Civil Procedure II Outline - Part 12
Download the PDF version of this outline
<< Part 11 | Part 13 >>
475 – 477, 482 – 503
Responding to Complaints Intro - Allowed to just ignore a complaint
- FRCP don’t force a D to respond affirmatively in any way to a complaint
- Spells out consequences of NOT responding: sequence of steps resulting in default judgment
- Default judgment:
- Authorized by Rule 55:
- Occurs if non-defaulting party + court carefully follow prescribed procedures
- Why they can happen:
- D’s are judgment proof and elect to it
- Judgment proof = have not assets from which judgement can be collected
- Ds gamble that default judgment winner will not track down their assets in order to enforce the judgment
- Other options:
- Move to dismiss complaint under Rule 12
- Answer complaint
- Answer = pleading that admits or denies factual allegations in complaint, sets out defenses, and (if D has some) asserts counterclaims by D against P or crossclaims against co-Ds
- Rule 8:
- Sets out specific requirements for admissions and denials + provides an illustrative list of affirmative defenses
- Affirmative defenses = defenses setting forth new matter outside the original complaint in the tradition of pleas of confession + avoidance at CL
Default Option - Strategic but risky option:
- Courts insisting on proper proof of service in record before they entertain motion for default judgment
- If D has defenses, should be asserted by motion or answer
- If defaulted for doing notion = D has themselves to blame
- Getting a Default Judgment:
- Rule 55(a) = failed to plead or otherwise defend
- Note: this is a matter of whether it occurs during the set amount of time; could be a default as a result of missing this 21 day window
- How to enter a default:
- Entry = actual notation in the docket
- Docket = clerk-kept list of filings, hearings, and orders
- Rule 55(a) = clerk shall enter default only if there has been a default AND that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise
- P must bring the fact of default to clerk’s attention, usually through filing an affidavit
- Affidavit = sworn written declaration of facts
- Whether non-defaulting party can enforce entry to collect damages from defaulting party:
- NO. They can’t. Difference between default + default judgment.
- Default = failure to respond as rules require
- Entry of default is a step in obtaining DJ + NOT an enforceable judgment in itself
- Standards of entering default judgment:
- By default = admitting facts alleged in complaint; whether facts establish liability is question of law for court
- DJ can’t be entered unless court finds complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted
- Rule 55(b) = not mandatory; courts have discretion to enter a DJ or not
- D entitled to min of 7 days’ written notice about entering DJ where D can argue about entering a judgment + set aside entry of default
- Service and PJ
- Courts deciding motion for DJ will typically require that record show that proper service was made
- Some courts will deny motion if D makes credible showing that it never received actual notice
- Court will often look for evidence that it has PJ over defaulting party before entering DJ
- Setting Aside DJ:
- Default is disfavored; easy to set it aside “for good cause” (Rule 55(c))
- Once DJ entered = standard tightened; final judgment on which P and others may have relied
- Setting it aside may be prejudicial to such parties--especially if some time has passed since entry
- Defaulting party has to move for relief under Rule 60(b)
- Places time limits on motion for certain causes
- excusable neglect or mistake = Rule 60(c)
- Courts have to consider if default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice P, + whether D has any meritorious defenses
- Courts set aside judgments as “void” if they find service was never made or the court lacked PJ
Rule 12 Motions - 12(b) = checklist of most common defenses that can be raised by a motion to dismiss
- Understanding Matos:
- Rule 8(a)(2) and Rule (12)(b)(6) contain essentially reciprocal standards
- Leave to amend
- Routine on motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim when complaint is merely missing a factual allegation corresponding to an element of the claim
- A flaw may be a pleading oversight that can be cured by amendment rather than a (incurable) reflection of absence of fact
- No such thing as an independent, free-standing claim for punitive damages
- Punitive damages = element of damages for a claim
- Motion to strike:
- Cuts up the complaint leaving stricken matter to be treated like it wasn’t there (can be stricken from the record)
- Rule 12(f) motions = target redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter
- Rule 12(e) motion:
- Motion only available when the pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response”
- Incorporating prior allegations by reference + even failing to separate counts cleanly doesn’t make a complaint subject to Rule 12(e) motion
- Rule 10(c) = incorporation by reference
- Rule 10(b) = separation of claims to promote clarity
- 4 Corner of Complaint:
- 12(b)(6) = confined to “four corners of complaint”
- Takes well-pleaded allegations of complaint as true + only those
- 2 exceptions:
- Filing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings
- Court can consider well-pleaded factual allegations of all the pleadings, answer, reply (if present), and complaint
- Parties may present matters outside of the pleadings
- Facts outside of 4 corners to support/oppose a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
- Court can then treat motion as a summary judgment motion (has to tell parties it is doing this--12(d))
- Motion decided by standards of summary judgment rule (Rule 56)
- Court can grant summary judgment if it finds that the material facts are undisputed and moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
Rule 12 Waiver Trap - Rule 12 = permits D to assert several different defenses + objections to complaint but can’t do them one at a time
- Requires joinder of available defenses + objections in one pre-answer motion
- Imposes waiver as a penalty for leaving certain defenses out
- Rule 12(g)(2) = forbids party from making another motion under Rule 12 based on a defense or objection that was available to it when filing pre-answer motion
- Rule 12(h)(1)(A) = omitting any of Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) defenses of lack of PJ, improper V, insufficient process, or insufficient service of process from the pre-trial answer motion waives that defense
- Rule 12(g):
- “Omnibus motion rule” = effectively requires a party to consolidate all of Rule 12 defenses + objections then available to it in a single omnibus pre-answer motion, instead of presenting them serially
- Prevents parties from raising it again by another pre-answer motion and raising Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) defenses again by any means
- Doesn’t require a party to file a pre-answer motion, matter of IF they do
- Putting Rule 12(g)(2) + 12(h)(1)(A) together = only the 4 defenses in 12(b)(2)-(5) are waived by omitting the from a pre-answer motion or answer (Whichever first)
- Un-waivable defenses:
- Rule 12(h)(3) = permits motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ at any time
- Potentially more on pg. 500?
- When a defense is unwaivable:
- Omnibus motion rule only applies to Rule 12 defenses that are “available” to party when it filed the pre-answer motion
- When P amends original complaint and the amendment adds new claims, it can raise new issues not present in original pleading
503 – 524
Answering the Complaint - If pre-answer motion fails = must file answer w/i 14 days after notice of court’s action on the motion (Rule 12(a)(4)(A))
- Courts can take months to rule on Rule 12 motions, so 14 days isn’t a firm cap on the amount of time
- 4 Options for Answer:
- Assert “leftover” Rule 12(b) defenses
- Any defense party hasn’t waived by omitting it from a pre-answer motion
- Must admit/deny factual allegations of the complaint (Rule 8(b)(1)(B))
- Main purpose of pleading = ID facts in dispute
- Denying 1+ facts essential to a claim is a defense
- Denial = defense on the merits
- Affirmative defense (Rule 8(c))
- Provides excuse from liability based on facts outside of the complaint
- Asserting counterclaims or crossclaims
- Rule 4 = if already joined as parties to a lawsuit, a D doesn’t have to serve summons or separate complaint to other parties
- Rule 5 = allows service of answers + other papers in civil action by mailing or emailing paper to a party’s attorney of record
- Applies when recipient has consented in writing
- D isn’t required to choose any of those options (Rule 8(d)(2))
- Also has option to incorporate them all into answer
Answers - Challenging the Legal Sufficiency of a Defense:
- P must have same opportunity to challenge legal sufficiency of defense as D does to a claim
- Rule 12(f) = motion to strike an insufficient defense
- Basically, this is the P’s version of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
- If done, courts and parties treat the existing answer as if that defense was no longer included in case
- Generally Denying:
- Rule 8(b)(3) = allows D to enter general denial to complaint in fed court
- Note: rule is skeptical of them
- Only applies when a party intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading
- Majority of fed cases: D will have to admit at least some allegations of a complaint
- CL general denial essentially obsolete
- Admitting and Denying:
- Rule 8(b)(2) = denial has to fairly respond to the substance of the allegation
- Rule 8(b)(4) = requires a D to admit part of allegation and deny the rest when its info so requires
- When D Doesn’t Have Enough Info to Admit/Deny:
- Rule 8(b)(5) = party that lacks knowledge or info sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state. Statement has the effect of a denial.
- Pleading Affirmative Defenses:
- When making them (listed in Rule 8(c)), D should plead some factual support for each, even if only in short and plain terms
- Factual support = puts P on notice of the legal bases of defenses
- Fraud has to be pled with particularity (Rule 9)
Identifying Affirmative Defenses - Omitting an AD
- Rule 8(c) = party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense
- Ingraham = failure to timely plead AD waives the defense
- If omitted, D should ordinarily be allowed to amend answer to add defense as long as amended answer still gives P sufficient notice to prepare for the defense
- AD can be raised in TC as long as it is done in a way that doesn’t result in an unfair surprise (Ingraham)
- Listing ADs
- Rule 8(c) = no damage caps
- List in Rule 8 includes all ADs since changing of rule in 2008
- Difference between ADs and Denials:
- AD = excuse from liability, even if P proves its allegations
Further Pleading - For every claim of any kind that is not dismissed, an answer is allowed
- Rule 8(b)(6) = if responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided
Fundamental Pleading Errors - Pleading Lack of Knowledge or Info:
- Rules do not allow empty-headed pleading (like saying “i don’t know”)
- Rule 11(b) = presumes pleader conducted a reasonable inquiry, including acquiring reasonably accessible info in order to admit/deny allegations in the complaint
- Moving for a Failure to State a Claim Again:
- Redundant to make a 12(b)(6) objection by motion a second time in answer (does nothing)
- Legally Insufficient Defense:
- Assumption of risk doesn’t qualify as an AD
- Listed in Rule 8(c), but doesn’t apply to the case
525 – 543, 554 – 558
Care and Candor in Pleading Intro - Nothing in 12(b)(6) or 12(f) protects against dishonest, sloppy, mistaken, or ill-motivated allegations
- Rule 11 = sets out both standard of care and candor in pleading (also for the filing of other papers before the court) + the sanctions for violating the standard
- By presenting a paper to the court, attorney of record or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, info, and belief formed after inquiry under the circumstances:
- not presented for any improper purpose
- claims/defenses/other legal contentions warranted by existing law or by nonfrivolous argument
- factual contentions have evidentiary support or will have it after discovery
- denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence; if specifically ID-ed, reasonably based on belief or lack of info
- Presenting = signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating
- Rule 11 = presenting a paper to court certifies that the presenter believes, after conducting a reasonable inquiry, that the paper has evidentiary support, a legal basis, or a proper purpose
- Defines form of legal malpractice based on objective negligence standard
- Bad faith not required to violate the rule. Good faith not a defense against a violation.
- Care and candor in federal court:
- Policed by rules of professional conduct, Rule 11, statutes, inherent power of courts to control litigation conduct, and legal malpractice law
Reasonable Inquiry - Rule 11’s certifications to court must be based on a pre-filing “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances”
- 11(b)(3) = tolerates factual contentions that may lack evidentiary support at filing a long a they are specifically ID-ed
- Reasonable:
- Involves balancing the costs + time available for investigation against the likelihood that more investigation will turn up relevant law + evidence
- Doesn’t require steps that aren’t cost-justified
Pre-Filing Inquiry - Why reasonableness of pre-filing inquiry doesn’t depend on expertise of lawyer
- Question of whether any reasonable lawyer would familiarize themselves with issue
- Rule 11 doesn’t look to standard of care in particular lawyer’s community of practice; rather a national standard
- Why Guyton’s claim for damages was frivolous:
- Lacked evidentiary support
- Rule 11 = depends on both time available to investigate and on the probability that more investigation will turn up important evidence
- Bad faith:
- Rule 11 hasn’t required bad faith to find a violation
- By positing a “reasonable” inquiry, it embraces a negligence standard of care (ignorance is not a defense)
- Understanding Rule 11(b)
- It is about what you know (or should know after reasonable inquiry) at the time of presenting that controls
- Rule 11 taking a “snapshot” of state of idn at time of presenting that serves a basis for deciding whether paper complied w rule
- No obligation to withdraw paper on basis of later-acquired info
- Reasonableness factors:
- Complexity of the factual and legal issues in question
- Extent to which pertinent facts were under the control of opponents and 3rd parties
- Extent to which the lawyer relied on the client for facts
- Whether the case wa accepted from another lawyer and the extent to which the receiving lawyer relied on the referring lawyer
- Resources reasonably available to the lawyer to conduct an inquiry
- Extent to which the lawyer was on notice that further inquiry might be appropriate
- Warranting sanctions:
- Motions should not be made or threatened for minor, inconsequential violations
- Court should consider whether a violation infected entire pleading or only one particular count
Helpful Information About Criminal Charges
Client Reviews
★★★★★
I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two year stretch together... J.R.
★★★★★
Bill Powers and his firm were a true blessing. If anyone is contacting an attorney, it's more than likely not from a positive life experience. If there was a rating for "bedside manner" for lawyers he'd get a 10/10 for that as well. The entire staff were helpful... K.C.
★★★★★
Bill Powers’ staff has handled several traffic citations for me over the years, and they exceeded my expectations each and every time. Would highly recommend anyone faced with a traffic citation or court case contact his office and they will handle it from there. M.C.
★★★★★
Bill and his staff are flat out great. I (unfortunately) was a repeat customer after a string of tickets. These guys not only took care of the initial ticket for me, but went the extra mile and reduced my problems from 3 to just 1 (very minor one) on the same day I called back! I would recommend them to anyone. A.R.