Dec. 1, 2018 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureBy Patricia S. SmartFederal Civil Practice, November 2018An 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.
Batson turns 30 but still has growing painsBy Tom Schanzle-HaskinsRacial and Ethnic Minorities and the Law, May 2016Though 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 painsBy Tom Schanzle-HaskinsFederal Civil Practice, April 2016Though 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. GomezBy Ken StalkfleetFederal Civil Practice, February 2016The 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. WasserFederal Civil Practice, December 2014Once 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).
Emergency motions… is there really a fire?By Lisle A. StalterFederal Civil Practice, September 2013The author provides a review of the rules applicable to emergency motions.
The Forum-Defendant rule bars removal of citation actionBy Ambrose V. McCallFederal Civil Practice, September 2013Before 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 lawsuitBy Michael R. LiedFederal Civil Practice, September 2012According 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 bewareBy Glenn R. GaffneyFederal Civil Practice, June 2011A 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.
To disclose or not to disclose under FRCP(a)(2) —That now is the question!By Ambrose V. McCallFederal Civil Practice, June 2011The 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).
Why state court practitioners need to know a little about federal civil practiceBy Stanley N. WasserFederal Civil Practice, December 2010If 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 coverageBy Ambrose V. McCallFederal Civil Practice, December 2010When 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 practicesBy Peter LaSorsaFederal Civil Practice, December 2009Rule 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 pathBy Edward ClintonFederal Civil Practice, December 2009William 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 judgmentsBy Travis J. KettermanFederal Civil Practice, December 2009Although 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. FallonFederal Civil Practice, September 2009In 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.
Supreme Court to hear corporate diversity jurisdiction caseBy Peter LaSorsaFederal Civil Practice, June 2009The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hertz Corporation v. Friend, in which the Court will consider whether the location of a nationwide corporation’s headquarters can be disregarded by a court in determining a principal place of business for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
The first appearanceBy James F. HoldermanFederal Civil Practice, September 2003When appearing before a federal judge for the first time on a case, you of course want to make a good impression not only for yourself, but for your client and your case as well.
Citation of unpublished courts of appeals opinionsBy Paul E. FreehlingFederal Civil Practice, November 2002All federal appellate courts permit the citation of unpublished courts of appeals opinions for such purposes as showing res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Recent Seventh Circuit decisions of interestBy Joseph G. Bisceglia & Nada DjordjevicFederal Civil Practice, November 2002In Southern Illinois Riverboat Casino Cruises, Inc. v. Triangle Insulation and Sheet Metal Co., 302 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002), the owner of a casino vessel sued the seller of a maritime sealant for negligence and breach of express or implied warranty.
Federal pretrial motion practice: talk before filingBy Morton DenlowFederal Civil Practice, April 2002Federal practitioners and judges spend a great deal of time with pretrial motions. Because so few cases proceed to trial, lawyers and judges devote more time to pretrial motions than to trial.
Recent 7th circuit decisions of interestBy Joseph G. Bisceglia & Chaka M. PattersonFederal Civil Practice, April 2002In a case of first impression, in Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2001), the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of a pro se Title VII complaint for sexual harassment, holding that even a complaint that contains extensive superfluous matter satisfies the pleading requirements of a short and plain statement as set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Recent decisions of interest in the Central and Southern DistrictsBy Shari R. RhodeFederal Civil Practice, April 2002In Caraker and Caraker v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Coro & Sandoz (96-CV-4113), Judge Gilbert issued an opinion granting defendants' motion to exclude the plaintiff's expert causation testimony after a two-day Daubert hearing.
