Stages of Civil Litigation

Why This Matters

Civil litigation is the backbone of how private disputes get resolved in the American legal system. You're being tested on more than just a sequence of events—you need to understand why each stage exists, what procedural safeguards it provides, and how the adversarial system balances efficiency with fairness. Exam questions often ask you to identify which stage addresses a particular legal problem or why a case might end before ever reaching trial.

Think of litigation as a funnel: cases enter at the pleading stage, but most exit long before a verdict through settlement, dismissal, or summary judgment. Understanding the strategic purpose of each stage—not just its definition—will help you analyze hypotheticals and explain how parties use procedure to their advantage. Don't just memorize the order; know what each stage accomplishes and when a case might jump ahead or circle back.

---

Framing the Dispute: Pleadings

The litigation process begins with formal documents that define what the fight is actually about. Pleadings establish the legal boundaries of the case—without them, neither party nor the court knows what issues need resolution.

Pleadings

• Complaint filed by plaintiff—initiates the lawsuit by stating the factual allegations, legal claims, and requested relief against the defendant
• Defendant's answer admits or denies each allegation and may assert affirmative defenses or counterclaims against the plaintiff
• Notice pleading standard requires only a short, plain statement showing entitlement to relief, setting the framework for all subsequent proceedings

---

Gathering Evidence: The Discovery Phase

Before anyone steps into a courtroom, both sides need to know what evidence exists. Discovery prevents trial by ambush and promotes settlement by revealing the strengths and weaknesses of each party's case.

Discovery

• Interrogatories, depositions, and document requests—the primary tools parties use to compel disclosure of relevant information from opponents and third parties
• Scope covers all relevant, non-privileged matter—broader than what's admissible at trial, allowing parties to follow leads that may produce evidence
• Discovery abuse (stonewalling, overly broad requests) can result in sanctions, including adverse inference instructions or dismissal

---

Narrowing Issues: Pre-Trial Motions

Not every case deserves a full trial. Pre-trial motions allow courts to resolve legal questions early, dismiss meritless claims, and exclude improper evidence before the jury ever hears the case.

Pre-Trial Motions

• Motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6))—argues the complaint fails to state a legally valid claim even if all alleged facts are true
• Motion for summary judgment—asserts no genuine dispute of material fact exists, entitling the movant to judgment as a matter of law
• Motion in limine—requests advance rulings on evidence admissibility, preventing prejudicial information from reaching the jury

---

Presenting the Case: Trial

When disputes survive pre-trial filtering, the adversarial system's centerpiece takes over. Trial is where factual disputes are resolved through structured presentation of evidence, governed by procedural and evidentiary rules designed to ensure fairness.

Trial

• Burden of proof rests on the plaintiff, who must prove each element of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)
• Order of presentation—opening statements, plaintiff's case-in-chief, defendant's case, rebuttals, and closing arguments structure the proceeding
• Judge controls law; jury finds facts—this division determines who decides what, with the judge issuing instructions on applicable legal standards

Verdict

• General verdict states only which party wins and damages awarded; special verdict requires jury to answer specific factual questions
• Unanimous verdict traditionally required in federal civil cases, though parties may stipulate otherwise under Rule 48
• Judgment entered on verdict—transforms the jury's decision into an enforceable court order, triggering deadlines for post-trial motions

---

Challenging the Outcome: Post-Trial and Appeal

Losing parties aren't without options. Post-trial motions and appeals provide mechanisms to correct errors, but each operates under different standards and addresses different types of problems.

Post-Trial Motions

• Motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL)—argues no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict based on the evidence presented
• Motion for new trial—claims procedural errors, jury misconduct, or newly discovered evidence warrants starting over
• Timing is critical—most post-trial motions must be filed within 28 days of judgment entry under federal rules

Appeal

• Appellate review limited to legal errors—appeals courts generally defer to trial court factual findings and don't hear new evidence
• Standards of review vary: de novo for legal questions, abuse of discretion for procedural rulings, clearly erroneous for factual findings
• Outcomes include affirm, reverse, or remand—reversal sends the case back with instructions; affirmance ends the appellate process (absent further appeal)

---

Making It Real: Enforcement of Judgment

A judgment on paper means nothing if the losing party won't pay. Enforcement mechanisms give teeth to court decisions, converting legal victories into actual remedies.

Enforcement of Judgment

• Judgment creditor must actively pursue collection—courts don't automatically seize assets or garnish wages
• Enforcement tools include wage garnishment, bank levies, property liens, and debtor examinations to locate assets
• Judgment domestication required to enforce across state lines under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, adding complexity to multi-state collection

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. A defendant believes the plaintiff's complaint describes events that, even if true, don't violate any law. Which pre-trial motion should the defendant file, and why is this different from summary judgment?

2. Compare depositions and interrogatories: which discovery tool would be more effective for assessing a witness's credibility, and why?

3. After losing at trial, a party believes the jury ignored clear evidence. What post-trial motion addresses this concern, and what standard must be met?

4. Why does appellate review focus on legal errors rather than re-examining factual evidence? How do the different standards of review reflect this principle?

5. A plaintiff wins a $50,000 judgment, but the defendant claims to have no money. Identify two enforcement mechanisms the plaintiff might use and explain what each accomplishes.