Federal Bar Update: Jurisdiction, jurisdiction, jurisdiction
A recent opinion in which Chief Judge Diane Wood issued a published order addressing jurisdictional statements on appeal is a must-read for anyone handling 7th Circuit appeals.
A recent opinion in which Chief Judge Diane Wood issued a published order addressing jurisdictional statements on appeal is a must-read for anyone handling 7th Circuit appeals.
As this column’s focus is always federal civil procedure and practice, Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue’s contributions in this realm are significant, particularly considering her tenure was cut so short by her early passing.
The Northern District of Indiana has implemented new protocols for assignment of cases to judges, both for certain pending cases and for newly filed cases.
Judge Robert L. Miller recently addressed a motion to reconsider a ruling denying in part a defense motion for summary judgment; the opinion provides good guidance on whether and when such motions are appropriate.
As the year begins, it is appropriate to get back to the basics. Subject matter jurisdiction is the starting point in every case in federal court, scrutinized from the outset by the district court and then the 7th Circuit. Yet in opinion after opinion common errors in complaints or removal notices are noted by these courts, particularly in diversity jurisdiction cases.
As of Dec. 1, several amendments take effect in federal civil and appellate practice.
In the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, from time to time the federal bench has found it necessary to comment on deficient practitioner performance. A recent example also serves as a reminder of some basic principles in this age of phone conferences.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an unaccepted offer of judgment under Rule 68 does not moot a class representative’s claim, even when the offer is made prior to class certification.
Significant changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect to civil cases filed on or after Dec. 1, or to cases already pending to the extent just and practicable. In the first two months of these new rules, it is apparent they are having an immediate impact on federal litigation.
Significant changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure take effect to civil cases filed on or after Dec. 1, or to cases already pending to the extent just and practicable. The Supreme Court of the United States approved these changes in April, and Congress has taken no action to stop them becoming effective.
Read about latest developments in the federal bar.
Removal of state-court actions to federal court has provided a seemingly never-ending source of procedural disputes. Fortunately many of those mind-numbing issues have been resolved in the last several years by Congress and the courts, with the Supreme Court of the United States addressing one key issue recently.
Throughout 2014, a subcommittee of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s Local Rules Committee, including Magistrate Judges Denise LaRue and Debra McVicker Lynch, was hard at work on a proposed uniform protective order.
Any amendments to various federal rules always take effect Dec. 1. Some years there are significant changes, other years few or no amendments are in play. This December is very modest in terms of federal rule amendments.
The Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Civil Rules has published proposed amendments to several rules and is seeking public comment.
As noted previously, a new pilot program was underway in the Southern District of Indiana for including hyperlinks in briefs.
Effective Feb. 24, all new complaints and removals in the Northern District of Indiana must be e-filed.
The Southern District’s website is revamped, with a new and improved look and feel. The case opinion search feature remains and allows searching by judge and/or date. It can be a useful tool to get recent standards, for instance, on common issues.
Amendments took effect Dec. 1 to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, amendments took effect to several of the Southern District of Indiana’s Local Rules.
Unknown to some practitioners, since 1991 the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 requires advance notice to opposing parties of document subpoenas issued to non-parties.