Federal Rules of Civ Pro

[Trancer]

i think he lost all but the pinky, i read houchens... not as exciting as amputation

[eray01]

Somewhere behind Houchens there had to be a good story, but no one will ever know.

[T. Durden]

i'm going to 12(b)(6) this thread in violation of rule 11(a)(2)

just read pennoyer v. neff the other day

so clear and concise

and the subject material - whew, who knew the rules governing in personam jurisdiction could be SO interesting

[desmo]

Somewhere behind Houchens there had to be a good story, but no one will ever know.

I think the guy just got tired of his wife and wanted to go experiment in the back alleys of Bangkok.  I think he's still alive running whores and drugs.

[tacojohn]

i'm going to 12(b)(6) this thread in violation of rule 11(a)(2)

just read pennoyer v. neff the other day

so clear and concise

and the subject material - whew, who knew the rules governing in personam jurisdiction could be SO interesting

I want someone to come to my school and kill me for doing this, but 12(b)(6) goes with 8(a)(2), then if you're feeling vindictive you move for sanctions under 11(b)(2).  Wow.  I'm a gigantic geek.

We have a multiple choice part of our Civ Pro exam, so knowing the rules is pretty important.  The quality of a Civ Pro class is more dependent on the quality of the professor than the other classes, in my opinion.  My prof is really informal, relaxed (his complaint hypos all end "Paragraph 8: Love, Plaintiff"), which contrasts with how rigid and dry the material is ("I can see you've all lost the will to live" is another one of his common phrases).

And Venegas v. Mitchell is the best case in Civ Pro.  How to make sure you get your $400,000 contingency fee instead of the $75,000 attorney fee award.

[J D]

This might be strange, but in my Civ Pro class we haven't read any cases yet, nor have we even gone over the specific rules.  We've gone through the basic timeline/life of a case.  But since it's a full-year class, my prof wants to spend a good portion of this semester teaching skills in addition to substantive knowledge.  He's giving us a sort of introduction to legal reasoning and litigation strategy.  The other week, he gave us some problems to analyze and work through in class by Socratic discussion.  One dealt with who gets ownership of a buffalo carcass on a hunt; the other dealt with encroachment on a neighbor's land in building a garage.  In class we went through the significance of how the question of law is framed, the various kinds of remedies that could be devised, the various policy arguments for and against each rule/policy, etc.  The big point was to get us to see that usually, there's a lot of different ways a dispute can be resolved; if you can see past the two most obvious resolutions of a case, you can usually gain an advantage.  Same deal when it comes to framing the issue of law: the answer/outcome depends as much on how you ask/frame the question as it does on the actual rules and authorities.  It's actually rather interesting.  And best of all: light on reading, heavy on thinking.

[eray01]

Of course, 11(c)(2)(A) prohibits monetary awards for an 11(b)(2) violation.

Ahh Pennoyer v. Neff. The best cure for insomnia. You should check out Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Company. The judge babysteps his way through the current state of the personal jurisdiction doctrine to determine whether are not a federal court in California had personal jurisdiction over a defendant in Ohio. I thought it was helpful to understand how it all really works now rather than how it worked back in 18 whenever.

As far as quality of civ pro profs is concerned, our section is a c-nt hair away from forming a posse and hangin' the female dog.

[T. Durden]

can i waive my 11(c)(2) 21 day safe harbor provision to amend my original post?


(these "jokes" are getting out of hand)