LAW 3000 Midterm #1

Key Elements of a Case

• Facts

  • Every case is based on facts; lawyers must decide which facts are relevant to the dispute

  • Law students are often tasked with stating the facts of the case

    • State the facts that matter in view of the law(s) being applied

      • Be conscious of what you are looking for

      • Think about the facts that can and cannot be seen

  • When stating the facts, write a few sentences describing them

• Issue

  • This is the legal question the court must answer in a particular case

    • Try to be as specific (start general, then specify) as possible, incorporating as many facts as one deems relevant

      • This will help one determine which fact patterns in the future may be covered by this situation

      • Make sure to write the issue as a qustion

• Rule

  • Provides the formula for deciding future cases

  • Does NOT include specific facts of a specific case, but refers to principles that can be applied to different fact patterns

  • Comes from constitutions, statutes, or regulations if those legal texts apply to a specific situation

  • Otherwise, rules can come from past cases when dealing with common law subjects (where courts make principles)

    • This is the principle of stare decisis

*Once these have been determined, analyze (apply the rule to the key facts and analogize or distinguish)

*Before making an analysis ask if more information is needed (What additional facts might be relevant? What more do we want to know about the rule?)

Analogizing/Distinguishing

• Analogizing: Involves arguing that a rule from a prior case should apply to new facts because of relevant similarities between the two cases

• Distinguishing: Involves arguing that a rule from a prior case should not apply to new facts because of relevant differences between the two cases

Baxter v. Fugett

Citation: Baxter (P; appealing) v. Fugett (D), OK Supreme Court, 1967

Procedural History:

• P sues D for negligence for failing to keep a proper lookout and yield the right of way

  • Seeking damages

• Verdict for D in lower court

• P appeals to the OK Supreme Court, accusing the judge of giving the jury incorrect instructions and seeking a new trial

  • Judge instructed the jury to judge D’s conduct based on the standard of care ordinarily exercised by children of their age, not adults

Facts:

• P (12) was biking when D (16) struck him with his car after stopping at a stop sign (P collided with the car and was injured)

• P claims D negligently failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to yield the right of way to a cyclist

• D claims P’s negligence caused the accident

Issue:

• Should a 16-year-old driver be judged by the standard of ordinary care applicable to a 16-year-old minor rather than that applicable to an adult?

Holding:

• A 16-year-old driver should be judged by the standard of ordinary care applicable to an adult

• Judgment for defendant reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial

  • At this new trial, the jury will be instructed to judge D’s actions based on the standard of ordinary care applicable to an adult

  • P’s actions should be judged by standards relating to children

Rule:

• Courts should judge children by same standard applicable to adults when children are engaged in adult activity

Reasoning:

• General rule of judging children by the standard of care of others their age is not applicable when they are exposing others to harm because of their behavior

• Driving cars is an adult activity

• Society must hold minors to an adult standard of care to protect the public

• The highway safety codes and other rules of the road do not distinguish between adults and minors, but prescribe one standard of care for all drivers

Common & Case Law

• Common Law: When courts face an issue for which there is no statute governing it

  • Courts make legal rights or defenses

• Case Law: The interpretation of pre-existing laws enacted by a Legislature or the Court (via common law)

  • Example: Baxter v. Fuggett

Federal Hierarchy of Laws/Courts

1) The U.S. Constitution

2) Federal statutes (must be followed regardless of a judge’s individual beliefs)

3) Federal regulations and executive orders

• Presidents issue executive orders

• Agencies make regulations that have the force of law when enforcing federal statutes

4) Common Law: court made law when there is no statute or regulation governing the issue

• Courts issue rights and defenses

5) Case Law

• Courts interpret statutes, regulations, executive orders, etc.

• “Shapes the law”

The Court System

1) Trial Courts: Where most cases originate and are originally tried

2) Court of Appeals: All losers can appeal an adverse decision to one of these courts, which examines the case

• Do not “retry” the case, but ensure that correct judicial proceedings were followed

3) SCOTUS: Highest court in the land, to which anyone can appeal; however, SCOTUS has discretion over which cases it hears

Binding and Persuasive Precedent

• State: The highest state court (likely its Supreme Court) is binding on all other courts in that state (must adhere to it)

  • State appellate courts are binding on state trial courts

• Federal: SCOTUS is binding on all other federal courts

  • Intermediate appellate courts are binding on all federal trial courts that fall in their district

• Persuasive Precedent: Cases from courts at the same level in the hierarchy may be persuasive (judges may choose to rely on them), but are not binding

  • Based on fact patterns, judges may be influenced by the ruling of a court of equal standing in their decision

    • Especially if that type of case is new to the area

The Civil Lawsuit

• Plaintiff(s): Party that is suing in the pursuit of some form of relief

• Defendant(s): Party or organization that is being sued

• Legal Claim

  • Torts: Injury claim

  • Contract: Breach/violation of a legally binding agreement

• Demand for Relief:

  • Money (95% of the time), albeit an imperfect remedy

  • Injunction: court-issued order either for the plaintiff to refrain from performing certain acts or to start performing certain acts

    • Can be issued on top of or in replacement of monetary relief

*All civil actions are governed by the same set of rules

Civil Procedure

• The rules that the parties and courts follow in civil cases

  • Focus in this class on the FRCP

  • Walks parties through how to sue a party; defendants: what to do when being sued

  • Use the rules and the cases that interpret them to analyze legal problems

    • Parties/lawyers must make effective use of civil procedure

• The rules dictate who can seek justice via litigation; what resources are needed to succeed; how hard/easy it is to prevail

  • They are gatekeepers determining who files a suit and gets access

• The system is meant to be a fair, efficient, and competitive process in settling disputes

  • Fair: Offers everyone the opportunity to be heard

    • This includes ensuring the truth is told

    • That justice, or at least a sense of it, is served

    • Finally, this means giving equal access to the courts

  • Efficiency:

    • Process cases promptly and discard cases without merit to make best use of judge/juror time

  • Consistency: All are entitled to know what the process and outcome look like

  • Credibility: Need people to trust the system so that they use it and respect its decisions (do not waste time on frivolous cases)

  • Competitive: Want the merits, not technicalities, to decide cases, but it is adversarial (judge is passive, parties take the lead)

Substantive v Procedural Law

• Procedural Law: Stays the same on a case-by-case basis

  • Example: the number of document requests a party can make

• Substantive Law: Changes based on the context of the case

  • Example: Was the firing of an older employee discriminatory?

Civil Lawsuit Chronology

• Complaint

  • Document that a plaintiff serves the defendant to start the lawsuit

  • Written statement of the claim against the defendant(s)

    • Contains names of the parties being sued; factual allegations; legal theories; relief sought

• Motion to Dismiss: Rule 12(b)

  • Test of the allegations

• Answer

  • The defendant must respond to the complaint; they lose if they default

  • Can answer by admitting or denying the allegations

  • Can file a motion to dismiss if the complaint is defective

  • Can file a counterclaim or bring other defendants into the suit

• Discovery

  • Period pre-trial when parties gather information from one another

  • Tools include depositions, document requests, interrogatories

• Summary Judgment Motion (Rule 56)

  • Test of the evidence before trial

• Presentation of the evidence at trial

• Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Rule 50)

• Test of the evidence at trial

Forum Selection

• Parties must choose which court to file their lawsuit in, depending on the court's jurisdiction

  • The court must have both subject matter and personal jurisdiction

• Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The court has the authority to decide the type of case/claim

  • It has jurisdiction over the subject matter

• Personal Jurisdiction: The court must have jurisdiction over the defendants

Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Courts must have jurisdiction over at least one claim in the lawsuit

Paths to SMJ

• The case raises a federal question (violation of a federal law)

  • Involves a federal constitutional question or involves a federal statute enacted by Congress (i.e., Title IX)

• Important case involving parties from different states

  • “Diversity jurisdiction”

  • Plaintiff and defendant reside in different states, and more than $75,000 is at stake

  • Supposed to reduce “home court advantage” by providing a more neutral site

Federal Personal Jurisdiction

• Personal jurisdiction looks at the connections between the defendant and the state they reside in

Paths to PJ

• The federal district court has personal jurisdiction only over defendants who have minimum contacts with the state in which the court is located

  • Cannot sue someone in a federal district court located within a state that person has never been in

  • If there is a lack of jurisdiction, a motion to dismiss will be filed

Jury Selection

• Under the 7th Amendment, the right to a jury trial exists in all cases where plaintiffs seek money damages

  • The judge can only take the case away from a jury by granting a motion for SJ or Judgment as a Matter of Law

• Jury Selection

  • Can challenge for cause: alleging the juror should be dismissed because they will be biased (have to convince the judge)

  • Can use a select number of peremptory challenges, in which a juror can be dismissed for any reason except race/gender

• FRCP 48

  • Says that in the civil system, a jury must consist of 6-12 jurors

  • The verdict must be unanimous (if, after constant deliberation, it is not, it will result in a hung jury)

Preponderance of the Evidence

• A plaintiff wins if they convince the jury that it is more than 50% likely they are right/correct (and therefore should win)

  • 50% or under results for a ruling in favor of the defendant

Hung Jury

• A hung jury is a jury that is unable to reach a unanimous verdict

• This means that at least one juror is committed to their belief that the plaintiff should win, while another the belief that the defendant should win

• If the jury is hung, the judge will declare a mistrial and order a new trial

  • Under FRCP Rule 48, the jury must return a unanimous verdict

Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)

• Focuses solely on the content of the complaint

• Assumes all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint to be true

  • Vague and conclusory allegations are not well-pleaded

• Then, decide if those well-pleaded allegations (assumed to be true) give rise to a plausible inference that the plaintiff can prove their claim

  • Basically, can wrongdoing by the defendant be proven

• If no viable claim is established, the case will be dismissed

• Plaintiffs must state a claim upon which relief can be granted

• A Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) alleges the plaintiff did not meet their obligation under FRCP Rule 8(a) to state a claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

  • AKA failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

    • Can also be granted if there is a lack of SMJ or PJ

• Plaintiffs may be allowed to amend (correct) their complaint and re-file, but this is solely the discretion of the judge

Grounds for winning a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

• The claim is not valid

  • The law does not provide redress for your claim (includes exceeding the statute of limitations)

• The allegations are too vague and conclusory

  • Allegations are not concrete enough to make it plausible for the plaintiff to have a legally actionable claim

    • Need to show the facts behind the conclusion to make it plausible that one has a legally actionable claim

Conclusory Allegations

• Conclusory allegations jump to legal conclusions without facts explaining why/how

  • How did X defraud the plaintiff? How did X breach the contract?

  • Dismissed by the Court under Rule 12(b)(6)

• Factual conclusory allegations say something true but do not have facts showing how

  • Also dismissed by the Court under Rule 12(b)(6)

• The key concept is fair notice

  • Need to plead the facts that give rise to the claim; cannot just jump to conclusions

    • Otherwise, the claim may be too vague for plaintiffs to meaningfully defend against

    • Or, the claim may be too ambiguous for courts to assess its validity

  • Too easy to fabricate

    • Facts reassure everyone about the validity of the claim

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Citation: Ashcroft (appellant) v. Iqbal (appellee), SCOTUS, 2009

PH:

• Iqbal is suing A/M for adopting an unconstitutional policy that subjected him to harsh treatment in detention on account of his race/religion/national origin (discriminatory)

  • Deprived of various constitutional protections in federal custody

    • A: “principal architect” of the policy

    • M: “instrumental” to adoption of policy

• A/M “knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject P to harsh conditions on account of race, national origin and religion”

• A/M had motions to dismiss denied in both lower courts, appealing to SCOTUS

Facts:

• Iqbal is a Pakistani citizen and muslim, arrested post 9/11 on criminal charges

  • Labeled a person of “high interest” and placed in a maximum-security prison

• Filed complaints against numerous federal officials, among whom are A/M

• Not contesting his arrest, pled guilty, but claims he was denied constitutional protections in custody

Issue:

• Did Iqbal plead factual matter that, if true, states a claim that petitioners deprived him of his clearly established constitutional right?

  • Did he plead factual matter? (Were his allegations well pleaded?)

  • Did he state a claim that shows he is entitled to relief?

    • Do his well-pleaded allegations (assumed to be true) give rise to a plausible inference that he can prove his claim?

Rule:

• Allegations in a complaint do not have to be accepted as true if they are legal conclusions

• Only complaints that state plausible claims for relief survive motions to dismiss (Rule 8a/12b6)

• Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations

  • Rule 12b6; allegations are not well-pleaded

*Complaints should be dismissed that do not contain short and plain statements that show an entitlement to relief

Holding:

• Some of P’s allegations are not well-pleaded and thus can be dismissed

  • Namely that A was the “principal architect” and that M was “instrumental”

• His well-pleaded allegations do not give rise to a plausible inference that he can prove his claim

  • Too many convincing alternate explanations

Reasoning:

• Allegations are too general and vague to show defendant's involvement in clearly established unconstitutional conduct

  • The key element is that defendants acted with discriminatory purpose

  • Not plausible that detention policies were motivated by a desire to discriminate as opposed to legitimate investigative purposes (muslims will be disproportionately affected due to the nature of the crime)

    • Asks for more than a mere possibility

    • Need more evidence for the court to draw a reasonable inference

  • The only true factual allegations do not create a plausible inference of wrongful conduct

• Other allegations are not well-pleaded, but are conclusory, and thus are dismissed under Rule 12 (b)

Possible v. Plausible

• Considering only well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must decide if those allegations give rise to a plausible inference that the plaintiff can prove their claim

  • Possible (not enough): From 0% to plausible

  • Plausible (enough): More than possible, but could be less than 50%

Motion for Summary Judgment

• Most commonly granted motion, since courts feel better dismissing cases after a review of the evidence

• Examines the evidence that favors each side on a material issue

• Under FRCP 56(a) parties may move for SJ

• Summary Judgment should be granted if the movant shows

  • There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

  • The movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

    • Based on the evidence, no reasonable jury could rule in favor of the plaintiff

Major Types of Evidence

• Major Types of Evidence

  • Witness testimony

  • Documents (texts, posts, screenshots, etc.)

  • Recordings (photos, videos)

  • Objects (guns, drugs, tools, cars)

  • Lab results (fingerprints, DNA, blood)

• These are all collected during the discovery process

  • Both sides intend to use this evidence at trial

• The defendant is testing the evidence before it is presented to a jury

  • Identifying claims that do not have a strong enough case to go before a jury

Genuine Dispute and Material Fact

• Genuine Dispute

  • All lawsuits consist of disputes

• A genuine dispute is when a reasonable jury can rule in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant (reach more than one conclusion)

  • The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that a jury could rule either way

• Material Facts: resolves any dispute properly raised by the parties that could affect the outcome

  • Essentially, facts that are important to the outcome

  • Example: Did D hit P with a chair?

• Take fact patterns and decide if SJ can be granted based on whether there is genuine dispute over the material facts

  • Make charts to sort the evidence and decide if there is a genuine dispute

Scott v Harris

Citation: Scott (petitioner) v. Harris, 2007, SCOTUS

PH:

• Scott has filed for SJ motions twice; the lower courts dismissed both

• Harris is suing Scott, among others, for violating his 4th Amendment rights due to excessive force used in a seizure during a high-speed chase

  • The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures

Facts:

• Harris was doing 73mph in a 55mph zone

  • Did not stop when signaled to do so

• Led officers on a 10-mile chase reaching speeds of 85mph

  • Scott ended the chase by causing a crash in which Harris was rendered a quadriplegic

• Scott’s motions for SJ denied due to genuine dispute over matters of fact

  • Using Harris’s version of the facts, Scott’s actions could constitute deadly force, and such force in this context would be excessive, constituting a violation of Harris’s 4th Amendment rights

    • Jury should be given the right to determine if Scott’s actions were reasonable or not

Issue:

• Should Scott’s motion for SJ be granted?

  • Is there genuine dispute over material fact?

    • Genuine dispute regarding reasonableness of the seizure

      • Qualified Immunity: Do the facts show that Scott’s conduct violated the 4th Amendment in light of the specific context of the case?

        • Was the seizure reasonable?

Rule:

• In situations where a videotape clearly contradicts the plaintiff’s version of the facts so that no reasonable jury could believe them, courts should not adopt these facts when ruling on SJ

  • Courts should not adopt facts that no reasonable jury could believe

    • Do not adopt conflicting witness testimony when a video contradicts it

• A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the 4th Amendment, even when the fleeing motorist is put at risk of serious injury/death

Reasoning:

• There is no genuine dispute regarding Harris’s conduct

  • He clearly posed a danger to those around him by driving recklessly and going dangerously fast

  • No reasonable jury could find that Harris was driving in the pedestrian manner he claimed to be

• Based on the context, the Court believes that Scott’s conduct was reasonable

  • Reasonableness is determined by the nature/quality of the intrusion on one’s 4th Amendment rights against the importance of governmental interests used to justify the intrusion

    • Scott’s interest was in ensuring public safety, which Harris endangered

• Consider the potential harm of Scott’s actions (high likelihood of danger/death to Harris) versus the threat Scott was trying to eliminate (actual/eminent threat to others, all of whom were innocent)

  • Harris intentionally put himself in danger by engaging in a high-speed chase

    • Furthermore, if he harmed others, they would have been completely innocent

• Ceasing the pursuit was not guaranteed to eliminate the threat Harris posed to public safety

  • Could have continued to drive recklessly, thereby endangering others

Holding:

• Scott is entitled to SJ since no reasonable jury could conclude Harris did not threaten others with serious injury (no genuine dispute over material fact)

  • Thus, in light of the context, Scott’s actions were reasonable and did not constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment

Dissent:

• Thinks that a jury should have decided the case

  • After all, if SCOTUS and lower courts can disagree, does that not show there is a genuine dispute, or are those courts unreasonable?

    • Many cars had already pulled onto the shoulder (may not have been at that great a risk)

    • No pedestrians/bystanders except other motorists

• Harris could have been arrested at a later date; or Scott and others could have used a different method to neutralize him

*Courts are given tremendous power to determine what a reasonable jury would decide

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Rule 50)

• Used at trial by a defendant to prevent the jury from deliberating/ruling

• Evidence by both parties must be presented, and the suing party must have been fully heard

• Asks if a reasonable jury could rule in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented at trial

  • If not, a motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted

    • The defendant wins, and the case is taken away from the jury

• Evidence can evolve from pre-trial to the trial itself, oftentimes being strengthened or weakened

  • Judges granting SJ are predicting what will happen at trial

• Cases can evolve in ways that result in a Rule 50 motion being granted even when a motion under Rule 56 was denied

  • Courts may incorrectly assess what can be reduced to admissible evidence at trial

  • Evidence parties hoped to present might not end up getting presented

  • Party may have strategically decided to put on different evidence at trial than it presented at SJ (or developed new evidence)

  • Seeing evidence come in live (witnesses) may impact the judge’s assessment

Spoliation of Evidence

• Refers to the alteration or destruction of evidence

• Can also constitute the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation

  • Present in civil cases and carries serious consequences

  • Connected to electronic discovery, especially ESI, which is particularly important (texts, emails, etc.)

• Federal courts have the authority to impose sanctions on parties for spoliation of electronically stored evidence (ESI) under FRCP 37(e)

Duty to Preserve

• The obligation to ensure evidence remains available to the other side and is not altered or destroyed

  • Spoliation includes the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation

• Arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a party reasonably should know that the evidence might be relevant to future litigation

  • In other words, when litigation is reasonably anticipated

  • A party is not liable if litigation cannot be reasonably anticipated

• No clear moment when the duty to preserve arises; however, the earlier one begins preserving ESI, the safer they are

  • When Nicole suggests “legal action,” for example, that may be when litigation is reasonably anticipated

  • It may also be when Nicole’s lawyer sends a draft complaint

• Fact patterns are a determinant of when the duty to preserve arises

  • Perhaps Nicole and her lawyer had bluffed before; thus, the firm thought this was the case

  • Nicole may have indicated in discussions with HR that things were getting better leading the firm to believe litigation was not foreseeable

FRCP 37(e): Imposition of Sanctions

• Addresses sanctions for the failure to preserve ESI

• Courts may impose sanctions if

  • ESI that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps

  • Furthermore, this ESI cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery

  • Finally, this loss of information must prejudice another party

    • This allows the court to impose sanctions to cure the prejudice

Are Sanctions Warranted?

• Was ESI lost? (Yes)

• Should that information have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation? (Yes)

  • Was the duty to preserve present?

• Did the party fail to take reasonable steps to preserve the information? (Yes)

• Can the missing ESI be restored or replaced through additional discovery? (No)

• Was the party who requested the lost ESI prejudiced by the failure to preserve it? (Yes)

• Four yesses plus one no means sanctions are warranted