Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Illinois School of Law
Winship, Verity

Winship- Civil Procedure- Fall 2012 Outline
 
Introduction
 
I.        FRCP
A.   Rule 1- Scope and purpose of rules
1.    Rules govern except as stated by Rule 81
2.    Just, speedy, and inexpensive trial
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anatomy of a Litigation
 
B.  Rule 7- Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions & Other Papers
1.  (a) Pleadings, Only theses pleadings are allowed:
a.  (1) a complaint
b.  (2) an answer to a complaint
c.  (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim;
d.  (4) an answer to a crossclaim;
e.  (5) a 3rd party complaint;
f.   (6) an answer to a 3rd party complaint; and
g.  (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer
 
 
C. Rule 8 – General rules of pleading
1. Rule 8(a) Claim for relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
a.  (1) a short + plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction & the claim needs no new jurisdictional support
b.  (2) a short + plaint statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief
c.  (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief
2.  Related Cases
Standard: “Enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face […] Process: (1) Separate factual allegations from legal allegations (2) Assume factual allegations as true (3) Do they state a plausible claim for relief?
a. Conley v. Gibson (1957)
i. Employment discrimination (race)
ii. Established:  Cannot dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim “unless it appears beyond a doubt that the P. can prove no set of facts…which would entitle him to relief. ”
iii. “Retired” due to language
b. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema (2002)
i. Employment discrimination, age
ii. Established: Must give D. fair notice of P.’s claims
iv.   Survived motion to dismiss
v.    Still good law
c.  Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007)
i. Sherman Act (anti-trust)
ii. Filed 12(b)(6) motion
(a). D.s win by getting case dismissed
iii. Established: “Enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face […]”
(a). For antitrust? Class action? When discovery is very $$$?
(b). Did it really change pleading standards?
(i). From conceivable to plausible
d. Erickson v. Pardus
i. Established: 8(a) does not require specific facts, only give D. fair notice
e.  Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009)
i. Post 9/11 anti-terrorism case
ii. Dismissed in 12(b)(6) motion
iii.  Established: “Plausible” standard extends beyond antitrust cases
(a). Separate “legal conclusions” from “factual allegations”
(b). Assume “factual allegations” as true
(c). Do they state a plausible claim for relief?
iv.  Significance: District judges able to dismiss cases they believe do not have merit
v.   Agents motion to dismiss
(a). Complaint fails to adequately allege a violation of clearly established Constitutional law
(b). Defense of qualified immunity
(i). Biven’s standard: Private person suing government official
(A). Meant to free officials from the concerns of litigation
(B). Unless 1st amendment right violated
(C). Immunity from suit, not just liability
3. Rule 8 (b)
a. Party must state if it is w/o knowledge/sufficient info. = denial (5)
b.  Related case
i. Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc.
(a). Forklift injures plaintiff, but D. had sold everything except forklift
(b). Cannot just deny everything, violation of 8(b)
4. Rule 8 (c)
a.  In response to a pleading a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense including: Contributory negligence, Fraud, & SOL
•  Statute of Limitations
•  Harder to determine causation b/c evidence much older
•  Peace of mind/ repose
•  Keeps court system “tidy”
•  Type of D. responses
•  Denial/admission
•  Affirmative defense
•  Counterclaim
 
 
D. Rule 9(b)- For Fraud & Mistake
1. Fraud requires more detail (than general standard)
a.  “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state w/ particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.  Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.”
b.  “Pleading special matters”- time, place, identity of the parties involved, the nature of the fraud or mistake
 
 
E.  Rule 11
Requires investigation, evidentiary support or likely to have it after discovery
1. Rule 11(b) – Representations to court
a. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper…attorney certifies that to the best of his knowledge, info., & belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstance
b. It is not being presented for any improper purpose […] c. The claims, defenses… are warranted by existing law
d. It will likely have evidentiary support
2.  Rule 11(c)
a. Court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule […] (1)
b. Motion for sanctions- Safe harbour, allows 21 days after service to be withdrawn or appropriately corrected (2)
c. Court’s Initiative (3)
d. Nature of sanction deter not compensate (so gen. paid to court) (4)
e.  Limitations on monetary sanctions (5)
3. Pl

party satisfying 15(c)(1)(B) & the timing req. of 4(m)     (C)
(a). The party will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits (i)
(b). The party knew/should have known action would be brought, but for a mistake (ii)
b.  Related cases
i.  David v. Crompten & Knowles (208-9 & 223-5)
(a). Motion to amend answer denied b/c fails 15(c)(1)(C)(i)
(b). Complaint: Crompton designed, manufactured, and sold shredding machine to P.’s employer
(c). Answer: W/o sufficient knowledge/info to admit/deny
(i). Gen. w/o sufficient info=denial (Rule 8b)
(ii). However court ruled P.’s allegations deemed admitted
(iii). D. should have known b/c only ones who could know
(c). SOL runs & court denies D. ‘s motion to amend an answer b/c prejudice to P.
ii.  Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A.
(a). 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) Focus on absence party’s knowledge
(i). Q. of relating back to amend party under 15(c)(1)(C)(ii)
(ii). Focus on whether absent party knew/should have known
(b). Remands to Court of Appeals to decide
iii.  Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N Dive Corp. (p. 225 in notes)
(a). Motion to amend answer approved under 15(c)(1)(C)
(i). D.’s company admits it designed & manufactured the water-slide
(ii). After SOL runs, D discovers it did not design & manuf. water-slide
(iii). 3 different insurance co. told D. that it designed and manufactured the slide
(iv). Not an abuse of discretion
(b). Complaint for personal injury
 
 
H.  Rule 26- Discovery (144)
•  Rules 26-37 (Rules 26-35 allow discovery from other party, court backed)
•  Rule 27 allows pre-suit deposition to preserve evidence (see state rules too!)
•  Rule 37 Sanctions for Discovery Violations (p.205)
1. Rule 26(b)(1)-Scope (146)
a.  Parties may obtain the discovery regarding any non privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
b.  Courts have discretion “unless otherwise limited by court order the scope of discovery is…”
c.  For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action
2.  Rule 26(b)(2)(B)  E-discovery-Specific limitations on Electronically Store Information(p. 146)