Rule 11 and AI (Sami Sumer)

The linked Bloomberg Law article brings attention to yet another attorney caught citing to a non-existent case for a legal brief. ChatGPT suggested the fake case to the plaintiff's attorney. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit referred the attorney to the court's grievance panel, holding that "[t]he brief presents a false statement of law to this Court, and it appears that Attorney Lee made no inquiry, much less the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent, into the validity of the arguments she presented." Park v. Kim, No. 22-2057, 2024 WL 332478, at *1, *4 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2024).

To satisfy the reasonable inquiry required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), the attorney could have easily looked up the case herself, which was only one of two cited in the delayed reply brief. Park, 2024 WL 332478, at *3. In doing so, she would quickly realize the case was fake and would also dodge the Rule 11(b)(2) violation by simply not using it. It is comically tragic that the court was able to quote from a district decision issued within its own circuit last year because that opinion also dealt with attorneys presenting cases that did not exist. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22CV01461(PKC), 2023 WL 4114965, at *1, *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 22,2023). It appears a new body of procedural law is being created to clean up the mess left by overreliance on underdeveloped tools.

The linked article includes a downloadable PDF of the appellate decision.

For Thursday

Wednesday audio--Section A, Section B.

We continue with The Idea of Notice Pleading.

    • How does FRCP 11(b) enable notice pleading, in light of information asymmetry? What are the arguments for not requiring too much from the plaintiff in the initial pleading? How should information asymmetry affect the pleading standard?

    • What does it mean to say a plaintiff "pleaded himself out of court?" Consider how a court should resolve a 12(b)(6) in the following cases.

        • Godin includes in her complaint allegations that she hit students.

        • A, an African American non-attorney, applies for a position as an attorney in a law firm. The firm sends him a rejection letter reading, "We are not hiring you because you are not an attorney and because you are African American." A sues under an anti-discrimination law; the plaintiff must show race was a but-for cause for his non-hiring (that is, he must show that he would have been hired but-for the protected characteristic).

    • How do the FRCP prevent pleading from becoming too loose and limited to simple notice?

Then move to Fact or Heightened Pleading.

    • How does FRCP 9(b) differ from 8(a)(2)? How does § 78u-4 differ from FRCP 9(b)?

    • These present our first non-transsubstantive rules. Why have a special rule for fraud and mistake (and securities fraud)--what are the rationales for special treatment and do those rationales justify the special rule?

    • What is the argument for treating civil rights cases under FRCP 9(b) and why did SCOTUS reject them? What does the Court do with the argument that civil rights cases raise similar problems to fraud claims?

We will not reach Future of Federal Pleading until next Wednesday, but you will read that entire section into next week. 

For Wednesday

Friday audio--Section A; Section B.

We continue with Motions. Review the three categories of 12(h) rules. Why the increasing non-waivability in each? Review the waiver puzzles, which should be easier now that we have gone through the waiver rules. Again, by giving them in advance, everyone should have prepared answers and be ready to volunteer. What is the purpose of FRCP 12(f) and how does it differ from 12(b)(6)?

Then move to How Much Detail? The Idea of Notice Pleading and An Alternative: Fact or Heightened Pleading. This gets us into what I said was the foundational question under the rules--how much detail is required in the complaint.

    • How does Conley interpret FRCP 8(a)(2) and why? What is the purpose of the complaint and when is a complaint sufficient? Is Conley legal or factual sufficiency?

    • What are the arguments for not requiring too much from the plaintiff in the initial pleading? What is "information asymmetry" and how does it affect the pleading standard?

    • What does it mean to say a plaintiff "pleaded himself out of court?" Consider how a court should resolve a 12(b)(6) in the following cases.

        • Godin includes in her complaint allegations that she hit students.

        • A, an African American non-attorney, applies for a position as an attorney in a law firm. The firm sends him a rejection letter reading, "We are not hiring you because you are not an attorney and because you are African American." A sues under an anti-discrimination law; the plaintiff must show race was a but-for cause for his non-hiring (that is, he must show that he would have been hired but-for the protected characteristic).

        • How do the rules prevent pleading from becoming too loose and limited to simple notice?

        • How does FRCP 9(b) differ from 8(a)(2)? FRCP 9(b) presents our first non-transsubstantive rule. Why have a special rule for fraud and mistake--what are the rationales for special treatment and do those rationales justify the special rule?

Issue Preclusion, Donald Trump Edition

I should have used these examples in our class discussion of preclusion. But putting them here hopefully can help a bit in understanding issue preclusion and in understanding current events.

1) Carroll v. Trump. Trump testified on Thursday in the defamation lawsuit by journalist E. Jean Carroll, alleging that Trump sexually assaulted her many years ago and defamed her by falsely denying the assault. But his testimony lasted only a few minutes and a few questions. Issue preclusion explains this.

    Carroll brought two defamation actions against Trump. Case II (the current trial) arose from statements Trump made while President; Case I arose from statements Trump made after leaving office. Case I went to trial last year and a jury found in favor of Carroll and awarded her $ 5 million in damages. In reaching that verdict, the jury found that Trump had sexually abused her via various acts.

    The judge in Case II found that the Case I verdict had issue-preclusive effect. Trump could not contest that he had, in fact, sexually abused Carroll, which meant he could not contest the falsity of his second round of (post-presidency) statements denying the abuse. The trial in Case II thus is limited to damages; liability for defamation is established by the prior factual conclusions. And that explains why Trump's testimony was so limited. Testimony denying the truth of Carroll's sexual-abuse allegations is irrelevant, because the fact was established.

    Note, by the way, that although the parties are the same in both cases, this is issue preclusion, not claim preclusion. Each defamatory act constitutes a distinct claim for defamation. This is issue preclusion. A factual issue--did Trump sexually abuse Carroll--was established in Case I. And the distinct claims in Case II must be litigated in light of that finding.

2) Trump Eligibility. This is forward-looking, something to keep an eye on, depending on what SCOTUS does with the Colorado case. If the Court affirms the Colorado Supreme Court on the conclusion that Trump engaged in or supported insurrection and is ineligible to be president, that is a factual question that would have preclusive effect on other, discrete actions challenging Trump's eligibility in other states. In other words, a challenge to Trump's eligibility in, e.g., Wisconsin, constitutes a new civil action. But the conclusion that he engaged in or supported insurrection would preclude Trump from arguing otherwise in the Wisconsin action and would require the Wisconsin court to find he did engage and decide that case accordingly.

The Trump/ballot cases also offer a good example of the limitations of what a court, including SCOTUS, does in deciding any one case. The question before the Court is Trump's eligibility in Colorado; that turns on a bunch of federal legal issues (the scope of § 3 of the 14th Amendment, whether the President is an officer of the United States, whether January 6 qualifies as an insurrection, etc.). SCOTUS's resolution of those issues immediately resolves only the Colorado case. It also establishes legal principles that guide similar future cases. But those future cases must be brought and litigated. So if SCOTUS affirms the Colorado Supreme Court, the only immediate effect is that Trump cannot be on the ballot in Colorado. It will take 50 more lawsuits to have him ineligible in other jurisdictions. Those courts must follow what SCOTUS says (whether as a matter of precedent or preclusion). But those future cases are necessary.

For Friday

Section A audio; Section B audio. We will go an extra 10 minutes (first one) tomorrow.

Prep all remaining parts of Rule 12, along with PAE and both sections of Glannon reading.

    • Go through the 7 12(b) defenses. What are they? And should dismissal be with or without prejudice?

    • What is the connection between FRCP 8(a)(2) and FRCP 12(b)(6)?

    • For purposes of 12(b)(6), a complaint may be "legally" insufficient or "factually" insufficient. What is the difference between them? And what should the terms of dismissal be for each? Consider the bases for dismissal in PAE, Naruto (if granted), and Question B on Glannon p.404.

    • Read FRCP 12(g) and 12(h) carefully. What is the connection between them?

    • FRCP 12(h) divides the 12(b) defenses into 3 groups, in terms of how easily the defenses can be lost? What are the three sets of rules? Why have different rules for the 3 categories? What do they have in common to be subject to that rule?

Waiver Puzzles: Work the following and consider whether the defendant can include these defenses in the later filing.

    A v. X. X files a 12(b)(5) motion; the court denies. X files an Answer including (b)(2) and (b)(7).

    A v. X. X files a 12(b)(3) motion; the court denies. X files an Answer; then X files a 12(b)(1) motion.

    A v. X. X files an Answer with no 12(b) defenses. 4 weeks pass. X files an Amended Answer with (b)(2) and (b)(6) defenses.

    A v. X. X files a 12(b)(1) motion; the court denies. X files a 12(b)(6) motion. [For this, consider the question of whether the defense is waived and whether X can raise the defense in this motion. Be ready to argue both sides on this, based on the text of the rules and other considerations].

Upcoming Schedule

Reminders of some things in class schedule:

• No class on Friday, February 2. Class participation credit awarded for attending some part of the Law Review symposium.

• The missed class leaves us with one class to make up, meaning 70 minutes of class time. We will take an extra 10 minutes onto seven Friday class meetings, beginning tomorrow, Friday, January 26. This is preferable to double sessions. So plan to stay until 11:20 (Section A) and 2:20 (Section B) on Fridays.

• Section B will meet in the large courtroom on Friday, February 16. That will accommodate the visiting admitted students. The first few rows of the room will be reserved for you. Please have your name cards with you.

For Thursday

Wednesday audio.

Just to be clear, if it isn't from the Glannon reading: Mutuality used to be the rule for issue preclusion--it could only be raised in actions involving the same parties. Modern courts have abandoned mutuality. As we discussed in class, a non-party to Case # 1 (such as Blurb in the second Naruto suit or the Board after the Metta suit) can avail themselves of preclusion in Case # 2. But it cannot go against a non-party to Case # 1, who never had an opportunity to litigate.

How does claim preclusion affect plaintiffs' strategy under FRCP 18(a)? If VOA brings it contact claim first in state court, then (after final judgment) brings its copyright claim in federal court, does preclusion apply? (Note: The answer is not that it is a different court system--courts respect and give preclusive effect to judgments from other courts).

How does preclusion affect FRCP 20(a) decisions? Consider two contexts:

    1) Godin wants to break-up her claims against the Board (breach) and Nicely (defamation).

    2) Godin wants to break up her claims against the Board (breach) and the Union (DP)

Then move to Responding to a Pleading: Motions. Prep the assigned provisions in FRCP 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12(a), 12(b), and 12(d). Look at the complaint and motion in Naruto, along with Glannon pp. 401-17 and PAE.

    • What does service of the initial complaint operate? What is the purpose and effect of service?

    • What are the defendant's options in response to a complaint?

    • What does a defendant seek to do with a motion under 12(b)? What are the issues that can be raised on such a motion? What is the difference between 12(b)(4) and (5)?

    • What is the defense argument in the motion in Naruto.

    • Claims or complaints can be dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice? What does that mean? When should a dismissal be with prejudice and when without prejudice?

    • What is argued on 12(b)(6)? How does 12(b)(6) related to 8(a)(2)? What does the court analyze on a 12(b)(6) motion?

    • A complaint can be legally or factually insufficient. What is the difference? How does that map onto dismissal with or without prejudice?

Sympoisum in Memory of Prof. Megan Fairlie, Friday February 2

FIU and FIU Law Review will sponsor Perspectives on the International Criminal Court and International Criminal Law and Procedure: A Symposium in Memory of Megan Fairlie on Friday, February 2 in RDB 1000.

Although none of you had the opportunity to take a class from Prof. Fairlie, who died in December 2022. But she was an important part of the FIU community for more than 15 years. The program is designed to honor her scholarly work and her life as a member of the College of Law faculty. I hope you will attend all or part of the program.

No class on February 2, as we discussed. Make-up TBD.

Essay Assignments--Section B (Updated)

 

After the jump. Please make sure you are on here and only once. If you are not here or are on more than once, please notify Ada in the Registrar's office with your number.

I will provide advance guestimates as to when it will be distributed. Each essay is due at the beginning of class one week after assignment. Everyone will have a full weekend to work through it.

Essay Assignments--Section A (Updated)

After the jump. Please make sure you are on here and only once. If you are not here or are on more than once, please notify Ada in the Registrar's office with your number.

I will provide advance guestimates as to when it will be distributed. Each essay is due at the beginning of class one week after assignment. Everyone will have a full weekend to work through it.

Admitted Students Day, February 16 (Section B)

Section B: Friday, February 16 will be Admitted Students Day. The visiting prospective students will observe our 1 p.m. class. Given the numbers, we will hold class in the Large Courtroom, RDB 1000.

For Monday

Friday audio--Section A, Section B. I will post essay assignments by the beginning of next week. I do need to see wider participation in class. You know about most of the questions and problems to be analyzed before class; so everyone should be prepared and ready to participate.

We will finish Joinder; prep the remaining rules and reading. Take your own time to analyze whether Walmart and Walmart Transport are properly joined as defendants.

    • Review FRCP 8(d)(2) and (3). Begin with ¶¶ 68-74 of VOA. Why is it there? Are ¶¶ 68-74 necessary? What is the arguably inconsistency and how do the rules handle it?

    • How do FRCP 19, 24, and preclusion (discussed in the Glannon reading) limit the usual permissiveness of FRCP 18 and 20(a)? How is consolidation different than joinder?

    • What is the difference between issue preclusion and claim preclusion? How does each affect later litigation?

    • Consider:

        • Wood used to work for Zambelli; he left to work for Pyrotechnico, a rival of Zambelli. Zambelli sues Wood to enforce a non-compete agreement and for a court order prohibiting Wood from working for Pyro. Looking at FRCP 19(a), must Pyro be included in this action? What if Pyro wants to be included?

        • Ethlyn Hall, an elderly woman, died; she left behind two adult children, Elisa and Sam, and makes Elisa the executrix of her estate. The Estate wants to bring a claim against Sam for conversation, alleging Sam took some of Ethlyn's property for his own use. Sam wants to bring a claim against Elisa for interfering with his relationship with their mother. How can these claims be litigated together or near to one another?

    • Consider:

        • Naruto sues Slater only; the court decides that non-human animals do not enjoy copyrights. What happens if Naruto files a new lawsuit against Blurb?

        • Godin sues Metta for defamation; the court decides Godin abused the students and she loses her defamation suit. What happens when Godin files a new lawsuit for breach of contract against the Board?

        • VOA sues BSO for breach of contract and loses. It then brings a claim for copyright infringement; what should happen with this claim? Does your answer change if VOA brought the breach claim in state court?

        • Godin sues the Board for breach of contract and loses. She then sues Nicely for defamation; what should happen with this claim?

We then begin Responding to a Pleading: Motions. Review FRCP 3, 4 (the provisions listed on the syllabus), 5, 7,  and 12(a) and (b). 

    • What is the difference between filing and serving something? What is the process for serving a complaint? What is the legal effect of service?

    • How can a defendant respond to a pleading?

For Friday

Thursday audio--Section A, Section B.

 Prepare and review all the material for Joinder of Claims and Parties.

    • Be ready to discuss whether joinder of parties and claims is proper in Morgan and Godin, applying the text of 18(a) and 20(a) and the above definition of "logical relationship." Be ready to talk through your analysis as if you were writing an essay--Rule, Explanation, Application.

    • Consider whether the following additional claims could be included in Morgan:

            Krista Millea wants to bring a products liability claim against WalMart, arising from her purchase of a defective toaster. (Consider whether she can include this claim standing alone and/or along with her Loss of Consortium claims).

            Jones was injured in an accident with a different WalMart truck, driven by a different driver, one month after the Morgan accident, on a different stretch of the New Jersey Turnpike. (Be ready to argue both sides of this one)

    • How do FRCP 8(d)(2) and (3) affect the VOA complaint? Is the language in ¶¶ 68-74 necessary?

    • How do FRCP 19, 24, and preclusion (discussed in the Glannon reading) limit the usual permissiveness of FRCP 18 and 20(a)?

    • Consider: Wood used to work for Zambelli; he left to work for Pyrotechnico, a rival of Zambelli. Zambelli sues Wood to enforce a non-compete agreement and for a court order prohibiting Wood from working for Pyro. Looking at FRCP 19(a), must Pyro be included in this action? What if Pyro wants to be included?

 

For Thursday

Wednesday audio--Section A, Section B.

To flesh out the difference between FRCP 18 and FRCP 20 in advance of tomorrow: Joinder of claims under FRCP 18 necessarily involves only two opposing parties (for current purposes, one plaintiff and one defendant) and one or more claims just between them. When you start to talk about additional parties--whether plaintiffs or defendants--you go to FRCP 20(a).

Prepare and review all the material for Joinder of Claims and Parties.

    • What are the benefits and drawbacks to broad (but not unlimited) joinder of parties? How do the rules strike the balance between those benefits and drawbacks?

    • One definition of "same transaction, or occurrence" is the "Logical Relationship Test." This says that the different claims need not have an "identity of facts," but "the essential facts of the claims must be so logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit."

        • What does this mean about the facts giving rise to different claims between different parties?

    • What is the defendant's procedural move it believes parties or claims have been improperly joined?

    • Be ready to discuss whether joinder of parties and claims is proper in Morgan, Godin, and VOA, applying the text of 18(a) and 20(a) and the above definition of "logical relationship." In particular, be ready to talk through your analysis as if you were writing an essay--Rule, Explanation, Application.

    • Consider whether the following additional claims could be included in VOA:

            BSO and VOA had a previous deal, from 10 years ago, for the symphony to use VOA photos in a performance. BSO has never paid for the use of those photos.

    • Consider whether the following additional claims could be included in Morgan:

            Krista Millea wants to bring a products liability claim against WalMart, arising from her purchase of a defective toaster. (Consider whether she can include this claim standing alone and/or along with her Loss of Consortium claims).

            Jones was injured in an accident with a different WalMart truck, driven by a different driver, one month after the Morgan accident, on a different stretch of the New Jersey Turnpike.

    • How do FRCP 8(d)(2) and (3) affect the VOA complaint? Is the language in ¶¶ 68-74 necessary?

    • How do FRCP 19, 24, and preclusion (discussed in the Glannon reading) limit the usual permissiveness of FRCP 18 and 20(a)?

For Wednesday

Friday audio--Section A, Section B. Please be sure you have and are looking at the rules and statutes as we go and that you are marking that original text up, rather than transcribing everything.

A few people expressed confusion over how to tell the number of claims in a particular count when it does not specify which defendants it is against (e.g., Count I in Morgan) or which plaintiff(s) are bringing it. The naming of particular parties in a count is necessary when that count is brought by less than all plaintiffs or against less than all defendants. If the count is by all plaintiffs or against all defendants, the lawyer may choose not to specify. But you then know how many are bringing claims or how many they are against by referring back to the caption. So Count I of Morgan does not specify who it is against, therefore it is against all the defendants (two) listed in the caption. We see this in the obvious case in VOA, which lists rights in each count but does not specify parties; since there is one plaintiff and one defendant, that is who is involved.

We continue with Introduction to Pleading; prep everything on the syllabus.

    • If not evidence, what is the plaintiff putting into the complaint?

    • Review each complaint and note how each is organized to conform to FRCP 8 and 10.

    • What is the purpose of a complaint, from the perspective of the judicial system and the perspective o the plaintiff? How does our being an adversary system affect how the plaintiff drafts the complaint? How do each of our complaints attempt to serve these purposes?

    • What stops a plaintiff from making stuff up in the complaint?

We then move to Joinder of Parties and Claims. Prep the listed rules except 24 and 42, focusing on FRCP 18, 20, and 21; read Glannon pp. 233-37 and 286-90.

    • What is the purpose of unlimited joinder of claims and broad (if not unlimited) joined of defendants? What are the benefits and drawbacks?

    • What work is FRCP 18, 20(a)(1), and 20(a)(2) doing in each of our cases?

    • What does "same transaction or occurrence" in FRCP 20 mean?

For Friday

Thursday audio--Section A, Section B. Section B, remember that we meet at 1 p.m. on Fridays.

Prep all of Pleading: Introduction to Pleading.

    • Review the four complaints (Naruto, VOA, Morgan, and Godin) and how they conform to the rules for structure and organization. What is the basic underlying story and issue in each case? Be ready to give a 20-second thumbnail explanation of each.

    • What does it mean to say the rules are "trans-substantive?"

    • A claim for relief is defined as "a set of facts showing a violation of one legal right of one person by another person, justifying relief." Or as "a set of facts showing a breach of one legal duty by one person injuring another person and justifying relief." On that definition, how many claims are in each of our four cases?

    • What is the purpose of a complaint, from the perspective of the judicial system and the perspective o the plaintiff? How does our being an adversary system affect how the plaintiff drafts the complaint? How do each of our complaints attempt to serve these purposes?

    • What stops a plaintiff from making stuff up in the complaint?

For Thursday (both sections)

Wednesday audio--Section A, Section B. Seating chart and Syllabus/Assessment questions tomorrow.

Review the materials from Introduction to Civil Procedure.

    • Review the materials (from the Blog) showing the structure of the federal and Florida judicial systems. 

    • Who can create rules of procedure for a court--what possible sources? Prior to 1938, federal trial courts applied the procedural rules of the state in which they sat (e.g., the Southern District of Florida applied Florida procedure; the District of Idaho applied Idaho procedure); what are the drawbacks to that system?

    • Carefully read §§ 2071-2074 (the "Rules Enabling Act"). What is the process for creating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? What is the role for Congress and the courts?

    • The United States operates as an "adversary system"--what does that mean? What is the theory behind hat?

    • What does "jurisdiction" mean? Consider the distinction between two pairs: "Original" v. "Appellate" jurisdiction and "Concurrent" v. "Exclusive" jurisdiction. What is the consequence of appellate review being limited to "final" orders?

We then turn to Pleading: Introduction to Pleading. For tomorrow, review FRCP 2 and 3. And begin to familiarize yourself with the facts, law, and remedies sought in each case.

    • The federal rules are said to be "trans-substantive." What does that mean? Is it a good idea?

    • You have the complaints from four cases. What is the purpose of the complaint? What does the plaintiff want to achieve through his complaint?

 

One more thing for Wednesday

See this chart, in addition to the other posted material:

Welcome to Civil Procedure

Welcome to Civil Procedure and the Civil Procedure Blog. Below are five additional posts you must read and follow prior to our first class meeting on Wednesday, January 10.

All classes will be recorded and posted to the Civil Procedure Blog. 

To read the blog, go to http://fiucivpro.blogspot.com/; posts can be read going down from most recent to least recent. Please review the Syllabus and Semester Assessments post.

Finally, to get you in the mood: After the jump is song, written and performed by a student at Indiana University-Indianapolis and posted with his permission. You likely will not know what he is singing about; I promise you that you will understand the entire song by the end of the course.

Syllabus and Semester Assessments

Here are the Syllabus, containing complete information on the course and all assignments and materials, and Semester Assessments, describing the five assessments for the semester. Please review both documents. I will answer questions about both during the first few minutes of the second class on Thursday, January 11.

Good Writing and Talking Procedure

This is a writing-intensive course. You will write one 1000-word essay and take two short-answer essay exams. And you will talk  about the law throughout the semester. Although I do not care about formal bluebooking, I care about your writing and analysis and how you talk and write about courts and procedure--that you do so properly and not with the (inaccurate) informality you often see.

After the jump are tips on both.

Name Cards and Seating

At our first meeting on Wednesday, January 10, everyone will receive a tent card with their names. You are responsible for keeping that card and having it with you at every class throughout the full semester.

At our second meeting on Thursday, January 11, I will circulate a seating chart; that is where you will be for the semester.

Course Materials and First-Week Assignments

Here is what you need to know for the first class on Wednesday, January 10. The assignments for the first 1 1/2 classes are posted after the jump. The Syllabus and Semester Assessments are in a separate post. I will answer questions about the syllabus at the beginning of the second class on Thursday, January 11.

Required Materials:

Please note that you must have the print version for all materials.

1) Linda S. Mullenix, Leading Cases In Civil Procedure (West 4th ed. 2022)

2) Joseph Glannon, The Glannon Guide to Civil Procedure (Wolters-Kluwer 5th ed. 2023)

3) Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure (2023 ed.) (Compiled by Kevin M. Clermont)

   Note: Yes, you must use the most recent version of the rules

4) Civil Procedure Blog: http://fiucivpro.blogspot.com (indicated in syllabus)

 

 

Technology and Class Conduct

 

Use of laptops, tablets, smart phones, and similar devices during class is prohibited, unless granted permission. Phones must be turned off when you come into the classroom. 

 

Locating Assignments:

 

We will be working with several materials from different sources and places. This is unavoidable. Please bring all assigned materials to class on the appropriate day.

 

Unless otherwise indicated, assigned cases are in Leading Cases in Civil Procedure; commentary, detail, elaboration, explanation, and examples are in Glannon’s Guide (“Glannon”). Rules, Statutes (from Title 28 of the United States Code), constitutional provisions, and legislative history can be found in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless indicated otherwise:

 

      • Part 2: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (without committee notes)

      • Part 3: Advisory Committee Notes from past amendments to FRCP

      • Part 5: Selected provisions of the U.S. Constitution and procedural statutes from 28 U.S.C.

      • Part 7: Sample Local Rules of Civil Procedure

 

Additional assigned cases, articles, statutes, rules, and other materials will be downloaded from the Blog, as indicated.

 

Book and page numbers are in parentheses after each assigned case in Mullenix. Provisions are found in the relevant Part of the FRCP book. Items found on the Blog are indicated.

 

Sample Pleadings are available in the Additional Materials post on the Blog. Please download, print, and bring them to class whenever assigned on the syllabus.

 

You must have your FRCP pamphlet with you and open on your desk in every class. You must have any assigned statutes, provisions, cases, or pleadings with you and open on your desk in every class.