Podcasts about Civil procedure

Our podcast show being released today is Part 2 of our two-part series featuring two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. Part 1 of our two-part series was released last Thursday, June 12.  The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future?11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.” During this part of the podcast show, we discussed the fact that the CFPB has entered into agreements with a few companies that had previously entered into consent agreements with former Director Chopra. After the recording of this podcast, the Federal District Court that presided over the Townstone Financial enforcement litigation involving alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act refused to approve the rescission or undoing of the consent agreement based on Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because of the strong public policy of preserving the finality of judgments.

420. What Glennon Saw at LA Protests & Immigration Court with Lillian Aponte Miranda We're in the midst of hard things: ICE raids are escalating, fascism is rising—and unaccompanied immigrant children, some as young as two, are being forced to face U.S. immigration court alone. In this urgent episode, Glennon, Abby, and Amanda speak with Lillian Aponte Miranda of The Florence Project to explain what's happening and how we can show up to help. -Why unaccompanied children are being left to navigate the legal system alone -A firsthand look at what unaccompanied immigrant children are facing in courtrooms across the country. -How to use your body, voice, and resources to protect the most vulnerable To support, go to treatmedia.com and make a donation through the Protect the Children tab. Also, all purchases of We Can Do Hard Things merchandise via the Shop tab will be donated to this cause.  About Lillian: Lillian Aponte Miranda is the Executive Director of the Florence Project, where she has served since 2014 in roles including Staff Attorney, Pro Bono Mentor, Children's Program Manager, and Co-Executive Director. She became the sole Executive Director in 2023. Before joining the Florence Project, Lillian was an Associate Professor of Law at Florida International University, where for over a decade she taught courses on International Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples' Rights, and Civil Procedure, among others.  The Florence Project provides free legal services, social services, and advocacy to immigrants facing detention and potential deportation. Find out more here: https://firrp.org/ To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A conversation with Kelly Twigger, an E-Discovery veteran and founder of ESI Attorneys and Minerva26. Kelly shares her journey into E-Discovery, stemming from the first-ever ABA event on the topic in the early 2000s, and the rapid evolution of case law and technology that led her to develop E-Discovery Assistant which has now been rebranded Minerva 26. The discussion delves into how Minerva 26, a strategic command center for E-Discovery, curates case law, rules, checklists, and offers on-demand education. Kelly explains the reasoning behind rebranding from "E-Discovery Assistant" to "Minerva 26," emphasizing the shift from data tools to knowledge and strategic insight. The conversation also explores the current challenges legal professionals face in adopting technology, the impact of AI on the legal industry, and the need for updated federal rules of civil procedure to address technological advancements. Key Takeaways: Proactive E-Discovery: The importance of engaging with E-Discovery issues early in a case to save time and money, and to maximize the utility of electronically stored information (ESI). Technology's Transformative Power: ESI, unlike paper, offers immense opportunities to leverage technology for more efficient and effective legal analysis and fact-finding. Overcoming Fear and Expense: The primary barriers to technology adoption in the legal field are fear and perceived expense, which can be overcome through education and strategic planning. AI's Role in Legal: AI is not replacing lawyers but enhancing their capabilities by improving efficiency, accuracy, and providing valuable insights. The Need for Rule Updates: The rapidly changing technological landscape necessitates updates to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide clarity and consistency, especially concerning issues like control over personal devices and the use of advanced E-Discovery tools like Technology Assisted Review (TAR). Episode Credits Editing and Production: Grant Blackstock Theme Music: Home Base (Instrumental Version) by TA2MI   Want to keep up to date about new episodes? Technically Legal Update List. Want to learn more about Percipient (percipient.co)? Follow Chad on Linkedin: Chad Main | LinkedIn Follow the podcast on LinkedIn: Technically Legal | LinkedIn Follow the podcast on Instagram: Technically Legal | Instagram Follow the podcast on X: Technically Legal | X  

In this filing, plaintiff Anthony Tate submits a Memorandum of Law opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the civil case against Sean Combs and his affiliated corporate entities, including Daddy's House Recordings, Combs Global, and various Bad Boy Entertainment subsidiaries. Tate argues that his complaint sufficiently states claims for relief and that dismissal is unwarranted at this stage. The opposition contends that the complaint provides detailed factual allegations that meet the pleading standards required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), addressing each of the Defendants' arguments for dismissal. Tate emphasizes that the alleged conduct—spanning personal misconduct by Combs and organizational liability through the named corporate entities—is sufficiently documented to move forward to discovery.Furthermore, the memorandum asserts that the corporate defendants should not be dismissed merely because Combs is a named individual defendant; instead, Tate argues that the corporate entities were allegedly used to facilitate or conceal the unlawful acts in question. The opposition also challenges any argument that certain claims are time-barred, asserting that various legal doctrines—including equitable tolling and the discovery rule—preserve the plaintiff's ability to pursue those claims. Ultimately, Tate urges the Court to deny the Motion to Dismiss in full and allow the case to proceed, arguing that the defendants' motion relies heavily on factual disputes inappropriate for resolution at the motion-to-dismiss stage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.46.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)'s stringent standard apply to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint?The case was decided on June 5, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment standard can apply.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In the case of Parham v. Combs (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), the plaintiffs—Ashley Parham, Jane Doe, and John Doe—filed an opposition to Defendant Drew Desbordes' motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The plaintiffs argue that their claims are grounded in factual evidence and legal precedent, asserting that Desbordes' motion is an attempt to intimidate and silence them rather than a legitimate challenge to the lawsuit's validity. They maintain that their allegations are made in good faith and are supported by substantial evidence, thereby rendering the motion for sanctions unwarranted.Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend that Desbordes' motion misrepresents the nature of their claims and overlooks the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. They emphasize that the motion lacks merit and should be denied to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and protect the rights of individuals seeking redress for alleged wrongdoings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cand.437874.41.0.pdf

In the case of Parham v. Combs (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), the plaintiffs—Ashley Parham, Jane Doe, and John Doe—filed an opposition to Defendant Drew Desbordes' motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The plaintiffs argue that their claims are grounded in factual evidence and legal precedent, asserting that Desbordes' motion is an attempt to intimidate and silence them rather than a legitimate challenge to the lawsuit's validity. They maintain that their allegations are made in good faith and are supported by substantial evidence, thereby rendering the motion for sanctions unwarranted.Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend that Desbordes' motion misrepresents the nature of their claims and overlooks the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. They emphasize that the motion lacks merit and should be denied to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and protect the rights of individuals seeking redress for alleged wrongdoings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cand.437874.41.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Parham v. Combs (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), the plaintiffs—Ashley Parham, Jane Doe, and John Doe—filed an opposition to Defendant Drew Desbordes' motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The plaintiffs argue that their claims are grounded in factual evidence and legal precedent, asserting that Desbordes' motion is an attempt to intimidate and silence them rather than a legitimate challenge to the lawsuit's validity. They maintain that their allegations are made in good faith and are supported by substantial evidence, thereby rendering the motion for sanctions unwarranted.Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend that Desbordes' motion misrepresents the nature of their claims and overlooks the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. They emphasize that the motion lacks merit and should be denied to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and protect the rights of individuals seeking redress for alleged wrongdoings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cand.437874.41.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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

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

In this memorandum, Sean Combs, as the plaintiff, requests the court to grant an extension of time to serve defendants Courtney Burgess, Ariel Mitchell, and Nexstar Media Inc. in the civil lawsuit he filed against them. Combs argues that despite reasonable diligence, he has not yet been able to complete service on all parties within the time allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). His legal team contends that attempts have been made to locate and serve the defendants, and that the delay is not due to neglect or lack of effort but rather logistical challenges in effectuating service.The memorandum further asserts that granting an extension would serve the interests of justice, especially given the seriousness of the claims Combs has brought against the defendants, which include alleged defamation and other reputational harm. Combs maintains that allowing more time to properly serve the defendants will not prejudice their rights and will ensure the case proceeds on its merits. Therefore, he requests that the court issue an order enlarging the deadline for service to allow for continued efforts to notify all named parties and move the litigation forward.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.635504.30.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this memorandum, Sean Combs, as the plaintiff, requests the court to grant an extension of time to serve defendants Courtney Burgess, Ariel Mitchell, and Nexstar Media Inc. in the civil lawsuit he filed against them. Combs argues that despite reasonable diligence, he has not yet been able to complete service on all parties within the time allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). His legal team contends that attempts have been made to locate and serve the defendants, and that the delay is not due to neglect or lack of effort but rather logistical challenges in effectuating service.The memorandum further asserts that granting an extension would serve the interests of justice, especially given the seriousness of the claims Combs has brought against the defendants, which include alleged defamation and other reputational harm. Combs maintains that allowing more time to properly serve the defendants will not prejudice their rights and will ensure the case proceeds on its merits. Therefore, he requests that the court issue an order enlarging the deadline for service to allow for continued efforts to notify all named parties and move the litigation forward.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.635504.30.0.pdf

A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In a letter to Judge Buchwald, attorneys representing Sean Combs and his associated companies—Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy's House Recordings, Inc.—requested a pre-motion conference to discuss their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. They argue that the plaintiff's claim is preempted by New York State law and fails to establish a viable legal basis for holding the corporate entities liable, seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).In a letter to the court, attorneys for Plaintiff Crystal McKinney oppose Defendants' request for a pre-motion conference regarding their anticipated Motion to Dismiss her Amended Complaint. The Defendants claim that the NYC Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMVA) is preempted by state law; however, McKinney's attorneys argue that this argument has already been rejected by the Appellate Division. They contend that McKinney's Amended Complaint contains well-pled allegations of sexual assault, physical abuse, and/or forcible drugging, which meet the requirements of the GMVA, and therefore, the motion to dismiss should fail.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.27.0.pdfsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.26.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Combs Defendants have notified the Court of their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Dawn Richard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Richard's Complaint asserts 21 causes of action against more than two dozen defendants, alleging a wide-ranging sex trafficking conspiracy. However, the Combs Defendants argue that the claims are baseless, stating that even if the alleged facts were true (which they deny), they do not substantiate the claims made in the Complaint.The Defendants further contend that the claims are insufficiently pled, lack legal merit, and are barred due to being untimely by several years. Additionally, they highlight that contractual releases signed by the Plaintiff preclude these claims. The Defendants characterize the Complaint as an attempt to sensationalize what they describe as a straightforward commercial dispute.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.121.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A declaration in support of dismissing a Rule 11 sanctions motion is a formal statement, usually made under oath, that provides evidence and arguments to counter a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 sanctions can be sought by a party if they believe that the opposing party has filed a frivolous lawsuit, made legal arguments without proper basis, or submitted filings for an improper purpose.Here are the key elements typically included in such a declaration:Personal Testimony: The declarant, often an attorney or party involved in the case, provides their personal account and context related to the filing in question. This may include explanations of their actions, decisions, and intentions.Factual Evidence: The declaration will include factual evidence supporting the claim that the filing was made in good faith, based on reasonable inquiry, and with a legitimate legal basis. This can involve referencing specific documents, communications, or events.Legal Arguments: It will contain legal arguments demonstrating that the original filing was justified and that the motion for sanctions is unwarranted. This includes citing relevant case law, statutes, and procedural rules.Refutation of Accusations: The declaration will specifically address and refute the points raised in the Rule 11 sanctions motion, providing counterarguments and evidence to show that the accusations of frivolousness or improper conduct are unfounded.Supporting Documentation: Any relevant documents, affidavits, or other evidence that bolster the declarant's statements and arguments are often attached as exhibits to the declaration.Conclusion: The declarant will typically conclude with a request for the court to deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

memorandum of law in support of a motion for sanctions is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the legal arguments and relevant facts supporting a party's request for the court to impose penalties or corrective measures against an opposing party for misconduct or violation of court rules. Here's a detailed breakdown of what it typically includes:Structure and Content:Title and Caption:The document begins with a title that clearly states it is a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Sanctions."The caption includes the name of the court, the parties involved in the case, the case number, and other identifying information.Introduction:A brief overview of the nature of the motion and the sanctions being requested.A summary of the key points that will be elaborated on in the memorandum.Background and Factual Context:A detailed explanation of the facts that led to the motion for sanctions.Specific instances of the opposing party's misconduct or violation of court rules.Any previous warnings or attempts to resolve the issue without court intervention.Legal Standard:An outline of the legal standards and rules governing sanctions (e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Rule 37, or other applicable state or federal rules).Discussion of the authority and discretion of the court to impose sanctions under these rules.Argument:A comprehensive legal argument detailing why sanctions are appropriate in this case.Citation of relevant case law, statutes, and rules that support the request for sanctions.Analysis of how the opposing party's conduct fits within the legal framework warranting sanctions.Discussion of the specific type of sanctions being sought (e.g., monetary penalties, dismissal of claims, striking of pleadings, etc.).Conclusion:A concise statement reiterating the request for sanctions.A summary of the key reasons the court should grant the motion.Certificate of Service:A statement verifying that the memorandum and the motion for sanctions have been properly served on the opposing party.Purpose and Importance:Accountability: It seeks to hold the opposing party accountable for improper conduct, such as frivolous filings, failure to comply with discovery obligations, or other abuses of the judicial process.Deterrence: Imposing sanctions serves to deter similar conduct in the future by the offending party or others.Compensation: Sanctions can compensate the moving party for expenses incurred due to the misconduct, such as attorney fees and costs.Efficiency: It helps maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process by discouraging actions that waste court time and resources.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:2024.05.17 MOL ISO Motion for Sanctions(8677390.10) (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

memorandum of law in support of a motion for sanctions is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the legal arguments and relevant facts supporting a party's request for the court to impose penalties or corrective measures against an opposing party for misconduct or violation of court rules. Here's a detailed breakdown of what it typically includes:Structure and Content:Title and Caption:The document begins with a title that clearly states it is a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Sanctions."The caption includes the name of the court, the parties involved in the case, the case number, and other identifying information.Introduction:A brief overview of the nature of the motion and the sanctions being requested.A summary of the key points that will be elaborated on in the memorandum.Background and Factual Context:A detailed explanation of the facts that led to the motion for sanctions.Specific instances of the opposing party's misconduct or violation of court rules.Any previous warnings or attempts to resolve the issue without court intervention.Legal Standard:An outline of the legal standards and rules governing sanctions (e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Rule 37, or other applicable state or federal rules).Discussion of the authority and discretion of the court to impose sanctions under these rules.Argument:A comprehensive legal argument detailing why sanctions are appropriate in this case.Citation of relevant case law, statutes, and rules that support the request for sanctions.Analysis of how the opposing party's conduct fits within the legal framework warranting sanctions.Discussion of the specific type of sanctions being sought (e.g., monetary penalties, dismissal of claims, striking of pleadings, etc.).Conclusion:A concise statement reiterating the request for sanctions.A summary of the key reasons the court should grant the motion.Certificate of Service:A statement verifying that the memorandum and the motion for sanctions have been properly served on the opposing party.Purpose and Importance:Accountability: It seeks to hold the opposing party accountable for improper conduct, such as frivolous filings, failure to comply with discovery obligations, or other abuses of the judicial process.Deterrence: Imposing sanctions serves to deter similar conduct in the future by the offending party or others.Compensation: Sanctions can compensate the moving party for expenses incurred due to the misconduct, such as attorney fees and costs.Efficiency: It helps maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process by discouraging actions that waste court time and resources.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:2024.05.17 MOL ISO Motion for Sanctions(8677390.10) (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

memorandum of law in support of a motion for sanctions is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the legal arguments and relevant facts supporting a party's request for the court to impose penalties or corrective measures against an opposing party for misconduct or violation of court rules. Here's a detailed breakdown of what it typically includes:Structure and Content:Title and Caption:The document begins with a title that clearly states it is a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Sanctions."The caption includes the name of the court, the parties involved in the case, the case number, and other identifying information.Introduction:A brief overview of the nature of the motion and the sanctions being requested.A summary of the key points that will be elaborated on in the memorandum.Background and Factual Context:A detailed explanation of the facts that led to the motion for sanctions.Specific instances of the opposing party's misconduct or violation of court rules.Any previous warnings or attempts to resolve the issue without court intervention.Legal Standard:An outline of the legal standards and rules governing sanctions (e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Rule 37, or other applicable state or federal rules).Discussion of the authority and discretion of the court to impose sanctions under these rules.Argument:A comprehensive legal argument detailing why sanctions are appropriate in this case.Citation of relevant case law, statutes, and rules that support the request for sanctions.Analysis of how the opposing party's conduct fits within the legal framework warranting sanctions.Discussion of the specific type of sanctions being sought (e.g., monetary penalties, dismissal of claims, striking of pleadings, etc.).Conclusion:A concise statement reiterating the request for sanctions.A summary of the key reasons the court should grant the motion.Certificate of Service:A statement verifying that the memorandum and the motion for sanctions have been properly served on the opposing party.Purpose and Importance:Accountability: It seeks to hold the opposing party accountable for improper conduct, such as frivolous filings, failure to comply with discovery obligations, or other abuses of the judicial process.Deterrence: Imposing sanctions serves to deter similar conduct in the future by the offending party or others.Compensation: Sanctions can compensate the moving party for expenses incurred due to the misconduct, such as attorney fees and costs.Efficiency: It helps maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process by discouraging actions that waste court time and resources.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:2024.05.17 MOL ISO Motion for Sanctions(8677390.10) (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! In this week's episode, we're focusing on a topic from Civil Procedure -- specifically, motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for new trial, where the moving party is asking the court to take certain issues away from the jury. In this episode we discuss: The two types of motions for judgment as a matter of law The standard for granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law Filing and granting motions for new trial Analyzing a hypo encompassing the above concepts Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn – Motions for Summary Judgment (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-412-listen-and-learn-motions-for-summary-judgment/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-504-listen-and-learn-motions-for-judgment-as-a-matter-of-law-and-motions-for-new-trial-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/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) 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 Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.

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.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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" 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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  

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