Also known as: F.R.C.P. · Federal Rules of Civil Procedure · Fed. R. Civ. P.
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A collection of rules that prescribe the procedures for commencing, conducting, and resolving civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts.
Francisco Frost sued Falcon Dynamics in state court for breach of contract. Falcon Dynamics wished to remove the case to federal court. Its counsel prepared and filed a notice of removal in the appropriate district court within thirty days of service, attaching all served process and pleadings. The filing satisfied the requirements for proper removal under the governing rules.
Felix Franco sued Freeman Engineering in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. State law required personal service by a sheriff, but counsel served the summons and complaint by mail on the corporate officer. The court upheld the service because the federal rules controlled the method of service in the diversity action.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Francesca Fiore sued Frontier Capital alleging securities violations. During discovery the defendant withheld internal investigation memos prepared by its in-house counsel. The court sustained the claim of work-product protection because the memos were created in anticipation of litigation and reflected legal analysis.
Felicia Fuentes and an environmental group sued Fairfield Bank for funding projects alleged to harm wildlife habitats. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs lacked concrete injury. The court granted the motion because the complaint failed to allege particularized harm traceable to the bank's conduct.
Freya Freeman sued Falcon Dynamics alleging an antitrust conspiracy. The complaint contained only parallel conduct allegations without facts suggesting an agreement. The court dismissed the action because the allegations did not plausibly show the required conspiracy element.
Fiona Foster's union sued Lincoln Mills for breach of a collective bargaining agreement. The employer argued state law governed the remedy. The court applied federal substantive law fashioned under the rules to enforce the agreement and awarded damages.
A federal procedural rule controls when it directly addresses the issue presented and is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. The rule regulates the process of adjudication rather than substantive rights created by state law.
A defendant must file a notice of removal in the district court for the district where the action is pending. The notice must be signed under Rule 11, contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, and include copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendant.
The responsive pleading must be served within fourteen days after notice of the court's denial. A one-sentence order denying the motion triggers this period even if the court promises a later detailed opinion.
State privilege law governs because state law supplies the rule of decision on the underlying claim. Federal common law of privilege applies only when federal substantive law governs the claim.
The court may enter judgment in accordance with the answers, direct the jury to reconsider, or set aside the verdict and order a new trial. The written answers control when they cannot be reconciled with the general verdict.
…the parties, service of process shall be made in the manner prescribed by state law or that set forth in Rule 4 (d) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On February 6, 1963, petitioner, a citizen of Ohio, filed her complaint in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming damages in excess of $10,000 for personal…