Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Northwest Business Litigation Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Litigation
: Northwest Business Litigation BlogChristmas presents for civil procedure fans
By Lori Bauman
A couple of recent appellate decisions may be the type that only civil procedure nerds could love. But they offer important lessons about how to handle the beginning and the ending of litigation.
Yesterday the Ninth Circuit, in PAE Government Services, Inc. v. MPRI, Inc., addressed whether a plaintiff can be penalized for alleging facts in an amended complaint that contradict the original complaint. The district court judge found the amended allegations to be "sham pleadings," striking them and dismissing the complaint. The Ninth Circuit panel reversed, stating "there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent a party from filing successive pleading that make inconsistent or even contradictory allegations." While a bad faith filing could result in Rule 11 sanctions, no such sanctions are allowed unless the party is given an opportunity to respond. Because the district court did not invoke Rule 11's procedural safeguards, it had no grounds to strike the pleading.
And last week the Oregon Court of Appeals took a hard look at one of the last steps in litigation - designating the record on appeal following a trial. In Ferguson v. Nelson, plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred when it declined to give various proposed jury instructions. Reversal based on failure to give a jury instruction "is warranted only if the requested instruction both accurately states the law in question and is supported by the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction," the Court of Appeals stated. Plaintiffs had failed to designate most of the trial testimony when asking the court to prepare the record on appeal, making it impossible for the Court of Appeals to determine whether the evidence supported the requested instructions. On that basis, the court refused to consider whether the instructions were erroneous, and it affirmed the judgment for defendant.
Full post as published by Northwest Business Litigation Blog on December 19, 2007 (boomark / email).
The Civil Rights Act of 1871
Law bans discrimination enacted under color of state law
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Gay Marriage Laws
Where same sex couples can marry
Civil / Human Rights
alleging violations of basic human and civil rights.
RC2 Corp to Pay $1.25 Million Civil Penalty
RC2 Corp to Pay $1.25 Million Civil Penalty >
Faulty Homes
Fleetwood Enterprises Inc. pays HUD $75,000 civil penalty for defective construction.
Health Plan Boycott
Connecticut chiropractic groups to pay $87,000 fine in civil suit.
Becker County
Faces Civil Rights Class Action by Inmates and their Attorneys
Marketing Spam
Member Source Media pays $200,000 civil penalty for deceptive online advertising.

SSRN DATABASE 'LAW AND SOCIETY : CIVIL PROCEDURE
Foundation Press Publishes Civil Procedure Stories, 2d Edition
AALS Civil Procedure Section Seeks Information about Future Conferences
25 Unique Christmas Gifts Under $25
"Christmas in July for U.S. Tour fans"








