to the court (includes signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating a paper), the party certifies that they believe it has:
Evidentiary support (Hays)
A legal basis (Hays / Hunter)
A proper purpose (Hunter)
True or False: An issue outside the pleadings can be tried with the consent of the parties, so long as the pleadings are amended to match the evidence.
FALSE: If an issue is not raised in the pleadings but is tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, then the issue is treated the same as if it had been raised in the pleadings. While amendment is not required in this situation, a party nonetheless may move at any time, even after final judgment, to amend the pleadings to match the evidence at trial. However, a party’s failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial.
Why try claims together under FRCP 20(a)?
Seen in Hohlbein. Can make plaintiff case stronger -- multiple examples of employee discrimination can be stronger than one. It also is efficient and reflects a flexible approach to litigation.
Who is the "stakeholder" in an interpleader? Why would this matter?
An action in interpleader is brought by the stakeholder, the party holding the disputed property or fund, naming the contending claimants to the property or fund as defendants. This matters especially for choosing whether to use rule or statutory interpleader, because with rule interpleader, diversity is measured by comparing the citizenship of the stakeholder to that of the claimants, not comparing the citizenship of the claimants to each other.
Aside from efficiency, what requirements are there for a class action to bind absent class members? Support w/ case example.
(From Hansberry)
1) The interests of the absent class members must be of the same class as the interest of the class representatives (must share common interests)
2) The absentee's interests must be adequately represented by parties who are present
3) The Court must adopt and employ procedures so as to insure that the common-interest and adequate-representation requirements are satisfied and that the litigation is conducted as to insure the full and fair consideration of the common issue.
On May 19, a plaintiff filed a breach of contract action in federal court against a defendant. The defendant was served with the complaint on May 20. The defendant filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss on May 25. On May 30, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
At this point, how long does the defendant have to file an answer?
14 days from the date the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss (June 13th?)
The defendant filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss within 21 days of being served with the original complaint. This was a timely motion to dismiss. The motion was later denied by the court. Accordingly, the defendant now has 14 days from the date the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss to file an answer to the complaint.
According to ___(FRCP+case), an amendment that changes a defending party or the name of a defending party will "relate back" if:
According to FRCP 15(c), as seen in Bonerb v. Richard J Caron Foundation, the amendment "relates back" if...the amendment arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original pleading and within the period allowed for serving the summons and complaint, the party being added (1) received sufficient notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending the case and (2) knew or should have known that the case would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.
P sues D in federal court. 2 months after pleadings had closed, P wanted to add a claim under state law. The state statute that created P's claim required that any cause of action be filed within 2 years of a claimant’s injury. The plaintiff had filed her original complaint in the district court 23 months after her injury. The state statute did not permit relation back of amended pleadings. The plaintiff moved for leave to amend to add the claim to her complaint. What result & why?
The district court will deny P's motion because the proposed amendment is futile. Here, the statute of limitations period for the state-law claim that the plaintiff seeks to add via amendment has expired, and the state statute does not permit relation back of amendments. For this reason, the state-law claim the plaintiff seeks to add via amendment would not survive a motion to dismiss -- so it is futile.
What are three advantages to using statutory interpleader? When would you use rule interpleader?
Statutory interpleader has several advantages, including the right to file based on minimal diversity, a low amount-in-controversy requirement, and the authority to exercise jurisdiction over claimants found anywhere in the United States.
For rule interpleader (FRCP 22), diversity is measured by comparing the citizenship of the stakeholder to that of the claimants, not comparing the citizenship of the claimants to each other. This can allow diversity of citizenship in some instances where it would not be available under statutory interpleader.
Rule 23(b)(1): the "prejudice" class, is like the flip side of what rule? Why?
Like the flipside of Rule 19(a)(1) which defines a "required party" who should be joined if feasible. Same standard: A person would be prejudiced in protecting their interest in the matter. An existing party would be prejudiced by potential multiple or inconsistent obligations. Recognizes these kinds of prejudices can be avoided by using a more ambitious joinder device; the class action. Example; "limited fund" class where a judgment is shared pro rata
P sued D on a products-liability theory in federal court. D did not file any Rule 12 motions. At trial, D moved to dismiss P's case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. D had not raised this defense in its answer to the complaint. Will the federal district court consider D's argument?
Yes, D's argument that P failed to state a claim may be raised at trial. A defense that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted may be raised in any pleading (either a pre-answer motion under Rule 12 or the answer), by a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), or at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2).
Describe the relationship between Rule 15(a) and Rule 15(c) “relation back" -- how do these rules interact?
Rule 15(a)(2) allows a party to request leave of the court to amend, which "shall be freely given when justice so requires.” However, an amendment that seeks to add a time-barred claim would be futile, and should not be allowed unless the untimely claim "relates back" to the date of the original pleading, as allowed by 15(c)(1)(B).
But leave to amend under (a) and relation back under (c) are conceptually distinct. Even if an amendment may "relate back" it still could be denied if it created preparation prejudice from subsection (a). Just because it is not "futile" does not mean it is automatically accepted. Factors like undue delay are factors still considered under 15(a) but not in deciding "relation back" so they may still stop the amendment even if it relates back. 15(c) is just the first hurdle.
P was injured when scaffolding fell onto her car while driving, causing her to lose control and hit a building that was under construction. As a result of the damage to the building, a construction worker was injured.
P initiated a lawsuit, bringing claims against the construction contractor and the scaffolding manufacturer. The construction worker joined the litigation to bring a claim against the construction contractor. In the same litigation, the construction contractor brought claims against the motorist and the scaffolding manufacturer.
Which party is a cross-claim defendant?
The scaffolding manufacturer. The construction contractor asserted the only cross-claim: a claim against its co-party, the scaffolding manufacturer. Rule 13(g) permits cross-claims against co-parties if the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
A patient brought a diversity action in federal court against a medical device manufacturer for injuries sustained from a device that malfunctioned. The patient claimed that the malfunction was a result of the manufacturer’s negligent design of the device. The manufacturer claimed that the surgeon and hospital were joint tortfeasors and were liable for some or all of the patient’s claimed damages. Joinder of the surgeon and hospital would defeat diversity jurisdiction. Are the surgeon and hospital necessary parties who must be joined?
A) Yes, because claims of indemnification and contribution should be resolved in the same lawsuit to conserve judicial resources.
B) Yes, because the interests of the surgeon and hospital could be adversely affected if the liability of the manufacturer is determined without joining the surgeon and hospital as parties.
C) No, because subsequent proceedings can resolve claims of indemnification or contribution.
D) No, because adding the surgeon and the hospital would defeat the court's jurisdiction over the proceeding.
Answer C is correct. Joint tortfeasors are not considered necessary parties. See FRCP 19(a), advisory committee’s notes. Here, failure to join the surgeon and hospital would not negatively subject either the manufacturer or the missing parties to multiple obligations. Any claims for indemnification or contribution may be decided in a subsequent proceeding after resolution of the manufacturer's liability. Judicial efficiency is not part of the court’s inquiry in determining whether a party is necessary. Answer option D is incorrect because the court’s jurisdiction becomes an issue only when determining the feasibility of compulsory joinder of a necessary party, not when determining whether a party is a necessary participant in the litigation to begin with.
When do you have to consider "predominance" in class actions, and how do you decide if that requirement is met?
In 23(b)(3) classes, the "predominate" standard is an added requirement. How to decide predominance:
- Substantive elements of claims require the same proof for each class member
- Proposed class is bound together by a mutual interest in resolving common questions MORE than it is divided by individual interests
- Resolution of an issue common to the class would significantly advance the litigation
- One or more common issues constitute significant parts of each class member's individual case
- The common questions are central to all of the member's claims
- The same theory of liability is assert by or against all class members, and all defendants raise the same basic defenses.
What is heightened pleading? When is it required? Why? Use at least one case to make your point.
HP is “pleading with particularity” -- FRCP 9(b). Allegations of fraud or mistake must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Must allege when, where, and how the fraud was committed. However, “malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.”
Why? fair notice, protecting reputation, substance of procedure, suspect plaintiffs.
Special Circumstances:
Congress raised the standard of FRCP 9 further with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which required plaintiffs to "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind." Also required specific pleading of false or misleading statements.
Although courts have on their own initiative heightened pleading requirements for some allegations (see Leatherman v. Tarrant County), the Appellate Ct found that courts cannot impose heightened pleading standards at their discretion.
Hardin raises the complication found in cases where the court has already issued a final pretrial order, but one of the parties wants to include an issue that was not pleaded without having to have a new trial. What exactly is this complication? How did the court deal with it? How did the court justify the result?
Rule 16(e) provides that a final pretrial order can only be modified after a final pretrial conference to "prevent manifest injustice". This would seemingly bar the amendment. But Rule 15(b) has a much more lenient standard. The Tenth Circuit's answer was to treat Rule 15's goal of "presenting the merits" as a trump card. Since the basis for allowing an amendment at trial under Rule 15(b)(2) is that all parties clearly understood that they were trying the un-pleaded issue (so had "notice"), the parties need not be locked into a "tyranny of formalism" which inhibits courts from adjudicating cases upon their merits. De facto amendments under Rule 15(b) prevent the necessity of holding a new trial when evidence in court supports an unpleaded theory -- if its reqs are met, Rule 16(e) will not bar it from fulfilling this purpose.
A homeowner sued a housepainter for breach of contract in federal district court. The housepainter had painted the home’s interior 6 months before the lawsuit, and the paint had begun to peel all over the home. The housepainter’s answer alleged that the cause of the peeling was a defect in the paint, which he had provided but not designed. Together with the answer, the housepainter filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a required party, namely, the paint manufacturer. Is the district court likely to grant the housepainter’s motion?
No, because the paint manufacturer is not a necessary party. A party is necessary if the court cannot provide complete relief in the party’s absence, or if the party has an interest in the case and proceeding without the party may either impair the party’s ability to protect that interest, or leave an existing party subject to multiple or inconsistent liabilities. FRCP 19(a)(1)(A), (B). Here, the paint manufacturer is not a necessary party. The homeowner may obtain complete relief from the housepainter (HP can then seek indemnification in a separate suit). The paint manufacturer has no interest in the lawsuit that requires protecting, nor does proceeding in the absence of the manufacturer subject the housepainter to multiple or inconsistent liabilities. Therefore, the district court is not likely to grant the housepainter’s motion.
Could the intervenors in Grutter alternatively have been added to the suit under Rule 19? Why or why not?
Similarity of "impair and impede" language in Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i) and Rule 24(a)(2) suggests a somewhat consistent standard. But while the language is very similar, the standard is much lower for Rule 24 than Rule 19 required party standard. Therefore, if they had been a required party under FRCP 19, they also probably have the right to intervene under FRCP 24 -- but not all intervenors have to meet the standard in FRCP 19. So the Grutter intervenors who were allowed by FRCP 24 probably would not meet FRCP 19 requirements to be a required party.
The chief justification for class actions is efficiency, in that they facilitate the litigation of common issues and interests in a single, binding lawsuit instead of multiple individual lawsuits. But this "absentee" method of litigating poses the question of whether everyone's interests are truly being represented. How is this inherent issue addressed by the courts?
This surrogacy-based exception to the usual due process requirement of individual notice and an opportunity to be heard is premised on the substantial identity of interests between the class representatives and the class members, the adequacy of representation of those interests by the class representative, and the application of transparent judicial procedures for the designation and conduct of the class litigation.
To protect the interests of absent class members, courts play a more active role in the conduct of class actions than in the conduct of other civil actions. For example, courts must certify the class, appoint class counsel, approve any settlement or dismissal of claims, issues, or defenses, and direct that notice of a proposed settlement be provided in a reasonable manner to all class members.