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.
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.
Significant changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect to civil cases filed on or after Dec. 1, or to cases already pending to the extent just and practicable. In the first two months of these new rules, it is apparent they are having an immediate impact on federal litigation.
Significant changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure take effect to civil cases filed on or after Dec. 1, or to cases already pending to the extent just and practicable. The Supreme Court of the United States approved these changes in April, and Congress has taken no action to stop them becoming effective.
Read about latest developments in the federal bar.
Removal of state-court actions to federal court has provided a seemingly never-ending source of procedural disputes. Fortunately many of those mind-numbing issues have been resolved in the last several years by Congress and the courts, with the Supreme Court of the United States addressing one key issue recently.
Throughout 2014, a subcommittee of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s Local Rules Committee, including Magistrate Judges Denise LaRue and Debra McVicker Lynch, was hard at work on a proposed uniform protective order.