Recently in Court Rules Category

Political patronage is a dirty word to many. It is one of the principles of the American Idea that in this land of opportunity, we'll choose the best person for the job, no matter their political affiliation. For about a century after our modern Constitutional government was formed, patronage was the name of the game and each change in administration meant a massive civil service turnover, and of course, corrupt bargains and payoffs for positions.

The Feds fixed the issue in 1883 with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Puerto Rico had its own remedy, the Public Service Human Resources Administration Act of Puerto Pico, which espoused "merit principles" over patronage.

You probably grew up hearing the saying, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” (We’ve always preferred the Alice Roosevelt variation, “If you can’t say something good about someone, sit right here by me,” but the advantages of that theory are a discussion for another time.)

Today, we’re considering if the converse of the “don’t say anything at all” adage is true in the context of federal court rules: If people don’t say anything, does it mean that they didn’t have anything nice to say? If so, then no one had anything nice to say about the amendments to the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ Local Rule 35.0. Despite a request in June for public comments on proposed amendments to the En Banc Determination rule, the public failed to respond with opinions about the changes.

Maybe it’s because the changes were non-substantive.

Timely service of process is just what the doctor court ordered.

Plaintiff Sobeida Feliz argued to the First Circuit that a district court abused its discretion in dismissing her malpractice and wrongful death claims against a doctor for failure to make timely service of process. The First Circuit disagreed, concluding (in an opinion by Justice Souter, sitting by designation), that “dismissal well over a year after filing the complaint and after serial, unexplained delays without apparent effort to get service was within the district court’s discretion.”

To quote Macauley Culkin as Kevin McCallister in Home Alone, "This is it. Don't get scared now."

Really. There's no reason to get scared: We're just talking about proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

One mega beer company is alleging that it isn’t getting fair treatment under tax laws, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals isn’t cutting the company any slack.

Coors Brewing Company sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, asking for federal jurisdiction as it related to taxes.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that the scope of expert witness testimony is not narrowly tailored to the content in a pre-trial expert report.

Frank Gay is the executor of his sister's estate. His sister, Anita, died after a slip and fall accident at a casino. Hospital records listed Anita's death as an accident, and stated that she died as the result of a nonsurvivable closed head injury that caused extensive bleeding in her brain.

The autopsy found that Anita had suffered a "fractured skull with subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage following acute cerebral hemorrhage." The autopsy report stated that Anita's manner of death was an "accident," from having "collapsed at race track."

If electronic discovery is the vehicle through which lawyers conduct business, the meet and confer is the pre-purchase inspection.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), enacted in 2007, requires that parties to litigation "meet and confer" to negotiate the terms of electronic discovery at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held, or a scheduling order is due.

Whether aspiring to be Atticus Finch or Gloria Allred, law students can get an early shot at the big time in First Circuit Court of Appeals.

The First Circuit has adopted amendments to Local Rule 46.0(f), broadening the scope of law student representation. Under the expanded rule, a law student may represent the federal government or a federal agency, and a law graduate may represent clients under certain circumstances while waiting to sit for the bar for the first time or waiting for bar examination results.

Of course, there are limitations to the not-quite-lawyer's new-found freedoms.