The Northern District of Indiana has published proposed Local Rules amendments, with the comment period open through March 31. The Local Rules Advisory Committee has recommended, and the Court has approved for public comment, amendments to Local Rules 1-1, 3-1, 5-1, 5-2 and 7-1.
Effective Dec. 1, the Southern District of Indiana adopted various Local Rules amendments, specifically to Local Rules 5-2, 5-3 and 5-7 (electronic filing); Local Rule 6-1 (extensions of time); Local Rule 81-2 (removed actions), and; Local Rule 83-5 (admission). The amendments to Local Rule 6-1(a) are significant in that they impact the process of seeking extensions of time for filing deadlines.
In reviewing the most recent edition of “Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts,” John Maley writes that no other book gives such practical and integrated treatment to procedural and substantive law in areas frequently encountered by federal commercial litigators.
The Southern District of Indiana Court has published for comment proposed changes to several local rules, with the full text available on the court’s website. Several of the proposals address practices and procedures that arise in many cases.
In April the Supreme Court approved amendments to Rules 5, 23, 62, and 65.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which will take effect December 1 absent contrary action by Congress.
Local rules in the Northern and Southern district courts have changed regarding responses to motions to dismiss.
Since taking the bench in March, Magistrate Judge Doris Pryor has been immersed in the work of the court.
Intervention — Rule 24 allows a non-party to intervene in a pending action as of right in limited circumstances, either as of right or permissively.
Effective Dec. 1, several federal rule changes took effect. Fortunately, this batch of amendments was modest.
The Southern District of Indiana made modest changes to its Uniform Case Management Plans, both the general plan and the patent litigation plan, effective Nov. 1.
A recent opinion in which Chief Judge Diane Wood issued a published order addressing jurisdictional statements on appeal is a must-read for anyone handling 7th Circuit appeals.
As this column’s focus is always federal civil procedure and practice, Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue’s contributions in this realm are significant, particularly considering her tenure was cut so short by her early passing.
The Northern District of Indiana has implemented new protocols for assignment of cases to judges, both for certain pending cases and for newly filed cases.
Judge Robert L. Miller recently addressed a motion to reconsider a ruling denying in part a defense motion for summary judgment; the opinion provides good guidance on whether and when such motions are appropriate.
As the year begins, it is appropriate to get back to the basics. Subject matter jurisdiction is the starting point in every case in federal court, scrutinized from the outset by the district court and then the 7th Circuit. Yet in opinion after opinion common errors in complaints or removal notices are noted by these courts, particularly in diversity jurisdiction cases.
As of Dec. 1, several amendments take effect in federal civil and appellate practice.
In the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, from time to time the federal bench has found it necessary to comment on deficient practitioner performance. A recent example also serves as a reminder of some basic principles in this age of phone conferences.
Although referred to by some as the “mandatory pro bono rule,” in fact the rule is entitled “Representation of Indigent Litigants,” and is multi-faceted.
As an active participant in drafting and review of the Local Rule, this author has observed first-hand the careful, thoughtful and patient consideration by the court of the clear need for more lawyers to take on more pro bono cases in the court, and the balance of limits on an individual lawyer’s time and resources to take on these cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an unaccepted offer of judgment under Rule 68 does not moot a class representative’s claim, even when the offer is made prior to class certification.