Pleading
what is Rule 8(a)
"short and plain statement of the claim" and a demand for relief.
Rule 14
(bonus if you can give me what it does)
Impleader - permits a defendant to bring in a third party who may be liable for part or all of the plaintiff’s claim.
What rule governs discovery obligations and initial disclosures?
Rule 26
what is summary judgment?
Based on evidence found in discovery, you use summary judgement to take that evidence and show that you can win. Disposing of a case without trial.
Rule 50(a) made at the close of evidence before a jury verdict if a party believes the opposing party has failed to meet its burden.
What rule allows supp jdx? (arch nemisis af)
1367 :(
Rule 18-20, what do they do?
Joinder of claims
joinder of necessary parties
joinder of permissive parties
What is the maximum number of interrogatories allowed per party without stipulation or court order?
(bonus if you give me the rule)
25
Rule 33
what rule governs summary judgment
Rule 56
This doctrine bars re-litigation of claims between the same parties when there was a final judgment on the merits.
Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)?
two-step process a court uses to determine plausibility under Twiqbal
(bonus if you can tell me what the court needs for step 2)
(1) ignore legal conclusions, (2) look at what’s left and ask if it’s plausible
Deciding if a complaint is plausible is a context specific task that requires the court to draw at its judicial experience and common sense
What is the effect of Rule 13(a) if a party fails to assert a compulsory counterclaim?
you lose it!!! loser
OH NO!!! You gave away priviliged material!! How do you get it back?
Looking for name and how you fix it: bonus for rule
Claw back provision- party must have taken reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and must promptly act to rectify the error.
Rule 26(b)(5)(B)
how do we weigh facts for SJ?
Viewed in light most favorable to non-moving party
After a jury verdict in favor of Josie in a products liability case, Blake AutoCo files a Rule 50(b) motion arguing that Josie failed to present any evidence that the defect existed at the time of sale. However, Blake Autoco never moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) during trial.
Blake's Rule 50(b) motion is barred because he failed to make a Rule 50(a) motion during trial. JMOL under 50(b) can only be made if 50(a) was properly raised. Because it wasn’t, the court cannot grant JMOL post-verdict, and Blake AutoCo has forfeited his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
How are Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 different
Rule 11 does not require bad faith and can be sua sponte; § 1927 requires a finding of bad faith and notice.
Joinder two step
Is there a rule that allows joinder?
is there smj?
two types of work product
(bonus for the Rule)
(bonus bonus for explanation of them)
opinion and ordinary
Rule 26(b)(3)
Opinion work product reflects mental impressions and is nearly always protected; ordinary work product may be discoverable with a substantial showing of necessity.
Difference btwn SJ and Rule 12(b)(6) motion
12(b)(6) evaluates legal sufficiency on the pleadings alone; summary judgment requires evidence from the record.
What is the difference between defensive and offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel and which one is bad?
Defensive: new D uses against same P; offensive: new P uses against same D.
Parklane says offensive isn't very fair :(
HYPO: Michael knows someone at the law school stole his prized Rangers World Series Championship hat, but doesn't know who. He names Josie as a placeholder while he tries to find the real party. What happens?
Reverse trick! (maybe, it took me a bit of thought for this)
This isn't a mistake, much like the "john doe" in Worthington. Rule 15(c) allows you to relate back as long as: 1) arises out of same transaction/occurrence, 2) party named in amendment is served within 90 days, 3) new party won’t suffer prejudice, 4) and that the party know/should’ve known that the action would have been brought against them, but for a mistake concerning the property identity.
This wasn't a mistake!! He named josie wrong on purpose.
When is a party "indispensable" under Rule 19 and what factors should the courts consider?
When joinder is not feasible, courts consider prejudice, adequacy of judgment, availability of alternate remedies, and whether shaping relief can mitigate prejudice.
HYPO: Emma sues PaulTech, a company she claims wrongfully terminated her due to age discrimination. During discovery, Emma requests internal emails and server logs discussing her performance. PaulTech refuses, arguing that recovering deleted emails would cost over $150,000 due to outdated servers and backup tape formats. PaulTech also claims most relevant communications occurred over the phone. Emma files a motion to compel. How would you do this analysis?
Under Rule 26(b)(1), discovery must be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. PaulTech's objection may invoke Rule 26(b)(2)(B) for inaccessible ESI due to cost. The court would apply the Zubulake seven-factor test to determine if cost-shifting is appropriate.
HYPO: Blake ownes a construction company in 1975 (old man). Brittany sues Blake's company under tort law for Sean's wrongful death due to asbestos exposure. Blake moves for summary judgment, arguing that Brittany has not produced any admissible evidence that Sean was exposed working at his company. Brittany responds with affidavits from coworkers who remember seeing him work with asbestos stuff (idk I'm not in construction). Should the court grant summary judgment?
Co worker affidavits create enough dispute of fact. MSJ denied!
HYPO: Blake sues Michael's ExpressMart for wrongful termination in federal court, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for taking an listening to music while restocking shelves. The court finds in favor of Michael's ExpressMart, concluding Blake was terminated for consistent tardiness, not retaliation. Later, Blake sues Michael's ExpressMart again in state court for defamation, alleging that they falsely told prospective employers he was fired for stealing. Michael's ExpressMart asserts collateral estoppel as a defense to preclude relitigation of the reason for his termination.
Yes, Michael's ExpressMart can likely assert defensive collateral estoppel. The issue, why Blake was fired, was:
Actually litigated in the prior case,
Determined by a final and valid judgment,
Essential to that judgment, and
Identical to the issue raised in the second suit.
Even though the claims are different (retaliation vs. defamation), issue preclusion applies to facts actually determined in the first case. Michael's ExpressMart may prevent Blake from re-arguing that he was fired for reasons other than tardiness.