Week 7 - briefs PDF

Preview

Summary

briefs...

Description

CIVPRO: WEEK 7 Leatherman v. Tarrant County 507 U.S. 163, 113 S. Ct. 1160, 122 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1993) Posture: Trial level dismissed and Court of Appeals affirmed. Issue: Whether a federal court may apply a "heightened pleading standard"— more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule: The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is 'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Facts: Plaintiffs claim their constitutional rights were infringed upon on two separate occasions, when local law enforcement officers forcibly entered their house based on the detection of odors associated with the manufacture of narcotics. One homeowner claims to have been assaulted by the officers, another claims the police killed her two dogs, in her absence. Plaintiff is suing several local officials in their official capacity and the county and two municipal corporations that employed police offers involved in these incidents. Holding/Reasoning: The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, remanding the case. It reasoned firstly, that the Court had made it clear in a previous decision (Owen) that municipalities are not afforded qualified immunity, "Unlike various government officials, municipalities does not enjoy immunity from suit—either absolute or qualified—under §1983. In short, a municipality can be sued under §1983, but it cannot be held liable unless a municipal policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. It then moved on to the actual pleading standard set forth by the 5th circuit, the Court finds it impossible to square the "heightened pleading standard" applied by the 5th circuit in this case with the liberal system of "notice pleading" set up by the Federal Rules. The Court explains there are only two specific instances in which pleading standards are heightened;

Rule 9b: Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally. Neither Fraud nor Mistake were present here so the pleading standard should have been the normal, liberal notice pleading of Rule 8. Pleading Inconsistent Facts and Alternative Theories Pleadings are not evidence, but they do set forth the pleader's theory of what happened.

Is it permissible to plead alternative versions of what happened? Yes: Under Rule 8(d)(2) Rule 8(d)(3) permits a pleader to "state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency."

Rule 11(b)(3) requires that factual contentions "have evidentiary support." Voluntary Dismissal Rule 41(a)(1) A dismissal "without prejudice" means that the plaintiff can reinstitute the case. A dismissal "with prejudice" or "on the merits" bars the plaintiff from bringing the claim again.

Quick Notes on Grover: Plaintiff was a boy who had suffered serious birth defects. Those suing on his behalf claimed that the boy was injured because his maternal grandmother had taken DES, a female hormone manufactured by defendant. They claimed that the drug affected the boy's mother in such a way as to cause his birth defects. Plaintiffs sued in state court, it was removed to federal court due to diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs sought certification of the legal question to the Ohio Supreme Court. District judge allowed it and the Ohio court held in a 4-3 decision, that the boy could not sue because he had not ingested the drug directly or in utero. The district judge dismissed this case without prejudice because he believed that the legislature or Ohio court could change its mind, allowing him another attempt at pleading his case in the future if this happens. The Court of Appeals overruled it and dismissed with prejudice on the basis of unfair treatment to the defendant. It is not fair that the defendant continue to be exposed to potential liability of a second suit after having already won the first suit.

Defendant's Options in Response: Defendant has 2 options in responding to a complaint: 1. She can bring a motion or 2. She can "answer" A motion is a request that the court order something, such as dismissal of the case; it is not a "pleading." An answer is a pleading that responds to allegations of the complaint and may add new matter as well.

1. Motions

Defendant may bring motions for relief other than dismissal. A motion under Rule 12(e) is not aimed at pleadings that fail to state a claim. Instead, it "is plainly designed to strike at unintelligibility rather than lack of detail." Despite the provision that the defendant should make a motion to strike before responding to a pleading, courts have inherent power to entertain such motion (or to strike sua sponte) at any time. If the facts are undisputed, and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, she may bring a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.

2. The Answer The defendant can do two things in her answer: 1. Respond to the allegations of the complaint and 2. Raise new matter through an affirmative defense.

Only the first prong is required, however the second prong is often present. a. Response to the Plaintiff's Allegations There are three possible responses to the various allegations of plaintiff's complaint: 1. Admit 2. Deny 3. Claim that she lacks sufficient information to admit or deny Rule 8(b)(6) provides that allegations not denied are deemed admitted (except allegations regarding the amount of damage). Those allegations that are properly denied are said to be "joined," which means that they are in dispute and may proceed to adjudication.

i. Admissions There will usually be some allegations in the complaint which the defendant will admit. It is incumbent on the defendant to admit such allegations. Thus, the pleadings serve to establish undisputed facts on which there need be no trial.

ii. Denials

The general denial (Rule 8(b)(3)) is a very short pleading, the operative language of which can be simple as "Defendant denies each and every allegation of the complaint." It is acceptable under the Federal Rule and in code pleading, but only if the defendant can in good faith deny all allegations of the complaint. Almost always, the defendant will use specific denials in combination with admissions. Rule 8B2 requires that "a denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation." Thus counsel should resist temptation to plead contrary facts.

iii. Denials for Lack of Knowledge or Information Rule 8(b)(5) provides that "a party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state." Doing so "has the effect of a denial." This defense cannot be used if the defendant has reasonable access to the information or if it is a matter of public record or general knowledge. More information on what "joined" means: The issue is contested and is thus one on which an evidentiary determination is required. When the defendant admits an allegation of the plaintiff's complaint, the allegation can be taken as true; no proof is required of such issues at trial. b. Affirmative Defenses Rule 8(c)(1) requires the defendant to raise affirmative defenses. Not raising a defense at the correct time could lead to the presumption that you have waived the defense. Claims by the Defendant: A defending party can also assert claims against other parties and, in some circumstances, for the joinder of additional parties. The principal claims by a defending party are the counterclaim (against an opposing party) and the cross-claim (against a co-party). The plaintiff must file an answer to a "counterclaim designated as a counterclaim."

Failure to Respond: Default and Default Judgment:

If a defending party fails to respond in an appropriate and timely way, she may find herself in default. Default must be distinguished from default judgment. The former is a notation on the court's docket sheet that the defendant has failed to plead or otherwise respond in time. The plaintiff cannot obtain money or other relief on the basis of a default. Instead, she must get a default judgment, which is enforced like any other judgment....