No Need for Trial: Summary Judgment (Rule 56)

 If a ct determines before trial that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, it may enter judgment as a matter of
law, w/o a trial.
o Rule 56: there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and…the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.
o Whenever the papers proffered in a summary judgment motion show that there is a genuine dispute on a material
issue of fact, SJ must be denied and the matter must go to trial.
o Any party may move for SJ.
o The moving party need not seek SJ on the entire case. Rule 56(d) makes it clear that the ct can determine specific
issues in the case on SJ.
o Usually this is after parties have gone through pleadings, motions, and discovery.
 How does the ct determine whether there is no genuine issue of material fact?
o Rule 56(c) provides that in ruling on the motion the ct may consider any of 5 things: 1) pleadings; 2) depositions; 3)
answers to interrogatories; 4) admissions on file; and 5) affidavits.
 Celotex v. Catrett
o A party who does not have the burden of proof at trial may move for SJ w/o producing evidence. Such a party may
simply point out that the record is devoid of evidence supporting the other party’s position. Once the moving party
makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the party w/ the burden at trial to produce evidence supports its
position.
 Rule 56(a) = a party may move for SJ at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.
 Rule 56(c) = motion for SJ must be served no fewer than 14 days before the time set for the hearing on the motion.

Judgment as a Matter of Law

 Rule 50(a) = judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict).

o Now, at trial, and based upon evidence adduced at trial, the judge concludes that the jury should not be permitted
to determine the facts- that the case should not “go to the jury.” Why? Because there is insufficient evidence to
justify having a jury consider it.
o Any party may move for JMOL, but only after the other party has been fully heard on an issue.
o Rule 50(a) = “reasonable jury would not have legally sufficient evidentiary basis…”
 Rule 50(b) = renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law
o Here, the judge has let the case go to the jury for deliberation, and the jury has reached a conclusion that
reasonable people simply could not have reached. Here, the ct may be able to take the victory away from the
winner as chosen by the jury and enter judgment for the other party.
o Rule 50(b) = motion must be made no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment- or if the motion
addresses a jury issue no decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged.
o This motion is waived unless the party has already made a motion for JML during trial.

Motion for a New Trial (Rule 59)

 Rule 59(b) = motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.
 When a ct grants a motion for a new trial, the effect is: 1) to take the judgment away from whom the jury declared the
winner; and 2) to start over w/ a new trial.
 Rule 59(d) = a ct is free to grant a new trial on any ground, even if it is not stated in the motion.
 The ct may consider credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. The ct is not required to vewithe evidence
in light most favorable to the party who won at trial.

Joinder of Claims Rule 18(a)

 Rule 18(a): a party seeking relief from an opposing party may join w/ his original claim any additional claims he has against
that opposing party. There is no common transaction or occurrence requirement.

Joinder of Parties: Permissive- Rule 20(a)

  Rule 20(a) = two or more may join together as co-P’s if their claims (1) arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences and (2) raise at least one common question (of law or fact). Same rule for D’s.
 Rule 20(a)(1) = governs P’s.
 Rule 20(a)(2) = governs D’s.
 Why would a P ever fail to join all possible P’s and D’s under Rule 20(a)?
o There might be jurisdictional limitations. For example, perhaps the ct cannot get PJ over one of the potential D’s or
perhaps joining all the parties will make it impossible to invoke diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
 By doing this, it saves time, money and inconsistent judgments.

Counterclaims: Rule 13(a) and Rule 13(b)

 Two types: Compulsory (rule 13a) and Permissive (rule 13b).

 Under Rule 13(a) and (b) a counterclaim is to be asserted in a pleading. If the party fails to assert the counterclaim in one’s
answer, through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, Rule 13(f) allows her to seek leave of ct to assert the
counterclaim by amending her answer to include it. Under that rule, the ct will permit the D to do so “when justice
requires.”
 Rule 13(a) = a compulsory counterclaim is one that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s
claim.
 Rule 13(b) = a permissive counterclaim is one that does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing
party’s claim.

Cross-Claims: Rule 13(g)

 The cross-claim is a claim against a co-party. The existence of co-parties depends upon the P’s original structuring of the suit
using Rule 20(a).
 To be a cross-claim, the claim against the co-party must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action
or of a counterclaim therein. Thus, to be a cross-claim, the claim must be transactionally related to the underlying dispute
b/w the P and the D.
 Rule 13(g) is permissive.

Compulsory Party Joinder: Rule 19

 Rule 19 = certain persons not sued by the P may be ordered to join the suit, if they need to be made parties to fairly
adjudicate the case.
 Rule 19(a) = provides three steps for analyzing whether a party should be added to the lawsuit (if feasible).
 Rule 19(b) = what to do if the absentee should be joined but cannot be (ex. no jurisdiction).
o First, find out whether the party is needed for just adjudication.
o Next, find out whether (1) the absentee is subject to personal jurisdiction; (2) whether joinder of the absentee will
destroy diversity of citizenship jurisdiction; and (3) whether the absentee, once joined, would have a valid
objection to venue.
o If joinder is not feasible (from above steps), the ct must determine whether in “equity and good conscience,” the ct
should proceed w/o the absentee or dismiss the case.

Impleader: Rule 14

 Rule 14 = gives the D a limited right to implead (bring into the suit) new parties against whom she has claims related to the
main action. This is 14 days after the D’s original answer. The D may bring in a person not yet a party to the suit who may be
liable to her, the D, for all or part of any recovery the P obtains on the main claim.
 Rule 14(a)(1) = the impleaded party may be liable to the D for “all or part” of the P’s claim against the D. The impleaded
party may escape liability by defeating either the P’s original claim or the D’s derivative claim against her.
 Rule 14(a)(2)(A) = defenses to 3rd party claims.
 Rule 14(a)(2)(C) = defenses to the P’s claim against the original D.
Intervention: Rule 24

 Rule 24 = in certain situations, absentees- not sued by the P- may “intervene” in the case, or move to become parties on
one side or the other.
 Rule 24(a) = specifies circumstances in which the absentee has a right to become a party to a case.
 Rule 24(a)(2) = entitles a person who should be made a party if feasible under 3 conditions:
o 1) the person claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject matter of the action;
o 2) that interest may, as a practical matter, be impaired if the person is not allowed to participate in the case; and
o 3) the absentee’s interest is not adequately represented by those already parties to the action.
 Motion to intervene must be “timely.”
 Rule 24(b) = provides for permissive intervention – situations in which a ct may, in its discretion, allow an interested
person to become a party.
o Authorizes intervention of any person who has a claim or defense that shares w/ the main action a common
question of law & fact.

Interpleader: Rule 22

 Interpleader allows a party who owes something to one of two or more other persons, but is not sure whom, to force the
other parties to argue out their claims against themselves.
o Ex. A bank can use the interpleader doctrine and force X and Y to litigate b/w themselves as to the ownership of
the account, w/ Bank paying only the winner.
 Statutory interpleader = 28 U.S.C. §1335 = allows a person holding property which is or may be claimed by two or more
adverse claimants to interplead those claimants.
o Diversity is satisfied as long as some two claimants are citizens of diff. states.
o The property which is subject of the suit must merely exceed $500.
 Rule interpleader = Rule 22 = provides an interpleader remedy for any person who is or may be exposed to double or
multiple liability. The stakeholder may invoke interpleader by coming into ct on his own initiative (i.e. plaintiff) or by
counterclaiming or cross claiming as defendant in an action already commenced against him by one claimant.
o Diversity must be complete b/w the stakeholder and all claimants.
o The $75,000 amount in controversy must be met.