The Bench & Bar magazine is published to provide members of the KBA with information that will increase their knowledge of the law, improve the practice of law, and assist in improving the quality of legal services for the citizenry.
Issue link: https://kentuckybenchandbar.epubxp.com/i/546018
24 B&B; • 7.15 K E N T U C K Y C I V I L P R O C E D U R E : A R U L E S C O M P A R I S O N dealing with magistrate judges, have no state counterpart and FRCP 74-76 have been abro- gated. CR 77 – Courts and Clerks CR 77.02(2) provides for annual "show cause" review of court dockets, by which notice "shall be given" to parties in cases where no pretrial steps have been taken in the past year to show "good cause" why the case should not be dismissed. There is no federal counterpart. FRCP 77(c)(2) gives the federal court clerk more power to enter some orders or even a default judgment than is permitted un- der Kentucky's CR 77.03, but both are subject to a court's suspension or rescission. CR 77.04(2) provides for the clerk's notation on the docket, which is a trigger for the run- ning of the deadline for appeal. The federal rule instructs the clerk to record on the docket service of notice of entry of judgment, but it does not equate that act by the clerk with entry of the judgment. CR 79 – Records of the Clerk The state rule is considerably longer and more inclusive, as it provides for the recording of wills and other papers not ap- plicable to federal practice. CR 79.02 also governs how satis- faction of a judgment is reflect- ed on the record of a particular case. Federal practice is gov- erned by separate administra- tive rules. CR 79.06 governs appellate records, again making compari- son between the federal and state court civil rules not mean- ingful on this point. CR 81 – General Application of Civil Rules Both sets of rules use rule 81 to describe their applicability, but of course they apply to com- pletely different proceedings. The most important rule in the context discussed here is FRCP 81(c), which provides that the federal rules apply to a state court action that is removed to federal court. This can ex- tend considerably the deadline for responsive pleading that would otherwise have been due in state court. 29 CR 87-98 – No Federal Rules for "Rocket Docket" The federal set ends with FRCP 86, while Kentucky's set of civil rules continues through CR 98. The difference (other than CR 87 on amendments and CR 98 on appeals from video records) is the set of Special Rules of the Circuit Court for the Economi- cal Litigation Docket. These ap- ply only to particular circuits and divisions, sometimes called the "rocket dockets," with the goal of streamlining proceed- ings in the types of cases de- scribed in CR 89 (contracts, personal inquiry, property, and termination of parental rights). CONCLUSION With the style revisions of the federal rules in 2007, very little identical wording remains in Kentucky's less-amended ver- sion. Nevertheless, Kentucky lawyers practicing in both fed- eral and state courts will contin- ue to find comfort and familiari- ty in the general arrangement and substance of both sets, which remain very similar. What is perhaps most surprising about the comparison is that the very places where the clos- est or even identical language does remain (CR 8, 12, and 56, for example) are also the very places where case law has tak- en federal and state courts in different directions. Whether Kentucky courts will follow fed- eral pleading practice under CR 8 and 12, and whether it is re- turning to federal summary judgment practice under CR 56, will remain of great interest to attorneys trying to navigate, and sometimes trying to choose between, both systems. Anne A. Chesnut is of counsel with the firm of Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP, where she has practiced most of the past 36 years. She focuses on complex lit- igation in both federal and state courts. Chesnut received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Western Kentucky University and her J.D. from the University of Kentucky College of Law. She first became familiar with the civil rules while clerking for the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., then U.S. District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. She served as managing editor of the Kentucky Law Journal. Special thanks to University of Kentucky College of Law Professor Bill Fortune, whose contributions helped maximize the value of this article as a helpful tool for day-to-day practice. 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Proce- dure for the United States District Courts became effective Septem- ber 18, 1938. They are referred to as "FRCP ______." The Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure became ef- fective July 1, 1953. They are re- ferred to as "CR____." Both sets of rules as discussed in this article in- clude amendments through Janu- ary 1, 2015. Nearly all of the federal rules underwent revision for style (not intentionally substantive) in 2007, leaving very little wording identical to Kentucky's current set. 2 See, e.g., Sexton v. Bates, 41 S.W. 3d 452, 456 (Ky. App. 2001). 3 See, e.g., Roehrig v. Merchants v. Businessmen's Mut. Ins. Co., 391 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Ky. 1965); Arling- haus Builders v. Ky. PSC, 142 S.W. 3d 693, 696 (Ky. App. 2003) (de- fects in summons or service may be excused, but good faith attempt is still required). 4 Id. 5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), followed the earlier case of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), in requiring a plausible claim to be stated on the face of a complaint. "Threadbare recitals" and legal conclusions will not suffice. 556 U.S. at 678. 6 See "Pleading Claims in Kentucky State Court after Twombly and Iqbal," another article in this issue. 7 849 N.W.2d 693 (Wis. 2014). 8 851 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. 2014). 9 CR 15.01; FRCP 15(a)(2). 10 See, e.g., First National Bank v. Hartmann, 747 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Ky. App. 1988); Marx v. Centran Corp., 747 F.2d 1536, 1550 (6th Cir. 1984), citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). 11 See, e.g., KBA v. Blum, 404 S.W.3d 841, 848 (Ky. 2013). 12 See, e.g., Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 136 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. 2004) (circuit court could not inspire results at mediation by threatening to sanction parties if settlement were reached post-mediation). 13 Marcum v. Smith, 375 S.W.2d 386, 387 (Ky. 1964). 14 This potential application of the federal rules applies, of course, to any case filed in state court that is removable to federal court. The perceived differences in practice between these sets of procedural rules now influences modern choice of forum and removal decisions more than it did in the past. The heightened standard of pleading in federal court, the availability of ear- lier discovery in state court, a lin- gering perception that summary judgment may be more difficult to obtain in state court – all of these factors may influence a party's deci- sion on where to litigate, if there is concurrent jurisdiction. 15 See FRCP 30 (a) (2), incorporating by reference FRCP 26 (b) (2) and FRCP 26 (d). 16 CR 30.04; FRCP(d). 17 Martin v. Mekanhart Corp., 113 S.W.3d 95, 99 (Ky. 2003), citing Young v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 781 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Ky. 1989). 18 FRCP 49. 19 Id. 20 CR 50.02 (a motion "for judgment notwithstanding the verdict" may be made by "a party who moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence"); FRCP 50(b) ("movant may file a renewed mo- tion for judgment as a matter of law") (emphasis added). 21 CR 50.02. 22 FRCP 50(b). 23 See CR 59.05. 24 37 S.W.3d 732 (Ky. 2000). 25 Blankenship v. Collier, 302 S.W.3d 665, 675 (Ky. 2010). 26 KRS 418.040; 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 27 FRCP 65(a)(2). 28 28 U.S.C. § 1335. 29 Id.