Pleadings Flashcards
Iqbal
Facts: plaintiff was arrested and detained during the investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Plaintiff claimed that the conditions of the custody violated the First and Fifth Amendments and sued defendants. Complaint asserted that two defendants implemented discriminatory confinement of individuals in harsh conditions based on their religion, national origin, and race. Both defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. both appealed to supreme court
Holding: π’s allegations that Δ intended to subject the π to torture were insufficient to satisfy the complaint because the π had alleged no sufficient facts from which the court could infer that the π’s claim is plausible.
Zurich
Facts: plaintiff was a dentist whose office was insured by Zurich, defendant. Plaintiff failed to pay his premiums and defendant accordingly cancelled the policy. Defendant reinstated policy. 10 days later plaintiff Ten days later, Stradford submitted claims for water damage from allegedly frozen pipes to his building and dental supplies totaling $151,000. After defendant made payment to plaintiff on these claims, plaintiff revised claim with additional property damages & business interruptions. Plaintiff sued for payment under the policy, defendant counterclaimed alleging fraud.
Holding: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that the time, place, and nature of the misrepresentations be disclosed. In this case, the counterclaim does not state with particularity the grounds for fraud.
Jones
Facts: Plaintiff was an inmate. He was injured and was given an assignment that he claimed he couldn’t do because of injury. Plaintiff told staffer he couldn’t do his assignment, staffer said do your job. Plaintiff did his job & aggravated his injury more. Plaintiff brought a grievance against the prison. When he did not receive redress, he filed a lawsuit against the prison. Prison Litigation Reform Act requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before a prisoner can bring an action in federal court. trial court dismissed his complaint, finding that he had not proven that he had exhausted his remedies.
Holding: The majority rule is that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense. Defendant must plead exhaustion as an affirmative defense and has the burden of proving it. Under 8(c); prison is not required to raise this
Walker
Facts: sanctions awarded against plaintiff for not only failing to plead complete diversity of citizenship but for actually pleading facts indicating there was not complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Holding: the court issued rule 11 sanctions on the π’s attorney for failing to plead complete diversity of citizenship when his complaint included facts that clearly showed there was no complete diversity, and therefore was not supported by the law.
Zielinkski
Facts:
Holding:
Moore
Facts: Moore (plaintiff) sued Baker (defendant) when she was left severely and permanently disabled after Baker performed carotid artery surgery on her, alleging violation of Georgia’s informed consent law. Moore filed her suit on the last day permitted by Georgia’s statute of limitations. Baker moved for summary judgment on the issue of consent, pointing to a consent form Moore had signed. Moore subsequently moved to amend her complaint to include allegations of negligence against Baker
Holding: An amendment relates back to the original filing when it asserts a claim or defense that arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading, so as to ensure the defendant has notice of the new claim. Here, there is nothing in the original claim that would have given notice to Baker of the claim put forth in the amendment.
Beeck
Facts: Beeck (plaintiff) sued Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp. (Aquaslide) (defendant) in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction when he was injured on a water slide he alleged Aquaslide had manufactured. Initially, Aquaslide conceded that it had manufactured the slide, but after subsequently inspecting the slide realized it had not. Aquaslide then moved to amend its pleading to deny manufacture. The court granted the motion and ordered a trial on the issue of whether Aquaslide was the manufacturer. The jury found for Aquaslide and the court dismissed Beeck’s claim. Beeck appealed, alleging the court abused its discretion in allowing Aquaslide to amend its complaint and ordering a trial on the issue of manufacture.
Holding: Here, however, the district court had found that there would be no prejudice to Beeck and that Aquaslide had not been lacking in diligence in its investigation into whether it manufactured the slide. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for leave to amend.
Bonerb
Facts:
Holding:
Bonerb
Facts: Bonerb, a resident of New York, fell and was injured while playing basketball at a Pennsylvania drug rehabilitation facility owned by the Richard J. Caron Foundation (Caron) (defendant). Bonerb (plaintiff) sued, alleging in his original complaint that Caron’s basketball court was negligently maintained. Bonerb subsequently moved, after Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations had run, to amend his claim to add a cause of action for counseling malpractice. Caron objected on the ground that the counseling malpractice claim did not relate back to the original pleading so was barred by Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations.
Holding: a claim relates back to the initial pleading because the second claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the first claim, the defendant is put on notice of the claim that the plaintiff later seeks to add. Here, the claims in both the original and amended complaints derive from the same nucleus of operative facts, namely Bonerb’s injuries allegedly sustained when he fell on the basketball court. Thus, the amendment only changes the legal theory on which relief is sought. The amended complaint relates back to the original complaint and leave to amend is granted.
