Rules & Cases for Civ Pro 1L Exam UCH

oni2051's version from 2016-11-30 08:06

Section 1

Question Answer
Rule 8(a)(2)A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Basic Requirements of a pleading that can survive a 12(b)(6)Give D fair notice of what P's claim is and the Grounds upon which it rests, a showing of plausibility, does not need to be as likely as competing inferences but must be a reasonable inference
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema"It may appear on the face of the leadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely, but that is not the test for surviving a 12(b)(6)
TwomblyP's obligations to provide grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than label and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements will not do.
2-Step Inquiry to determine plausibility 1. Cull legal conclusions. 2. Determine if factual allegations (non-conclusory) to determine if they state a plausible claim for relief.
Facial plausibilityWhen P leads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that D is liable for the misconduct alleged. This is a context-specific task where court draws on experience and common sense.
Competing inferences in 8(a)(2) pleadingsCompeting inferences can be more likely than the inference asserted by the P, but they cannot be so likely that they render the asserted inference unreasonable under the circumstances. Desired inference cannot be rendered a remote possiblity in comparison.
Johnson v. City of Shelby Take AwayRules do not allow a dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statements of legal theory supporting the claim asserted. If all of the elements are factually alleged, then P does not have to explicitly say the overal legal theory those elements satisfy. ALso, Pro Se litigants are to get some leniency when they plead, but if defects are found, leave to amend is to be liberally granted.
Rule 9(b)A complaint alleging fraud or mistake must state the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake with particularity. Malice, intent, and knowledge may be alleged generally (as required by 8(a)(2)). Particularity requires facts showing who/what/when/where/how of D's conduct that satisfies the elements of the claim.
IqbalPleading must allege content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that D is liable to P. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusions do not suffice. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement."
Why did Iqbal's complaint get dismissed by the SCOTUS?Iqbal thought that alleging malice or intent generally meant that he did not need to provide any factual enhancement to the allegation. The SCOTUS says that generally simply means as required by 8(a)(2)
Tellabs Policy ConsiderationsHeightened pleading standard for 9(b) claims to help protect reputations of defendants, frivilous suits looking to extract a settlement, or undue burden of cost to defendants
Tellabs Pleading StandardP must "state with particularity facts giving rise to a "strong inference" that D intended to mislead/decieve. Inquiry is inherently comparitive and must consider plausible nonculpable explainations for D's conduct, as well as inferences favorable to P.
Tellabs Strong Inference of ScienterInference asserted by P in a 9(b) claim must be COGENT AND AT LEAST AS COMPELLING as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.

Section 2

Question Answer
Rule 11Federal courts have the inherent power to sanction a litigant for bad faith litigation conduct
28 USC 1927An attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings may be required to personally pay the costs
Rule 11(b) Representations to the CourtAttorney certifies that all filings are formed to the best of the client's knowledge, info, belief, and were formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances.
Rule 11(b) Reasonable inquiryDepends on surrounding circumstances 1) Whether client's statements are objectively reasonable, 2) How much time for investigation was available, 3) Whether attorney had to rely solely on the client as the source of information.
Reasons to sanction under Rule 11 (ZUK V. EASTERN PENN)When a party/attorney makes claims without any factual basis or justification; unreasonable multiplication of proceedings to cause intentional delay; utter incompetence in pleading showing the attorney did not look into the governing law; or when the court finds willfull bad faith or a complete dereliction of duty to the court

Section 3

Question Answer
Rule 12(b)(6)A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
Why grant a Motion to Dismiss?1. Allegations do not amount to a legal wrong (it's not a thing) or 2. There are insufficient factual allegations to plausibly infer a legal wrong to which D is liable to P.
Rule 8(b)- Affirm or DenyA party must state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it and admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party
Rule 8(c)- Aff DefA party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense in the response to the initial complaint or 1st Amended complaint if done so within the 21 day response period

Section 4

Question Answer
Rule 15- AmendmentsAmendments are to be liberally granted and when justice so requires. 1st Amendment can be invoked as a matter of course and must be done prior to the end of the 21 day requirement for response, 21 days after the response, or 21 days after service of a 12(b)(6), whichever is earlier.
Reasons Court will NOT allow an amendmentIf amendment causes undue delay, bad faith or dilatory move, if complaint has had repeated failures to cure deficiencies in previously allowed amendments, undue prejudice to another party, or FUTILITY due to being barred by the Statute of Limitations or when amendment still does not state a plausible claim and cannot survive a subsequent 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
David v. Crompton Take AwayWhen a party creates undue delay to proceedings to make sure the SoL engages to bar a claim/defense/addition of proper party, then undue delay and prejudice prevent D from objecting to amendment
Rule 15(c)An amendment "relates back" by allowing the addition of a new party as if that party was named in the initial complaint to overcome futility due to SoL running out.
Requirements to Amend (claim/defense)Amendment must have arisen out of the 1) original conduct/transaction (facts in first and second complaint related in time, space, origin, motivation), 2) Refers to same injuries caused by same insturment, and 3) reliance on same evidence, witnesses, and same events.
Requirements to Amend (party)Amendment for Claim/Defense satisfied, party to be brought in must have received notice (or constructive notice) of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits, knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it BUT FOR A MISTAKE IN IDENTITY within the 90 day time limit set forth under rule 4(m). A mistake in identity is when P couldn't have been expected to have known the proper party AND the proper party knew or should have known they would have been named a party to the suit.
Krupski Take AwayNot whether P should have known the identity of D, but whether D knew or should have known that it would have been named the proper D but for P's error unless P specifically made a deliberate choice to sue one party over the other while fully understanding the legal difference between the two.
Aquaslide Take AwayWhen both P and D are blameless for the mistake in identity, then relation back amendment is denied.
Smith Take Away"Where P wants to substitute a D to better conform to the evidence as he understands it is not reason to allow an amendment to relate back in adding a new party. Where new party's D had no reason to expect that they would need to defend new party on the merits, constructive notice cannot be asserted. Only when party's counsel knew or should have known that the new party would or should have been named in the initial complaint

Section 5

Question Answer
Res Judicata (Affirmative Defense under Rule 8(c))Defense asserted by Defendant to herv an entire claim barred from being relitigated
Requirements of Res Judicata1) There must be a final judgment on the merits, 2) The parties must be the same (no new ones but some old ones can be gone), AND 3) The 2nd suit arises out of the "same claim/wrongful act" as in the 1st suit. (Transaction = Same set of facts in time, space, origin, motivation, and occurrence).
Scope of Same "Wrongful Act"Extends to all rights P had "with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose"
Pragmatic Determination of Transaction1) Are the facts related in time, space, origin, motivation? 2) would they form a convenient trial unit? 3)Whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding/usage.
Rush v. City of Maple Heights Take away and policy considerationSame wrongful act = single cause of action. Policy: Prevent multiplicity of suits, burdensome expense, undue delay, vexatious litigation against D
Manego v. Orleans Take awaySame wrongful Act TEST- Whether the underlying facts of both transactions were the same or substantially similar. Pleading different motives or a different legal theory does not make it a different transaction
Landrigan v. City of Warwick Take AwayWhen a factual basis for 1st suit is different than 2nd suit, then res judicata does NOT apply
Rinehart Take AwayA dismissal under 12(b)(6) is a final judgment on the merits. If P files another suit, but where the defect that caused dismissal is properly included, RJ bars second suit unless first suit was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Whole Women's Health Take Away"Especially where "important human values" are at stake, "even a slight change of circumstances may afford a sufficient basis for consluding that a second action may be brought"
Where there is not a final judgment on the merits- Dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE, lack of JXN, improper venue, or failure to join
Final Decision on the MeritsJudgment that "ends the litigation on the merit and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment."
Quackenbush Take AwayJudgment is NOT final when a case is remanded to state court for the purposes of Res Judicata. It's pragmatically final as the federal court relinquishes the case from the docket and will no longer litigate the issue, but because State court will be doing so, then it's NOT final.

Section 6

Question Answer
Collateral EstoppelPrecluding relitigation on issues that were actually litigated and necessarily decided
Requirements of Collateral Estoppel1. Issue in suit 2 must be the same issue as suit 1. 2) Issue must have been actually litigated. 3) Issue must have been necessarily decided. 4) The decision in prior action was essential to the court's judgment
Same IssueWhere the facts underlying the cause of action are the same. Same offending instrumentality.
Actually litigated (Panniel v. Diaz)Issues decided in arbitration or other courts have preclusive effect. Party to be bound must have had an ample chance to be heard in the 1st forum to where they had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the 1st case.
Necessarily DecidedIf GENERAL VERDICT, then it's assumed the decision was only which party won, SPECIAL VERDICT will stipulate only findings in questions of fact where the judge applies the law, and General Verdicts with Answers to ROGs will stipulate exactly what the Jury found on key issues of fact. This will show exactly WHICH ISSUES were necessarily decided
Essential to the court's judgmentThe issue to be precluded MUST have been a material issue that was deterministic to the outcome of the case in suit 1
Non-Mutual Issue PreclusionWhere the parties are different and one party wants to collaterally estop the other party from relitigating an issue that was decided in a previous suit
Defensive use of NM-CEWhere P actually litigated an issue in previous case where they lost on it and the D wants to make sure P doesn't relitigate the issue to their favor. EXCEPTION: If P can show they did not have a fair opportunity to pro edurally, substantively, or evidentially litigate or defend their claim, then they can relitigate. However this is rare because the P is the master of the complaint and choosing of the forum to adjudicate
Offensive use of NM-CEWhere P wants to preclude D from being able to relitigate on an issue D lost in a previous suit
Exception to Offensive NonMutual Collateral Estoppel (Parklane Factors)1. Does permitting offensive use encourage later Plaintiffs to "wait and see" rather than joining with 1st suit. 2. Could party in 2nd suit have joined with party in 1st suit? 3. Is D harmed by not having the previous issue litigated in a forum not of his choosing (denied opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses, if there was NO incentive to aggressively litigate 1st suit, or inconvenient venue) AND 3. Are there prior inconsistent judgments that provide contradictory bases for decision (like the P can choose which is favorable to them).

Section 7