Select Page

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

Incentives to Litigate
–      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.
Walker v. Norwest Group
Christian v. Mattell, Inc.
The Path Toward Trial
–      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
–      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