Articles on Federal Civil Practice

Appeal Rules Trap Appellants By Michael Lied Federal Civil Practice, September 2019 Summaries of Nestorovic v. Metro. Water Reclamation District and In re Wade.
Nationwide Injunctions and the Sanctuary City Controversy By Carter S. Plotkin Federal Civil Practice, September 2019 A brief introduction to nationwide injunctions and discussion of the City of Chicago v. Barr  sanctuary city controversy.
Settlement Assistance Program By Kathryn Kelly Federal Civil Practice, September 2019 The Settlement Assistance Program is a court-wide program that provides pro se litigants the benefit of a free attorney at settlement conferences.
Filing under seal in federal court: A suggestion for reform By Daniel R. Thies Federal Civil Practice, June 2019 In Illinois, motions to seal must be filed before or simultaneously with the main filing to which it relates.
The northern district’s MIDP in cases removed from state court By Timothy J. Chorvat Federal Civil Practice, June 2019 The Northern District of Illinois’s Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program changes discovery procedures, particularly when cases are removed from state court.
Supreme Court signals continued concern about cy pres awards in class actions By Nemura Pencyla Federal Civil Practice, June 2019 In Frank v. Gaos, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the cy pres issue but rather remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
I am appointing you to handle a 2255 case By Stanley N. Wasser Federal Civil Practice, March 2019 The basics for handling your appointment to a case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Courts weigh in on judicial notice By Michael R. Lied Federal Civil Practice, December 2018 Summaries of Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. and In the Matter of Steven Robert Lisse, two recent cases that discuss the concept of judicial notice.
Dec. 1, 2018 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure By Patricia S. Smart Federal Civil Practice, November 2018 An overview of the amendments to rules 5, 23, 62, and 65 fo the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that will take effect on December 1. 
Northern District Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project passes one-year mark Federal Civil Practice, November 2018 An updated on the Northern District of Illinois on Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project after its first year.
The Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program gets new name, website Federal Civil Practice, November 2018 Updates on the Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program.
Batson turns 30 but still has growing pains By Tom Schanzle-Haskins Racial and Ethnic Minorities and the Law, May 2016 Though the Batson holding has been in effect for 30 years, the Courts and commentators still grapple with how to best implement it in the trial court.
Batson turns 30 but still has growing pains By Tom Schanzle-Haskins Federal Civil Practice, April 2016 Though the Batson holding has been in effect for 30 years, the Courts and commentators still grapple with how to best implement it in the trial court.
Mooting ahead of class certification after Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez By Ken Stalkfleet Federal Civil Practice, February 2016 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez closes the door on one strategy for rendering a case moot prior to class certification while providing guideposts for possible future strategies.
Is it time to answer?—Rule 12(a)(4)(A) By Stanley N. Wasser Federal Civil Practice, December 2014 Once the federal court denies your Rule 12 motion, you have 14 days to file your answer or seek leave to file a motion pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(B) for an extension of time to file your answer demonstrating excusable neglect why you did not file your answer within the 14-day time period of FRCP 12(a)(4)(A).
The Northern District of Illinois’ Settlement Assistance Program: Assuring equal justice through equal access By Jennifer Purcell Federal Civil Practice, April 2014 An overview of program and a look at the systemic legal and social justifications that may encourage other districts to consider adopting a similar program.
Emergency motions… is there really a fire? By Lisle A. Stalter Federal Civil Practice, September 2013 The author provides a review of the rules applicable to emergency motions.
The Forum-Defendant rule bars removal of citation action By Ambrose V. McCall Federal Civil Practice, September 2013 Before pursuing removal, counsel should check the statutory maps related to their causes of action to see if they show an exit ramp leading back to state court.
Settlement offer defeats class action lawsuit By Michael R. Lied Federal Civil Practice, September 2012 According to the appeals court in Damasco v. Clearwire Corporation, to allow a case to continue in federal court when the sole plaintiff no longer maintains a personal stake defies the limits on federal jurisdiction.
Double whammy—Employers engaged in systematic wage theft best beware By Glenn R. Gaffney Federal Civil Practice, June 2011 A January, 2011 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision now allows plaintiff class action lawyers to combine FLSA collective “opt-in” actions with state law “opt-out” class actions.
Litigating disputes with the FDIC: Issues facing officers and directors of failed banks By Rebecca L. Dandy Federal Civil Practice, June 2011 A look at some of the issues former officers and directors now find themselves faced with in the midst of litigation where the FDIC is seeking to hold them personally liable for the losses of failed banks.
To disclose or not to disclose under FRCP(a)(2) —That now is the question! By Ambrose V. McCall Federal Civil Practice, June 2011 The Seventh Circuit has issued a trio of opinions during the past six months or more that stress the need for counsel to evaluate what opinion testimony at trial might require counsel to make disclosures beforehand under FRCP 26(a)(2).
Resolution of discovery issues when a cutoff date becomes unattainable By Peter LaSorsa Federal Civil Practice, December 2010 What to do when neither party is able to meet your already-extended discovery cut-off dates.
Why state court practitioners need to know a little about federal civil practice By Stanley N. Wasser Federal Civil Practice, December 2010 If you need a federal official or employee as a witness, be prepared to possibly find yourself in a federal judicial review proceeding under the federal Administrative Procedure Act while you are litigating your state court case.
Why you might use stick pins when thinking about statutory coverage By Ambrose V. McCall Federal Civil Practice, December 2010 When reading the Supreme Court's analysis of Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., one might find stick pins helpful to post the legislative framework on our walls for easier viewing.
Complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b): Best practices By Peter LaSorsa Federal Civil Practice, December 2009 Rule 34 (b)(2)(E)(i) provides that a party must either produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business” or it “must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” 
Conflict: The treacherous path By Edward Clinton Federal Civil Practice, December 2009 William Ruehle, the Chief Financial Officer of Broadcom, a California corporation, and Henry Nichols, a co-founder of Broadcom, were indicted by a Federal grand jury for conspiracy, securities fraud, false certification of financial statements, wire fraud and other crimes in the United States District Court for California. These charges arose from the alleged backdating of options granted to officers of Broadcom.
Enforcing federal court monetary judgments By Travis J. Ketterman Federal Civil Practice, December 2009 Although obtaining a judgment is a worthwhile endeavor, a plaintiff is only truly successful if the defendant actually pays the judgment. This article reviews the various actions taken by plaintiffs to collect money after obtaining a judgment in federal court.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (May 18, 2009) By Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr. & Patricia M. Fallon Federal Civil Practice, September 2009 In May, a closely divided Supreme Court ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller could not be held liable for the actions of subordinates after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Joinder of an essential party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 By Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr. Federal Civil Practice, September 2009 An overview of the case of Carl Askew v. Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, and Bernardo Lopez.

Pages

Select a Different Subject