Civil Procedure Outline Trail Is the trial for a judge or for a jury? Judge v.

. Jury as Fact Finder Judge legal Jury Fact Singular Group Relatively expert Laypeople Relatively elite Represents the community value FRCP52(a)(1): Need to state facts Reexamination Clause specifically and state its conclusions of -No fact tried by a jury can be relaw separately. examined by any court of the US, then according to the rules of common law -Not responsible to explain their reasoning for conclusions Judge is a default fact finder Restricted access FRCP 38-demand for jury FRCP 39- court or parties can order a jury trail Right to Jury Trial Is the party entitled to have a jury? 7th Amendment: o Reexamination clause: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars o Right to jury clause: The right to jury is comprised of the text of the word preserved. the right to jury trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall otherwise be reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. 5 examples jury trial is permissible o Single traditional common law claim o Statutory claim and explicit statutory provision for jury trial 38(a) o Consent 39(c) o New cause of action that satisfies Terry analysis o Combination claims: situations where you have both legal and equitable claims. Amoco you cant side step a jury trial by the P amendment of their claim to only be equitable because the Ds claims are legal. Terry Test: Terry is a policy-orientated approach, but judges can get around it. o Step One: What is the most analogous claim that existed in 1791? Relate the claim to claims in 1791 is it legal or equitable? Legal? --> Common law Equitable? - Not common law Contract Specific performance Tort Reformation Nuisance Recission Damages Injunction

Value stolen property (trover) Possession of stolen property (replevin) Damages for wrongful possession of land (rent) Ejectment from D from property o Step Two: What remedy is sought? Is it legal or equitable? o Rule of thumb to decide between equity and common law, is it a claim that is asking for monetary relief damages [this is jury trial]? Or is it asking for an order from the court that the adverse party do something (an injuction/specific performance) this is not jury trial. There are exceptions to this rule of thumb o Legal Jury Trial asking for damages Equitable Judge asking for specific performance What responsibilities/ burden does the parties have to get a jury trail? Reid: Burden of production is what the P must show in order to show that they can possibility satisfy burden of persuasion (jury) P has to show greater a possibility of their claim to be true more than 50% to have a jury deliberate on its claim. So no 50/50 cases! o Failure of burden of production = failure to meet burden of persuasion Reid admits cow/fence
Subject to SJ P must prove more

than Railroad admits cow/hole

Subject to SJ

50%

How do get a jury trial you are entitled to? The right to a jury trial can be waived by the parties FRCP 38: a party must serve a written demand for a jury within 10 days, following service of the last pleading dealing with the issue for which a jury is demanded. Unless a party specifies what issues it wants the jury to hear, it will be deemed to have demanded that a jury trail on all issues triable by a jury FRCP 38(c). If a party limits the demand to certain issues, any other party may be demand a jury trial on all remaining issues triable by a jury by serving its own demand within 10 days after the initial service. FRCP 39: a court ca take away jury right, the court can force the jury to hear issues parties did not request, courts are not bound by the juries advice. JMOL Review of litigation burden Plaintiff Defendant Burden of Persuasion: Must present evidence Must present evidence operates at trial, affects sufficient allow fact-finder sufficient to prove elements earlier burdens; assessed by to conclude that facts of affirmative defense is

fact finder

Burden of Production: operates mainly at summary judgment, maybe at trial; assessed by judge

needed to prove each element of plaintiffs claim(s) are more likely than not true --If nonmovant: create genuine issue of material fact; must counter movants evidence directly --If Movant: show absence of material fact, entitlement to JMOL

proven, regardless of plaintiffs proof If movant: show absence of genuine issue on any material fact, entitlement of JMOL Adickes: must foreclose possibility that P can prove elements Celotex: need only point out nonmovntss inability to meet burden Must assert any affirmative defenses in answer or risk waiving them

Pleading Burden: operates mainly at 12(b)(6)- failure to state a claim upon which relief can be grantedassessed by judge

To state a claim, must present allegations supporting legal claim asserted Conley still applies: A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the P can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief- held standard for a century Iqbal: allegations may not be conclusory, must be plausible

How can a part still avoid a jury judgment? - Judgment as a matter of Law (JMOL) What is a JMOL? FRCP 50(a)(1)(B): A party seeking to have the judge take the case from the jury on the ground that the evidence is too weak to support a verdict When can a JMOL be made?

A motion for JMOL can be made only after the opposing party has been fully heard When evidence tends to equally sustain either of two inconsistent propositions, neither of them can be said to have been established by legitimate proof o Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain Proven facts give equal support to each two inferences JMOL against the party with the burden of persuasion (see above) Unbelievable evidence only JMOL against the party with burden of persuasion The D can move for JMOL after Ps case is fully heard and after Ds case is fully heard. P can move for JMOL after Ds case has been fully heard. Example below!

P presents Unopposed evidence

Evidence is equal to two Possibilities

P presents No evidence

JMOL for P FRCP 50 (a)

JMOL for D FRCP 50(a)

JMOL for D

Dont forget! Judge can still deny JMOL

P and/or D motion for new trial FRCP 59 P and or D: can make a renewed motion for JMOL FRCP 50(b) Verdict or findings Post Trial Motion for relief from judgment FRCP 60(b) Judgment

Time-line of when JMOLs can be made Trail Ps case Ds case P JMOL

D JMOL

In a bench trial: JMOL becomes motion for judgment on partial findings (FRCP 52(c)) How does a court analyze if a JMOL is proper?

1. Look at the claim and evidence methodically 2. Rule out clear cases 3. Shipman principles a. Consider all evidence but dont weigh it b. Draw inferences in non-movants favor c. JMOL is improper if there is a reasonable room for disagreement about ultimate issue(s) d. JMOL is proper if nonmovant has only a little New Trial How is a new trial different from a JMOL? JMOL is appealable and New Trail is not. Because you can only appeal a final judgment. New trial starts the whole process all over while a JMOL ends it judgment! Chart detailed below Loser JMOL Court says yes - loser Appealable now wins Court says no loser still a Appealable loser Court says yes Loser New Trial NOT appealable! Court says yes to both Loser - JMOL and New appealable (because of Trial the JMOL) Court says yes to JMOL but Appealable not to New Trail Court says yes to New Trial NOT appealable and no to JMOL When can a new trail be granted? For any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court FRCP 59(a)(1)(A) Also see diagram below o Flawed procedures: where the judge believes something happened that disqualified fair procedure Juror misbehavior Improper access to information o Flawed verdicts: where the judge believes that the result is clearly wrong Contradictions Against the weight of the evidence when it is quite clear that jury has reached a clearly erroneous result-Lind v. Schenley Industries A judge cannot simply disagree with the jury, but he may order a new trial in cases in which the evidence is strong enough to rationally support the jurys verdict, but he believes that verdict is seriously erroneous. What is the difference New Trial vs. 60(b) Standards FRCP 60(b) may be alternative to new trial motion when new evidence is discovered outside time to move for new trial (28 days after entry of judgment), up to one year after entry of judgment

FRCP 60(b) not restricted to substitute for belated motion for new trial Evidence is Evenly Balanced Judge does not agree with jury, but cannot say verdict for P is against clear weight of the evidence
Judge will order entry of judgment on the juries verdict

Weaker evidence for P Judges assessment of the evidence Evidence too weak to support a rational verdict for P

Stronger evidence for P A verdict for D is supportable but against the weight of evidence Judge concludes that evidence is so compelling that no reasonable jury could find for the D Judge enters direct verdict for P

A verdict for P is supportable, but against the weight of the evidence

Judge and Jury concur that preponderance of the evidence favors P

Judges disposition of the case of the evidence Judges assessment of the evidence

Judge may enter JMOL

Judge may order new trial

Judge will order entry of judgment on the verdict for P Judge and jury concur that perponderance if the evidence favors P

Judge may order new trial

Evidence is too weak to support a rational verdict for P

A verdict for P is supportable but against the weight of evidence

Judge does not agree with jury, but cannot say verdict for P is against the weight of the evidence

A verdict for D is supportable but against clear weight of evidence

Judges disposition of the case

Judge may enter JMOL

Judge may order new trial

Judge will order entry of judgment on the juries verdict

Judge will order entry of judgment on the verdict for P

Judge may order a new trial

Judge concludes that evidence is so compelling that no reasonable jury could find for the D Judge enters directed verdict for P

Personal Jurisdiction

Weaker evidence for P

A verdict for P is supportable, but against clear weight of the evidence Judge does not agree with jury, but cannot say verdict for plaintiff is against clear weight of the evidence Judge will order entry of judgment on the jurys verdict

Stronger evidence for P

Judge concludes that evidence is so compelling that no reasonable jury could find for defendant

Judges assessment of the evidence Judges disposition of the case

Evidence too weak to support a rational verdict for P

Judge and jury concur that preponderance of the evidence favors P

A verdict for D is supportable but against clear weight of evidence

Judge may enter JMOL

Judge may order new trial

Judge will order entry of judgment on the verdict for P

Judge may order new trial

Judge enters directed verdict for P