RULE 8 – PLEADING RULES

DIOGUARDI v. DURNING (confusing airport shipment case of tonics from Italy)

RULE  A complaint must contain short & plain statement of claim showing pleader entitlement to relief [PURSUANT
TO R. 8(a)(2)] (Overruled by Iqbal)
RULE 12 – MOTIONS TO DISMISS
CONLEY (Discrimination complaint. Union laid off 45 AfAm employees to hire Whites. Some AfAm were rehired, but lost
seniority)
RULE  Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim as long as P sets forth assertion upon which
relief can be granted, and specific facts are not necessary to survive MTD. P can prove “no set of facts” in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief (Pretty much overruled by Iqbal)
IQBAL (P arrested post 9/11, claims 1st and 5th amendment violations for alleged policy of holding detainees categorized as “of
high interest,” but complaint does not contain facts plausibly showing that their policy was based on discriminatory factors)
RULE  To survive MTD, complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter” “accepted as true” “to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” “Conclusory statements/bare assertions” don’t count as facts.
BOWER v. WEISMAN (P “business” relationship with D and lived in his apartment; sued D for breach of K, fraud, trespass, false
imprisonment, IIED, nuisance)
RULE  D’s motion for a more definite statement was granted because P’s complaint did not specify which D she was
referring to in each of the claims.
D’s motion to dismiss the fraud claim was granted because P’s complaint did allege fraud with particularity
D’s motion to dismiss the false imprisonment claim was granted because P’s own allegations show she wasn’t confined

RULE 20 – PERMISSIVE JOINDER

COOPER v. FITZGERALD (Seven Ps filed single RULE 13 – COMPULSORY
complaint for action on COUNTERCLAIMtheir individual applications for immigration benefits
pending before
PODHORN v. PARAGON
USCIS. Ct.GROUP found that (Landlord
Ps arefiledimproperly SUMMARY
RULE
suit against joined 14
tenant JUDGMENT
– IMPLEADER
because for renttheythat do not wasmeetowed. elements
The court of found
permissive for landlord
joinder and in R.
CELOTEX
20(a)) v.back
awarded
GROSS v. CATRETT
HANOVER rent. Tenant Asbestos
INS. CO. (Pexposure
subsequently
sued insurance caused
filed suit husband’s
company
for constructive
fordeath.
DISCOVERY
payment Deviction,
filesof MSJ.
insurance Lowerof
breach court
claim
implied
forgrants,
a warranty
jewelry appellate
theft. court
of habitability,
D wants reverses
toetc.)
implead
because
the Rizzov.
MOORE D didn’t
RULE
brothers
MILLER  satisfy
Ct.
The
who
P was
held its
ct.werePsburden
held
badly had
working
that
hurt ofbyproving
different
because
atDthe
during it wasn’t
immigration
Pstore
had analready
and
arrestthem.
may JURY Supreme
applications
filed
thathave awasTRIALS
claim
taken
later Court
atagainst
part
issue, inholds
dropped. that
undercutting
D
the andP
robbery)
sues it’s
D filed anot
D for
joinderD’s burden
motion
emotional under to show
to dismiss,
and
the physical
“same it transaction”
P could wasn’t
harm.
not file
D
them, it’s
tries to391
LOCAL get P’s
prong
another
RULEv. burden
P’sTERRY

Facebook
ofclaim
Ct. to
R. 20(a).
Truck
held show
separately.
activity
that it
drivers was.
[Ps allegations
were toare
All
find
atfired
claims
different
a scapegoat.
brought
andarising
sue
stages
bytheir
out
Din CLASS
were
of
union
the the ACTIONS
sufficient
decision
same
for violating
Tprocess
to
or implead
O,federal
asand pending
the
have
labor
Rizzos
different
suit
laws must
asby rd
3 reasons;
failing
be
partyfiledto
Ds.no
regardless
represent
Asufficient
court may them
offactual
allow a
properly.RULE
WALMART commonality
defendant
RULE
Terry 
jurisdictional
v. DUKES
 The
(drivers)
Ct.to 3only
found
issues;
bring
on burden
Psrequested
sought
grounds
the
inotherwise
an the
Moore’s
to
outside moving
present.]
jury
bring trial;
FB
you
23(b)(2)
party party
activity
Local
lose who is has
you
gender
(union) isdiscrimination
relevant
may
right to
moved
be inform
toliable
tobring
claims
toto the
such
strike
the court
ofclass
claims.
emotional
defendant
the actionof the
jury basis
demand,
on
pain
for behalf
the
andfor its“all
asserting
claims motion,
suffering.
of against
women
noSocialand
right
him. identify
employed
to
media
a juryposts those
trial
at any
exists
are
portions
in a duty discoverable
Walmart of
domestic
 Since of
representation “the
retail ifthe pleadings,
they’re
storesuit
otheratbecause depositions,
relevant.
any
COAtime it seeks
arose since
from Dec.answers
equitable
the26 same1998. to interrogatories,
damages.
T/O Theyit mustsuedhave and
for backpay
been as andadmissions on file,
injunctive relief
a counterclaim together with
and argued they
[R. 13(a)] the
qualified affidavits,
RULE
under
SILVA v. DICK’S Ct.ifsays
23(b)(2)
SPORTING any” itwhich
because
GOODS it Pbelieves
is important
injunction demonstrate
suesdetermine
was
employer, thethe main type
Dick’s the
thing ofabsence
DISCOVERY
relief
they Goods
Sporting were of aseeking
desired. genuine
(D),Here,underandissue
back the pay
Family of material
rules
from don’t
Medical union, fact.
explicitly
Leave notAct.
employer,
exclude
D moved seeking
is more
to
SCOTT
compelv.
money
HOULT HARRIS
under
v.
Ppunitive
HOULT
to produce Officer
23(b)(2).
(legal)
Daughter  chasing
damages
Trial
brings
a non-redacted suspect
courtas
assault
opposed
and inCHOICE
high-speed
appellate
completeand to
battery OF LAW
restitution
copy chase,
approved
ofclaims
P’s (SEE BOOKLET
does
pagesafather.
(equitable)
2K+ against
certification maneuver
of ON
damages. THIS!!!!!!)
Getsthat
FB messages. aroundcauses P to crash
statute his car &with
of limitations become
expert a
paraplegic.
testimony
GASPERINI
 All RULEPCenter
aboutfiles
Supreme suit
repressed
TWO
Ct. against
fordenied
Humanities
Court
PART officer.
memories.
justices
TEST
the (D)
FOR
motion Officer
lost
agreedFather
RIGHT files
TOfor
tojournalist’s
later
should
compel JURY
not
FB MSJ.
brought
(P)
have
UNDER
messages NOTICE
Supreme
photography
defamation
been SEVENTH Court
certified
because slides.said
claim.
AMENDMENT
under
request MSJ
Trial
Judge was
court
found
23(b)(3);
was not appropriate
found
 there
but forwas
5-4
sufficiently P.because
splitDrelevant;
issue
challengedvideo
preclusion
on whether could
jury
there
outside thenot
because
verdict
was be
on
scope.
interpreted
jury
appeal
MULLANE
could
and not
NYany
argued
enough
Social other
statute
have that way.
found
allowed
commonality
media o thefor
posts federal
daughter
banks
Examine
are notappellate
to combine
the without
naturecourt
discoverable ofbelieving
the RIGHT
individual
ifshould
issues
they’re that TO
apply
trusts AN
his
involved
not NY ATTORNEY
into
repeated
state
common
sufficiently lawassaults
about
relevanttrustcaused
jury
funds.
to be award The
her memory
inside limits.
statute
the scopeP only
argued
repression.
required
of they should
discoverablethe bank not to
info.
because
provide
LASSITER
RULE notice
FRCP
RULE
Woman
 Class 59
 In deciding
of contradicts
accountings
Aiscertification
court
in danger mayit. abysummary
of
find newspaper
losing
under that Fed.
Compare judgment
her
collateral
parental
R. P.motion,
publication.
estoppel
Civ.action
the rights.
23(a) toThe She
is
the all
bars facts
court
tries
impropera party
actions are
appointed
to viewed
argue
from
when
brought that in
litigating
ainlawyer
there the
she
is no
England islight
to
an most
entitled
represent
issue
common
prior favorable
toiftothe
that
anthe
injury thatto
attorney.
issue
income
courts was
may
of the non-moving
beneficiaries
lawanbe integral
and equitypart
resolved and
the lawyer
across party
of
RULEthe unless
challenged
an earlier
 The final
entire
Attorneysno
class.reasonable
appellate
notice judgment,
percourt
will beDue jury
(“common
given would
remanded
Process
even onifathe be
Clause
and
law” able
issue held
ofwas
dealt
case-by-case to
the the
withaccept
14
not th
federal
torts,
basis. that
explicitly
Amendment.
The breachversion
trial
Due of K,of
determined
court
Process the
should
etc. facts.
in
so
Clausebe the
get the
ofaearlier
oneFourteenth
jury/cases
the tojudgment.
apply NY’s
about state law. does
injunctions,
Amendment trusts,
PARKLANE Federal
RULE
not The SEC
mandate Here,
courts
Efforts
beat SJ
must
thatto wasgive
Parklane appropriate
apply
indigent notice state
inetc…
casemust
parties law
do
#1.because
be
Astandards
not)
be given
class
assigned no
ofinreasonable
for
a matter
review
shareholders
counsel jury
inthat
parentalcould
ofwanted
jury
is find
reasonable,
awards,
to
rights for the
even
piggybackunder Pon
if
proceedings. b/c
they
the
theofconflict
the video
circumstances,
case and withsuefederal
to appraise
Parklane standards,
in case
TOLAN
#2. v.interested
Supreme becauseCourtthey
COTTON parties
Cop oare
allowed substantive
of
thethe
Examine
mistakenly pendency
the (they
thought
investors remediesof
would
to Ptake
had the action
soughtaffect
stolen
advantage and
the
a car. of amount
afford
P’s
the them
parents
victory of the an
came
in jury
case opportunity
award).
outside.
#1 because CoptoParklane
presentP’s
pushed their
had a objections.
mom. P stood
“full and fair up and
cussed him
chance”GROVE
SHADY out.
to defend Officer
Orthopedic shot
itself in case P and
doctor severely
Legal or injured
equitable him.in nature (money damages gets
#1.brings class action against Allstate in federal court for failing to pay penalties. NY statute a jury)
prevents
GALLOWAY RULE
class  Here,
v. actions
U.S.If Pa has trial
defendant
seekingmentalct.aand appellate
“penalty”.
loses
health onproblems
anFRCPcourt
issue, 23dueagranted
(class
new MSJ for
actions)
plaintiff
to military copuse
would
can
experience. (D).
allow
theSCOTUS
ruling
Wifeit. seeks reverses
on that because
issue
disability againstthere
benefits. thewas
After still
trial,aDgenuine
defendant in a
moves
issue
for DV. PRULE
new itof
says case material
wasCourt
and a 7theth fact.
finds SJ may
defendant
FRCP
amendment onlynot
23 wins.
will be granted
A federal
violation be ablecourt
because when
tono the evidence,
re-litigate
should
jury. apply
as long viewed
federal
as: (1)law inwhen
new light most
plaintiff
statecould favorablehave to
law directly the non-movant,
readily
contradicts
joinedathe
established
original
federal
RULE rule
case the
Ct. held andnon-movant
that acongress
(2)
DVthe does is entitled
defendant
controls.
not violatehad7to judgment
ath full and fairasopportunity
amendment; aPmatter
did notof law.
to
meet litigate
burden theofissue.
proof, had more than 8 year-gap in
evidence.
WELCKER v. SMITHKLINE Sternlight’s Pennsylvania case of age discrimination. Sternlight got a jury because the compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and backpay that resulted from that discrimination were the type of damages a court of law would
have heard.
RULE  If a right is guaranteed by the constitution, the state cannot take it away. It can only add more rights.