New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

December 1, 2009: Immediate Changes to Federal Practice

Download PDF

Download associated file: 1 Dec 2009 Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.pdf 

Federal practice changes substantially on December 1, 2009. Principal changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effective 12/1/09:

1. A complaint can be amended as of right for only 21 days after a motion to dismiss is filed. Previously, the right to amend extended indefinitely until an answer was filed. The 21-day clock starts when a motion to dismiss (or to strike or for a more definite statement) is filed. Rule 15(a)(1)(B).

• Note: The rule is not limited to new motions (i.e., those filed after 12/1/09). If a motion was filed more than 21 days before December 1, 2009, the right to amend as of right may be forfeited on December 1, 2009, by immediate operation of the new rule.

2. An answer no longer closes the pleadings — the plaintiff has 21 days to amend as of right after the answer is filed. (The same is true for counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims — any claim-asserting pleading.) Rule 15(a)(1)(B).

3. The method for counting time under the Federal Rules, local rules and court orders has changed. (Rule 6).

• Intervening weekends and holidays are now counted. Rule 6(a)(1)(B).

• New rules for counting hours have been added (e.g., under a court order), and these rules are not intuitive. Rule 6(a)(2).

• 3 extra days for service by mail continues, and computation rules may afford more than 3 extra days. First, you compute the time period set forth in the Rules, including, if the last day is a weekend or holiday, the extension to the next business day. Then you add 3 days. Rule 6(d).

• Local rules: 10 days under a local rule now means 10 calendar days, not 14 or 15 calendar days, as it did on November 30, 2009. Many local rules have been changed to expand time periods (e.g., SDNY/EDNY).

• Time limits have been changed throughout the Civil, Appellate, Criminal and Bankruptcy Rules.

4. A motion for summary judgment may be filed immediately. The former 20-day waiting period is gone. Absent a court order, whenever a summary judgment motion is filed, the responsive brief is due 21 days later. Rule 56(c)(1)(A).

5. District Judges may issue provisional rulings after the notice of appeal is filed. If so, the ruling must be brought to the attention of the Court of Appeals. New Rule 62.1.

6. The CAFA typo regarding timing of noticing an appeal from a remand order is fixed. The theoretically perpetual statutory right of appeal (“not less than 7 days after entry of the [remand] order” — with no outside date), is now 10 calendar days. 28 U.S.C. § 1453.

A copy of the amendments is attached (above).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice