"Service", "Rio Properties Inc"
"Answers", "Zielinkski v Philadelphia Piers- if improper denial, deemed to admit"
"Amended Pleadings", "Beeck v. Aquaslide N' Sive Corp- amendment with leave of the court should be freely given when justice requires"
"Relation Back", "Krupski v. Costa Crociere- claim is related, D knew of claim within R4(m), D knew or should have known of suit but for P's mistake
(focus more on the knowledge of the D than the P)"
"Sanctions", "Hadges v. Yonkers Racing- Safe Harbor Rule"
"Joinder", "United States v. Heyward-Robinson- same parties, time frames, same basic set of facts. court says claims are related, breach one gives rise to another. logical relationship between claims.
compulsory counterclaims require transaction/occurence interpreted broadly to require a logical relationship not immediateness of connection"
"Class Action", "Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes- commonality= each class member must have experienced the discrimination int he same way"
"Discovery", "Gonzales v. Google, Inc- cost shifting, discovery is fluid and can be flexible"
"Claw Back Agreement", "Hickman v Taylr- work product"
"Discovery Violation Sanctions", "Poole ex Rec Elliot Textron- sanctions because conduct was to delay.
Atty fees require misconduct and bad faith by clear and convincing standard"
"Default", "Colleton Prep Academcy, Inc. v. Hoover- not prejudice P, meritorious defense, act with promptness, good faith, no history"
1", "Celotex- no evidence in support of claim"
"Summary Judgment 2", "Anderson- burden of proof "preponderance of evidence" has to be incorporated into sj when judge thinks about it"
3", "Matsushita- If there are competing inferences given equal weight by law, P must produce evidence that supports the unlawful inference>lawful one. If 50%, deny MSJ. Inference needs to be >51%. (misapplication= in any claim with competing inferences of relatively equal probability, summary j must be granted bc party can get beyond 50%)
Evidentiary law of claim is incorporated into the summary j standard"
"Jury", "Markman- patent case should be decided by judge not jury"
"Jury 2", "Edmonson- preemptory challenges cannot be baed on race/gender"
"JMOL", "Reeves v. Sanderson- no JMOL, raised an inference of discrimination"
"New Trial", "Dadurian- finding is against the great weight of evidence"
"Relief from Judgment", "Aikens- no extraordinary circumstance that would give P right to reopen case"
"Claim Preclusion", "Nestor v. Pratt- damages not available in 1st case, no claim preclusion"
"Claim Preclusion 2", "Taylor v. Sturgell- no mutuality, need same parties (6 exceptions- agree to be precluded, legal privity, class actions, nonparty assums control like IRS, agent or proxy, special statute like bankruptcy)"
"Issue Preclusion", "Cromwell- partial issue preclusion granted"
"Issue Preclusion 2", "Parklane Hosiery- offensive issue preclusion. P could not have easily joined in the 1st claim, judgement doe snot result in unfairness to D"
"Erie", "Swift- led to inequitable treatment and forum shopping"
"Erie 2", "substantive issue- apply state law
procedural issue- federal law"
"Hana", "Pt 1- Erie only applies when twin aims are implicated: 1 forum shopping 2 unequal treatment of diverse litigants
Pt 2- If there is a federal rule on point, must apply if constitutional and valid under the REA"