Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Connecticut School of Law
Simon-Kerr, Julia

 
Incentives to Litigate
Remedies
–      Substitutionary remedies
–      Compensatory damages
–      For:
–      Economic Losses
–      NonEconomic Losses
–      Punitive Damages
–      Equitable remedies
–      Specific remedies
–      Restore plaintiff to the way things were before
–      Specific Performance
–      Replevin
–      Injunctive Relief
–      28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1): Appellate jurisdiction over orders granting injunctions
Sigma Chemical Co. v. Harris
–      Rule 52: When a case is tried without a jury, the judge has to make findings of fact and draw legal conclusions
–      Who Pays
–      English Rule: Loser pays winner’s fees
–      American Rule: each side bears its own costs
–      Fee structures
–      Hourly (client pays no matter what)
–      resources of individual, cost of litigation
–      Contingency (percentage of recovery)
–      extent of damages, probability of success, cost of litigation, and resources of the defendant
–      Flat fee (fixed rate for particular legal service)
–      Non profit/Pro Bono (paid by government/donors)
–      righteousness of case, connection to issues, reputation interests, cost of litigation
–      U.S.C. § 1988
–      “The court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs” 
–      Final form of fee shifting: Rule 68
–      Sanctions: Rule 11:
–      11(b)(1)- improper purpose
–      Harras, cause delay, or increase litigation
–      11(b)(2)- unwarranted legal contentions
–      Existing law warrants, non frivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing law
–      11(b)(3)- unsupported factual contentions
–      Contentions must have support or be likely to have support after further investigation
–      11(b)(4)- unwarranted denials of factual contentions
–      Denials must be supported by evidence or reasonable belief or lack of information
Evans v. Jeff D.
Buckhannon
Walker v. Norwest Group
Christian v. Mattell, Inc.
The Path Toward Trial
Pleading
–      In early pleading Courts get involved at the end
–      Result: if you made a mistake in your pleadings too bad
–      Mid-late 1800’s, Liberalization of pleading rules
–      still problematic
–      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938)
–      Modern Pleading
–      Rule 8(a)
–      Pleading Trilogy
1.       Jurisdiction
2.       Facts
3.       Demand for Relief
–      Commencing a lawsuit:
–      Draft complaint
–      Serve the Defendant with the complaint
–      Formal Service
–      or Send it and get defendant to agree to waive formal service  
–      Complaint:
–      Rule 8(a)
2.       establish jurisdiction
3.       “short and plain restatement of the claim showing entitled to relief”
4.       demand for relief sought
–      Post-Complaint Options
1.       Default (do nothing)
2.       Pre-Answer Motion (Rule 12)
3.       Answer (Rule 8)
–      Respond (with Rule 12 motion to dismiss or answer)
–      Motion to Dismiss (Rule 12)
1.       Subject matter Jurisdiction
2.       Lack of personal jurisdiction 
3.       improper venue
4.       insufficient process
5.       insufficient service of process
6.       failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
7.       failure to join a party
–      Rule 12
–      12(a) answer
–      12a1A: 21 days to answer (unless service waived= 60 days)
–      or 12 (b) motion
–      12a4: answer stayed until resolution of motion
–      or do nothing
–      Default
–      Conley on Motion to dismiss
–      Do not dismiss unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief
TWOMBLY- enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face
IQBAL
–      Plausibility Prongs
1.       identify pleadings that are “just conclusions” and do not assume they are true (they are just “legal conclusions)
2.       assume “well-pleaded factual allegations” to be true and then decide whether they plausibly give rise to relief
–      Plausibility
–      “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court t

ain discovery  regarding any nonpriviledged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
–      Experts 26(a)(2): Required Disclosures
–      (A) A party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present expert testimony
–      (B) this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report… if the witness is retained to provide expert testimony in the case 
–       Experts 26(b)(4)
–      Cant discover facts or opinions held by experts retained in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial who is not expected to be used as a witness
–      Unless “on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means”
–      Scheduling Order: 16b:
–      At the beginning of the lawsuit
–      Limit time to join parties, amend pleadings, complete discovery, file motion
–      Modify timing of disclosures
–      Modify extent of discovery
–      Set dates for pretrial conferences and trial
–      Dates for filing motion  
–       16c:
–      Eliminate frivolous claims
–      Amend pleadings obtain admissions
–      Rule on evidence
–      Appropriateness and timing of Rule 56 motion
–      Control discovery
–      Refer matter to magistrate judge, adopt special procedures for difficult issues
–      Bifurcate the case 
–      16f: Issue any orders allowed in 37bAii-vii
–      Prohibiting party from supporting or opposing designated claims
–      Striking pleads
–      Dismissing the action
–      Rendering default judgment
–      Treating violations as contempt of court
–      PLUS—Expenses associated with noncompliance