Civil Procedure Outline, Gensler, Fall 2013
Jurisdiction
· Subject matter jurisdiction
o The ability to hear legal matters concerning a certain topic
· Diversity jurisdiction
o When the parties are from different states or sovereigns
· Federal courts
o Courts of limited jurisdiction
§ Diversity
§ Federal questions
· Deals with a matter in which federal law applies
o Current amount in controversy must be at least $75,000 to be heard in federal court
o Plaintiffs and defendants are likely to receive less bias because judges are not elected
Pleading
· Rule 8(a) – The Complaint
o Short and plain statement of jurisdiction – (a)(1)
o Statement of claim showing plaintiff is entitled to relief (a)(2)
§ No cause of action needed, just to provide notice
o Demand for relief (a)(3)
§ Parties get what they prove, not necessarily what they asked for originally
· Unlike code pleading, you don’t have to plead all your facts upfront
Conley v. Gibson
The court ruled that plaintiffs just need to show they have an entitlement to relief, not need to prove their case in the beginning
Showing entitlement doesn’t equate to proving the case. The question is – if assumed to be true, could the claim be plausible?
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of the claims which would entitle him to relief.
All the rules require is a “short and plain statement of the claim” that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.
Swierkiewicsz v. Sonema NA
Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed at trial because a prima facia case for discrimination was not satisfied in the document
The lower court tried to put evidentiary standards before the pleading standards, which should have been put later.
SCOTUS held that ratcheting up pleading standards is not allowed. Only Congress and the rulemakers can do this.
Rule 12(b) –
· One option is to have the judge dismiss the lawsuit
o Reduces the cost of an expensive lawsuit
· This can be done through a motion by defendant, asserting “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
This is done through Rule 12(b)(6)
· Rule 8(a)(2)
o “Short” and “plain” statement upon which relief can be granted
· Rule 12(b)(6)
o Defense showing the plaintiff failed to show this in 8(a)(2), the initial pleading
§ Argues something is not against the law or there is a pleading insufficiency
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
Plaintiffs alleged that all the Bell companies had gathered and agreed not to compete against one another, which made it extremely difficult for new telephone companies to enter the market
The court ruled that this claim was insufficient because it had no factual basis – it was merely suspicion. They just recited elements of a cause of action, which doesn’t satisfy FRCP 8(a)(2). The court also held that a plaintiff must assert enough facts in their pleading to show they are entitled to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Established the Kennedy Two-Step, clarifying the holding in Twombly:
1. A court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint that are not conclusory.
a. Recitals of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice
2. Then, only complaints with claims supported by plausible grounds survive motions to dismiss.
Basically, accept all non-conclusory allegations as true and then see if they are supported by plausibility. If so, they survive a 12(b)(6) motion.
In summary judgment, identify proof to back it up. Trial,
, the court may not dismiss the action for want of service.
§ Court must extend the deadline for service if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve. It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish good cause. The does not define what constitutes good cause.
§ Good cause generally will be found only where the insufficiency of service resulted from circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
· For example, good cause may be found where the plaintiff acted diligently and reasonably but service failed because the defendant was evading service. Mistake, neglect, and inadvertence generally cannot support a showing of good cause.
Notice
Mullane v. Hanover (1950)
· Method of service must meet the Constitutional threshold for Due Process
· Must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances for service to reach individual
Federal methods do meet the requirement of notice sufficient to satisfy due process.
State methods sometimes raise questions of constitutionality
Rio v. Rio (2002)
· Service was completed under FRCP Rule 4(f)(3)
· Due process was exercised because they used an authorized method of delivery and three attempts of notice were reasonable.
o Email was sufficient
FRCP Rule (4)(d) – Waiving Service
· When defendant is easy to find and not evading service
· Permits to send letter with summons, complaint, and waiver. (They “may” waive, but it isn’t a “must.”
· Waiving allows more time to respond than getting formally served.
