Pre-Answer options and motions. Flashcards
How many days to answer a complaint
according to FRCP 12 its 12 days
Defenses to a complaint
lack of subject matter jd
improper venue
insufficient process
failure to join a required party
Case; Virgin Records America Inc v Lacey 2007 ** when a defendant defaults and service of process is invalid
Issue
The primary issue before the court was whether to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment against Lacey, who had not defended herself in the lawsuit despite being duly served and notified of the default proceedings.
Holding
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. It ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding statutory damages, issuing a permanent injunction against Lacey, and ordering her to pay costs.
Reasoning
The court’s decision was based on the established legal principles governing default judgments, which favor resolution of cases on their merits but allow for default judgments against unresponsive parties
Case: Matos v. Nextran 2009
particularly concerning personal jurisdiction and the application of the “minimum contacts” standard. Here’s an overview tailored to your civil procedure law class:
Case Overview:
Parties Involved: The plaintiff, Matos, filed a lawsuit against Nextran, a company based in another state.
Legal Issue: The central question was whether the court in Matos’s state could exercise personal jurisdiction over Nextran, considering the company’s contacts with the forum state.
Key Points:
Personal Jurisdiction: For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, the defendant must have established “minimum contacts” with the forum state. This ensures that the exercise of jurisdiction complies with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Minimum Contacts Analysis: The court examined the nature and quality of Nextran’s contacts with the forum state. Factors considered included the extent of Nextran’s business activities within the state, any targeted advertising or sales efforts directed at residents of the state, and whether the cause of action arose from Nextran’s activities within the state.
Purposeful Availment: A critical aspect of the analysis was determining whether Nextran had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Court’s Decision:
The court concluded that Nextran’s contacts with the forum state were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Specifically, it found that Nextran did not purposefully direct its activities toward the state, nor did it have a substantial connection to the state related to the cause of action. As a result, exercising jurisdiction over Nextran would not align with fair play and substantial justice.
Implications for Civil Procedure:
This case underscores the importance of the “minimum contacts” standard in determining personal jurisdiction. It illustrates that merely having some level of contact with a state is not enough; the contacts must be substantial and directly related to the cause of action. For students, understanding this case aids in grasping how courts analyze a defendant’s connections to a forum state and the due process considerations involved.
Case: Reis Robotics USA, Inc. v. Concept Industries, Inc **** personal jurisdiction for business transactions across state lines
issue
The central issue in this case is whether Reis’s motions to strike Concept’s affirmative defenses, portions of Concept’s answer, and to dismiss Concept’s counterclaims should be granted based on the sufficiency and legal adequacy of the pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Illinois law.
Holding
The court granted Reis’s motions in part and denied in part. Specifically, Concept’s first, second, third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses were stricken without prejudice; the sixth affirmative defense was stricken with prejudice; paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 20 of Concept’s answer were stricken without prejudice; Concept’s negligent misrepresentation counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice; and Concept’s overpayment counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice. The court denied Reis’s motions in all other respects, allowing several of Concept’s counterclaims to proceed.
Facts
This diversity action involves a dispute governed by Illinois law between Plaintiff Reis Robotics USA, Inc. (“Reis”), an Illinois corporation that manufactures and supplies industrial robotics equipment, and Defendant Concept Industries, Inc. (“Concept”), a Michigan corporation that manufactures and supplies automotive parts. The dispute arose from a contractual arrangement entered into on February 24, 2005, for Concept to purchase a robotic laser cutting machine and associated fixtures from Reis for trimming three separate automotive parts. After several adjustments to the agreement due to program terminations and requested modifications by Concept, a disagreement emerged over payments and the performance specifications of the laser cutting machine, particularly its cutting speed. Concept has paid Reis a total of $588,600 but disputes owing an additional $264,300 plus interest claimed by Reis. Concept counterclaimed, alleging Reis failed to meet promised cycle times for the laser cutting machine and raised various claims including fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation, and breach of contract.
Case: Ingraham v United States 1987
***** whether or not a defense for medical malpractice damages must be pleaded in a timely manner to be waived
Facts
Dwight L. Ingraham underwent back surgery by an Air Force surgeon in 1979, during which a drill was negligently used, causing severe and permanent injuries to his spinal cord, resulting in a judgment of $1,264,000. Similarly, Jocelyn and David Bonds, alongside their daughter Stephanie, faced negligence from an Air Force physician during a pregnancy, resulting in Stephanie suffering extensive brain damage, and being awarded significant damages, alongside Jocelyn Bonds for loss of the society of her daughter. The government’s failure to invoke the Texas Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act during trial resulted in a post-judgment motion that was also denied.
Issue
Whether the statutory limitation on medical malpractice damages under the Texas Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act constitutes an affirmative defense that must be timely raised during the trial and, if not raised, is waived.
Holding
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Texas statutory limit on medical malpractice damages is an affirmative defense that must be timely pleaded, and in this instance, the defense had been waived.
Reasoning
The Court reasoned that affirmative defenses must be raised timely to prevent unfair surprise to plaintiffs, as per Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The government’s failure to introduce this defense during trial constituted a waiver. It was acknowledged that raising this as a post-judgment issue, without prior mention, could unfairly disadvantage plaintiffs, who might have structured their case differently if they anticipated the statutory cap’s application. Thus, the motion to apply the statutory limitation was deemed untimely, and the plaintiffs’ judgments were upheld.
federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (FRCP 12)
Rule 12(a): Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading
What it says:
A defendant must file an answer or motion within 21 days after being served with the complaint (or 60 days if service was waived).
The U.S. government has 60 days to respond when named as a defendant.
Example:
If Jane serves a complaint on John on January 1, John must respond by January 22 unless he waives service, which extends the time to respond to 60 days.
Rule 12(b): How to Present Defenses
Defendants may file a motion to dismiss instead of answering the complaint. The defenses they can raise include:
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (12(b)(1)):
Argues the court doesn’t have the authority to hear the case.
Example: Plaintiff sues under state law in federal court, but there’s no diversity jurisdiction.
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (12(b)(2)):
Argues the court doesn’t have power over the defendant.
Example: A Texas resident sues a California defendant in Texas, but the defendant has no contacts with Texas.
Improper Venue (12(b)(3)):
Argues the case is filed in the wrong location.
Example: A contract dispute arising in Florida is filed in New York without any connection to the parties.
Insufficient Process (12(b)(4)):
Challenges the summons or complaint itself.
Example: The plaintiff names the wrong defendant in the summons.
Insufficient Service of Process (12(b)(5)):
Challenges how the summons and complaint were served.
Example: The plaintiff leaves the summons at the wrong address.
Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (12(b)(6)):
Argues the complaint doesn’t allege facts that amount to a legal claim.
Example: A plaintiff sues for negligence but doesn’t allege a duty owed by the defendant.
Failure to Join an Indispensable Party (12(b)(7)):
Argues that a necessary party hasn’t been joined in the lawsuit.
Example: A co-owner of property isn’t included in a property dispute.
Rule 12(c): Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
What it says: After the pleadings are closed (e.g., after the answer is filed), a party can move for judgment based on the pleadings if no material facts are in dispute.
Example: A defendant argues that even if everything in the complaint is true, the plaintiff still has no legal claim.
Rule 12(e): Motion for a More Definite Statement
What it says: A party may request clarification if the complaint is too vague to respond to.
Example: If the plaintiff’s complaint says, “Defendant caused harm,” without specifying how, the defendant can move for a more definite statement.
Rule 12(f): Motion to Strike
What it says: A party may request to strike any irrelevant, redundant, or scandalous matter from the pleadings.
Example: A plaintiff includes a paragraph in the complaint accusing the defendant of an unrelated crime to prejudice the court.
Rule 12(g): Joining Motions
What it says: All Rule 12 defenses must be consolidated in a single motion. If you omit a defense, you waive it (except for subject matter jurisdiction).
Example: If a defendant files a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) but doesn’t include improper venue (12(b)(3)), they lose the right to raise venue later.
Rule 12(h): Waiving and Preserving Defenses
What it says: Certain defenses (like personal jurisdiction and venue) are waived if not raised early, while others (like subject matter jurisdiction) can be raised at any time.
Example 1 (waiver): If a defendant files an answer without raising personal jurisdiction, they’ve waived that defense.
Example 2 (preservation): If a defendant discovers later that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, they can raise it at any time—even on appeal.
