Amendments to certain Federal Rules and Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada have been proposed that may impact our legal work, and I summarize portions of the proposed amendments for your review below. I recommend tracking these proposals so you know when they are adopted and become effective.
On June 25, 2019, the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved proposed amendments to the following:
- Appellate Rules 3, 6, 42, and Forms 1 and 2;
- Bankruptcy Rules 2005, 3007, 7007.1, and 9036; and
- Civil Rule 7.1.
The comment period is currently open until February 19, 2020. For more detailed information on the proposed amendments, to view the redline revisions to each rule, and for information on submitting comments to these proposed amendments, visit https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/proposed-amendments-published-public-comment.
Appellate Rules 3 and 42
The Committee has proposed amending Appellate Rule 3, outlining the required contents of notices of appeal, to make it clear that a notice of appeal must state, among other things, “the judgment—or the appealable order—from which the appeal is taken.” This amendment makes clear that the notice need not designate each and every order of the district court that the appellant may wish to challenge on appeal, which will be the focus of the substantive briefs. This amendment is necessary because the judgment or appealable order serves as the basis for the court’s appellate jurisdiction and from which time limits are calculated. Appellate Rule 3 is also proposed to add a new subsection (6) which makes clear that in a civil case, the notice of appeal encompasses the judgment, even if the judgment is not a separate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
Appellate Rule 42(b) is proposed to be amended to require a clerk to dismiss a docketed appeal if the parties file a signed dismissal agreement if all required fees have been paid. This rule will have a new subsection clarifying that a court order is required for any relief beyond mere dismissal of an appeal, including approving a settlement, vacating an action of the district court or an administrative agency, or remanding the case to either the district court or administrative agency.
Bankruptcy Rules 3007 and 9036
The Committee has proposed amending Bankruptcy Rule 3007 regarding objections to claim to clarify that special service is required by Rule 7004(h) only on insured depository institutions that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and does not include credit unions, which are instead insured by the National Credit Union Administration. A credit union may be served with an objection to a claim according to Rule 3007(a)(2)(A), by first-class mail to the designated person listed on the proof of claim.
Bankruptcy Rule 9036 may be amended to separate methods of electronic noticing and service available to courts from those available to parties. Both courts and parties may serve and provide notice to registered users of the court’s CM/ECF system by filing documents with that system, or by providing notice and serving parties who have consented to such electronic means. The proposed amendment makes clear that only courts may serve or give notice to an entity at an email address registered with the Bankruptcy Noticing Center.
Civil Rule 7.1
The Committee has proposed amending Civil Rule 7.1 to conform to pending amendments to Appellate Rule 26.1 and Bankruptcy Rule 8012(a) and to facilitate the determination of diversity jurisdiction, especially when a party is a limited liability company, which takes on the citizenship of each of its owners.
In addition to the proposed amendments to the above-listed Federal Rules, the Local Civil, Patent, and Criminal Rules Committees for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada have proposed amendments to the local rules of practice. Comments on the proposed amendments must be submitted no later than October 26, 2019. For more information, please visit https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/local-rules092019/.
The Local Civil Rules Committee recommends proposed amendments to the following Local Rules of Practice:
- LR IA 1-5 Effective date
- LR IA 2-1 Inspection
- LR IA 7-2 Ex parte communications and filings
- LR IA 11-1 Admission to the bar of this court; eligibility and procedure
- LR IA 11-2 Admission to practice in a particular case
- LR IA 11-6 Appearances, substitutions, and withdrawals
- LR IA 11-8 Sanctions
- LR IC 2-2 Filer responsibilities when electronically filing document
- LR IC 4-1 Service
- LR 1-1 Scope and purpose
- LR 5-1 Proof of service
- LR 7-3 Page limits
- LR 8-1 Pleading jurisdiction
- LR 16-4 Form of pretrial order
- LR 16-6 Early neutral evaluation
- LR 26-1 Discovery plans and mandatory disclosures
- LR 26-3 Interim status reports
- LR 26-8 Discovery papers
- LR 30-1 Depositions
- LR 42-1 Noticing the court on related cases; consolidation of cases
- LR 54-1 Costs other than attorney’s fees
- LR 54-14 Motions for attorney’s fees
- LR 59-1 Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders
- LR 67-2 Investment of funds on deposit
- LSR 2-1 Pro se civil-rights complaints; form of complaint
- LSR 3-1 Petitions for writ of habeas corpus; form of petition
- LSR 4-1 Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; form of motion
Committee Note to the proposed amendments to LR IC 4-1 (Service) makes clear that Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) was amended in 2018 to eliminate the need for certificates of service on papers filed with the Court’s CM/ECF system and specifies the limited circumstances in which a proof of service is required. Corresponding changes are also proposed to LR 5-1 consistent with the 2018 amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b).
LR 7-3 (Page Limits) subsection (c) is amended to instruct parties on how to proceed if the court has not ruled on the motion to exceed page limits before the response deadline; essentially, the party must respond to the overlength brief in accordance with the briefing schedule regardless of the pending motion to exceed page limit.
The Committee recommends deleting LR 26-3 (Interim Status Report) because the burden on the parties in preparing and filing the interim status report outweighs its usefulness to the court.
The Committee proposes adding LR 30-1 (Depositions), which requires a deposing party to make the original transcript of a deposition available at the pretrial hearing, at trial, or when ordered by the court. This provision formerly was included in LR 26-8.
I hope these summaries are helpful to you. Please visit the webpage links provided above to review the proposed amendments in redline and each committee’s respective comments on the amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
Liz Dendary, CP