Civil Procedure Notes

Two-Prong Test for Jury Trial

• Purpose: Determines whether a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial.
• Prong 1: Determine if the cause of action is more similar to a common law cause of action or an equitable cause of action.
  • Legal Cause of Action: Seeks legal remedies (damages).
  • Equitable Cause of Action: Seeks equitable remedies (being made whole when legal damages are insufficient).
• Prong 2: Analyze if the cause of action is analogous to what existed in England in 1791.
• Mixed Cases (Statutory Claim): Apply both Curtis v. Loether test first and then the two-prong test.
• Order of Trials:
  • If both law and equity causes of action exist, the jury trial for the legal cause of action goes first.
• Example Case Analysis:
  • District Court Dismissal: Dismissed a 1981 claim.
  • Applied common law analysis, found a legal cause of action seeking legal damages.
  • Plaintiff Entitlement: Was the plaintiff entitled to a jury trial?
    • Yes, because it arises out of a recognizable claim at common law.
  • Equitable Action: Entitled under equity?
    • No.
  • End Result: Legal action (jury trial) dismissed; equity (no jury) finds for the defendant, concluding no racial discrimination.
  • Appeal: Court of Appeals brings back the 1981 claim, citing an error in dismissing it.
  • Trial Court Finding: Found no discrimination on the equitable claim.
  • Appellate Court Decision: The District Court erroneously dismissed the cause of action, which required a jury trial. The factual findings on common issues are moot because the plaintiff was deprived of the right to a jury trial on the legal claim.

Motions During Trial

• Motions to Dismiss: Failure to state a claim.
• Motions for Summary Judgment
• Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL):
  • Formerly: Called directed verdicts. The judge now takes the question as a whole.
  • Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict: Overrules the jury’s verdict.
• Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL):
  • Similar to a motion for summary judgment.
  • Ruled in favor of a party if the opposing party's evidence is insufficient.
  • Governed by:
    • Rule 50(a)
    • Rule 50(b)
• General Trial Sequence:
  1. Plaintiff opening arguments, followed by the defendant.
     • No evidence presented at this stage.
  2. Plaintiff presents her case-in-chief.
     • Produces evidence to support her claim.
  3. Defendant presents their case-in-chief.
     • Presents evidence to rebut the plaintiff's evidence.
  4. Closing arguments of both parties.
  5. Judge instructs the jury on the pertinent law.
  6. Jury retires to deliberate.
  7. Jury enters a verdict.
• Standard for JMOL: No reasonable jury could find a significant evidentiary basis to find for that party.
  • Made anytime before the case is submitted to the jury, but only after the evidence is supported.
• Specifics:
  • Specify the judgment sought.
  • Identify the laws and facts that entitle the moving party to the judgment.
• Rule 50 Importance:
  • Delineates the line between the role of the judge and jury, legal conclusions, and findings of fact.
  • Determines which claims need to be heard by the fact-finder and which claims are legally insufficient for dismissal.
  • Similar to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56.
• Standards: The standards for Rule 50 motions and Rule 56 are the same. Eligibility for judgment as a matter of law relies on the lack of legally sufficient material to support a party’s claim.
• Rule 50(B): Think of it as a renewed judgment of law.
  • Same standard as Rule 50(a) applies.
  • Supports the jury verdict of the non-moving party.
  • Renewed Motion:
    • Permitted only if a previous motion was made and denied by the court under Rule 50(a).
    • Timing is different: Made after the entry of the judgment, once the jury has rendered a verdict.
    • Must be made within 28 days after the motion of the judgment or it's disregarded if not decided within the 28 days
    • May include a request for a new trial as an alternative or in addition to other relief.
  • Rule 50(B) vs. Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56: Not used to determine which claims proceed to the jury; raised after the jury has rendered a verdict.
    • Grants a motion where it's so unreasonable that the judge will enter judgment for the other side, going one step beyond Rule 12, Rule 56, and Rule 50(a).
• Burden of Persuasion:
  • Civil: Preponderance of the evidence – more likely than not, the plaintiff's version of the facts is true.
  • Some causes of action require proof by clear and convincing evidence (a slightly higher standard).
  • The jury concludes it is more likely than not that the plaintiff's cause of action is correct.

Burden of Persuasion and Judge's Role

• Plaintiff's Burden: To prove exposure to a product (e.g., asbestos).
  • Requires showing it is more likely than not that exposure occurred from a defendant's product.
• Substantive and Procedural Law: Interplay is critical; need to know the elements for the cause of action.
  • Relates to Summary Judgment.
• Point Z: Represents the burden of persuasion point; anything to the right means the plaintiff has carried their burden with the jury.
• Judge's Task (JMOL Motion): To assess if the plaintiff's evidence has crossed line Z to sufficiently move the decision in favor of the defendant across the preponderance line.
  • The judge determines whether any legal (evidentiary) basis exists that a reasonable jury could determine the move.
  • The case should go to the jury if evidence falls within a reasonable zone of interest, permissible between evidence that is unreasonable for finding on behalf of a plaintiff or defendant.
• Plaintiff Offers No Evidence:
  • Would lie far to the left.
  • Highly unreasonable to find for the plaintiff; grant motion in favor of the defendant for the matter of law.
• Plaintiff Offers So Much Evidence (Crosses Y Line): Exceeds the required burden by a preponderance.
  • Could a reasonable jury still find for the defendant? Absolutely not.
  • Plaintiff can make a motion for JMOL.
• Timing of Motions:
  • Defendant can file a motion for judgment under Rule 50(a) after the plaintiff presents their case-in-chief, and again after the defendant presents their case-in-chief.
• Interests of JMOL:
  • Why questions are taken away from the jury.
• Application of Rule 50(a):
  • Some level of exposure, but not particularly compelling (point Q).
  • The case is weak relative to the defendant’s case, to the right of the X line.
    • Motion for judgment of law – whether to send the case to the jury depends on whether it falls within the zone of reasonableness.
    • Challenge is present when the non-moving party presents enough reasonableness to get within a zone, between lines X and Y.
    • Fact-dependent; answers not always clear.
• Reasonable Jury Standard: Would not have a legally sufficient evidentially basis.

Lane v. Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc.

• Case: Lane v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 184 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 1999).
• Rule of Law: FRCP Rule 50 permits a judge to grant a JMOL when a party, after being fully heard on an issue, has not offered sufficient evidence to sustain a jury verdict in her favor.
• Facts:
  • Donald Lane visited a Hardee's Restaurant on Nov 2, 1995, slipped on a wet floor in the restroom between 10:26-10:45 a.m. and was injured. Sued for negligence.
  • Hardee's managers testified that bathroom cleanliness was important, with a policy to clean restrooms each day at 10:30 a.m. Thompson stated post cleaning a wet-floor sign would be placed to warn customers of the danger; Lane claimed no sign was present
  • Lane's theory was that an employee negligently mopped the floor and failed to give adequate warning.
  • After Lane presented his case, Hardee’s moved for a JMOL, granted due to Lane’s failure to provide evidence that a Hardee’s employee, rather than a customer, left the water on the floor.
  • Lane appealed.
• Issue: Under the FRCP, may a judge grant a JMOL against a nonmoving party if the nonmoving party has presented evidence to support a ruling in its favor?
• Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.): No. JMOL is appropriate when, at the close of a party's case, the party has presented "no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue." FRCP 50(a)(1).
  • A "mere scintilla of evidence" is insufficient; once the evidentiary threshold is met, JMOL is not appropriate.
  • Appellate courts review grants of JMOL de novo.
  • The issue is whether the nonmoving party offered enough evidence, viewed favorably with all permissible inferences, to overcome the motion. A judgment must be overturned where evidence could support a ruling for the nonmoving party.
  • Illinois law controls the negligence claims. Businesses in Illinois owe a "duty of exercising reasonable care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition."
  • In slip and fall cases, the injured customer can recover from the owner/employees responsible for leaving a "foreign substance" on the floor. Otherwise, the owner is not liable unless they should have discovered the condition.
  • Plaintiff must demonstrate that the substance was "related to the defendant's business" and offer "some evidence" that tends to show the defendant created the danger.
  • Although Lane's case is not strong, he met the minimum evidentiary requirements for the issue to be sent to the jury. Water relates to Hardee's business.
  • Drawing inferences in Lane's favor, a jury could find a Hardee's employee mopped the floor, failed to put up a warning sign, and created a dangerous condition; thus JMOL is inappropriate.
• Ruling: The district court's ruling is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Additional Case Notes (Chamberlain)

• Factual Dispute: Whether the plaintiff died from a collision of the railroads or fell.
  • If collision: Plaintiff entitled to relief.
  • If fell for other reasons related to railroad operations: Plaintiff does not recover.
• Plaintiff's Case:
  • Rested on testimony of a witness who did not see collision but inferred it from a loud noise and cuts hit.
  • Relied on facts that train behind was going faster and witness saw the brakeman. Witness did not directly see the fall or the collision.
  • Allowed to draw inferences (circumstantial evidence).
• Defendant's Motion: Defendant may file a motion of law because the opposing party heard the issue.
• Court's Placement:
  • Where on the chart does a court put the plaintiff's evidence at the close of the case-in-chief?
  • Standard: No reasonable jury would have a sufficiently legal basis to find in favor of the opposing party.
  • Can the party find in favor of the plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence?
  • Does the weight of evidence fall within the zone of reasonableness?
  • Evidence not super strong for Plaintiff and around Q on the graph.
  • If the evidence could only find for the Defendant, probably somewhere on the graph around Q.
• Ruling:
  • Unless the Plaintiff has enough to survive, the court will deny the motion for judgment as a matter of law.
  • Other eyewitnesses saw where the collision happened and where the decedent was thrown from the car but did not see the collision.
• Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law: Consider all of the plaintiff’s evidence because the plaintiff is non-moving party
• Defendant’s Evidence: Direct eyewitness testimonial evidence.
• Inferences: all inferences draw and in favor of the no moving party.
• Defendant’s All “Uncontroverted and unimpeached evidence”: This means the facts are not disprove by the other case or lack evidence did not put on counter evidence to impeach the evidence that the defendant has put forth
• Testimony: Not direct evidence to the account, circumstantial evidence does not contract the direct evidence that the plaintiff has set forth
• District Court: grants the motion
• Court of Appeals: reverses the motion (Bangbridge testimony is week) even though it is suspicious, question is a matter of fact of the credibility of the witnesses, case even after defendants evidence falls within the zone of reasonableness of $X and $y$
• Case Appealed to SCOTUS: Resonable jury find infacro of the Plaitff as the facts presented in the record
• Ruling by SCOTUS: No resonable jury could find for the plaintff on these facts
• Evidence: Did the Plaitff have any evidence to support there claim- Yes, sircumstantial evidence, but it is admissible. So if give some quantum of evidence in favor of her claim, why is judgment of law still appropriate?
• Analysis by SCOTUS:
  (I) Reasonabe jury infer an inference for either party, but the Plaitff failed
  (II) Eyewitness contradict inference of th eplaitffs witness, and thus this is not enough to carry over- what would carry of someone actually saw the conclusion.
  (III) Yes, it would be enough to bring to the jury . Now you have direct evidence by the Defedant and direct evidence by the plaintiff- very important fact. There was a collision, that was enough, that kind of confclict, it’s the jury determination to way the evidence and give the primary weight..
  (iV) The defendants fail to cross over that left hand line. Before put on case in chief, the evidence for the Plaitff was weak but still fall to the left of $X$, defedants evidence pushes this claim passed the X and no longer in the zone of resonablness, this line can shift not matter where in the procedural posture of the case.
• Bringing rule 50: at 3 times summary judgement.

Summary Judgment (Rule 56)

• Key Point: Conceptually, judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment are identical; the standard and analysis are the same, but procedural facts determine where we will go down. Ask whether or not the outcome is the same.

Comparing Lane v. Hardee's and Chamberlain

• Different Outcomes:
  • Lane v. Hardee’s Food System, Inc.: Factual circumstance, (1) Lane slipped and fell. Substantive Law here- determines what needs to be shown with both parties (2) Illinois law that a restraint is liable to a patrean if the water in the bathroom which slipped and fall was left or put there by employee of Hardee’s. OR employees of shrines knew and did not clean up, or that the water was left long enough there that the employees should have know about the water managers have a policy that the clean the restroom after break fest, they put out a warning sign that the bathroom floors are web Lane Arises there between 10: 26-10:45, goes to the bathroom, and slips and falls, no warning signs Relies that he must have slipped because they clean the bathroom after breakfast, the employee is reposnsiuble for the water on the floor that caused his slip. QUESTION of Appelant has to answer on appeal:
    Whether Lane provided enough evidence in favorable to the most favorable light for a resonable jury to conclude that a Hardies employee was resonpable for the water left on the bathroom floor
    Even though not a strong case, minimum sufficient for the jury to find in the plaintiffs favor, requirment because the bathroom had to be clean with mopping and stone
    Resonable jury draw an inference form the daily practices that an employee cleared the floor and that it failed to put out a warning sign Might not be the most plausible inference but not the court. The appeals court is placing evidence at a “middle” zone of resonablness Week evidence and still find infavor of the plaintiff in this case.
  • Resonable jury render a verdict- this case it could.
  • Chamberlain: judgment as a matter of law appropriate.
• Procedural Posture in the Cases:
  • Lane: Defendant has not put on any evidence (Premature to put 50a here) the Plaitff has met
    The standard. The defendant has not gone yet, so very lease the judgment as a matter of law is premature
  • Arguments: “On the Matter of Law” Circumsatinal evidnce and goes against being here with not evidence to cotradict. Arguments make against: restsaints policy to mop, they could have add someone else mop the bathroom. Resonable inference to draw, Evidence so close to the $X$ line enough evidence to push over the edge.
  • CCTV cameras, give addition evidence to if there mopped.

Class Notes: Rule 50 (a) and (b)

• Rules are fairly straightforward.
• Does not have to be a written motion, can be made orally.
• Do not have to move by a written motion with the court, can not make a generalized motion,
• Moving party has to specify the law and the evidentiary supported facts showing how the party is seeking judgment as a matter of law.
• Multiple motions can be made after the plaintiff’.
• Party is completely hearted on the issue of liability, oposing party does not have to wait for the presentation of damages.
• Can move for July after all the evidence of liability and prior to damages (aka when there are two issues taking place can file in between them).
• Facts that suggest an issue has been fully issued. Can file JML after all the evidence has been presented on that issue.
• Renewing the Motion After Trial- CAN NOT RENEW a MOTION NEVER MADE in THE FIRST PLACE to renew has to be on the same issue that rule 50(a) was on
• If denfendant file such a motion, have to deny it.
• Judge Denys defendants rule 50a motion for matter of law, on the whole case, and the court denied, can appeal a 50(a) decision, unless also filing a rule 50(b) renewal case, the Defednat waives the right to appeal the denial under rule 50(a), rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law, renewed und rRUle 50(b) to maintain the right of the denial for motion as a matter of law
• Can bring before evidence unless you can still file a “Summery Judgment rule” and can not bring a rule 50(a) claim after Jury Submission/verdict
• Plaintiff, only Defednant can file after the plaintiff’s case in Chief- Opposing party has not been heard at all.
• Rule 50 A has to be made technically before the jury submission, the first motion has to come wither after the oposing party heated the issue and before jury rendered the verdict, this is not the case her, it is too late.
• Case- Four: Defendant Files a motion of mater of law after Plaitff case in Chief- for insufficient basis, this is denied.
• For case (i) (b) after chief, jury verdict, Peter files and the motion would be permitted.
• Donna wants to file a rule 50 b motion for matter of law, the previous rule 50 a has been filed.
  No- Not Allowed
• Renewed and alterative or joint request for a new trail “ under rule 59” ALLOWED

Hypothetical Scenario: Sophie Sponso and Asbestos Exposure

• Sophie’s husband dies from asbestos exposure, moves for judgment as a matter of law. Sophie’s evidence consists of evidence of 100 boxes moved with conditions of asbestos in the product.
  • First scenario what should happen to Defedant matter of law, case in chief?
  • Disagreement of where the evidence falls, was it so week resonable jury could not find for the plantiff Servive a motion of matter of law, fall within the resonablness zone, plaintiff to prevailprobve by proponderence of the evidence fall to the right of Z.
    Based on Chamberlin, qunatam of evidence so far to the left that a resonable jury could not find in favor of the plaintiff. How are the bare bone facts similar to chamberline, that a motion of judgment of a matter of law so important.
• Closer to Chamberlin and the court should grant the Defedant of a matter of law based on the quantum of evidence that both parties have presented.
• Not referring to the Hardies case because Hardies week evidnce but enough to reach the line over the Defedant. Plaintiff does not have enough evidence to push it over the line, procedural posture is different, This procedural posture Is more like the chamberline case, Sophie has supported her evidences, favorable of the plaintiff In this case, Defedant comes in and says they have ther own evidences, and there evidences has a witness and knows what products were loaded and those products did not contain asbestos.
• Draw arguments from Chamberline Both sides Defedant knew evidences that they contradicted, inferences you are asking the jury to draw and reach, and to some extent the type of evidences that has been introduced, plainitff should be allowed to present case, distinguish chamberline Type of evidences is sufficiently different may.
• AREA THAT IS GRAY- ARGUMENTS THAT CAN ALMOST ALWAYS BE MADE FOR EITHER SIDE Because this is still in the pre verdict phase, less likely to grant this, want the jury to do its job. Less risk of overruling on appeal, they like the jury to hear the case and move forward that way
• Question 2: Weeker for Defedant, keeps stronger for the plaintiff. Little closer to Z

Motions for a New Trial: Rule 59 (a)(b)

• Rule 59 (a)(b) (B) timing of the motion for a new trial (A) information about the grounds for a new trial
• Grand on all or some of the issues, and to any party that follows:
• Lots of reasons for a new trial, procedural errors, errors in the trial themselves, aroiunious business structure or rulings, to establish a right to a new trial based on a procedural error, moving party needs to make three showings.
  • Was in fact an error made
    (i) kinda hard if no error to object:
• Moving party objected to the erroneous ruling at the time.
• Error so prejudicial to the moving party that a refusal to grant a new trial would effect the new parties substantial rights.
• Procedural errors, common grounds for a rule 59 motion- weight of the evidences errors.

Motions Based on New Evidence

• Secure a new trial, based on the party discovering new evidnces the moving party has to show that the new evidences could not be timely discovered before trial, and the new evidnces would materially effect the outcome of the trial.
  Weight of the evidnces tends to be the trickiest.

Trivenndi v. Cooper case

• Plaintiff’s claims general canduct not normal in Employer conduct, decisions made justification for failure to permate and not racially modifated, and infer conduct to promote
• Retailation of Nominal Damages+Back pay given (Back Pay Technically Equitable relief):
• Def did renew on retaliated on rule 59 (Not So (a) not pursued): Legally Sufficient zone
• Enough zone of reasonableness (Rule 59 New trial arg

Rule of Law

• Defendant get 2 chair
• The reasonable jury reach the same outcome (Zone of Reasonableness)
• Contraity to the verdict should get a new trial.

Standard of New Rule

• Assess based on wiegth of the evidnce way assess dont do fight most for. To moving party.
• Against grate weight of evidence
• Serious aronious result
• Evidence Support the Def/ but the Jury Seriously Eronous Still Danys Motion of New Trial
• Tandem defer to jury do undermind new trial do over for bath of partys.
  New trial do over for bath parties if allowed

Interlocutory Appeals: Recctical Foam Corp. and the Final Judgment Rule

Key Case Study: *

• Case: In re Recticel Foam Corp., which addressed whether an interim order regarding cost-sharing in complex multi-district litigation could be immediately appealed.
• Fact Pattern: The case arose from the Dupont Plaza Hotel fire in Puerto Rico, leading to numerous lawsuits with 2,000 plaintiffs and 200 defendants. The district court issued a case-management order (CMO) imposing a mandatory cost-sharing mechanism for discovery costs, specifically for video images of the wreckage. Recticel Foam Corp. (RFC) objected to this CMO and sought an immediate appeal.
• Issue: The central issue was whether the cost-sharing order was a final decision subject to appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, or if it fell under any exceptions to the final judgment rule.
• 1291 is the statue that would apply for giving the appellee court journalist that for appels disissions.
• Court and why they apply what they are deciding (final or Non final)
• Analogies on the cases (Normal discivory orders or not (Non
• CMO not final can be changed because going in order to change and modifies
  Facts will be revisited/ not final in the situation
  (I.E not enough flow for the situation)
• Court the discovery is normal and intercitory
• Question in how that issue waisited into time (Intermingled)
• Court Discovery in the usual not final and what happens if yoc cant go
• Reverted Consequence in Law the same
• A lot off congesrtion etc. etc. (Bad if its wrong is that case)
  Can be appealed time it takes the trial

Reasoning

The Final Judgment Rule

• The court begins by stating the basic principle: federal appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final decisions of district courts. The purpose of this rule is to prevent piecemeal appeals, which can lead to congestion, duplication, delay, and increased expenses.
  *1. *What is a Final Decision? Finality is that ends the merit or not. Final with that is what the atty fees get decided but not right now in there 1 case. Intercitors order with interim*.

• A final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.

Case Management Orders

• The court compared the cost-sharing order with typical discovery orders, noting that neither is generally considered a final judgment because:
  Intermitte Order) the order can be subject to change.*.
  *The Parties rights what has been settled
  Right in the current (Subject to modification)
  Order/ ongoing right/ or subject to change.*.
  *