Pleading & Response Cases Flashcards
P accused D of trespassing, assaulting her, publicly scorning her and causing her to be put in jail to her embarrassment
May a complaint be dismissed for failure to state to claim if the complaint fails to state fact showing the basis for the claim, and instead states only legal conclusions ?
Yes. Her complaint states only legal conclusions claiming that engaged in trespass, assault and seizure. There are no facts to support the assertions —> no cause of action.
A complete may be dismissed for failure to stay to claim if the complaint fails to state facts showing the basis for the claim and instead states only legal conclusions
- allegations too conclusively and under Writ system are insufficient
Gillispie v. Goodyear Services Stores
P wrote home drawn complaint alleging D sold his wine for $10 less than the asking price, lost P’s medicinal extracts, and two cases of wine disappeared
Must a complaint state factsefficient to constitute a specific cause of action ?
No. Although peace complaint is in artistically drawn he stated enough fact with his stand motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim— even if he has not stated enough to withstand potential future motion for summary judgment.
A short and plain statement of the claim is all it’s needed to specify a cause of action and entitle pleader to relief
- When P provided old code-pleading details, the court said under the federal rules even when lots of assumptions have to be made, it can be good enough.
Dioguardi v. Durning (1944)
45 black railroad employees replaced by White employees. P and other sue the union for discrimination under the railway labor act. Defiled motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint failed to state to claim upon which relief could be granted failing the standard of F.R Civ Pro 12.
Are general allegations without specific facts to support them enough for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state to claim ?
Yes. P is not required to send out a detailed presentation of the facts supporting his claim—only a short and plain statement of the claim (Rule 8(a)(2)) is needed
A claim is sufficiently pled unless it appeared beyond doubt that the plaintive can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief = motion to dismiss only be granted on legal obstacle
Governed for decades until Twombly
Conley v. Gibson (1957)
P subscribers to a telephone service filed a class action against the major companies, saying they violated the Sherman antitrust act by (1) inhibiting growth of competitors and (2) eliminating competition amongst themselves and areas where one was dominant; all for the purpose to dominate a specific market
For Sherman act,
(1) must the complaint have enough factual material to suggested an agreement existed between D’s?
(2) Does D need evidence to discount the possibility of acting independently to prove a legal conspiracy ?
Yes. The complaint contained only conclusory allegations of a conspiracy. It did not include enough facts to plausibly suggest the existence of an agreement —> the trial appropriately dismiss the complaint
(2) yes, though Tolwombly introduced evidence of parallel conduct on the telecommunications companies, he did not introduce any evidence that excluded the possibility that they had acted independently —> Twombly had not sufficiently stated claim violation of Sherman.
(1) to state to claim under the Sherman the complete must contain enough factual material to suggest agreement existed between the defendants
(2) to prove legal conspiracy under the Sherman. Plaintiff evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the alleged conspirators acted independently.
Change to the Connley standard because claims now must have enough factual allegations to make them plausible, not just conceivable, meaning:
- reaonsonable with explanation; need specificity (maybe not like code-pleading, but there’s similarity)
- conclusive allegations are not entitled to the presumption of truth
- those NOT conclusively should get benefit of doubt
Dissent: Fed CivPro pleading standards allow merits of a case to be determined during discovery. Concerns of high cost of the discovery process and private antitrust litigation can be prevented through careful case management, strict control of the discovery process, scrutiny of evidence at the summary judgment stage, clear instructions to juries —> no need to heighten the pleading standards to factual possibility of a violation from legal sufficiency to state a claim
Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly (2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009)
P sought redress for violation of his rights that led to detention in a max security unit during the federal governments investigation of 911 attacks due this religion race or national origin.
Under Twombly, a complaint must allege sufficient facts that state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face to defeat motion to dismiss. Facial plausibility = facts allow a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable. The complaint here is just a reiteration of the elements which are conclusory.
A complaint will only survive motion to dismiss if it alleges nonconclusory facts that state to claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights (2007)
Tellabs purchased shares in Makor’s company which manufactures specialized equipment for fiber optic networks, and Tellabs filed a class action alleging that Makor misrepresented to the public the value of the stock.
Tellabs needs a strong inference that there wasn’t intent to defraud.
Court says this is Private Securities Litigation Reform Act standard has to be stricter than rule 8 and 9B by requiring you compare references
- reasonable persons inference based on fact, has to be (1) cogent (clear, concise presentation, not necessarily logically necessary), and (2) superior to others comparing inferences
Ziervogel v. Royal Packing Co. (1949)
P sustained injury from colliding into D’s car. D appealed saying that trial court erred allowing P to introduce the fact that his blood pressure arose from the accident which led to the injury.
- D objected with special damage, a specific personal injury, not necessary and inevitable that leads to an injury, must be pleaded before evidence is admissible.
Since the specific injury claim was not mentioned at trial, the evidence is improper.
The main rule for damages is a 8(a)2and 8a(3) is to request damages to cap P on damage rewards and so D is not surprised injury rewards a large amount .
Employee fired by Hilton being accused of bringing women outside the hotel into rooms for prostitution. employee moves to the strike statements made at a labor department hearing (12f), files motion for more definite statement (12e) and to dismiss failure to state a claim (12b6)
Will a motion to dismiss based on failure to say to claim always be granted, if the defendant, pleads qualified defense?
No, it will not be granted. Statements and additional proceedings are absolutely privileged and liability cannot arise from these statements.
- Rule 12 E motion for a more definite statement: You might be required to do more than the minimum (Twiqbal) if court conclude it would be unreasonable to let D proceed without more info
Garcia v. Hilton Hotels International (1951)
Citi conditionally approved black applicant P for a home loan then appraised her house for $100,000 less than she appraised it for. P alledged Citi violated the fair housing, denying her the loan based on discrimination.
Is it the courts role to determine whether a fact are probable?
No, Swanson identified the type of discrimination, alleged actors, responsible, and timing. This is sufficient to state a cause, and get past failure to state to claim (rule 12 B6) motion.
Under Twombly, a court is not to consider whether a set of facts are probable, but rather whether a set of facts are possible
Swanson v. Citibank (2020)
P severely injured on aquaside’s waterslide at social gathering. Aquaslide initially admitted it designed manufactured assembled said slide, but manager went to the accident site and determined it was not their product. They moved the court to amend to deny being the manufacturer.
Is the court allowed to grant aquaslide leave to amend after the statute of limitations ran ?
Yes. District court found no prejudice to P and Aquaslide’s diligence and its investigation into whether it manufactured the slide.
A party may amend its pleading by leave of court or written consent of the adverse party and leave shall be freely given when justice requires and there’s no bad faith, prejudice, or undo delay, which could overbear amendments before trial (15a)
Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp (1977)
Court granted mother’s post trial motion for attorney fees, despite the absence of any request for affirmative relief in her pre-trial hearings.
Father argued it was an abusive discretion to have permitted post trial pleading amendment. Was it?
No. Issues tried by expressed consent are clear (amendment OK), but more difficult for implied consent. Here, there was implied consent for child support so post-trial amendment OK.
Moore v. Moore
Federal rule 8 did not impose a heightened pleading standard on civil rights complaints filed under 42 USC 1983 and more detailed allegations would have to go through a formal process of amending the federal rules
But an absence of an amendment is specificity courts and litigations must rely on summary judgment and control discovery to weeded out unmeritorious claims
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit
