Also known as: rule of civil procedure · civil procedure rules · FRCP · civil rules
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A body of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court under the Rules Enabling Act that govern the conduct of civil actions in United States district courts. The rules address pleading, motions, discovery, trials, judgments, and appeals while remaining consistent with statutory limits on substantive rights.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roger Ramirez's counsel at Raven Logistics inadvertently produced an email containing attorney work product during document production. Upon discovery, counsel immediately notified opposing counsel, demanded return of the document, and followed the sequestration procedure in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) by moving for a protective order. The court accepted the steps as reasonable and preserved the protection.
Raphael Rivera, a citizen of State A, sued Rebecca Ross, a citizen of State B, in federal court for negligence arising from an automobile accident. State law required personal service by a sheriff, but Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 permitted service by mail. The court applied the federal rule because it was valid and arguably procedural, allowing the case to proceed despite the conflicting state requirement.
Ryan Roberts, sued in state court by Rita Russell, filed a notice of removal in the proper federal district court within thirty days of service. The notice was signed under Rule 11, stated diversity jurisdiction as the ground, and attached copies of all process and pleadings served in state court. The removal became effective upon filing.
Roberto Reyes and other New York residents brought a diversity class action against Redline Automotive seeking recovery of statutory interest on late payments. A New York statute barred class treatment for such claims. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to certify the class because the rule governed procedure and did not alter substantive rights.
Ridgeway Partners sued Royal Crest Hotels in federal court. The action was dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). When Ridgeway Partners later filed the same claim in state court, the court looked to state preclusion law rather than treating the federal dismissal as automatically barring the claim on the merits.
Raven Logistics filed a complaint against several competitors alleging an antitrust conspiracy based solely on parallel pricing conduct. The court dismissed the complaint because the allegations did not plausibly suggest an agreement rather than independent action, requiring more than labels and conclusions to survive a motion to dismiss.
A valid federal rule that is arguably procedural applies in diversity actions even if it conflicts with state law, provided the rule was adopted under the Rules Enabling Act. State law governs only when no federal directive addresses the issue and ignoring it would encourage forum shopping.
The notice must be signed pursuant to 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 removing defendant. Filing in the proper district court effects removal.
…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…
…identified by petitioner in his brief before this Court is a subject of hot dispute, hardly amenable to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Compare, e. g. , Brief for Petitioner 36-37 and Brief for David Robinson, Jr., as Amicus Curiae 23-28, on the one hand, with People v. Onofre , 51 N. Y. 2d 476, 489, 415 N. E.…
…Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. , 312 U. S. 1 (1941). The statute examined in Sibbach provided that the newly promulgated Federal
…to preclude application of the work-product doctrine. Rule 26 (b) (3) codifies the work-product doctrine, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
…one another” is not just one of “a few stray statements”; it is an allegation describing unlawful conduct. As such, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) prevents waiver if the disclosure was inadvertent, reasonable steps were taken to prevent it, and the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) when applicable.
Yes. Rule 23 is a valid procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act and therefore governs the availability of class certification in diversity actions, displacing conflicting state statutes that would deny class treatment.
Rule 41(b) states that dismissals operate as adjudications on the merits unless based on jurisdiction, venue, or joinder, but that statement does not itself determine preclusive effect. Jurisdictions may treat particular dismissals, such as those based on statutes of limitations, differently for claim-preclusion purposes.