Pleadings (complaint, answer, plausibility, relation-back) for MBE (Professor Nathenson, May 2015)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- This is the fifth in a series of videos recorded July 2015 as part of a review of Civil Procedure topics in preparation for the July 2015 MBE (Multistate Bar Examination).
This sixth video covers selected issues regarding pleadings. Topics covered include:
Complaint
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Conley (fair notice) and Twombly/Iqbal (plausibility)
Answer (admit/deny/deemed denials, counter/crossclaims, defenses)
Heightened pleadings, FRCP 9(b)
Amendments (as a matter of course, by consent, by leave of court)
Relation back
I have many, many additional resources on these subjects, some of which are noted by annotations:
Caveat to those taking the bar exam: This video and the other videos in this series are directed towards preparation for the MBE multiple-choice exam. Time constraints prevent me from discussing all potential Civil Procedure MBE topics or issues listed in the MBE outline that might arise on the bar exam, and these same constraints limit the depth of information I can provide. Contrary to what the Rolling Stones claim, time is not on our side.
Caveat to JD students: These videos focus on selected basics with an eye towards the bar exam. They stick to the basics and do not cover the law with the level of depth that I would expect from a JD student taking a professor-written examination.
just a pro se plaintiff in a consumer protection case. watched a dozen of your videos so far. big help. thanks
Thank you for this video! As a pro se Plaintiff I needed this video!!!
Thank you so much for this video, professor!
Really appreciate your videos! They are very helpful in reviewing while going over my outline
This video was incredible helpful, thank you!!
I wish my law school had conducted any review of this nature for the MBE. Thanks for this, and for raising the bar ;)
Thank you! Best of luck!
Good review.
This is so helpful!
At 24:30 when discussing Rule 15 c1C, you say the timing requirement under Rule 4m is 120 days. Can you explain this please? I thought it was 90 days per Rule 4m.
jusTOOfresh Great question. At time video was taped the 4(m) period was 120 days. Since then the Rule was amended to shorten the period to 90.
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
How do you find elements to prove the crime?
Can I get someone to help me with a motion to Leave to Amend civil complaint in US DISTRICT COURT, Norther District of Texas. Pro Se. I am in Dallas. This is a good post. Love the info..
This is meant for a quick review, before my bar exam preparation. Most UA-cam law school stuff is very light and broad. I would check with the court's clerk.
youarelaw
Concerning FRCP 9(b), isn't FRCP 9(b) in direct conflict with Erie RR v. Tompkins? In Erie the Supreme Court held that there is no federal general common law. The rationale for the Supreme Court’s decision here was the prevention of forum shopping. In order to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of FRCP 9(b) one must satisfy the following prongs: (1) specify the statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent, (2) identify the speaker, (3) state where and when the statements were made, and (4) explain why the statements were fraudulent. However, in State Court one must only plead the state elements of fraud. The same case, properly plead to satisfy the state elements of fraud, may prevail if filed in State Court, yet fail if it were instead filed in Federal Court, the only defect being not satisfying FRCP 9(b). Doesn’t FRCP 9(b) effectively create federal common law and therefore encourage forum shopping?
+com2irq5 Sorry for delay, I don't check comments very often. As traffic has picked up, so have the comments so I'll check more often. Re your question, if there is a conflict between a rule of the FRCP (such as Rule 9(b)) and state law, then the relevant analysis is the analysis regarding Rules Enabling Act rules as discussed in Hanna v. Plumer and its progeny.
Professor Ira Steven Nathenson i know you said you don't look at comments often, but I have a question. My dean's scholar may be right or she may not be very bright.
P v. D for a car accident. D counterclaims on P and also joins X who is the owner of the car P was driving. D joins a second claim against X for breach of contract. Is that ok? I say yes. Rule 18a says that once you've made a counterclaim you can, as you say, "pile it on". She said no.
I think that the second claim against X would be ok.
1. We have PvD for negligence. Ok initial claim.
2. Next, we have D doing CC (apparently compulsory) against P for negligence, apparently from same accident. That's ok 13(a).
3. D has joined a second defendant on the negligence CC, that's X. This is also ok under Rule 13(h), which allows the use of Rules 19 or 20 to add parties to a counterclaim or a crossclaim. Here, Rule 20(a)(2) should allow joining X to the counterclaim because of the commonalities of fact, law, and T/O/series of T-Os.
4. What about the second claim against X for BoK? I think that's ok here under Rule 18(a), which allows unlimited joinder of *claims* once a *party* is properly joined. Here, X is already properly joined to D's counterclaim, so I think D can add on the unrelated claim.
For further support, see hypo # 5 and explanation in Chapter 13, Glannon's Examples & Explanations for a somewhat similar hypo where a P sues two Ds (ok Rule 20(a)) and then piles on an unrelated claim against just one of the Ds (ok Rule 18(a)).
P.S. don't assume your prof is necessarily wrong. Perhaps there is some authority out there that disagrees with me and Glannon. Or perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
Professor Ira Steven Nathenson wow. That was much more than I expected. You're the best dude. My prof told us that we shouldn't worry because he wouldn't test us on it. It was a short hypo by a student teacher in a supplemental class. She said X couldn't join the BoK but I questioned it.
You, EE and my prof have helped me really understand this stuff. Do you have a donate area on your site? I feel that grateful.
I had to school Walmart's attorney on the "Relation back" rule... He had no clue!
Your lecture makes sense, except for one thing poverty poverty is the number one problem in this country. How do you account for something that could be a remedy? Otherwise, dumb should be against the law, your right about the problem though. Jones v. Riot Hosp. Grp. LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90241, 2023 WL 3603684
Professor Nathenson, could you please include your website address?
I wanted to get mad at you at first, but something was revealed that is total madness with regards to the principal, he wants a conventional, notwithstanding. And, he haves real bad issues with his family especially his females, maybe you can help in some way, but evidently, we don't want to lead with that kind of b/s. It will hurt the world, I am not a donkey in account of earning it for them. My family fought thru all the American wars, I don't want to be the level of the street, it is about honor for this country -America.