Podcasts about Civil procedure

washington federal constitution factors procedures venue iqbal fourteenth amendment asserting civil procedure due process clause

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 20, 2025 30:28

The purpose of personal jurisdiction is to ensure that a court has the authority to compel a defendant to appear and litigate in a particular forum. This authority is constitutionally grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that a defendant have sufficient connections with the forum state.General personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are so systematic and continuous that they can be sued there for almost any matter, even if the underlying events occurred elsewhere (e.g., a corporation's principal place of business is in the state). Specific personal jurisdiction arises when the lawsuit stems directly from the defendant's contacts with the forum state (e.g., a contract signed and performed within the state).The two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, while diversity jurisdiction permits federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states or between a state citizen and a foreign national, provided the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.The well-pleaded complaint rule dictates that for a case to fall under federal question jurisdiction, the federal issue must be presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. It is not sufficient for a federal question to arise only as a defense or a counterclaim.Venue rules determine the specific district within a court system where a case should be heard, focusing on the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the location of evidence or the events at issue. Factors determining proper venue often include the defendant's residence, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or where property involved in the lawsuit is located.Following Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. This requires more than conclusory statements or a recitation of the elements of a cause of action; the factual allegations must allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.When responding to a complaint, a defendant can file an answer, admitting or denying the plaintiff's allegations and asserting any affirmative defenses, or file a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b) to raise defenses like lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. Asserting affirmative defenses in the answer is crucial because failure to do so can result in their waiver.Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original pleading, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.The "minimum contacts" test, established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, states that for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, that defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. These contacts must be purposeful and related to the claim.The "amount in controversy" requirement for diversity jurisdiction currently stands at more than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This threshold is important because it ensures that federal courts, when exercising jurisdiction based solely on the diverse citizenship of the parties, are addressing cases of sufficient financial significance.

Civil Procedure — Lecture Three: Trial, Post-Trial Motions, and Appellate Review (Part 3 of 3) (Part 2)

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 19, 2025 24:18

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases for legal claims, primarily those seeking monetary damages (e.g., torts, contract breaches), as opposed to equitable remedies like injunctions or specific performance.Voir dire is the process of questioning potential jurors to ensure an impartial jury. Challenges for cause allow dismissal for demonstrated bias, while peremptory challenges permit a limited number of removals without stating a reason, though they cannot be discriminatory.A typical civil trial proceeds with opening statements, the plaintiff's case-in-chief (presenting evidence to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard), the defendant's case-in-chief, rebuttal, surrebuttal (if any), closing arguments, and jury instructions before deliberation and verdict.A motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(a)) argues that the opposing party has not presented sufficient evidence to support a verdict in their favor and can be made after that party has been fully heard. The court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.A motion for a new trial (Rule 59) seeks to restart the trial due to errors or issues that prejudiced the outcome, such as evidentiary errors, misconduct, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, or newly discovered evidence. It differs from Rule 50 in that it doesn't necessarily argue the existing verdict is legally impossible.The entry of judgment formally concludes the trial court proceedings and triggers deadlines for post-judgment remedies and appeals. One ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60 is excusable neglect, generally with a one-year time limit from the entry of judgment.United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The general deadline for filing a notice of appeal is within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment.The de novo standard of review means the appellate court reviews legal questions anew without deference to the trial court's ruling. The clear error standard applies to factual findings, which the appellate court will only overturn if a definite and firm mistake is found.Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents relitigating a claim already decided by a final judgment on the merits. The elements are a final judgment on the merits, identity of the parties (or privity), and the same claim or cause of action.Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) prevents relitigating specific factual or legal issues already decided in a prior case. A key requirement is that the issue must have been actually litigated and determined, and essential to the prior judgment.

challenges trial claim lecture procedures appeals motions appellate civil procedure seventh amendment united states courts

Civil Procedure — Lecture Three: Trial, Post-Trial Motions, and Appellate Review (Part 3 of 3)

trial lecture procedures motions appellate civil procedure

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 18, 2025 20:07

This lecture provides a thorough overview of the concluding phases of federal civil litigation, starting with the fundamental right to a jury trial and the selection process. It then details the structured progression of a trial, including opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and jury instructions. The lecture further explains post-trial motions, such as judgments as a matter of law and requests for a new trial, which serve as critical checks on trial outcomes. Finally, it examines the appellate process, covering jurisdictional aspects, filing procedures, standards of review, and the preclusive effects of judgments.

Civil Procedure — Lecture Two: Discovery, Pretrial Motions, and Summary Judgment (Part 2 of 3) (Part 2)

discovery attorney judgment expert lecture procedures motions pretrial civil procedure

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 17, 2025 15:20

The primary purpose of discovery is for parties to exchange information and evidence before trial, ensuring fairness and preventing "trial by ambush" by requiring both sides to have access to relevant facts and witnesses.The three key elements are relevance to a party's claim or defense, non-privileged matter, and proportionality to the needs of the case; proportionality involves balancing factors like the importance of issues, the amount in controversy, access to facts, and the burden of discovery.Discoverable information is any non-privileged matter relevant and proportional to the case, while admissible evidence is information that meets the rules of evidence for presentation at trial; for example, hearsay might be discoverable if it could lead to admissible evidence.Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client made for the purpose of legal advice, while the work product doctrine safeguards materials prepared in anticipation of litigation; these protect the attorney-client relationship and the lawyer's preparation from adversarial scrutiny.Two primary functions are to help each party prepare for discovery by providing a roadmap of key information and to set the stage for potential settlement negotiations by outlining case strengths and weaknesses; an example of required disclosure is the names and contact information of individuals likely to have discoverable information.Expert witness disclosures must include the identity and qualifications of the expert, a summary of their opinions and their factual basis, and any prior testimony; failure to adequately disclose can lead to the exclusion of the expert's testimony at trial.A deposition is a pretrial examination conducted under oath to ask detailed questions of witnesses or parties, while a request for production of documents compels the opposing party to produce relevant documents, electronic files, or tangible items; depositions primarily seek testimonial evidence, while requests for production seek documentary or physical evidence.A party might file a motion to compel if the opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests or provides incomplete or evasive answers; a potential sanction under Rule 37(b) includes ordering that certain facts be taken as established against the non-complying party.The purpose of a protective order is to limit or prohibit the production of information that is overly burdensome, duplicative, or infringing on privacy rights; a court might issue a protective order to limit the scope of a deposition to prevent harassment.Summary judgment is granted if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the moving party must demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, and the non-moving party must then come forward with specific evidence showing a triable issue exists.

Civil Procedure — Lecture Two: Discovery, Pretrial Motions, and Summary Judgment (Part 2 of 3)

discovery judgment lecture procedures motions subsequently pretrial civil procedure

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 16, 2025 19:14

This lecture provides an overview of key pretrial procedures in civil litigation, focusing on discovery, case management, and summary judgment. Discovery is explained as the formal process for exchanging information and evidence between parties to prevent trial surprises. The lecture details various discovery tools, such as depositions and interrogatories, and emphasizes the importance of proportionality and mandatory disclosures. Subsequently, it covers case management and pretrial conferences, highlighting how courts use scheduling orders and meetings to streamline litigation and narrow issues. Finally, the lecture examines summary judgment as a mechanism to resolve cases or specific issues without trial if no genuine factual disputes exist.

Civil Procedure — Lecture One: Jurisdiction, Venue, Pleadings, and Early Motions (Part 1 of 3) (Part 2)

personal explain procedures venue alternatively motions jurisdiction fourteenth amendment federal rules civil procedure twombly pleadings due process clause lecture one

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2025 26:03

Short-Answer QuizWhat is the fundamental purpose of personal jurisdiction, and what constitutional provision provides its basis?Personal jurisdiction ensures a court has the authority to compel a defendant to appear and litigate in the forum. Its constitutional basis lies in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, preventing individuals from being unfairly haled into court in distant or unconnected locations.Explain the difference between general and specific personal jurisdiction, providing a brief example of how each might arise.General jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic that they can be sued there for any claim, even if unrelated to those contacts (e.g., a corporation with its headquarters in a state). Specific jurisdiction arises when the lawsuit directly relates to the defendant's specific contacts with the forum state (e.g., a contract dispute stemming from a sale made in the state).What are the two primary bases for subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts, and what is a key requirement for each?The two primary bases are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. For federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claim must arise under federal law and be evident in the well-pleaded complaint. For diversity jurisdiction, the case must be between citizens of different states (or a state and a foreign national) with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, and there must be complete diversity of citizenship.How does venue differ from jurisdiction, and what is the primary goal of venue rules?Jurisdiction concerns a court's power to hear a case (either over the person or the subject matter), while venue dictates the specific geographic district where the case should be heard. The primary goal of venue rules is to ensure a convenient and appropriate location for the litigation, considering factors like the parties' residences and where the events occurred.Describe the key elements that must be included in a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought by the pleader.How have the Twombly and Iqbal Supreme Court decisions impacted the federal pleading standard?These decisions raised the pleading standard beyond mere notice pleading, requiring complaints to contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible on its face. This means the factual narrative must be more detailed and suggest a likelihood of liability, rather than just reciting the elements of a cause of action.What are the two main ways a defendant can respond to a complaint after being served? Briefly explain each.A defendant can file an answer, which requires them to admit or deny each of the plaintiff's allegations and assert any affirmative defenses they may have. Alternatively, a defendant can file a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b), which raises legal objections to the complaint, such as lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to state a claim.List three examples of affirmative defenses a defendant might assert in their answer.Examples of affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations (the lawsuit was filed after the legal deadline), res judicata (the issue has already been decided by a court), and estoppel (the plaintiff is prevented from asserting a claim due to their prior conduct or statements).Under what circumstances can a party amend their pleading "as a matter of course"?A party can amend their pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original pleading, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

Civil Procedure — Lecture One: Jurisdiction, Venue, Pleadings, and Early Motions (Part 1 of 3)

procedures venue motions jurisdiction civil procedure pleadings lecture one

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 14, 2025 16:37

This lecture on federal civil procedure outlines the initial stages of litigation. It begins by explaining jurisdiction, focusing on the court's power over parties (personal jurisdiction) and the types of cases it can hear (subject matter jurisdiction). The discussion then moves to venue, detailing where a case should be properly filed for trial. The lecture further examines pleadings, covering the initial complaint and the defendant's response, including motions and answers. Finally, it addresses the process of amending pleadings, which allows for changes as a case progresses. The goal is to provide a foundational understanding of these crucial procedural elements.

Res Judicata in Civil Procedure: Principles and Applications (Part 2 of 2)

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 7, 2025 22:28

"Res judicata" literally means "a matter judged." The fundamental principle it represents is that parties are precluded from re-litigating claims or issues that have already been resolved by a final judgment from a court with proper authority.Claim preclusion bars the reassertion of the same cause of action between the same parties after a final judgment on the merits. Issue preclusion, on the other hand, prevents parties from re-litigating specific factual or legal issues that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior action.The three core elements for claim preclusion are: (1) a final judgment on the merits; (2) the subsequent suit involves the same parties or their legal privies; and (3) the claim asserted in the second suit arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the first litigation.A "final judgment on the merits" means the earlier court decision conclusively resolved the parties' legal rights and liabilities. Examples include a dismissal with prejudice and a summary judgment, both of which indicate a substantive decision on the case.The "transactional test" asks whether the claims in the subsequent suit arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of connected transactions as those that were resolved in the first lawsuit. This test aims to prevent litigants from splitting related claims into multiple lawsuits.The four elements for issue preclusion are: (1) the issue in the second action is identical to one decided in the first; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the determination of the issue was essential to the final judgment; and (4) the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.The "actually litigated" requirement means the issue must have been contested by the parties and resolved by the decision-maker, either through a factual finding or a legal ruling. An issue that was merely stipulated to by the parties was not actively contested and therefore would not be considered actually litigated.Mutual issue preclusion traditionally allows only parties to the original lawsuit (or their privies) to use a prior judgment to prevent relitigation of an issue. Non-mutual issue preclusion allows someone who was not a party to the original suit to do so; it can be either defensive (new defendant prevents plaintiff from relitigating a lost issue) or offensive (new plaintiff uses a prior finding against the defendant).The Supreme Court in Federated Department Stores v. Moitie held that even decisions believed to be legally incorrect are entitled to preclusive effect if they are final judgments on the merits. This underscores the importance of finality in judicial decisions and discourages relitigation based on perceived errors.Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal and state courts are required to give the same preclusive effect to judgments rendered by courts of other states as those judgments would receive in the courts of the originating state. This prevents forum shopping and promotes the stability of judicial decisions across state lines.

supreme court principles constitution claim applications procedures mutual res civil procedure full faith judicata credit clause

Res Judicata in Civil Procedure: Principles and Applications (Part 1 of 2)

Lawyers in the Making Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 6, 2025 13:56

Res Judicata – Claim and Issue PreclusionRes judicata is a doctrine in civil procedure that prevents parties from re-litigating matters that have already been finally decided in previous judicial proceedings. It encompasses two primary sub-doctrines: claim preclusion and issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel.Claim PreclusionClaim preclusion bars the same parties—or those in legal privity—from bringing a subsequent lawsuit arising from the same transaction or occurrence after a final judgment on the merits. It requires three elements:A final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.Identity or privity of the parties in both suits.Identity of claims, typically determined by the transactional test, which bars all claims arising from the same set of facts, even if not previously asserted.Issue PreclusionIssue preclusion prevents the re-litigation of specific factual or legal issues that:Were actually litigated,Were essential to the prior judgment,Were determined in a valid and final judgment,And were litigated by a party who had a full and fair opportunity to do so.It may apply mutually or non-mutually:Defensive non-mutual issue preclusion is when a new defendant prevents a plaintiff from re-litigating a previously lost issue.Offensive non-mutual issue preclusion, permitted under Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, allows a new plaintiff to use a prior issue determination against a defendant, subject to fairness considerations.Key CasesFederated Department Stores v. Moitie confirmed that even erroneous judgments have preclusive effect.Semtek v. Lockheed Martin clarified that federal diversity judgments follow the preclusion law of the state where the court sits.Montana v. United States and Allen v. McCurry illustrate the binding effect of issue preclusion on the government and in federal civil rights actions.Taylor v. Sturgell reaffirmed that nonparties are generally not bound by prior judgments, with limited exceptions.Exceptions and LimitationsPreclusion does not apply where:The earlier judgment lacked jurisdiction or was not final.The issue was not essential to the judgment.There has been a significant change in law or fact.Due process concerns exist (e.g., inadequate representation).Policy and CriticismThe doctrine promotes judicial efficiency, prevents harassment through repetitive litigation, and ensures finality. However, rigid application can result in unfairness, especially for underrepresented or resource-limited parties. Critics advocate for more flexible standards and greater judicial discretion in applying preclusion doctrines.

united states identity policy principles montana offensive applications critics defensive procedures shore lockheed martin exceptions mccurry civil procedure judicata

E127: Tamany Vinson Bentz Founding Partner of California IP Law

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 2, 2025 66:45

Tamany is a University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Graduate and works as the Founding Partner of California IP Law. Tamany's journey is far from typical, graduating college with a degree in Biology, but after an experience in Washington DC, Tamany would switch course to the Law route, leading to a career full of success! Tamany and I start prior to her introduction to Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where she would delve into her story, going from the doctor route to the Law route. When she finally arrived at Pennsylvania Carey Law School, her first year of law school was as good as it gets, only focusing on school for the first time in her life and getting to experience a completely different experience from what she was used to. Throughout her time at Law School, Tamany would talk about the various experiences she had, landing on Patent and Intellectual Property Law, and her love and immense ability with Civil Procedure, to guide her future career decisions. Following that, Tamany would talk about her journey to the various major positions she has held, as well as speaking on other lawyers she had met throughout her time who didn't come from the top law schools but hustled and had an extreme level of care for what they were doing. Her advice was to be like them and take every day in law as another day to make an impact in the world. Finally, we would discuss what Tamany does today as the founding partner of her firm, California IP Law. Tamany discussed her experience opening her firm and the successes and struggles that came with it. In the end, Tamany's high-level experience in the Law offers insights of extreme value for all my friends out there. You don't want to miss this one! Tamany's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tamanyvinsonbentzCalifornia IP Law: http://www.caiplawyer.com/Tamany's TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tamanyvinsonbentzBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 21-year-old super-star, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110 you get yourself the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10 you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

university california tiktok law washington dc lawyers biology rhetoric patent founding partners law schools vinson intellectual property law bentz ip law civil procedure pennsylvania carey law school lsat prep

Discovery Decoded: Unraveling Civil Procedure's Key Rules (Part 2 of 2)

The Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast: Pass the Bar Exam with Less Stress

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2025 25:16

I. Discovery: The Cornerstone of Fact-FindingThe lecture begins by establishing discovery as a critical, foundational stage in civil litigation, going beyond a mere preliminary step.Key Ideas:Fact-Finding and Transparency: Discovery is the "fact‐finding stage where both parties exchange information to ensure that each side has access to the facts necessary for a fair trial." It aims to replace "trial by ambush" with a system emphasizing "transparency and fairness."Strategic Importance: The lecture emphasizes that "discovery is where cases are frequently won or lost, sometimes even before a judge or jury hears any argument," highlighting its strategic value.A. Mandatory Initial Disclosures (Rule 26(a))Parties are required to proactively provide essential information without a formal request.Key Ideas:Scope of Disclosure: This includes "the identities of individuals likely to possess relevant information, key documents that support claims or defenses, the basis for any computed damages, and information about any insurance agreements that might affect potential recovery."Importance of Accuracy and Completeness: Accuracy in these disclosures is "paramount" to "prevent surprises later on and ensure that both sides are working with as full a picture as possible."B. Discovery ToolsThe lecture details various tools available to parties during discovery.Key Ideas:Depositions: Formal, in-person question-and-answer sessions under oath, useful for "peel[ing] back layers of testimony" and potentially revealing critical information. The lecturer notes that "a well-conducted deposition can often break a case wide open."Interrogatories: Written questions answered under oath, valuable for establishing "the basics—identifying key individuals, understanding the timeline of events, and clarifying the positions of the parties involved." There is generally a "cap on the number of interrogatories" to encourage focused questioning.Requests for Production: Compel the production of documents, emails, and other pertinent evidence, including electronic data, leading to the realm of "e-discovery."Requests for Admission: Ask the opposing party to confirm or deny specific facts. Failure to respond within the timeframe results in the facts being "deemed admitted," which can "dramatically narrow the issues in dispute."Physical and Mental Examinations: Obtainable in cases where a party's condition is at issue, usually court-ordered to provide an "objective assessment."C. Limits and Protections in DiscoveryDiscovery is not unlimited and is subject to certain protections.Key Ideas:Privileges: The "attorney-client privilege protects communications between a lawyer and their client," and the "work product doctrine safeguards materials prepared in anticipation of litigation." However, these are not absolute and can be overcome if a "substantial need" and lack of alternative means of obtaining the information are demonstrated.Handling Discovery Disputes (Rule 37): Courts can impose sanctions for failure to comply with discovery, ranging from "monetary penalties to evidentiary preclusions," underscoring the importance of adhering to "discovery protocols."II. Summary Judgment: Resolving Cases Without TrialSummary judgment is a procedural mechanism to resolve claims when there is no genuine dispute over material facts.Key Ideas:Standard for Summary Judgment (Rule 56): The moving party must demonstrate "that there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact," meaning "the evidence must be so unequivocal that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the opposing party." The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show specific facts creating a genuine dispute.Relationship with Discovery: "The evidentiary record that supports or opposes summary judgment is largely built during the discovery phase." A "well-planned discovery strategy can significantly bolster your position on summary judgment."Partial Summary Judgment: The rule

relationships failure discovery limits parties unraveling courts procedures requests accuracy protections decoded civil procedure key rules

306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2025 12:40 Transcription Available

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the last of three episodes in which we review the substantive Civil Procedure law we've covered on the podcast. We're concluding this series by tracking how a civil lawsuit unfolds, from pleadings to judgment. In this episode, we discuss: Starting a lawsuit: pleadings and service of process Defendant's response and Rule 12 motions Amendments and pre-trial resolutions Joinder of parties Final judgment and post-judgment motions Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Atlantic_Corp._v._Twombly) Ashcroft v. Iqbal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal) Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn – Motions to Dismiss a Case (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-208-listen-and-learn-motions-to-dismiss-a-case/) Podcast Episode 286: Listen and Learn – Conclusory Pleadings Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-286-listen-and-learn-conclusory-pleadings-under-rule-12b6-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 203: Listen and Learn – Motions for Summary Judgment (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-203-listen-and-learn-motions-for-summary-judgment-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 262: Listen and Learn – Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-262-listen-and-learn-motions-for-judgment-as-a-matter-of-law-and-motions-for-new-trial-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 145: Listen and Learn – Permissive Joinder and Required Joinder (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-145-listen-and-learn-permissive-joinder-and-required-joinder/) Podcast Episode 153: Listen and Learn – More Types of Joinder (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-153-listen-and-learn-more-types-of-joinder-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 148: Listen and Learn – Claim and Issue Preclusion (Civil Procedure) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-148-listen-and-learn-claim-and-issue-preclusion-civil-procedure/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-306-spotlight-on-civil-procedure-part-3-the-civil-lawsuit/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

starting law judgment lawsuit procedures motions amendments defendants dismiss iqbal ashcroft civil procedure twombly

101. Governing by Executive Orders

Lawyer Up! Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2025 42:10

President Trump has signed more executive orders in his first 10 days and in his first month in office than any recent president has in their first 100 days. Trump critics say the orders greatly exceed his constitutional authority.Those orders range from tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada, to pauses on foreign aid and crackdowns on illegal immigration to bans on transgender people serving in the military and the use of federal funds for gender-affirming medical care for minors.Court challenges to Trump's policies started on Inauguration Day and have continued at a furious pace since Jan. 20. The administration is facing some 70 lawsuits nationwide challenging his executive orders and moves to downsize the federal government.The Republican-controlled Congress is putting up little resistance, so the court system is ground zero for pushback. Judges have issued more than a dozen orders at least temporarily blocking aspects of Trump's agenda, ranging from an executive order to end U.S. citizenship extended automatically to people born in this country to giving Musk's team access to sensitive federal data.Executive Actions: 108, Executive Orders: 73, Proclamations: 23, Memorandums: 12Mark Brown, Constitutional Law expert and professor at Capital University Law School talks with us about the constitutionality of executive orders. Mark holds Capital's Newton D. Baker/Baker & Hostetler Chair. He joined the faculty in 2003 after having taught at Stetson University, the University of Illinois and The Ohio State University.Mark has authored and co-authored works in various books and academic journals, including the Boston College Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the Hastings Law Journal, the Iowa Law Review, the University of Illinois Law Review, the Ohio State Law Journal, the American University Law Review, and the Oregon Law Review, as well as others. Prior to academia, Mark clerked for the Honorable Harry Wellford, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He also served as a Supreme Court Fellow under the Chief Justice of the United States during the 1993 October Term. Mark's research interests include Constitutional Law and Constitutional Litigation, courses he also teaches. He has also taught Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure. His public interest litigation presently focuses on public access to the political process.

Discovery Decoded: Unraveling Civil Procedure's Key Rules (Part 1 of 2)

The Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast: Pass the Bar Exam with Less Stress

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2025 17:28

In this comprehensive lecture, we dive deep into the discovery process—a cornerstone of civil litigation. Join me as we break down the essential elements of discovery, from mandatory initial disclosures and depositions to interrogatories, requests for production, and the evolving realm of e-discovery. This session highlights the strategic importance of uncovering evidence while navigating privileges and limitations that shape modern litigation. Perfect for law students and legal professionals alike, this lecture provides critical insights and practical strategies to master the discovery rules and build a robust case.

discovery unraveling procedures decoded civil procedure key rules

305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 24, 2025 11:41 Transcription Available

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the second of three episodes in which we review the substantive Civil Procedure law we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. This time we're talking about discovery, or obtaining evidence from other parties. In this episode, we discuss: Scope of discovery Instruments for discovering information Discovery disputes and resolutions Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Podcast Episode 204: Listen and Learn – Scope of Discovery and the Work-Product Privilege (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-204-listen-and-learn-scope-of-discovery-and-the-work-product-privilege/) Podcast Episode 237: Listen and Learn – Discovery (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-237-listen-and-learn-discovery-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 302: Listen and Learn – More on Discovery (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-302-listen-and-learn-more-on-discovery-civ-pro/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-305-spotlight-on-civil-procedure-part-2-discovery/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

discovery procedures scope instruments civil procedure

304: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 1 – Jurisdiction)

The Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast: Pass the Bar Exam with Less Stress

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 17, 2025 10:16 Transcription Available

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the first of three episodes in which we review the substantive Civil Procedure law we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. Today we're talking about jurisdiction, or the power of a court to try a matter. In this episode, we discuss: Subject matter jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction Venue and forum non conveniens Exam strategy for jurisdiction issues Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/310/) Podcast Episode 92: Listen and Learn – Subject Matter Jurisdiction (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-92-listen-and-learn-subject-matter-jurisdiction/) Podcast Episode 169: Listen and Learn – Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-169-listen-and-learn-personal-jurisdiction-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 180: Listen and Learn – Venue (Federal Civil Procedure) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-180-listen-and-learn-venue-federal-civil-procedure/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-304-spotlight-on-civil-procedure-part-1-jurisdiction/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

washington personal subject procedures exam venue jurisdiction civil procedure

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, No. 23-1259 [Arg: 3.3.2025]

Supreme Court of the United States

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 52:42

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)'s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended co ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

united states bank supreme court blom docket civil procedure

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Supreme Court Opinions

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 12, 2025 20:14

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule 60(b)?The case was decided on February 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” within the meaning of Rule 60(b), and therefore may be reopened by the district courts. Justice Samuel Alito authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.The Court's reasoning focused on interpreting the phrase “final judgment, order, or proceeding” in Rule 60(b). A voluntary dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a “final proceeding” because it terminates the case, making it “conclusive” and the “last” filing on the docket. Although "final" in appellate jurisdiction contexts is interpreted narrowly, that would should not be interpreted so narrowly here because Rule 60(b) serves a different purpose. Additionally, the term “proceeding” encompasses all steps taken in an action, including voluntary dismissals. To read “proceeding” as requiring judicial determination would strip the term of independent meaning, since judicial determinations would already be covered by “order.”Historical context further supports this interpretation. Rule 60(b) was based on a California provision that had been interpreted to apply to voluntary dismissals. The rule speaks in ascending order of generality—”judgments,” then “orders,” then “proceedings”—suggesting “proceeding” should be broader than the preceding terms. This interpretation prevents voluntary dismissals without prejudice from falling into a procedural “no man's land,” where they would neither be considered interlocutory nor final, leaving parties without recourse to correct mistakes in dismissal.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

california court supreme court historical samuel alito halliburton federal rules civil procedure energy services

White House looks to hold litigants financially responsible for filing lawsuits against the government

Federal Newscast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2025 6:53

Federal employee unions and other organizations filing lawsuits against the Trump administration may have to put money in escrow to cover the potential costs and damages of the lawsuit. President Trump's new memo tells agencies to use the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to ask the federal courts to hold litigants accountable for their lawsuits. The scope of the directive covers all lawsuits filed against the federal government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requestedpreliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception. Failure of the organization that filed the lawsuit to provide the money could result in the denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

donald trump government failure white house federal responsible financially lawsuits filing federal rules civil procedure litigants

White House looks to hold litigants financially responsible for filing lawsuits against the government

Federal Newscast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2025 6:53

Federal employee unions and other organizations filing lawsuits against the Trump administration may have to put money in escrow to cover the potential costs and damages of the lawsuit. President Trump's new memo tells agencies to use the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to ask the federal courts to hold litigants accountable for their lawsuits. The scope of the directive covers all lawsuits filed against the federal government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception. Failure of the organization that filed the lawsuit to provide the money could result in the denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

donald trump government failure white house federal responsible financially lawsuits filing federal rules civil procedure litigants

Oh, the irony!

Make Me Smart

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 8, 2025 31:47

President Donald Trump's family business is suing Capital One for closing its bank accounts in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, arguing the bank violated consumer protection laws. Where’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when ya need ’em? Then, Kimberly breaks down two moves by the White House that could have sweeping consequences for law firms who work on cases against the Trump administration. Plus, we’ll weigh in on Trump’s strategic bitcoin reserve and tariff whiplash during a game of Half Full/Half Empty! Oh, and should there be a half-time show at the 2026 World Cup final? Here’s everything we talked about today: “Trump Organization Sues Capital One for Closing Its Accounts” from The New York Times “War heroes and military firsts are among 26,000 images flagged for removal in Pentagon’s DEI purge” from AP News “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)” from the White House “Trump directs DOJ to seek security bonds for injunctions” from Law and Crime “Trump targets prominent Democratic-linked law firm” from Politico “Your tariff questions, answered.” from the Marketplace newsletter “Why coffee shops like Dunkin’ are dropping nondairy milk fees” from Marketplace “Fed chair signals patience amid Trump's tariff whiplash” from The Washington Post “In a first, the 2026 World Cup final will include a halftime show” from NPR “Can an A.I. Travel Bot Plan Your Trip to NYC?” from The New York Times Got a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Oh, the irony!

Marketplace All-in-One

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 8, 2025 31:47

President Donald Trump's family business is suing Capital One for closing its bank accounts in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, arguing the bank violated consumer protection laws. Where’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when ya need ’em? Then, Kimberly breaks down two moves by the White House that could have sweeping consequences for law firms who work on cases against the Trump administration. Plus, we’ll weigh in on Trump’s strategic bitcoin reserve and tariff whiplash during a game of Half Full/Half Empty! Oh, and should there be a half-time show at the 2026 World Cup final? Here’s everything we talked about today: “Trump Organization Sues Capital One for Closing Its Accounts” from The New York Times “War heroes and military firsts are among 26,000 images flagged for removal in Pentagon’s DEI purge” from AP News “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)” from the White House “Trump directs DOJ to seek security bonds for injunctions” from Law and Crime “Trump targets prominent Democratic-linked law firm” from Politico “Your tariff questions, answered.” from the Marketplace newsletter “Why coffee shops like Dunkin’ are dropping nondairy milk fees” from Marketplace “Fed chair signals patience amid Trump's tariff whiplash” from The Washington Post “In a first, the 2026 World Cup final will include a halftime show” from NPR “Can an A.I. Travel Bot Plan Your Trip to NYC?” from The New York Times Got a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 3, 2025 52:42

A case in which the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)'s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

bank court blom federal rules civil procedure

302: Listen and Learn -- More on Discovery (Civ Pro)

The Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast: Pass the Bar Exam with Less Stress

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 3, 2025 12:33 Transcription Available

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, as part of our "Listen and Learn" series, we're discussing Civil Procedure – specifically, the following topics related to discovery: motions to compel, interrogatories, and physical/mental examinations. In this episode, we discuss: An overview of discovery The specific rules related to motions to compel, interrogatories, and physical/mental examinations during discovery An analysis of two questions from previous California bar exams Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2019 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/July-2019-Essay-Questions-and-Answers.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2023 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February2023CBXessayQsandAnswers.pdf) Podcast Episode 204: Listen and Learn – Scope of Discovery and Work-Product Privilege (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-204-listen-and-learn-scope-of-discovery-and-the-work-product-privilege/) Podcast Episode 237: Listen and Learn – Discovery (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-237-listen-and-learn-discovery-civ-pro/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-302-listen-and-learn-more-on-discovery-civ-pro/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

california discovery portals civil procedure

The Mega Edition: The Motion That Led To The Jay-Z And Diddy Dismissal (Part 1-2) (2/20/25)

law news jay z mega true crime motion sean combs breaking news bad boy dismissal plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 21, 2025 25:43

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Mega Edition: The Motion That Led To The Jay-Z And Diddy Dismissal (Part 3-5) (2/21/25)

law news jay z mega true crime motion sean combs breaking news bad boy dismissal plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 21, 2025 37:09

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A Seat at the Sitting - February 2025

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 19, 2025 78:31

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPJonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris InstituteRichard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLPWill Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee

united states mexico partner congress court mexican supreme court labor sitting powers seat separation simpson regulation civil rights courts procedures litigation gutierrez ames international law segal civil rights act senate judiciary committee employment law criminal law managing principal federalism title vii chief counsel ohio department deputy general counsel administrative law civil procedure nuclear regulatory commission gun crime senior legal fellow perttu texas march foreign sovereign immunities act hobbs act federalism & separation of pow international law & trade administrative law & regulatio criminal law & procedure international & national secur labor & employment law

Ep 108 — Trump Demands Immunity From Rules of Civil Procedure

Law and Chaos

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2025 58:58

We follow up on the Thursday Night Massacre, as Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove finally got someone to file the paperwork to dismiss the case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. And we do a deep dive into Dellinger v. Bessent, as the Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to remind everyone that the laws don't actually apply to Donald Trump. All of that and DOCKET ALERTS! Links: Courts Stand Up For Trans Rights and the Rule of Law https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/courts-stand-up-for-trans-rights Bove Feb. 10 letter to Sassoon (SDNY) ordering dropping of Adams prosecution https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/76308bc134b67d36/4cc46c59-full.pdf Hagen Scotten resignation letter https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/0b16892a-b4a3-4511-9eab-44ff6f69a97f.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 US v. Adams docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916/ Nick Akerman amicus https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916.124.0.pdf Henry Cuellar criminal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68499933/united-states-v-cuellar/ Dellinger v. Bessent district court docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277297/ Dellinger v. Bessent (DC Circuit docket) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41741/gov.uscourts.cadc.41741.01208711227.0.pdf Dellinger v. Bessent (SCOTUS petition) ***REPLACE S3 LINK WHEN SCOTUS LINK IS AVAILABLE*** https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25536866/bessent-v-dellinger-vacatur-app-final.pdf Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69627654/aids-vaccine-advocacy-coalition-v-united-states-department-of-state/ Talbott v. Trump https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69583866/talbott-v-trump/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod

donald trump law supreme court adams demands immunity procedures eric adams cfpb talbott civil procedure henry cuellar new york mayor eric adams dellinger dale ho nick akerman

Candice Mccrary Responds To Mariott International And Their Motion To Dismiss (2/11/25

news international true crime motion sean combs breaking news complaints responds bad boy marriott dismiss marriott international civ mccrary federal rules civil procedure mariott

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 11, 2025 12:45

In the case McCrary v. Sean Combs, Marriott International, Inc., et al. (Civ. Action No. 24-cv-8054), Plaintiff Candice McCrary has filed a response to Marriott International, Inc.'s letter motion dated January 21, 2025. Marriott seeks permission to file a motion to dismiss McCrary's Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.In her response, McCrary contends that her Complaint sufficiently outlines the allegations against Marriott, providing adequate detail to meet the pleading standards required by Rule 8(a). She argues that the Complaint presents plausible claims for relief, thereby satisfying the criteria to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). McCrary requests that the court deny Marriott's request for leave to file the motion to dismiss, asserting that the case should proceed to discovery and be evaluated on its merits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.39.0.pdf

Candice Mccrary Responds To Mariott International And Their Motion To Dismiss (2/11/25

news international true crime motion sean combs breaking news complaints responds bad boy marriott dismiss marriott international civ mccrary federal rules civil procedure mariott

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 11, 2025 12:45

In the case McCrary v. Sean Combs, Marriott International, Inc., et al. (Civ. Action No. 24-cv-8054), Plaintiff Candice McCrary has filed a response to Marriott International, Inc.'s letter motion dated January 21, 2025. Marriott seeks permission to file a motion to dismiss McCrary's Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.In her response, McCrary contends that her Complaint sufficiently outlines the allegations against Marriott, providing adequate detail to meet the pleading standards required by Rule 8(a). She argues that the Complaint presents plausible claims for relief, thereby satisfying the criteria to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). McCrary requests that the court deny Marriott's request for leave to file the motion to dismiss, asserting that the case should proceed to discovery and be evaluated on its merits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.39.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 5) (2/6/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2025 11:36

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 4) (2/6/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2025 11:20

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 1) (2/6/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2025 14:27

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 2) (2/6/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2025 11:16

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 3) (2/6/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2025 14:13

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 4) (2/6/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2025 11:20

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 5) (2/6/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2025 11:36

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 3) (2/6/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 6, 2025 14:13

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z And His Latest Attempt To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Filed By Jane Doe (Part 1) (2/5/25)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 5, 2025 14:27

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

law news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news complaints bad boy jane doe filed dismiss plaintiffs memorandum federal rules civil procedure amended complaint

Jay-Z's Reply To Tony Buzbee In Their On Going Battle Over Sanctions (Part 1) (2/1/25)

battle news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news sanctions bad boy combs federal rules tony buzbee civil procedure shawn carter

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 1, 2025 11:59

In the case Doe v. Combs et al., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, defendant Shawn Carter (professionally known as Jay-Z) has filed a reply memorandum supporting his motion for monetary sanctions and dismissal of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Carter contends that the plaintiff's counsel, Anthony Buzbee of The Buzbee Law Firm, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the factual allegations before filing the complaint, which accuses Carter of serious misconduct. He argues that many of the claims are demonstrably false or highly implausible, suggesting a violation of Rule 11(b), which mandates that attorneys ensure factual contentions have evidentiary support.Carter emphasizes that the allegations have caused significant harm to his reputation and personal life. He asserts that the complaint was filed without proper verification of facts, as evidenced by discrepancies such as incorrect descriptions of events and locations. Carter seeks dismissal of the complaint and requests monetary sanctions against Buzbee and his law firm to deter similar conduct in the future. He underscores the importance of attorneys adhering to ethical standards to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Reply(15569784.8).docx

Jay-Z's Reply To Tony Buzbee In Their On Going Battle Over Sanctions (Part 2) (2/1/25)

battle news jay z true crime sean combs breaking news sanctions bad boy combs federal rules tony buzbee civil procedure shawn carter

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 1, 2025 13:35

In the case Doe v. Combs et al., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, defendant Shawn Carter (professionally known as Jay-Z) has filed a reply memorandum supporting his motion for monetary sanctions and dismissal of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Carter contends that the plaintiff's counsel, Anthony Buzbee of The Buzbee Law Firm, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the factual allegations before filing the complaint, which accuses Carter of serious misconduct. He argues that many of the claims are demonstrably false or highly implausible, suggesting a violation of Rule 11(b), which mandates that attorneys ensure factual contentions have evidentiary support.Carter emphasizes that the allegations have caused significant harm to his reputation and personal life. He asserts that the complaint was filed without proper verification of facts, as evidenced by discrepancies such as incorrect descriptions of events and locations. Carter seeks dismissal of the complaint and requests monetary sanctions against Buzbee and his law firm to deter similar conduct in the future. He underscores the importance of attorneys adhering to ethical standards to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Reply(15569784.8).docx

The Mega Edition: Diddy And His "Party Wranglers" (1/31/25)

news jay z mega true crime sean combs breaking news bad boy hamptons combs pines jane doe wrangler sean diddy combs fac white party federal rules civil procedure shawn carter

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 31, 2025 24:18

Recent allegations have surfaced against Sean "Diddy" Combs, claiming he employed individuals to recruit young women for intimate encounters at his parties. At a 2004 White Party in the Hamptons, men allegedly approached female attendees, suggesting it was an honor to spend private time with Combs. One woman, identified as Lisa, recounted being propositioned but declined, perceiving the true nature of the request. Another attendee accepted and later regretted the experience.These claims align with statements from former employee Phillip Pines, who alleges he was responsible for organizing and cleaning up after Combs's "Wild King Nights" between 2019 and 2021. Pines asserts he was tasked with procuring supplies for these events and is currently suing Combs for sexual battery, harassment, and trafficking. Combs faces multiple legal challenges, including criminal charges of racketeering and sex trafficking, which he denies.In the case Doe v. Combs et al., No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, defendant Shawn Carter (professionally known as Jay-Z) filed a motion on December 9, 2024, seeking to expedite a hearing concerning the plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, alleges that Carter and co-defendant Sean Combs sexually assaulted her in 2000 when she was 13 years old. Carter's motion argues that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous hampers his ability to mount an effective defense and that public interest favors disclosure of all parties' identities in legal proceedings.Carter's legal team contends that the allegations are baseless and part of a calculated attempt to tarnish his reputation. They emphasize the need for an expedited hearing to address the anonymity issue promptly, citing the significant media attention and potential harm to Carter's personal and professional life. The court has yet to rule on the motion to expedite or the underlying request concerning the plaintiff's anonymity.In our next segment...In a letter to the court dated December 30, 2024, Plaintiff Jane Doe's legal team responded to Defendant Shawn Carter's request to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Carter's request argues that the FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff's counsel maintains that the FAC sufficiently alleges detailed and substantiated claims of sexual assault and other misconduct, asserting that Carter's motion to dismiss is without merit and should not proceed.Jane Doe's legal team emphasizes that the FAC meets the required pleading standards and provides a robust factual basis to sustain the claims. They argue that the dismissal motion is an attempt to delay the proceedings and detract from the core allegations. The plaintiff's response underscores the importance of moving forward with the case to ensure that Jane Doe's claims are addressed promptly and fairly in court. The court will consider the parties' submissions in determining whether to grant Carter leave to file the motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Mega Edition: Jay-Z And His Motion To Sanction Tony Buzbee (Parts 1-2) (1/30/25)

news jay z mega true crime motion sean combs breaking news bad boy sanction federal rules tony buzbee civil procedure

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2025 25:21

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11's requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff's complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter's legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter's attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.(commercial at 9:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docx

The Mega Edition: Jay-Z And His Motion To Sanction Tony Buzbee (Parts 3-4) (1/30/25)

news jay z mega true crime motion sean combs breaking news bad boy sanction federal rules tony buzbee civil procedure

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2025 21:11

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11's requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff's complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter's legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter's attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.(commercial at 9:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docx

Marriott International Hotels Begins The Process To Dismiss The Candice Mccrary Complaint (1/28/25)