Legal Cases on Accrual of Cause of Action and Pleading Issues, Slides of Law

Download Legal Cases on Accrual of Cause of Action and Pleading Issues and more Slides Law in PDF only on Docsity! Pleadings Docsity.com Accrual of a Cause of Action • Knight v. deVries, Jones & Associates, • Knight Advertising, owned by Darnell Knight, employed law firm including Jones to enforce a covenant not to compete against Johnson. • Lawyer Amanda Jones filed suit and attached a copy of the original promissory note; • Lawyer Jones learned the attached note was a fabrication; • Knight confronted, asked Knight to sign a statement of truth; • Jones said the firm would withdraw; • Jones called to notify Knight of proposed terms of a settlement. • Knight tentatively agreed to accept the settlement terms. • Knight consulted with another attorney; but settlement was still pending; • Knight’s new counsel filed a legal malpractice action against deVries, Jones, and their firm; • Question • It is said that a legal claim requires two elements: a body of law, such as tort or contract that allows the claim and a set of facts that fits within that law. • 1. At what point in these facts were both of those requirements met? • 2. When is the answer to when these requirements are met most likely to be important? Why? Docsity.com Pleading Jurisdiction II • Is the statement in Form 2 required? • Isn’t the answer to that question both “yes” and “no?” • There must be a short and concise statement of the basis for jurisdiction. But, the language need not be the language of Form 2. • What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction in the case? • How do you know? Docsity.com Pleading a Claim • Adams v. City of Bethany Springs Police Department, et als. • “This complaint also seeks the restitution of the Plaintiff to his employment as Police Officer with full and continuous back pay, pension and restitution for his loss of wages, punitive damages to the Plaintiff by the defendants for the continuous unconstitutional deprivation of rights intentionally instituted by the Defendants, to provide restitution for the entire class of persons which is unduly damaged and perpetuated by the lack of Orthodox Jewish Appearance within the employment of the Police Department and effective discrimination therewith where there is an undue disproportionate number of orthodox Jewish Police Officers which barely number less than ten as a result of an Antisemitic Policy of the City which permeates each and every aspect of law enforcement to the detriment and damage of Orthodox Jewish Persons living in the City and has a rippling effect in cases of Antisemitic lawlessness which currently cost, have cost, and will cost billions of dollars to the Community at large: to wit the bombing of the World Trade Center and the patent, intentional ignorance of the Murder of a World renown Orthodox Jewish leader.” • Questions • 1. Assuming the court is going to rule that this paragraph (as well as other parts of the Complaint) do not satisfy Rule 8(a), be prepared to discuss why, specifically, the paragraph violates that rule. • 2. How would you rewrite the paragraph so as to make it comply with Rule 8(a). Docsity.com Pleading a Claim II • How does it violate Rule 8? It is not simple or concise; it contains too many facts; it repeats; it contains more than one fact; it may even be scandalous under Rule 12(f). • How to rewrite: • 1. Plaintiff suffered religious discrimination at the hands of the defendants including deprivation of his rights as a police officer. • 2. This discrimination was intentional. • 3. Plaintiffs’ injuries are typical of others of the Orthodox Jewish religion whom plaintiff seeks to represent. • 4. Plaintiffs damages include being deprived of his employment, any salary he would have earned while so employed. • Plaintiff seeks restitution to his position within the department, back pay, any lost pension benefits, and punitive damages because of the intentional conduct of the defendant. • What is wrong with simple/concise/direct? Docsity.com More Definite Statements Regents Hotel Corp. v. Heritage Hotel Corp. et al. • In Count II, trade secret misappropriation, Regents alleged that Heritage violated state statute by wrongfully acquiring and using “Regents trade secret and confidential information relating to the ‘Look to Book’ incentive program, Regent's valued customers, marketing information concerning the ‘Look to Book’ program, and other trade secret information related to the hospitality business in which Regents and Heritage compete.” • In Count III, unfair competition, Regents set forth no additional facts and alleged only that Heritage and Helmut’s conduct “constitutes common law unfair competition.” • In Count IV, breach of contract, Regents realleged the paragraphs of Count II and stated that “Helmut had a contractual duty not to disclose or use Regents’ trade secrets or confidential information in any new employment” • Additionally, Count II alleged that “Both Heritage and Helmut knew or had reason to know these contractual obligations and therefore either breached or induced the breach of these contractual obligations and that, as a result, Heritage and Helmut were liable to Regents for breach of contract and/or inducement of such breach.” • Both Heritage and Helmut claimed that Counts II, III and IV are impermissibly vague and ambiguous under Rule 12(e) • Questions • 1. Are the averments of Counts II, III and IV vague? • 2. Assuming they are, how should that vagueness be resolved? Docsity.com More Definite Statement II • Actual case--court denies the request for more definite statement on each of the three contested counts, finding that the language of the pleadings “amply set[s] forth a “short and plain” statement of Radisson's claims sufficient to provide Defendants with a basis to form a responsive pleading. The detail Defendants seek may be obtained through discovery. • And that is the point of the problem. • Virtually all pleadings are vague. It is the rare pleading, however, to which a Rule 12(e) motion would apply. • Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored. • In a modern pleading world, all that is accomplished is notice of a claim. • The details of the claim are fleshed out in discovery. Docsity.com Motion to Strike MCD Media, Inc. v. Tiger Broadcasting, Inc. • Among a number of other provisions of the Complaint, MCD Media alleged the following: • Entertainment industry commentators have reported that "Take My Wife, Please" is a "rip-off" of the British hit "Trading Spouses" Compl. ¶¶ 9, 31, 35-36; • Tiger's representatives were well aware of MCD’s "Trading Spouses" and they intended to create a show similar to it before MCD could get on the U.S. airwaves; See Compl. ¶¶ 22, 36, Ex. A. • Tiger Broadcasting is "behaving like there's an Emmy category for Most Brazen Ripoff," Id. ¶ 32; • "Take My Wife, Please" is a "carbon copy" of "Trading Spouses" Id. ¶ 33; • "Take My Wife, Please" is a "rush-job rip-off of the popular Brit television mainstay.” Id. ¶ 34. • Tiger Broadcasting moves to strike all of the foregoing paragraphs alleging that they contain “immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” information, in violation of Rule 12(f). • Question • What result? Why? Docsity.com Denials/Defenses Davis v. Elkins • Erin Davis alleges that Elkins’ heavy equipment operators drove their machinery over Davis’ land, ruining the crops that were then growing on the land, as well as damaging some very valuable walnut trees on the land. • In her petition, Davis alleges damages to the property from the trespass in excess of $75,000. • Elkins denies the trespass, the case goes through discovery and comes to trial. • At trial, Davis proves ownership of the property, having acquired it from Smith, and also proves that Elkins entered onto the property with tractors and backhoes. She also proves damage; • After Davis rested her case, Elkins sought to prove the existence of an assignment from Smith to Elkins authorizing Elkins to enter onto the land to aid the construction business. • • Question • If Erin Davis’ lawyer objects to this proof, what will be the result? Why? Docsity.com Denials/Defenses II • You have already had this case? • Elkins “denies the trespass?” What does that mean? • What will Elkins have to show to prove that Elkins has an assignment from Smith showing that Elkins is allowed to enter onto the land. • That’s the point: • If Elkins is going to add facts that were not part of a denial, and if Elkins is the one who should have to prove those facts, then Davis does not have “notice,” even in a liberal federal system, of Elkins’ claim, and that is the problem. • This assignment, then, is not a denial—it is a defense; Docsity.com Affirmative Defenses In re Colonial Bank Receivership • Lawyers for the defendants have considered asserting multiple defenses against the FDIC in the action. These defenses include: • (1) That the FDIC, after being appointed receiver, failed to mitigate damages; • (2) That the FDIC cannot prove that the loans which are the subject of the FDIC claim cannot be collected; • (3) That Colonial Bank took reasonable steps to collect the loans before being placed into insolvency; • (4) That the FDIC was negligent in attempting to collect the target loans; • (5) That the FDIC should be estopped from seeking any damages from the defendants based upon the FDIC's alleged loss or destruction of loan documents; • (6) That the FDIC is guilty of conflict of interest in that they have applied funds from some of the target loans to loans by the same debtors with other failed banks; • (7) That a specific federal statute preempts any common law state or federal claims against these defendants; • (8) That intervening causes prevented collection of these loans; • (9) That the officers and directors always dealt fairly with respect to the affairs of the bank; • (10) That the bank's loans were consistent with prevailing banking practice; • (11) That there was no personal gain to the defendants; • (12) That the defendants relied upon the advice of others. Docsity.com