Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions  (Read 5765 times)

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2008, 10:21:25 PM »
is that "sad" out of pity or crushed hope?

why do i feel like every other cls'er i meet is in an ltr, engaged or married???

I've noticed this too...I didn't think so many of us would be paired up.

also, am i doing myself a disservice by skipping over all these examples at the end of each chapter? should i make sure to look over them at least once before my exam?

umm. The examples are long and repetitive. If you want to test yourself with some practice questions, go get the Glannon Guide and the book store first thing tomorrow and/or print some of Prof. Goldberg's civ pro exams from the G drive...

Yeah, law school is somewhat of a bummer that way.

<-- single.  spends most of his nights studying.

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2008, 10:25:37 PM »
Is there a situation in which a party could elect to move for either SJ or JML (where they can choose between the two)?  (in other words, might there be an overlap in timing for when SJ and JML are available to a party?)

Can a judge enter JML sua sponte?  How about renewed JML?

I don't think so.  SJ is pre-trial, and a party can move for JML after the other party has made their case.

I don't think that a judge can move for JML sua sponte, or renewed JML sua sponte, but let me check Rule 50 quickly.  Cabra: I'm also cramming for CivPro.
Rule 50(a) doesn't seem to contemplate whether it has to be on a party's motion either way.  My prof seemed to indicate that sua sponte is acceptable for JML, but went on some other tangent so didn't go into why, or what cases there are to support that.  So I was hoping someone else had looked into it or that it had been brought up in someone else's class.  :)  thanks anyway.

A sua sponte JML seems very odd, because, citing Lind, it would be like the judge replaced his judgment with the jury's, and that's a major no-no.  If the judge doesn't think the plaintiff or defendant met the burden of production, but the jury and even the parties do, it doesn't make sense that he could issue a JML.  There's also the unfair surprise policy element of it.

sstar

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2008, 11:01:58 PM »
Thoughts on Twombly?
T'50 Class of 2011

dubsy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2008, 11:03:19 PM »
I'm reading glannon right now and have a question on his explanation of federal subject matter jurisdiction.  He says that a case could be interpreted as "arising under" federal law as long as "one of the parties in the case would have to rely on federal law to establish either a claim or a defense in the lawsuit" (bottom p 67).  However, I am positive that I just read a case the other day that established that it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to merely "predict" a potential defense that involves a federal question in an attempt to get federal subject matter jurisdiction.  

Thoughts?
seeing king midas everywhere.

dubsy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2008, 11:14:45 PM »
never mind, he explains it later.
seeing king midas everywhere.

Cabra

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2008, 11:15:45 PM »
was he talking about the Supreme Court/Article 3 there?
CLS 2011

sstar

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2008, 11:24:46 PM »
basically, a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the state when the plaintiff's complaint shows that it is federal claim. plaintiffs can't rely on anticipated defenses to establish federal subject matter jx.
T'50 Class of 2011

crow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #37 on: December 10, 2008, 11:27:58 PM »
Thoughts on Twombly?
Twombly frustrates me.  I guess the main thing to take from it would be that courts may be more willing to grant a 12(b)(6) in cases involving especially complex, costly litigation.  ?

Cabra

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #38 on: December 10, 2008, 11:33:21 PM »
Thoughts on Twombly?
Twombly frustrates me.  I guess the main thing to take from it would be that courts may be more willing to grant a 12(b)(6) in cases involving especially complex, costly litigation.  ?

It's hard to know what it really means at this point. The main thing I take away from it is that speculative litigation will not be looked kindly on for 12(b)(6) motions. also, a plaintiff must state a claim for relief with facts that show it is plausible rather than just possible.
I will use those exact words on the exam, by the way.  ;)
CLS 2011

sstar

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: ITT Ask Cabra Your Civ Pro Questions
« Reply #39 on: December 10, 2008, 11:40:19 PM »
Thoughts on Twombly?
Twombly frustrates me.  I guess the main thing to take from it would be that courts may be more willing to grant a 12(b)(6) in cases involving especially complex, costly litigation.  ?

It's hard to know what it really means at this point. The main thing I take away from it is that speculative litigation will not be looked kindly on for 12(b)(6) motions. also, a plaintiff must state a claim for relief with facts that show it is plausible rather than just possible.
I will use those exact words on the exam, by the way.  ;)

me too! what textbook are you guys using?
T'50 Class of 2011