Civpro I Cases And Concepts

Front 1

Source of rule making power for New Mexico?

Back 1

NM Supreme Court

Front 2

Source of rule making power for US?

Back 2

Legislature

Art. III sec. 1 - Congress has power to create inferior courts, therefore they can create the rules, too.

Front 3

Facts for State v. Roy?

Back 3

Murder wants conviction overturned because rules were written by court, not legislature.

Front 4

Holding in State v. Roy?

Back 4

NM Supreme Court has the inherent power to make rules.

Front 5

Act defining federal rules process

Back 5

Rules Enabling Act of 1934

Front 6

Holding of Jackson v. Stinnet?

Back 6

A statute passed after a rule repeals the rule to the extent that there is a conflict.

Front 7

Holding of McCaughey v. Schuette?

Back 7

Ultimate, not probative facts necessary in a pleading.

This case is included to show what was bad about Code Pleading.

Front 8

Holding of Dioguardi v. Durning?

Back 8

No facts are necessary, only a short and plain statement of claim showing pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8(a)(2).

Front 9

Holding in Ciralsky v. CIA?

Back 9

Unnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the responding party.
Rule 8(a)(2) - short and plain.
Rule 8(e)(1) - averments shall be simple, concise, and direct

Front 10

Holding of McCormick v. Kopmann?

Back 10

It is no ground for dismissal that allegations in one count contradict those in an alternative count. Rule 8(e)(2).

Front 11

Holding for Premier Capital Management v. Cohen?

Back 11

Fraud must include the idenity of the person making the misrepresentation, the time, place, and content of the misrepresentation, and the method by which it was communicated.

Front 12

Holding for Hodgson v. Virginia Baptist Hospital, Inc?

Back 12

A plaintiff cannot be required to plead additional facts if they have already satisfied rule 8(a)(2).

Front 13

Holding for National Acceptance Co. v. Bathalter?

Back 13

Pleading the 5th in an answer is a denial if the possibility of criminal prosecution is more than fanciful.

Front 14

Facts of Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting?

Back 14

Media seeks to avoid revealing names of sources because statute says they don't have to.

Front 15

Holding of Ammerman v. Hubbard?

Back 15

Power to make rules is exclusively in the judiciary.

This was later scaled back.

Front 16

Facts of Lovelace v. Mendez?

Back 16

Courts grant application for appeal 28 days after it was filed. Statute says an application not accepted in 20 days is denied. Rules are silent.

Front 17

Holding of Lovelace v. Mendez?

Back 17

Legislature actually can make rules, but where they interfere with key functions of the court they are void.

Front 18

Facts of Jackson v. Stinnet

Back 18

Prisoner's appeal in forma pauperis gets complicated when Congress passes PLRA during the suit. PLRA conflicts with federal rules. Which should govern?

Front 19

Facts of Maples v. State

Back 19

NM Worker's Comp appeal filed. Court rule and statute conflict on when appeal must be filed. Which governs?

Front 20

Holding of Maples v. State

Back 20

Court rules always win. But Montgomery's dissent lays out his reasoning for Lovelace v. Mendez a year later.

Front 21

Facts of Sibbach v. Wilson

Back 21

TC orders party to undergo Rule 35 examination, party refuses.

Front 22

Holding of Sibbach v. Wilson

Back 22

Federal rules that make it through congressional examination are presumptively valid. Frankfurter dissents, feeling that inaction by congress does not give tacit approval, but it looks like this idea never gains support.

Front 23

Facts of Dioguardi v. Durning

Back 23

Dioguardi writes crazy, rambling complaint, has it dismissed (twice) for not stating sufficient facts

Front 24

Holding of Dioguardi v. Durning

Back 24

Facts not necessary, rather 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing pleader is entitled to relief

Front 25

Facts of Ciralsky v. CIA

Back 25

Ciralsky fired from job as CIA lawyer, writes 119 page complaint.

Front 26

Facts of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly

Back 26

Twombly writes awesome complaint alleging Bell Atlantic violated Sherman Antitrust Act, TC dismisses under 12(b)(6)

Front 27

Holding of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly

Back 27

Hard to say. Narrow reading is that Sherman Act claims have a higher standard under 8(a)(2). Broad reading is that the Dioguardi standard just got raised.

Front 28

8(a)(2) test according to Bell Atlantic

Back 28

For section 1 claims, complaint must allege sufficient facts to provide plausible grounds to infer an agreement

Front 29

Why should Bell Atlantic be read narrowly?

Back 29

1. language confies the holding to Sherman Act claims.
2. explicit denial that a heightened pleading standard was created

Front 30

Why should Bell Atlantic be read broadly?

Back 30

Dicta purports to retire Conley, generically emphasizes plausability

Front 31

Dissent in Bell Atlantic

Back 31

Stevens feels complaint clearly alleges a "classic per se violation of the Sherman Act." This should be enough, and is at least as good as Form 9 (an example involving negligence). Enhanced pleading requirements should be in Rule 9 or in statutes, none exist here. Remedy for lack of specificity is 12(e), not 12(b)(6).

Front 32

Facts from McCormick v. Kopmann

Back 32

Plaintiff alleges her deceased husband was drunk, or, alternatively, not drunk

Front 33

Facts from Premier Capital Management v. Cohen

Back 33

Plaintiffs claim fraud induced them to invest in company

Front 34

What is supplementary jurisdiction?

Back 34

Jurisdiction arising not out of subject matter or diversity, but out of a compulsory counterclaim.

Front 35

Facts of Sweircowicz

Back 35

SVP plaintiff replaced by inexperienced guy. SVP sues for discrimination under title VII

Front 36

Holding of Swiercowicz

Back 36

Unless raised by statute, the pleading standards do not require specific facts be pleaded

Front 37

Facts of Rivera v. Brazos Lodge

Back 37

NM case where Plaintiff files action to quiet title base on fraudulent deed.

Front 38

Holding in Rivera v. Brazos

Back 38

Rule 11 sanctions not appropriate in NM unless there is bad faith. Sanctions upheld because P and P's attorney had legal and factual knowledge contrary to the allegations.

Front 39

Facts of Elliot v. Tilton

Back 39

Defendant withdraws releases after finding out they were forged. Rule 11 sanctions moved for on the basis that defense did not reasonably inquire into validity of releases.

Front 40

Holding of Elliot v. Tilton

Back 40

Plaintiffs may not file rule 11 motion until after safe harbor period. A court can impose sanctions under its inherent power only after making a specific finding that the attorney acted in bad faith

Front 41

Facts of De La Fuente v. DCI Telecom

Back 41

Plaintiff makes 13 claims, 12 of which were time barred. Eventually Plaintiff moves to dismiss its own remaining claim. Defendant tries to reopen case to get rule 11 sanctions.

Front 42

Holding of De La Fuente v. DCI Telecom

Back 42

Claims are not frivolous simply because they were dismissed. There must be no objective chance of success and no reasonable argument to change the law

Front 43

Attorney's Ethical Duties to the court

Back 43

An attorney shall not:

1. make a false statement of material fact or law
2. fail to disclose material fact or law
3. offer evidence known to be false

Front 44

Facts of DeFillippo v. Neil

Back 44

Defendant files answer 1 day late, gets $900,000 default judgment

Front 45

Holding of DeFillippo v. Neil

Back 45

A 55(c) motion to set aside entry of default requires

1. good cause
2. existence of a meritorious defense
3. no reason setting aside would be inequitable to P

Front 46

Policy behind granting 55(c) motions?

Back 46

1. should be liberal
2. favor adjudication on the merits, not by default
3. claims for large sums should not be decided by default if it can be reasonably avoided
4. Party seeking default should notify opposing party when possible

Front 47

What establishes a meritorious defense for a 55(c) motion?

Back 47

Statement of underlying facts

Front 48

Facts of Gallegos v. Franklin

Back 48

$500K default judgment in med mal case

Front 49

Holding in Gallegos v. Franklin?

Back 49

For default judgment involving compensatory or punitive damages, a hearing is mandatory.

Front 50

What does entry of default mean?

Back 50

Liability is conceded. Defaulting party may still contest damages. D need not contest damages, but P must prove them.

Front 51

Facts for Hodgson v. Virginia Baptist Hospital

Back 51

Sec. of Labor refuses to add facts in response to 12(e) motion even though he has the facts

Front 52

Facts of Natl. Acceptance Co v. Bathalter

Back 52

Former loan officer made lots of bad loans with kickbacks. Pleads 5th in answer to avoid hurting his separate criminal case

Front 53

Holding of Gill v. Timm

Back 53

Since D didn't present evidence of P's failure to mitigate, D can't use 15(b) to add it as an affirmative defense, and D is screwed

Front 54

Is governmental immunity an affirmative defense?

Back 54

In Davis v. City of San Antonio, the gov't waived this by not claiming it in the answer. However, in Rutherford v. Portland, the Plaintiff had to prove gov't wasn't immune in his complaint

Front 55

Facts from Erickson v. Pardus

Back 55

Prisoner alleges cruel and unusual punishment when prison discontinues his Hep C treatment; case dismissed in TC on 12(b)(6) motion

Front 56

Holding in Erickson v. Pardus

Back 56

Bell Atlantic "plausibility" standard not applied to this pro se case, Dioguardi type standard applies instead.

Front 57

Facts of Iqbal v. Hasty

Back 57

Muslim pre-trial detainee complains of unconstitutional confinement conditions, 12(b)(6) motion is denied

Front 58

Holding of Iqbal v. Hasty

Back 58

Heightened pleading standard is not applied, can only be obtained by changing the rules, not by judicial fiat

Front 59

Plant v. Blazer Financial Facts

Back 59

Woman sues under truth-in-lending act, lender makes counterclaim for default on the loan

Front 60

Holding of Plant v. Blazer Financial

Back 60

Counterclaims are compulsory if they bear a "logical relation" to the claims.

Front 61

Policy behind 13(a) compulsory counterclaims

Back 61

1. prevent multiple suits by consolidating

2. provide complete relief to defendant brought involuntarily into federal court

Front 62

Facts of The Hartford v. Gibbons & Reed

Back 62

Complicated insurance complaint made right before statute of limitations, where a compulsory counterclaim had already expired

Front 63

Holding in The Hartford v. Gibbons & Reed

Back 63

A time-barred compulsory counterclaim can serve as a set-off in NM

Front 64

Facts of Williams v. Arcoa Intl.

Back 64

Plaintiffs hurt when UHaul tires fall off. Defendants argue no personal jurisdiction, and also try to implead Ford.

Front 65

Holding in Williams v. Arcoa

Back 65

A third party claim under rule 14 waives the 12(b)(2) defense of personal jurisdiction

Front 66

Facts in Moffat v. Branch

Back 66

Plaintiff files a 15(a) amendment after notice that 12(b)(6) would be awarded but before a final action or answer is filed

Front 67

Holding in Moffat v. Branch

Back 67

15(a) allows a response as a matter of right before answer is filed or final judgment is entered

Front 68

Facts of Beeck v. Aquaslide

Back 68

D doesn't find out until just before trial that he admitted something he should have denied, asks for leave to amend under 15(a)

Front 69

Holding in Beeck v. Aquaslide

Back 69

Courts should only refuse requests to amend under 15(a) when there is evidence of bad faith, prejudice, or undue delay

Front 70

Facts in Camp v. Bernalillo Cy. Medical Center

Back 70

Judge doesn't recuse himself after defense says they won't call judge's neighbor as witness. Allows P to amend, forcing D to need to call neighbor, then refuses to allow D to call neighbor.

Front 71

Holding in Camp v. Bernalillo Cy. Medical Center

Back 71

15(b) amendments should not be allowed when prejudice would result to the opposing party

Front 72

Facts of Galion v. Conmaco Intl.

Back 72

Original complaint gets defendant name wrong. P amends complaint to name the correct defendant right before being time barred, but new defendant isn't served until after statute of limitations

Front 73

Holding of Galion v. Conmaco

Back 73

NM Rule 15(c) period in which notice must be recieved includes the reasonable time allowed for service of process

Front 74

Facts of Romero v. Bachicha

Back 74

NM Rule 15(c) period in which notice must be recieved includes the reasonable time allowed for service of process

Front 75

Holding in Romero v. Bachicha

Back 75

1. When P does not serve D before amending complaint, fixing a misnomer invokes 15(c)

2. When 15(c) is involved, parties must use due dilligence to avoid delay

Front 76

Facts from In re Town of Amenia, N.Y.

Back 76

Sick, 77yr old has testimony necessary for suit that may not be filed for a long time.

Front 77

Holding of In re Town of Amenia, N.Y.

Back 77

Requirements for 27(a):

1. Suit reasonably expected
2. but can't be started now
3. Person is only source of information
4. Person unlikely to be available when suit is started

Front 78

What is "relevant" in NM?

Back 78

Relevance is very broadly construed-- basically it is relevant unless it has no possible bearing on the subject matter

Front 79

NMRE 11-501

Back 79

Except as provided by the NM Const. or in the rules, no person has a privilege to
1. refuse to be a witness,
2. refuse to disclose any matter
3. refuse to produce any object or writing
4. prevent another from the above

Front 80

Facts from Pina v. Espinoza

Back 80

P's car rear ended, sues for PI, resists disclosure of OBGYN records

Front 81

Holding of Pina v. Espinoza

Back 81

Not all of records are privileged, P must submit privilege log of resisted communications

Front 82

Facts of ABQ Rape Crisis Center v. Blackmer

Back 82

Victim Counselor Confidentiality Act purports to give evidentiary privilege to rape counselors

Front 83

Holding of ABQ Rape Crisis Center v. Blackmer

Back 83

Statutory privilege allowed to stand because it is not inconsistent w/ the constitution or the rules

Front 84

Facts of Knight v. Pres Hosp Ctr

Back 84

P tries to discover various statements from Pres to support his med mal case

Front 85

Holding of Knight v. Pres Hosp Ctr

Back 85

For MPAP, you need to show substantial need and undue hardship; however, spontaneously given statements are not MPAP

Front 86

Facts of Ager v. Jance C. Stormont Hosp.

Back 86

Birth complications kill mother, render daughter a quadraplegic. Med mal suit filed, D seeks to discover experts via broad interrogatory.

Front 87

Holding of Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hosp.

Back 87

Rules for discovery of experts

1. chatted up - no discovery
2. retained, not testifying - exceptional circumstances
3. retained, testifying - discoverable
4. direct witnesses who are also experts - normal rules apply