АҚШ Федералдық Азаматтық Процедура Ережелері

Rules that govern civil procedure in United States district courts

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (officially abbreviated Fed. R. Civ. P.; colloquially FRCP) govern civil procedure in United States district courts. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act become part of the FRCP unless, within seven months, the United States Congress acts to veto them. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy making body. At the time 28 USC 724 (1934) was adopted, federal courts were generally required to follow the procedural rules of the states in which they sat, but they were free to apply federal common law in cases not governed by a state constitution or state statute. Whether within the intent of Congress or not when adopting 28 USC 724 (1934), the situation was effectively reversed in 1938, the year the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. Federal courts are now required to apply the substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is in question, including state judicial decisions, and the federal courts almost always are required to use the FRCP as their rules of civil procedure. States may determine their own rules, which apply in state courts, although 35 of the 50 states have adopted rules that are based on the FRCP.

The Rules, established in 1938, replaced the earlier procedures under the Federal Equity Rules and the Conformity Act (28 USC 724 (1934)) merging the procedure for cases, in law and equity. The Conformity Act required that procedures in suits at law conform to state practice, usually the Field Code or a pleading system based on common law. Before the FRCP were established, common law pleading was more formal, traditional, and particular in its phrases and requirements. For example, a plaintiff bringing a trespass suit would have to mention certain key words in his complaint or risk having it dismissed with prejudice. In contrast, the FRCP is based upon a legal construction called notice pleading, which is less formal, is created and modified by legal experts, and is far less technical in requirements. In notice pleading, the same plaintiff bringing suit would not face dismissal for lack of the exact legal term, as long as the claim itself was legally actionable. The policy behind this change is to simply give "notice" of grievances and to leave the details for later in the case. This acts in the interest of equity by concentrating on the actual law rather than the exact construction of pleas. The Field Code, which was adopted between 1848 and 1850, was an intermediate step between common law and modern rules, created by New York attorney David Dudley Field. The Field Code was partially inspired by civil law systems in Europe and Louisiana, and among other reforms, merged law and equity proceedings. Significant revisions have been made to the FRCP in 1948, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1993, 2000, and 2006. The FRCP contains a notes section that details the changes of each revision since 1938, explaining the rationale behind the language. The revisions that took effect in December 2006 made practical changes to discovery rules to make it easier for courts and litigating parties to manage electronic records. The 1966 amendments to the FRCP unified the civil and admiralty procedure, and added the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, now Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The FRCP were rewritten with respect to style, effective December 1, 2007, under the leadership of law professor and editor of Black's Law Dictionary Bryan A. Garner, for the avowed purpose of making them easier to understand. The style amendments were not intended to make substantive changes in the rules. Effective December 1, 2009, substantial amendments were made to rules 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 27, 32, 38, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71.1, 72 and 81. While rules 48 and 62.1 were added. Rule 1(f) was abrogated. The majority of the amendments affect various timing requirements and change how some deadlines are calculated. The most significant changes are to Rule 6. The FRCP does not apply to civil actions centralized into multidistrict litigations (MDLs), which have grown from a small minority of federal civil cases to the majority of them. At the end of 2018, for the first time ever, more than half of all pending federal civil actions had been centralized into MDLs. In other words, over half of all federal civil actions were not actually being litigated under the FRCP, but under ad hoc procedures crafted by federal district judges to manage complex civil litigation. Updates to FRCP Rule 37 went into effect on December 1, 2015, and have led to a significant decline in spoliation rulings in subsequent years. Federal procedure also requires parties to divulge certain information without a formal discovery request, in contrast to many state courts where most discovery can only be had by request. Information covered by this initial disclosure is found in Rule 26(a)(1)(A), includes information about potential witnesses, information/copies about all documents that may be used in the party's claim (excluding impeachment material), computations of damages, and insurance information. Information about any expert witness testimony is also required. Notable exceptions to the discovery rules include impeachment evidence/witnesses, "work product" (materials an attorney uses to prepare for the trial especially documents containing mental impressions, legal conclusions, or opinions of counsel), and experts who are used exclusively for trial prep and will not testify. FRCP Rule provides general guidelines to the discovery process, it requires the plaintiff to initiate a conference between the parties to plan the discovery process. The parties must confer as soon as practicable after the complaint was served to the defendants—and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b). The parties should attempt to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and submit it to the court within 14 days after the conference. End date of the discovery. This should be at least 60 days before the trial. The trial target date is usually 6 months to 2 years after the conference. Amendments to the deadlines for filing pleadings under FRCP 7&15, if any. Deadline for amending pleadings. Normally it is at least 30 days before the discovery ends. Deadline for joining claims, remedies and parties (FRCP 18&19). Normally it is at least 30 days before the discovery ends. Deadline for initial expert disclosures and rebuttal expert disclosures. Normally it is at least 30 days before the discovery ends. Deadline for dispositive motions. Usually it is at least 30 days after the discovery end date. Deadline for Pre trial order. If any dispositive motions are filed, the Joint Pretrial Order can be filed at least 30 days after the last decision on the merits. Unless all parties agree otherwise, the parties should submit to each other the initial disclosures under Rule 26(a) within 14 days after the conference. In such an instance, the court retains jurisdiction only to award attorneys fees or costs (in rare circumstances). With certain exceptions (e. g. class actions), an action may also be dismissed at any time by agreement of the parties (e. g. when the parties reach a settlement). An action may also be involuntarily dismissed by the court if the plaintiff fails to comply with deadlines or court orders. Rule deals with consolidation of related cases or the holding of separate trials. Rule addresses the taking of testimony, which is to be taken in open court whenever possible. Rule governs authentication of official records. Rule deals with subpoenas. A subpoena commands a person to give testimony, to produce documents for inspection and copying, or both. Although included in the Chapter headed "trials", subpoenas can also be used to obtain document production or depositions of non parties to the litigation during the pre trial discovery stage. Rule provides that formal "exceptions" to court rulings are no longer necessary so long as a sufficient record is made of the objecting party's position. The next several rules govern jury trials. Rule provides for the selection of jurors and rule governs the number of jurors in a civil case. A civil jury must consist of between six and twelve jurors (six jurors are presently used in the vast majority of federal civil trials; juries of twelve are still required in federal criminal cases). Rule provides for use of "special verdicts" in jury trials, under which the jury may be asked to respond to specific questions rather than just finding liability or non liability and determining the amount of the damages, if any. Rule addresses situations in which a case is so one sided that the court may grant "judgment as a matter of law" taking the case from the jury. Rule governs jury instructions. Rule provides procedure for the judge to hand down findings and conclusions following non jury trials. Rule governs masters, who are typically lawyers designated by the court to act as neutrals and assist the court in a case.

Rules 54 to 63. Rule deals with summary judgment. It is considered the last gate keeping function before trial, answering the question of whether the claim could even go to a jury. A successful summary judgment motion persuades the court there is no "genuine issue of material fact" and also that the moving party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The moving party can show that the disputed factual issues are illusory, can show a lack of genuine issue by producing affidavits or can make a showing through discovery. The movant can point either to the other side's inadequacies or can affirmatively negate the claim. The moving party has the burden of production; it has to come up with some evidence that there's no genuine issue of material fact. Then the burden shifts to the non moving party, which has to show that the claim is adequate to let it get to the jury. The non movant can submit affidavits, depositions, and other material. The burden shifts again to the moving party, which must say that there's still no genuine issue of material fact. A court grants summary judgment when there is no way the movant can lose at trial. When the moving party is the plaintiff, then it has to show that there's no way that a jury could find against it. (A partial summary judgment usually pertains only to certain claims, not the whole case.) Rule 50 also deals with judgments as a matter of law, however Rule 50 decisions take place after a jury has been empanelled. A motion under Rule 50(a) generally takes place immediately after the opposing party has finished presenting its case and must take place before the case is submitted to the jury. Importantly, to keep open the option of moving for a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict", or "judgment non obstante verdicto" after the jury has returned a verdict, one must file a Rule 50(a) motion. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the two are not separate motions, the JNOV motion is simply a renewed Rule 50(a) motion. A renewed 50(a) motion must be filed within 28 days of verdict entry. Rule 50 also covers motions for a new trial. These motions can be granted, denied, conditionally granted, or conditionally denied. Conditional grants or denials cover what will happen if the case is reversed on appeal. For instance, a case that ends with a successfully renewed Rule 50(a) motion to overturn the jury verdict may also include a conditional grant of a new trial. If the losing party wins their appeal, the trial will start over again. A motion for a new trial is a Rule (a)(1) motion and is generally filed simultaneously and as an alternative to a renewal of a Rule 50(a) motion.

Rules 64 to 71. This Title deals with remedies that may be granted by a federal court – both provisional remedies that may be ordered while the action is pending as well as final relief that may be granted to the winning party at the end of the case. Rule is captioned "Seizure of Person or Property" and authorizes procedures such as Prejudgment attachment, replevin, and garnishment. In general, these remedies may be awarded when they would be authorized under the law of the state in which the federal court is located – a rare instance in which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, generally designed to promote uniformity of practice in the federal districts throughout the country, defer to state law. Rule governs the procedure on applications for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. Rule addresses security and suretyship issues arising when the court orders a party to deposit security such as a bond. Rule deals with receivership. Rule deals with funds deposited in court, such as in interpleader actions. Rule governs the offer of judgment procedure under which a party may make a confidential offer of settlement in an action for money damages. Rules and deal with execution of judgments and orders directing a party to take a specific act. Rule deals with the effect of judgments on persons who are not parties to the action.

Rules 71.1 to 76. Chapter IX currently deals with special types of litigation that may take place in the federal courts. A former version of Chapter IX, contained in the original Rules of Civil Procedure, dealt with appeals from a District Court to a United States Court of Appeals. These rules were abrogated in 1967 when they were superseded by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a separate set of rules specifically governing the Courts of Appeals. Rule deals with procedure in condemnation actions. Rule sets forth procedures for matters before United States magistrate judges, including both "dispositive" and "nondispositive" matters, and provides for review of the magistrate judge's decision by a District Judge. Rule provides that magistrate judges may preside over certain trials consistent with statute and upon the consent of all parties. At present, there are no rules numbered 74 through 76.

Rule A outlines the scope and application of the supplementary rules in respect to certain remedies under admiralty and maritime claims, forfeiture actions in rem, and the procedure in statutory condemnation proceedings analogous to maritime actions. Rule B deals with attachment and garnishment in in personam actions. Rule C applies to actions in rem to enforce maritime liens or pursuant to federal statute which provides for a maritime actions in rem. Rule D deals with possessory, petitory, and partition actions in admiralty actions. Rule E applies to actions in personam with process of maritime attachment and garnishment, actions in rem, and petitory, possessory, and partition actions. Rule F relates to limitation of liability actions in relation to vessel owners. Rule G deals with forfeiture actions in rem arising from federal statute.

Supplemental rules 1 8 of this title deals specifically with actions challenging a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security on an individual claim; most other rules in the FRCP apply to the extent their not inconsistent with these rules. Rules 2 4 concern pre briefing actions. The lawsuit is commenced with a plaintiff filing a complaint bringing an action under §405(g) and that states other contents regarding personal information of benefits. The Commissioner must then be notified by the court via electronic service, eliminating the need for rule 4 service of process. The Commissioner need not admit or deny statements under rule 8(b), but must file an answer, and may file any other defense under rule 8(c) or motion to dismiss under rule 12(b) within 60 days of notice by the court. The answer mainly consists of the plaintiff's administrative record in the Department of Social Security. Rules 5 8 deals with presenting briefs in support of an action for a decision. In a similar vein to an appeal, each side files briefs in support or opposition of all factual assertions of the plaintiffs record in the Department of Social Security. A judge may then issue a judgment accordingly. This overall results in a simpler procedure that accommodates the appellate nature of a §405(g) actions.