Alfieri Case Brief III PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Alfieri Case Brief III PDF

Description

9/15/2020 Civil Procedure I

1. Case Name and Citation: Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc. 139 F. Supp. 408 (E.D. Pa. 1956). Procedural History: Brought to the U.S district Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Issue: Should Defendant be estopped from denying alleged facts in a complaint if he has made an ineffective denial of the facts and lets the plaintiff continue to rely on them Facts: Zielinski – injured Sandy Johnson on Fork Lift, sued Phil. Piers. for negligent operation, Zielinski alleged that Johnson was an employee of (PP) and Johnson mistakenly testified he was working for PP at pretrial unaware there was a transfer of ownership for Carload. Z didn’t realize he sued wrong company until pretrial conf. though PP and insurance were aware. Rule: A general denial is ineffective if some of the claims denied are true and not at issue. Reasoning: A defendant who knowingly makes inaccurate statements may be estopped from denying the statements at trial. Holding: Yes. Order: Matter allowed to proceed against the proper party 2. Case Name and Citation: Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp. 562 F.2d 537. Procedural History: Appealed in 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Issue: Whether a defendant who initially admits manufacture, may amend its pleading to deny manufacture. Facts: B sued A in fed. Court on diversity jurisdiction when he was injured by Aquaslide slide, Aquaslide said they did make it, then moved to amend pleading when realized they had not Rule: Party may amend pleading only by leave of court or written consent of the adverse party. Reasoning: Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)[2], a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or written consent of the adverse party, and the court should freely grant leave when justice so requires. Holding: Yes. Order: Court affirmed summary judgement 3. Case Name and Citation: Moore v. Baker. 989 F.2d 1129 (1993). Procedural History: Brought first in Federal District Court; Appealed in 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals. Issue: Whether an amendment alleging negligence in surgery relates back to an original complaint alleging failure of informed consent. Facts: A patient sued her doctor because he failed to advise her of an alternative treatment which left her severely and permanently disable; filed the last day permitted under GA statute of limitations. Rule: An amendment relates back to the original filing when it asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct in the original pleading. Reasoning: B/c Moore filed her original complaint on the last day permitted by Georgia’s statute of limitations, her amended complaint was time-barred unless it related back to the date of the original complaint. Holding: No. Order: Judgement was affirmed 4. Case Name and Citation: Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation. 159 F.R.D. 16 (1994). Procedural History: Brought in District Court for Western District of NY. Issue: Does a claim for counseling malpractice relate back to an original claim of negligence if they both arose out of the same injury. Facts: Bonerb fall/injured playing basketball at Penn drug rehabilitation. Bonerb sued alleging the B-Ball court was negligently maintained. Bonerb moved and after Penn Statue of Lim. He amended his claim to add a cause of action for MalPrac. Defendant objected, that the claim did not relate back to the original pleading and was barred by Statute of Lim. Rule: A claim relates back to the initial pleading when the claim asserted arose out of the same facts set forth in the original pleading. Reasoning: While leave to amend a complaint should be freely given, an amendment which seeks to add a timebarred claim should not be allowed unless the otherwise untimely claim relates back to the date of the original pleading. Holding: Yes. Order: Overruled defendants objection and granted plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint.

9/15/2020 Civil Procedure I

5. Case Name and Citation: Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) Procedural History: Brought first in Florida Federal district court; appealed at U.S. Court of Appeals 11th circuit; and brought to the Supreme Court Issue: Does relating back to Rule 15© depend on the amending parties’ knowledge or timeliness? Facts: Krupski injured on cruise ship, Krupski sued wrong party, Costa Cruise moved for summary judgement, Krupski cross-moved to add correct party, FDC denied SJ and granted Krupski’s motion Rule: Going back under rule 15© does not depend on amending parties knowledge or timeliness. Reasoning: Rule 15(c) allows an amended pleading to relate back to the date of the original pleading if (1) the claim against new defendant involves same conduct as original complaint, (2) the new defendant received notice and (3) the defendant knew or should have known they’d be sued but for the plaintiffs mistake of identity Holding: No. Order: Judgement of the Court of Appeals is reversed and case is remanded...