Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Civil Procedure II (Chap. 1 (Overview) (C. Stating the Case (The Response…

- - - - Bell v. Novick Transfer Co.
        
        Issue: how vague can you be while still being allow to seek relief in ct?
        
        Holding: FRCP 8: claim can be vague so long as the claim is a plain statement of the claim that shows P is entitled to relief.
        
        Facts: There was a car injury
        
        Logic: Allows parties to get into system pre-discovery and the system can dismiss it if there's insufficient evidence later on.
        
        Note: If there's a factual claim, the suit can't be dismissed b/f discovery.
        
        Discovery: The procedure in every trial where both sides investigate and attempt to discover information about the other side.
        
        It's war
        
        It's client driven
        
        See FRCP 26(b)(1) for more
    - - Pleadings:
        
        Complaint: the suit; what P alleges
        
        Answer: D's response or challenge
        
        Motions: formal request for the courts to do something
      - b.Answers
        
        See FRCP Rule 8(b)--a denial.
        
        FRCP 8(c)--affirmative defense (ex. SD or stat of lim)
        
        FRCP 13 (Counterclaims)
    - - Bridges v. Diesel Service, Inc.
        
        Issue: Should minor amendable defects caused by the failure to exhaust admin options cause a party to be sanctioned by FRCP 11
        
        Holding: Yes, but at the judge's discretion based on subsection c.
        
        Facts: Title VII claim by P that he was fired based on his disability.
        D noticed P didn't exhaust administrative options b/f going to court, so D filed motioned to sanction P based on FRCP 11, which req the exhaustion of administrative options b/f filing in ct's.
        P quickly amended the defect by filing and admin complaint.
        
        Logic being: judge doesn't want to do it unless counsel is being a proper asshole.
    - - FRCP 7(a) for complete list of pleading types.
  - - - LL: The thing you're looking for must be rel and proportional to the case. FRCP 26: Disc can't be overly invasive or burdensome.
      - Facts: P got hit by D, D wants to discover P's whole facebook hisotry, hoping to get infor that show that P is full of shit/ D is not liable.
        Specifically, he wants to know if P had these conditions before the incident or whether there's some info afterwards that shows P's lying.
      - Holding: lim disc allowed so long as disc is rel to injury or posts are after injury.
  - - - Facts: Dead husband goes missing. Virg law pronounces him dead. She sues for life insure, b/c D denies pay out b/c policy req death to be "accidental". She has no other proof of death other than he went missing.
      - LL: When neither side has evidence to prove their cause of action, tie goes to the defendant.
        
        Think Schrodinger's cat.
      - Hypo 1: Poor eyesight witness claims to see hus die via bus accident.
        A: This would survive summ judge, b/c it breaks the tie, (provides stout), since there is a genuine dispute of material fact
      - Hypo 2: same thing, but a police report say popo shot him (not an accident btw)
        A: This would also survive Summ judge b/c it would survive summ judge, b/c jury would want to see evi.
  - - - Facts: defective lawn mower case, where mower cuts fingers off. At TC, jury for P, but judge makes judgement notwithstanding the verdict for d
      - LL: Judgement notwithstanding the verdict: when judge, looking at the same facts, rules against the jury b/c he believes no reasonable jury would have come to the same conclusion.
  - - - Facts: P get hit in car accident. Sued once for Prop damages. Ltr sued again for personal damages.
      - LL: You can't sue twice for same nucleus of facts. To do so would violate Res Judicata
        
        Preclusion: Judgement on a CoA precludes all claims that come from that CoA
      - SN: FRCP 11 (b)(2) sanctions could be brought to P, b/c second claim would be frivolous b/c it's rendered baseless by res judicata.
  - - - LL: You cannot appeal b/f the final order of the below ct. To do so will have your case thrown out.
      - Facts: Guy doesn't want to do mandated mental examination (FRCP 35) during discovery, so he appealed b/f final order given.
  - - - Note 13331(a) for diversity jx (see FRCP for more)