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
Summary Judgment
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
Summary Judgment
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