Parties to a case
A defendant who believes a nonparty is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim can bring that person into the lawsuit under this rule.
Rule 14 Impleader
What Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs class actions?
Rule 23
Carstairs is injured when he is hit by Noble’s car. He sues Noble in federal court, alleging that the court has jurisdiction on the basis of diversity, that “the defendant hit me while driving down Main Street on June 14, 2016,” and that he suffered physical injuries as a result. He demands $100,000 in damages. Which of the following is the best argument that the complaint is insufficient under Rule 8(a)(2)?
A. The quoted allegation is inadequate because it does not give Noble notice of the events that are the basis of the suit.
B. The quoted allegation is inadequate because it provides insufficient detail concerning the location and time of the accident.
C. The quoted allegation is inadequate because it does not allege that Noble owed Carstairs a duty of care.
D. The quoted allegation is inadequate because it does not suggest that Noble has violated a legal right that gives Carstairs a right to relief from him.
D. The quoted allegation is inadequate because it does not suggest that Noble has violated a legal right that gives Carstairs a right to relief from him.
A plaintiff files a state-law negligence claim against a defendant. The defendant plans to argue in the answer that the plaintiff's claim is barred by federal law. Can the defendant's anticipated federal defense create federal-question jurisdiction?
No. A federal defense does not ordinarily create federal-question jurisdiction. The federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.
Arena sues Shukla for injuries from an automobile accident. Shukla sends Arena an interrogatory asking:
“Why do you contend that the defendant is liable for your injury?”Arena responds:
“The defendant is liable because he was negligent in operating his vehicle, which caused the collision.”
Is Arena's response sufficient?
No. The response does not adequately provide the factual basis for the claim; simply stating the legal conclusion that the defendant was negligent is insufficient.
This rule allows multiple plaintiffs to join together when their claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and share a common question of law or fact.
Rule 20 Permissive Joinder
Before a class can be certified, Rule 23(a) requires that the class satisfy four prerequisites:
1). Numerosity
2). Commonality
3). Typicality
4). Adequacy of Representation
Dahlal is fired from his city job three weeks after Curley, the new mayor, takes office. He sues Curley pro se. He pleads that he worked for the city, that he supported Curley’s opponent in the election, that he was fired after Curley took office, and that “that rascal Curley had it in for me. I want damages.” Curley moves to dismiss.
If the court applies the Conley v. Gibson standard, what is the likely result?
A. Dismiss the action because Dahlal has provided insufficient factual detail.
B. Dismiss because Dahlal has not pleaded the elements of any recognized cause of action.
C. Dismiss because Curley could have had legitimate reasons for firing Dahlal.
D. Allow the action to proceed.
D. Allow the action to proceed.
Ava, a citizen of Alabama, sues Blake, a citizen of Georgia, in federal court for $80,000. Blake argues that the federal court lacks diversity jurisdiction because the dispute concerns conduct that occurred entirely in Alabama. Is Blake correct?
No. Diversity jurisdiction depends on the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy, not where the events occurred.
A company is sued for patent infringement. After the lawsuit begins, its chief engineer prepares a memo analyzing the similarities between the two companies' turbine designs to help the company's board decide whether to litigate or settle. The memo is accidentally produced during discovery. The producing party immediately asks for it back and asserts work-product protection.
What rule governs what happens next?
Rule 26(b)(5)(B) applies when privileged or protected material is inadvertently produced. The receiving lawyer must take the steps required by that rule while the claim of protection is resolved
Lutsky and Patrick are injured in the same three-car accident and both sue Rowe. Their claims may be joined because they arise from the same occurrence and share this additional requirement.
Common Question of Law or Fact
This Rule 23(a) requirement asks whether there are so many members of the proposed class that joining each individual member would be impracticable.
Numerosity
Giscard sues Munson and Bigby, who both own separate property abutting Giscard’s. In Count One he claims that construction work Munson has done on his lot altered the drainage on his property. In Count Two, he makes the same allegations against Bigby. He seeks damages from Munson and Bigby for the past interference and an injunction against each of them to prevent future drainage problems.
Which is correct?
A. Giscard has pleaded inconsistently by alleging in one count that Munson caused the damage and in the other that Bigby did.
B. Giscard has pleaded inconsistently by seeking damages for past interference but an injunction against future interference.
C. Giscard has pleaded inconsistently both with regard to the defendant who caused the harm and the type of relief, but this is permissible under Rule 8(d)(3).
D. Giscard has not pleaded inconsistently.
C. Giscard has pleaded inconsistently both with regard to the defendant who caused the harm and the type of relief, but this is permissible under Rule 8(d)(3).
Plaintiff is a citizen of Alabama. Defendant is a citizen of Georgia. Plaintiff seeks $50,000 for property damage and $30,000 for emotional distress arising from the same incident. Does the federal court have diversity jurisdiction?
Yes. The parties are completely diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Before Wallace files suit against Leahy Pharmaceuticals, Leahy receives a demand letter threatening litigation. Leahy asks its employee, a chemist, to investigate whether its product has caused similar injuries and prepare a written report. Four months later, Wallace files suit and requests the report.
Leahy claims work-product protection. Wallace argues that the report cannot be protected because it was created before the lawsuit was filed.
Who has the stronger argument?
Leahy. Work-product protection is not limited to documents created after a lawsuit is formally filed. The relevant question is whether the material was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
A defendant discovers that another party may be responsible for reimbursing the defendant if the plaintiff wins. Rather than waiting until after judgment, how can the defendant bring that party into the existing lawsuit.
A proposed class includes 10,000 people who were all charged the same $25 fee. However, the defendant argues that determining whether each individual customer was actually charged the fee would require separate inquiries into thousands of individual transactions.
What issue would the court most likely examine before allowing the case to proceed as a damages class action?
Whether common questions predominate over individual questions under Rule 23 (b)(3)
Jhala sues Adventure Vehicles for defective design and negligence. Adventure answers and asserts comparative negligence. At trial, both parties present evidence concerning Jhala's conduct. After both parties rest, Adventure seeks to amend its answer to add assumption of the risk.
What should the court do?
A. Allow the amendment because evidence concerning Jhala's conduct was introduced by both parties.
B. Hold that Adventure waived the defense by failing to plead it.
C. Treat the assumption-of-risk issue as though it had been pleaded and instruct the jury on it.
D. Deny the amendment because the parties did not impliedly try the issue.
A. Allow the amendment because evidence concerning Jhala's conduct was introduced by both parties.
Plaintiff is a citizen of Alabama. Defendant 1 is a citizen of Georgia. Defendant 2 is a citizen of Alabama. Plaintiff sues both defendants in federal court for state-law claims exceeding $75,000.
Can the federal court exercise diversity jurisdiction?
No. Complete diversity is lacking because the plaintiff and Defendant 2 are citizens of the same state.
A party asks for information that is relevant to the lawsuit, but the opposing party argues, “You can't discover that because the evidence would be inadmissible at trial.” What is the problem with that argument?
Discoverability and admissibility are different questions. Information can be discoverable even if it ultimately cannot be admitted into evidence.
Rowe is sued by Lutsky for injuries from a three-car accident. Rowe wants to assert a claim against Lutsky arising from that same accident. Because the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as Lutsky’s claim, Rowe generally must assert this type of pleading or risk losing the claim.
Rule 13 (a) Compulsory Counterclaim
A class action is proposed on behalf of 50,000 consumers seeking damages for the same alleged billing practice. Most class members have relatively small claims, making individual lawsuits economically impractical. The defendant argues that each consumer should simply sue separately. What Rule 23(b)(3) consideration is particularly important here?
Superiority - whether a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently resolving the controversy.
Williams is injured during an arrest. His lawyer files suit against Officer Black, based on a police report identifying Black as the arresting officer. The report was actually mistaken; Officer White made the arrest. After the statute of limitations expires, Williams learns the truth and moves to amend the complaint to name White. White knew before the limitations period expired that Black had been sued by an arrestee for excessive force, but did not know the identity of the plaintiff or the specific circumstances.
Will the amendment relate back?
A. No, because it was filed after the limitations period.
B. No, because White was not on notice that he was the intended target.
C. Yes, because White knew before the limitations period expired that Black had been sued.
D. Yes, because the amendment arises out of the same arrest.
B. No, because White was not on notice that he was the intended target.
Emma, a citizen of Alabama, sues Frank, a citizen of Georgia, and Grace, a citizen of Alabama, for $200,000. Emma argues that diversity jurisdiction exists because she is diverse from Frank. Is she correct?
No. Complete diversity is required. Emma shares Alabama citizenship with Grace.
A document was prepared by an employee before litigation was formally filed, but the circumstances show it was prepared because litigation was reasonably anticipated. Is the document automatically outside work-product protection because no lawsuit had yet been filed?
No. The timing of the lawsuit's filing is not dispositive; the key issue is whether the material was prepared in anticipation of litigation.