ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Rule changes, 7th Circuit procedural decisions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateAs federal practitioners know, each Dec. 1 new federal rule amendments take effect. In most recent years there have been significant changes to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure each December. This year, however, there are no amendments that took effect to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The only federal rule changes that took effect Dec. 1 were to Bankruptcy Rules 1007, 2015, 3001, 7054 and 7056, Criminal Rules 5 and 15, and new Rule 37.

As for Local Rules, as noted in my last column, the Northern District of Indiana has passed modest Local Rule amendments that take effect Jan. 1. The Southern District’s proposed Local Rule amendments are likewise modest, and if approved by the court as anticipated would take effect Jan. 1. Those amendments are largely stylistic and in the nature of housekeeping cleanups, but Local Rule 83-5 and 83-6 on court admission and pro hac vice admission are significantly rewritten.

7th Circuit developments

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a number of significant procedural decisions addressing key appellate issues, including the following:

• In Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012), the court ordered defendant to amend its jurisdictional allegations in its notice of removal, noting, “When we raised this issue at oral argument, counsel for both sides were surprised to learn that ‘citizenship’ for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 depends on domicile rather than residence.” The court added, “Lawyers have a professional obligation to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction before judges need to question the allegations.”

• In Feldman v. Olin Corp., 673 F.3d 515, 516 (7th Cir. 2012), the court held that if the District Court orders the party’s attorney (not the party itself) to pay sanctions, the appeal must be made in the attorney’s own name.

• In Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 672 F.3d 535, 536 (7th Cir. 2012), the court addressed a discretionary interlocutory appeal, which are not frequently accepted in the 7th Circuit. Although the court did accept this particular interlocutory appeal, it wrote, “Interlocutory appeals are frowned on in the federal judicial system. They interrupt litigation and by interrupting delay its conclusion; and often the issue presented by such an appeal would have become academic by the end of the litigation in the district court, making an interlocutory appeal a gratuitous burden on the court of appeals and the parties, as well as a gratuitous interruption and retardant of the district court proceedings.”

• In Dynegy Marketing & Trade v. Multiut Corp., 648 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2011), the court noted that in an earlier appeal, it had dismissed the appeal for lack of finality because prejudgment interest had not been determined. The court wrote, “We dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, however, because the district court’s judgment did not specify the amount of pre-judgment interest the defendants owed and was therefore not final. See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 175-76 (1989).”

Finally, the Seventh Circuit Practitioner’s Handbook has been updated this year. The 145-page reference is online at www.ca7.uscourts.gov, and is an invaluable reference for all appellate practitioners.

Mark Your Calendars – The 7th Circuit Judicial Conference is set for May 5-7 in Indianapolis.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT