Professor Perritt

hperritt@kentlaw.edu

(312) 906-5128

Office: Room 713

Tuesday & Thursday 6:00-8:25 P.M.

Course number: 258-051

Fall 2010

Room 270

                                                                                             

                                                                                             

CIVIL PROCEDURE

COURSE INFORMATION

COURSE CONTENT

Civil Procedure is a five-credit one semester course in the law of dispute resolution in federal and state courts.

REQUIRED COURSE MATERIALS

·        Marcus, Redish, Sherman & Pfander, Civil Procedure: A Modern Approach (5th ed.2009)

·        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (latest Educational Edition) to be read in conjunction with the Marcus, Redish, Sherman & Pfander text.

·        Supplementary materials available on the Website. www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/courses/civpro.

SYLLABUS

Date

Subject

Assignment (pages in Marcus, Redish & Sherman)

24 Aug

Constitutional entitlement to civil procedure;

Enforcing judgments

Mason"writ of attachment"

29-39 n.1; North Georgia Finishing, 44-45 (majority opinion only); optional: 39 n.2-47

78-82; Fed.R.Civ.P. 69, 65

Form for writ of execution

Judge Friendly's list of elements of procedural due process (will be used in class)

Optional: IL pre-judgment attachment, and post-judgment garnishment statutes

IL pre-judgment attachment statutes

IL post-judgment garnishment statutes

 

Optional: Recognition and enforcement statutes:

Uniform Recognition of Foreign Money Judgments Act

Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judments Act

28 U.S.C. sec. 1963

Optional: Note on writs of attachment, including examples

 

CHAPTER IX. CHOOSING THE FORUM - GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

 

26 Aug

The Traditional Formulation: The ‘Power” Theory of Jurisdiction,

Koziol-Garga hypo

680-700

Harris v. Balk diagram (MS Power Point)

Harris v. Balk diagram (jpeg)

Note on "paying twice" in Harris v. Balk

Optional:

Blackstone on service of original process

 

31 Aug

The Shift to Minimum Contacts, and the States’ Response - Long Arm Statutes

Wood Industries v. KTA (basic facts)

700-719; NY long arm statute (for hypothetical); KTA diagram (for hypothetical)

Optional

Note on limited v. special appearances

Answer to question on process servers in Illinois

2 Sep

Refining the Minimum Contacts Analysis

Hypo

719-731n.1; 743-752 (omit Stevens dissent); 766-775; Note on stream-of-commerce-theory & 722 n.2 (same)

Venn diagram illustrating analytical factors for PJ;

7 Sep

Presence of Defendant’s Property

Hypo for class (Word version)

U.S. Marshal procedures

Note on definition of "false conflict"

781-799

Note on assignment

Optional: Venn diagram (.html) (Word)

State v. Western Union (MS Word) (html) [Word doc is better formatted]

9 Sep No class - Rosh Hashanah  
14 Sep

Personal Service Within the Jurisdiction

(Mr. Milott, teaching)

Hypo

799-811

 

16 Sep

The General Jurisdiction Alternative

Hypos

Backed Up by Sovereignty ©2008 Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

811-819

Diagram of Cat I Quasi in-rem

Gator.com (panel decision, pending rehearing en banc)

Optional: graph Darrin Halcomb improved graph

21 Sep

Consent, Jurisdictional “Ouster” by Consent - Forum Selection Clauses

Hypo

819-825

optional: generalization of Carnival Cruise Lines to diversity cases--Jones v. Weibrecht

optional (for use in class):

Actual forum selection clauses (.html) (Word)

Hypothetical trial-by-combat forum selection clause (.html) (Word)

Ears cut off (.html) (Word)

re judicial enforcement of arbitration awards:

Federal Arbitration Act section 10

Uniform Arbitration Act section 12

New York Convention article V

optional, for, or after this class:

Construct a flowchart/decision tree of personal jurisdiction; email it to civprodocs@kentlaw.edu; be willing to have it displayed and discussed in class

Flow chart example - mailing a letter (JT)

23 Sep

The Requirement of Notice

Notice hypos

825-830; Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 - pay particular attention to procedures for serving individuals and corporations within the U.S.

NY case approving service of process by email

Federal case approving service of process by email

for use in class:

Illinois service of process rule

Hypothetical file-sharing service of process rule

28 Sep

Venue and Discretionary Decline of Jurisdiction

830-849; 28 U.S.C. §1391, 1404

Hypo: Be prepared to argue either side of Part II of the amicus brief prepared for Wood Industries v. KTA (pertaining to forum non conveniens). If you need more facts, determine exactly what facts and how you would get them.

Optional:

Venn diagram

The following illustrate state venue statutes.

Illinois venue statute

Illinois long-arm statute

Illinois corporation residence statute

Illinois local action venue statute

NY venue rule - general

NY venue rule - public authorities

30 Sep

Diversity of Citizenship,

Federal Question

Hypo

Power point diagram of hypo

850-880 n.2; 28 U.S.C. § § 1331, 1332

Optional:

Examples of grants of power to state trial courts (IL, MD, PA, VA)

Hohfeldian analysis

5 Oct

The Penumbra of Federal Jurisdiction: Supplemental Jurisdiction

Hypo: We will start with the hypothetical lawsuit from 30 September, with the additional assumption that one or more ptfs has filed civil actions under the federal Wiretap Act and federal Stored Communications Act

888-910; 28 U.S.C. § 1367

[we will review the basic claim- and party-joinder rules, Fed.R.Civ.P. 18, 20, 24, 13, 14, in class; you may wish to peruse them beforehand, but you are not expected to know them well]

Hypothetical diagrams (Powerpoint)

Note on complete diversity requirement and supplemental jurisdiction

 

7 Oct

Removal

Submajur ©2008 Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

Solutions to Schnayer problem

914-923; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446-1447

Hypothetical for discussion in class (.html) (Word)

new Hypothetical diagrams (Powerpoint)

Hypothetical diagrams (Powerpoint) (old-disregard)

Optional:

HHP removal note

Judicial hieararchies (Powerpoint)

After class:

"All defendants must join"

Counterclaims as basis for jurisdiction: See Holmes Group Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 914-915 (2002) (holding that well-pleaded complaint rule requires that federal question jurisdiction exist or not based on original complaint; cannot be based on counterclaims, which are pleaded in the answer).

12 Oct

CHAPTER XI. CHOOSING THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN FEDERAL COURT, (The Erie Doctrine)

Note on Erie and supplemental jurisdiction

Lex Locus Delicti ©2008 Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

MID-TERM REVIEW

924-931

Be prepared to apply Erie to recent complex hypotheticals

For review lecture: review notes and assignments preceding this class

 

CHAPTER III. DESCRIBING AND DEFINING THE DISPUTE

 

14 Oct

The Historical Evolution of Pleading

Problems for class

114-125, Browse Fed.R.Civ.P. 2-12;

Common law pleading examples (declarations)

Stipp v. Jackson per Chitty on Pleading

Defamation

Account

Negligence

Consider the adequacy of the three alternative complaints in Fratamico v. Nigrelli; and of the two claims in Stipp v. Jackson (Illinois is a fact pleading jurisdiction)

Elements of fraudulent misrepresentation

Elements of international interference with contractual relations

IL basic pleading rule

IL small claims pleading rule

IL pro-se small claims form

Contents of small claims form

(optional: Harry Emmanuel Scozzaro, Jr., Notice Pleading Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Following Sweirkiewicz v. Sorema, 26 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 385 (2002) (good summary of common law pleading and comparison with Fed.R.Civ.P.))

19 Oct

Describing and Testing the Plaintiffs Claim

Study group complaint

Rule 11 hypos

125-158; Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, 9, 11, 16

Summons in Civil Action form

Optional:

McKinney v. Poulos complaint

Pup v. Butzer Collections complaint

Tale of Woe

Negligence

21 Oct

Practical drafting exercise

42 U.S.C. sec. 1983

Transferred intent (you were right!) (.html) (Word), but the causation/substantial certainty issue remains with respect to the curb/ground contact

Second Circuit en banc on inadequately pleaded count

Watch client interview (Web video)

(You need RealPlayer on your computer for this to work. You can download RealPlayer from www.real.com).

(send each of the following documents to civprodocs@kentlaw.edu)

Draft complaint (due today, before class)

Draft Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) disclosures (due 5 November)

Draft Initial Interrogatories under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 (due 12 November)

Optional:

Sample complaints from the real world: Viacom v. YouTube, ACLU, FCC, FOIA, NARM, SEC

26 Oct

Defendant’s Response, voluntary dismissal

How to present these defenses?

How answer these allegations?

Iuga complaint

198-215; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12

Hypo

Optional:

Sample answers: Viacom v. Youtube, McConnell, CIA, Vitf

Motions to dismiss: e.g.1, e.g.2, e.g.3

28 Oct

Amendments to Pleading

Wrap up pleading

Late amendment story

Sad Tale ©2008 Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

222-237; Fed.R.Civ.P. 15; review earlier pleading material

Optional: IL rule for amending pleadings

Optional: Rule 15 flowchart (ppt) pdf version

2 Nov

V. OBTAINING INFORMATION FOR TRIAL

Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures

VOTE!

344-368; skim Fed.R.Civ.P. 26-37, concentrating on Rules 26(a)-(g), 37

Complaint in hypothetical motorcycle-accident victim case: Christianson v. Bicycle Messengers 

Rule 26(a)(1) drafts due before class today; email to civprodocs@kentlaw.edu

You should should prepare Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures for the following party:

Back two rows, audience right (Zach Budden and Andrew Tague and their right): on behalf of plaintiff Christenson

Back two rows; audience left (Derek Martin and his left): on behalf of plaintiff Bennaza

Rows three and four, audience right (Paulina Garga and Acacia Thornton and their right): on behalf of defendant Bicycle Messengers

Rows three and four, audience left (Hazel Gumbs and Kelly Noonan and their left): on behalf of defendant police officer.

Front two rows, audience right (Teresa Feher and Michael Parrent and their right): on behalf of defendant Yamahonda

From two rows, audience left (Mihaela Iuga and Paul Detrano and their left): on behalf of defendant Village of Kenilworth

Review Rule 26(a)(1)

Consider discovery strategies in for your party in your case

4 Nov

Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for physical or mental examination and requests for production

Managing the Scope and Burden of Discovery

Note on privilege against self-incrimination and civil discovery

 

Note that the police officer's name is Julian ("Jules") Medrando. Draft interrogatories due before class today; email to civprodocs@kentlaw.edu (you do not need to write definitions; just write the questions)

Review Rule 33

(Same client assignments as for Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures); if you represent the plaintiff prepare interrogatories to be propounded to your respective defendants; if you represent a defendant, prepare interrogatories to be propounded to your respective plaintiff and, if you think appropriate, to your co-defendant.

Consider discovery strategies for your party in the respective case.

368-387; Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)

Optional:

Example of discovery plan

Judge Kimba Wood's model discovery plan

Good case on destruction/"spoilation" (html) (Microsoft Word)

9 Nov.

The Promise and Reality of Broad Discovery, The Discovery Devices

Medrano deposition Part 1 Part 2

Bouffard deposition Part 1 Part 2

 

357-360; Fed.R.Civ.P. 30, 32

Amended Bennaza complaint .html Word(use this for the deposition and subsequent proceedings).

Be prepared to participate in a mock deposition of (a) Officer Jules Medrano, assuming the deposition was noticed by Bennaza's's lawyer (you), and (b) a mock deposition of the employer of the hypothetical motorcycle-accident victim, Christianson v. Bicycle Messengers, noticed by the plaintiff's lawyer (you). Be prepared to conduct direct and cross examination, and to know the authority in the deposition rules for what you propose to do in the deposition and for what your opponent may try to do and you oppose.

Basic information on the ADA

Examples: Rule 26(a) disclosures, (alternative format), interrogatories, answers to interrogatories, request for production, request for admissions, notice of individual deposition, notice of multiple depositions, deposition transcript

Subpoena form

Counsel for depositions

Bennaza: Janet Goeking, Derek Martin

Officer Medrano: Hazel Gumbs, Jack Kennedy

Kenilworth: Igor Brusil, Micaela Iuga

Christianson: Mike Mason, Mary Tallon

Bicycle Messengers: John Kresl, Acacia Thornton

Yamahonda: Steve Byrd, Teresa Feher

Deponents:

Owner of Bicycle Messengers: Brendon Bouffard

Officer Medrano: Jules Medrano

  CHAPTER VI. ADJUDICATION BEFORE TRIAL: SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

11 Nov

Exemptions From Discovery

387-419

Think about and discuss what further discovery Christianson should do after the Bouffard deposition

ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2

Consider likely application of doctrine from assigned cases and notes and of Rule MRPC 4.2 in Bennaza v. Clay, and Christianson v. Bicycle Messengers

Hypothetical discovery requests to consider

16 Nov

Enforcing the Discovery Rules-Sanctions

Investigation-Fact Gathering Without Judicial Assistance; recap of major discovery events

Hypos

Smoking Gun ©2008 Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

422-429; Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 

review pp xi-xviii in Rules Pamphlet

Select (in class) lead counsel(s) for summary judgment argument on 18 November

Optional: 

Do your own timeline of events in a civil case between filing of the complaint and a motion for summary judgment; send it, if you wish, to civprodocs@kentlaw.edu

District of Maine ADA case docket sheet

District of Iowa ADA case docket sheet-jury

Eastern Districtof VA ADA case docket sheet

18 Nov The Nature of the Summary Judgment Device: The Concept of Burden Shifting

430-434; 440-450; 451n.2; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56

"Standardized" Bennaza complaint .html

Bennaza affidavit

Christensen complaint

Christenson affidavit

Vroom (dealer salesman) affidavit

Drool (Yamahonda engineer) affidavit

Bicycle Messengers answers to Christianson interrogatories

Yamahonda answers to Christianson interrogatories

Christianson answers to Bicycle Messengers interrogatories

Christianson answers to Yamahonda interrogatories

Bennaza's Opposition to Summary Judgment

Consider depositions in Bennaza and Christianson cases (posted on ___ November entry)

Argue summary judgment motions before "Judge" Keck; only the defendants have filed motions for summary judgment

Counsel:

Bennaza: Janet Goeking, opposing Medrano motion; Timothy Long, opposing Kenilworth motion

Medrano: Stephen Liadis

Kenilworth: John McInerney

Christianson: Zach Budden, opposing Bicycle Messengers motion; Phil Terrazzino, opposing Yamahonda motion

Bicycle Messengers: Monica Banasiuk

Yamahonda: Venessa Lew

"Judge" Keck's standing order (.html)

Optional:

Example of summary judgment in ADA case, affirming and reversing on two different counts

23 Nov

Pretrial management

Hypo for class (revised 22 Nov 2010)

471-476; Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), 16, Official Form 35

Example of Rule 16(b) scheduling order: Viacom v. YouTube

N.D. Ill. Local Rule - Standing Order on pretrial procedures

Sample pretrial orders: No. 1; No. 2

25 Nov

No class (Thanksgiving)

 

30 Nov

(makeup day per Academic Calendar)

Appellate jurisdiction, procedure, and standards of review

Hypos for class

 

28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed.R.App. P. 3

1016-1021; 1030-1033; 1048-1050 (discovery orders); 1068-1073 n.3; 1079-1080 (Supreme Court); 1081-1090

2 Dec

[Last class] REVIEW (Thursday classes meet per Academic Calendar)

Lecture (review all notes and assignments)

course evaluation questionnaires will be distributed a few minutes before the end of class

 

RECOMMENDED SECONDARY MATERIALS

James, Hazard, Leubsdorf, Civil Procedure (5th ed. 2001).

Shreve & Raven-Hansen, Understanding Civil Procedure (3rd ed. 2001).

Wright & Kane, Law of Federal Courts (Hornbook Series) (2002).

Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure (2008), kept up-to-date by cumulative pocket supplements.

Avoid Gilbert’s 

FINAL EXAMINATION

The final examination in this course will be given on Thursday, 9 December 2010, at 6:00 PM and at no other time. It will be open book, open Internet, open computer, and last three hours.

In the final examination, you are responsible for all the materials discussed in class and in the assigned readings. Obviously, the examination cannot touch upon all that material, but anything we do in class, anything you see in your court visit, and anything in the assigned readings may be tested. You may bring any materials, whether commercially prepared or not, to the final exam, but successful performance on the exam will not require original research. Prepare for the exam as though it were “closed-book.”

ATTENDANCE

Much of the material and most of the legal analysis in this course is not contained in the assigned readings. Consequently, class attendance is an indispensable part of the course. Failure to attend regularly will result in exclusion from the course and a grade of “E” Sporadic absences will result in a lowering of your grade, in the discretion of the instructor. The instructor reserves the discretion to determine what constitutes “regularly” and “sporadic.” The only safe course is to attend every class.

TARDINESS

I strongly discourage tardiness and reserve the power to lower your grade for tardiness.

HATS

Do not wear hats in class.

WANDERING IN AND OUT OF CLASS

Once you are present in the classroom, please stay there, unless you have a genuine emergency. If an emergency requires you to leave the classroom, do not return.

CLASS PARTICIPATION

I teach “Socratically.” Every student is expected to be prepared in every class. Any student may be called on at any time. Volunteering is encouraged. There is no “right” answer; only cogent and persuasive arguments, backed up by legitimate legal authority.

ATTENDING A FEDERAL HEARING OR TRIAL

Attending a federal hearing or trial in United States District Court is a mandatory requirement for credit in the course. You may do this at any time during the semester. After attending, you must send me an email, to civprodocs@kentlaw.edu, briefly describing what you observed and explaining how it relates to one or more specific subjects in the syllabus.

FINAL GRADE

Your final grade will be determined by how well you do on the final exam, except that I reserve the power to decrease your final grade for unsatisfactory classroom participation, failure to complete the drafting exercises satisfactorily, failure to complete the court visit, or excessive absenteeism or tardiness. I also reserve the power to increase your final grade for outstanding classroom participation.

MUSIC

All songs are copyrighted 2008 by Henry H. Perritt, Jr. Modofac is a registered trademark. Permission is given to Chicago-Kent students to download, perform, and distribute the musical works and sound recordings to their classmates and friends. All other rights reserved. CDs are available from Professor Perritt

TEACHING ASSISTANT

Patrick Milott, pmilott@kentlaw.edu, 3L, will serve as the Teaching Assistant for the course. He will announce office hours after the semester begins.

OFFICE HOURS & APPOINTMENTS

I welcome interaction with students. I will be happy to make an appointment to see any of you individually or in groups. I do not have specific office hours. If you want to meet, please set up an appointment by emailing me at hperritt@kentlaw.edu, calling me at (312) 906-5098, calling my assistant, Ms Patricia O’Neal at (312) 906-5128, or by seeing me before or after class.

WEBSITE

http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/courses/civpro

The Website contains the syllabus, supplementary materials, old exams and model answers. Please check the Website regularly, particularly before you begin preparing for a particular class and again before coming to class. I will update it regularly. Note that course coverage probably was materially different in years for which exams and model exams are published.

E-MAIL

I may communicate with you by e-mail at any time throughout the semester. Check your e-mail regularly. If you would like to communicate with me via e-mail, please feel free to do so.