Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For the non lawyers, here's a brief summary of the Berk holding: Berk v. Choy reinforces the Supreme Court's consistent approach to conflicts between state law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When a valid Federal Rule directly addresses the same question as state law, the Federal Rule governs, regardless of how important or substantive the state's policy objectives may be. The Court has never invalidated a Federal Rule under the Rules Enabling Act, and this decision continues that unbroken streak. The decision also demonstrates the limits of Erie doctrine. While federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law, the Federal Rules occupy their own domain. States, with the possible exception of the kinds of affidavit or certification requirements contemplated under Rule 11, cannot use procedural requirements, even those with substantive policy goals like reducing frivolous litigation, to alter federal practice in diversity cases https://www.bakerdonelson.com/berk-v-choy-what-the-supreme-courts-ruling-means-for-medical-malpractice-litigation[/quote] But 47.1 doesn't directly conflict with FRCP 54. FRCP 54(d) governs the award of costs and fees to a prevailing party. Court costs are automatically assumed but parties must file a motion for attorney's fees. That motion must include legal grounds for the award. The legal grounds may be federal or state, it depends on governing law. But using 47.1 doesn't contradict the federal rules, it fits within them. 47.1 creates a legal grounds for obtaining attorney's fees under 54(d). [/quote] But Liman is specifically stating that he has not decided whether Rule 41.7 requests can be brought under Rule 54, and if they can be, suggests that a different burden of proof may apply. That is very explicitly stated in his order.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics