Civil Procedure Midterm Case & Rule Study Guide

Vocabulary practice flashcards covering core Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, landmark cases, pleading standards, amendment, discovery, and sanctions from the Civil Procedure Midterm Case & Rule Study Guide.

Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss that tests whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, assuming well-pleaded factual allegations are true; the court separates facts from legal conclusions and determines if the facts support a reasonable inference of liability.

Rule 15(a)(2)

The rule providing that leave to amend a pleading should be freely given when justice requires, with potential grounds for denial including undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, and futility.

Futility (under Rule 15)

A basis for denying leave to amend where the proposed amended complaint would still fail to state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6), evaluated by applying the Twombly and Iqbal standards to the proposed new allegations.

Rule 12(d)

The rule stating that if a court considers matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and does not exclude them, it generally must convert the motion into one for summary judgment and provide parties a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent material.

Rule 11(b)(3)

The certification requirement that factual contentions in a pleading or paper must have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, be likely to have support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

Rule 11(c)(2) Safe Harbor

The procedural requirement providing that a party-initiated motion for sanctions must generally be served and not filed if the challenged paper is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days (or another time set by the court).

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

The Supreme Court decision establishing the plausibility pleading standard, holding that allegations must raise the right to relief above speculation, conduct consistent with lawful behavior may not suffice alone, and rejecting Conley's 'no set of facts' formulation.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

The Supreme Court decision establishing a two-step analysis for Rule 12(b)(6): (1) identify and disregard conclusory allegations; and (2) determine whether the remaining factual allegations plausibly support liability.

Swanson v. Citibank

A case demonstrating that a plaintiff does not need every piece of evidence at the pleading stage, but rather a coherent, concrete factual narrative that makes discrimination plausible to satisfy Rule 8.

Conley v. Gibson

The case representing the older notice-pleading approach whose 'no set of facts' formulation was rejected by Twombly and should not be used as the current Rule 12(b)(6) standard.

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

The case holding that an employment discrimination plaintiff is not required to plead every element of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie framework to satisfy Rule 8, though plausibility is still required under Twombly and Iqbal.

Mortimer v. Department of Buildings

A summary-judgment case where the evidentiary record did not permit a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent; distinguished from Rule 12(b)(6) motions due to different procedural postures and materials evaluated.

BLT Restaurant Group v. Tourondel

The case confirming that leave to amend is generally liberal and that futility of amendment is judged by whether the proposed amended complaint would survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Haley v. Amazon.com Services

A case cited for the principle that courts at the summary-judgment stage should not resolve ordinary credibility disputes by simply labeling testimony self-serving or unbelievable.

Scott v. Harris

The Supreme Court case holding that when objective video evidence blatantly contradicts a party's version of events, the court need not accept that contradicted account at summary judgment.

Markman v. Westview Instruments

The case holding that patent claim construction is a legal question for the judge, illustrating the broader distinction between legal questions decided by the court and factual questions left to the jury.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht

The case treating whether FDA action preempts a state-law drug-warning claim primarily as a legal question for the judge, serving as an example of judicial resolution of legal issues.

Shelton v. Ernst & Young

A case illustrating that a lawyer may face Rule 11 sanctions for continuing to pursue legally baseless claims, especially after warning or notice, evaluated in light of what counsel knew and did.

Lone Wolf Distributors v. Bravoware

A case used for Rule 11 analysis concerning unsupported factual contentions, focusing on what counsel knew and what corrective measures counsel took upon discovering that allegations lacked support.

Plausibility vs. Proof

The principle that plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require proving the claim or showing the plaintiff's account is more likely than every alternative; it requires only that factual allegations support a reasonable inference of liability.

Rule 9(b)

A special pleading rule requiring that allegations of fraud or mistake be stated with particularity, whereas intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.

United States v. Board of Harbor Commissioners

A Rule 12(e) case holding that a motion for a more definite statement is warranted when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the responding party cannot reasonably prepare a response, not as a replacement for discovery.

Mitchell v. Archibald & Kendall

A case emphasizing that a complaint must state a claim under the governing substantive law (focusing on legal duty and the injury's circumstances) rather than merely describing an injury.

Fassett v. Sears Holdings

A case showing that discovery of alternative product designs can be relevant and proportional, where the degree of similarity between alternatives and the subject product informs the analysis.

Wengui v. Clark Hill

A case establishing that a forensic report is not automatically shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine simply because attorneys were involved, requiring analysis of why and how it was created.

Forman v. Henkin

A case holding that private settings on social media accounts do not automatically insulate relevant information from discovery, which must instead be tailored to relevant material under procedural rules.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

The landmark case establishing that a summary-judgment movant who does not bear the burden of proof at trial can satisfy its initial burden by pointing out the absence of evidence for an essential element, shifting the burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial.

Pleading vs. Summary Judgment

A fundamental procedural distinction where pleading (Rule 12(b)(6)) assesses whether the complaint's allegations state a plausible claim assuming well-pleaded facts are true, whereas summary judgment evaluates whether the evidentiary record reveals a genuine dispute of material fact.