Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 - National Center for Missing and

Transcription

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8
Page 1
United States Code Annotated Currentness
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts (Refs & Annos)
Title III. Pleadings and Motions
Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading
(a) Claim for Relief.A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction
and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
(b) Defenses; Admissions and Denials.
(1) In General.In responding to a pleading, a party must:
(A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; and
(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.
(2) Denials--Responding to the Substance.A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.
(3) General and Specific Denials.A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading-including the jurisdictional grounds--may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.
(4) Denying Part of an Allegation.A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of an allegation must admit
the part that is true and deny the rest.
(5) Lacking Knowledge or Information.A party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial.
(6) Effect of Failing to Deny.An allegation--other than one relating to the amount of damages--is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.
(c) Affirmative Defenses.
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson Reuters. If you wish to
check the currency of this material, you may do so using KeyCite on Westlaw by visiting
http://www.westlaw.com/.
Page 2
(1) In General.In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense,
including:
• accord and satisfaction;
• arbitration and award;
• assumption of risk;
• contributory negligence;
• duress;
• estoppel;
• failure of consideration;
• fraud;
• illegality;
• injury by fellow servant;
• laches;
• license;
• payment;
• release;
• res judicata;
• statute of frauds;
• statute of limitations; and
• waiver.
(2) Mistaken Designation.If a party mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim, or a counterclaim as a defense, the court must, if justice requires, treat the pleading as though it were correctly designated, and may impose
terms for doing so.
(d) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct; Alternative Statements; Inconsistency.
(1) In General.Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required.
Page 3
(2) Alternative Statements of a Claim or Defense.A party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense
alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative
statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.
(3) Inconsistent Claims or Defenses.A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of
consistency.
(e) Construing Pleadings.Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.
CREDIT(S)
(Amended February 28, 1966, effective July 1, 1966; March 2, 1987, effective August 1, 1987; April 30, 2007, effective December 1, 2007; April 28, 2010, effective December 1, 2010.)
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTES
1937 Adoption
Note to Subdivision (a). See [former] Equity Rules 25 (Bill of Complaint--Contents), and 30 (Answer--Contents-Counterclaim). Compare 2 Ind.Stat.Ann. (Burns, 1933) §§ 2-1004, 2-1015; 2 Ohio Gen.Code Ann. (Page, 1926) §§
11305, 11314; Utah Rev.Stat.Ann. (1933) §§ 104-7-2, 104-9-1.
See Rule 19(c) for the requirement of a statement in a claim for relief of the names of persons who ought to be parties and the reason for their omission.
See Rule 23(b) for particular requirements as to the complaint in a secondary action by shareholders.
Note to Subdivision (b). 1. This rule supersedes the methods of pleading prescribed in U.S.C., Title 19, § 508 (Persons making seizures pleading general issue and proving special matter); U.S.C. Title 35, [former] §§ 40d (Proving
under general issue, upon notice, that a statement in application for an extended patent is not true), 69 [now 282]
(Pleading and proof in actions for infringement) and similar statutes.
2. This rule is, in part, [former] Equity Rule 30 (Answer--Contents--Counterclaim), with the matter on denials
largely from the Connecticut practice. See Conn. Practice Book (1934) §§ 107, 108, and 122; Conn.Gen.Stat. (1930)
§§ 5508 to 5514. Compare the English practice, English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice,
1937) O. 19, r.r. 17-20.
Note to Subdivision (c). This follows substantially English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice,
1937) O. 19, r. 15 and N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) § 242, with “surprise” omitted in this rule.
Note to Subdivision (d). The first sentence is similar to former Equity Rule 30 (Answer--Contents--Counterclaim).
For the second sentence see former Equity Rule 31 (Reply--When Required--When Cause at Issue). This is similar
to English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 19, r.r. 13, 18; and to the practice of the
States.
Note to Subdivision (e). This rule is an elaboration upon [former] Equity Rule 30 (Answer--Contents-Counterclaim), plus a statement of the actual practice under some codes. Compare also [former] Equity Rule 18
(Pleadings--Technical Forms Abrogated). See Clark, Code Pleading (1928), pp. 171-4, 432-5; Hankin, Alternative
Page 4
and Hypothetical Pleading (1924), 33 Yale L.J. 365.
Note to Subdivision (f). A provision of like import is of frequent occurrence in the codes. Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. ch.
110, § 157(3); 2 Minn.Stat. (Mason, 1927) § 9266; N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) § 275; 2 N.D.Comp.Laws Ann. (1913) §
7458.
1966 Amendment
The change here is consistent with the broad purposes of unification.
1987 Amendment
The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended.
2007 Amendment
The language of Rule 8 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be
stylistic only.
The former Rule 8(b) and 8(e) cross-references to Rule 11 are deleted as redundant. Rule 11 applies by its own
terms. The force and application of Rule 11 are not diminished by the deletion.
Former Rule 8(b) required a pleader denying part of an averment to “specify so much of it as is true and material
and * * * deny only the remainder.” “[A]nd material” is deleted to avoid the implication that it is proper to deny
something that the pleader believes to be true but not material.
Deletion of former Rule 8(e)(2)'s “whether based on legal, equitable, or maritime grounds” reflects the parallel deletions in Rule 1 and elsewhere. Merger is now successfully accomplished.
2010 Amendments
Subdivision (c)(1). “[D]ischarge in bankruptcy” is deleted from the list of affirmative defenses. Under 11 U.S.C. §
524(a)(1) and (2) a discharge voids a judgment to the extent that it determines a personal liability of the debtor with
respect to a discharged debt. The discharge also operates as an injunction against commencement or continuation of
an action to collect, recover, or offset a discharged debt. For these reasons it is confusing to describe discharge as an
affirmative defense. But § 524(a) applies only to a claim that was actually discharged. Several categories of debt set
out in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) are excepted from discharge. The issue whether a claim was excepted from discharge may
be determined either in the court that entered the discharge or--in most instances--in another court with jurisdiction
over the creditor's claim.
CROSS REFERENCES
Amendment of pleadings generally, see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 15, 28 USCA.
Defenses in law or fact, how presented, see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 12, 28 USCA.
Forms, see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Form 1 et seq., 28 USCA.
Joinder of claims, see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 18, 28 USCA.
Relief granted in judgment even if not demanded, see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 54, 28 USCA.
Reply to counterclaims denominated as such, see Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. Rule 7, 28 USCA.
Page 5
LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES
A prior guilty plea is sufficient to raise and establish the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel even
though that defense is neither pleaded nor articulated and no record of the prior proceedings is offered into
evidence. (1983-84) 29 Vill.L.Rev. 857.
A short and plain statement: the significance of Leatherman v. Tarrant County. Paul J. McArdle, 72
U.Det.Mercy L.Rev. 19 (1994).
Characterizing federal claims: Preemption, removal, and the arising-under jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Mary P. Twitchell, 54 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 812 (1986).
Civil RICO: The insurers fight back. Arnold D. Fielkow and Stephen P. Eisenberg, 21 Tort & Ins.L.J. 1
(1985).
Den of inequity: The case for equitable doctrines in Rule 10b-5 cases. Comment, 81 Cal.L.Rev. 1587 (1993).
Elevated pleading in environmental litigation. Carl W. Tobias, 27 U.C.Davis L.Rev. 357 (1994).
Future class actions. Robert P. Schuwerk, 39 Baylor L.Rev. 63 (1987).
Heightened Pleading. Christopher M. Fairman, 81 Tex.L.Rev. 551 (2002).
Judicial estoppel: The refurbishing of a judicial shield. Note, 55 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 409 (1987).
Notice pleading under the federal rules of civil procedure following Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.: Standing
on the shoulders of Conley and Leatherman. Harry Emmanuel Scozzaro, Jr., 26 Am.J.Trial Advoc. 385
(2002).
The other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Laurens Walker, 25 Rev. Litig. 79 (2006).
The place of procedural control in determining who may sue or be sued: Lessons in statutory interpretation
from civil RICO and Sedima. Douglas E. Abrams, 38 Vand.L.Rev. 1477 (1985).
Pleading civil rights complaints: Wheat and chaff. Lawrence W. Moore, S.J., 23 Akron L.Rev. 187 (1989).
Pleading of fraud: Rhymes without reason. William M. Richman, Donald E. Lively, and Patricia Mell, 60
S.Cal.L.Rev. 959 (1987).
Professionalism and procedure: Notes on an empirical study. David S. Walker, 38 Drake L.Rev. 759 (19881989).
Public law litigation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Carl Tobias, 74 Cornell L.Rev. 270 (1989).
Sanctions under “downgraded” Rule 11. Michael C. Silberberg, 212 N.Y.L.J. 3 (Sept. 1, 1994).
Sufficiency of process. Michael C. Silberberg, 212 N.Y.L.J. 3 (July 7, 1994).
Page 6
Survey of recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals cases regarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Noel E.
Sullivan, 1987 Det.C.L.Rev. 211 (1987).
Twilight zone of the Erie doctrine: Is there really a different choice of equitable remedies in the “court a
block away”? David Crump, 1991 Wis.L.Rev. 1233.
LIBRARY REFERENCES
American Digest System
Federal Civil Procedure
630 to 653, 654, 671 to 680, 731 to 741, 744, 751 to 759.
Key Number System Topic No. 170A.
Corpus Juris Secundum
CJS Arbitration § 78, Participation in Litigation.
CJS Bankruptcy § 779, Award of Attorney's Fees to Prevailing Party in Adversary Proceeding.
CJS Bankruptcy § 1049, Pleading of Grounds of Objection; Amendments.
CJS Bankruptcy § 1085, Pleading of Grounds for Exception.
CJS Civil Rights § 294, Medical Examinations and Inquiries.
CJS Civil Rights § 467, Complaint, Generally.
CJS Civil Rights § 472, Actions Under Statute Guaranteeing Equal Rights.
CJS Civil Rights § 619, Complaint.
CJS Corporations § 39, Pleading.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 4, Defenses.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 197, Consistency of Claims by Intervening Parties.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 297, Construction of Pleadings; Conclusiveness.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 303, Short, Plain Statement of Claim.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 304, Simplicity, Conciseness, and Directness.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 307, Pleading Particular Matters--Fraud, Mistake, and Condition of Mind.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 309, Requisites and Sufficiency.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 310, Requisites and Sufficiency--Captions, Titles, or Subheadings.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 316, Prayer.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 318, Ultimate Facts.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 322, Alternate, Hypothetical, and Inconsistent Claims.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 327, Averments Showing Venue or Jurisdiction of Particular Federal District.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 343, Fraud or Mistake.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 344, Anti-Trust Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 348, Conspiracy Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 349, Contract Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 350, Conversion Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 352, Employees' Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 353, Employees' Actions--Fair Labor Standards Act.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 354, Injunction Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 355, Insurance Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 356, Libel and Slander Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 357, Mines and Minerals, Actions Involving.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 358, Negligence Actions, Generally.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 359, Realty Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 361, Class Actions--Stockholders' Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 362, Tax Actions.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 363, Trusts, Actions Involving.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 369, Multiple or Inconsistent Defenses.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 370, Denials.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 371, Admissions; Failure to Deny.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 373, Assumption of Risk; Contributory Negligence.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 374, Fraud; Mistake.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 377, Res Judicata.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 378, Statute of Frauds.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 379, Limitations and Laches.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 380, Waiver and Estoppel.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 381, Counterclaims and Cross-Claims in General.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 391, Pleading Counterclaim or Set-Off; Sufficiency.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 394, Cross-Claims--Sufficiency of Cross-Claim.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 440, Evidence Admissible Under Pleadings.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 443, Time For, and Manner or Mode Of, Objection.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 502, Redundant Matter.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 505, Unnecessary Matter; Matter in Issue Under Other Allegations.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 793, Limitations, Laches, and Prematurity.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 794, Pendency of Another Action.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 801, Lack of Jurisdictional Averments.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 802, Defects in Form or Expression.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 838, Matters Considered.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 1139, Evidence and Hearing.
CJS Federal Civil Procedure § 1319, Dismissal of Case.
CJS Federal Courts § 297, Scope and Extent of Review.
CJS Pleading § 67, Directness and Positiveness, or Argumentativeness.
CJS Pleading § 73, Alternative and Disjunctive Allegations--Statutes and Rules of Procedure.
CJS Pleading § 74, Consistency or Repugnancy.
CJS Pleading § 113, Alternative Relief.
CJS Pleading § 117, Requirements Under Statutes or Rules.
CJS Pleading § 162, General Form and Requisites.
CJS Pleading § 165, Certainty.
CJS Pleading § 166, Responsiveness.
CJS Pleading § 173, Partial Defenses and Counterclaims.
CJS Pleading § 175, Separate Statement of Defenses.
CJS Pleading § 177, Inconsistent Defenses.
CJS Pleading § 187, General Denial.
CJS Pleading § 188, Specific Denial.
CJS Pleading § 189, Denial of Knowledge or Information.
CJS Pleading § 193, Implied by Failure to Deny.
CJS Pleading § 196, Construction, Operation, and Effect.
CJS Pleading § 199, Matters Pleadable as New Matter.
CJS Pleading § 202, Counterclaims.
CJS Pleading § 220, Formal Requisites.
CJS Trademarks, Tradenames, & Unfair Competition § 288, Motion to Strike.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Page 7
Page 8
ALR Library
38 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 201, Construction and Application of Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), 20
U.S.C.A. §§ 1701 et seq.
36 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 213, When is Six-Month Limitations Period, Applicable to Employee's “Hybrid” Action
Against Employer and Union Under § 301 of Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 185), Subject to Tolling or Equitable...
32 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 561, Issues Litigated Against Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) and ICANN-Accredited Registry Operators for .com and .net Top Level Domain Names.
31 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 29, What Constitutes Concealment, Destruction, Mutilation, Falsification, or Failure to
Keep or Preserve Recorded Information from Which Debtor's Financial Condition or Business Transactions Might
be Ascertained For...
29 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 415, Tolling of Time Period for Bringing Title VII Action Under § 706 of Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(F)(1))--Based on Filings and Administrative and Court Proceedings.
22 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 159, Bivens Actions--United States Supreme Court Cases.
21 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 65, Tolling of Time Period for Bringing Title VII Action Under § 706 of Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(F)(1))--General Principles.
18 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 223, Construction and Application of Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-2,
119 Stat. 4 (2005).
10 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 605, Liability in Private Action Under Fair Credit Reporting Act § 623(B) (15 U.S.C.A. §
1681s-2(B)) Governing Duties of Furnishers of Credit Information.
8 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 611, Application of Local District Court Summary Judgment Rules to Nonmoving Party in
Federal Courts--Statements of Facts.
2 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 119, Bankruptcy: Equitable Subordination, Under 11 U.S.C.A. § 510(C), of Insider Claims.
199 ALR, Fed. 389, Construction and Application of Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350
Note.
197 ALR, Fed. 459, Jurisdiction Issues Arising Under Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
194 ALR, Fed. 175, Application of Doctrine of “Reverse Passing Off” Under Lanham Act.
192 ALR, Fed. 483, What Constitutes Substantial Limitation on Major Life Activity of Caring for Oneself for Purposes of Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213).
189 ALR, Fed. 147, Liability as “Control Persons” Under § 15 of Securities Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 77o) and § 78t(A)
of Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 78t(A)) of Accountants, Auditors, Attorneys, Lenders, and Other Persons
or Entities...
Page 9
186 ALR, Fed. 169, Liability of Brokerage Firm, Securities Underwriter, Investment Advisor, or Similar Entity, or
Individual Affiliated With Such Entity, as “Control Person” Under § 15 of Securities Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 77o) and §
20(A) Of...
183 ALR, Fed. 141, Liability of Officer, Director, Employee, or Other Individual Associated With Seller or Issuer of
Securities as “Control Person” Under § 15 of Securities Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 77) and § 20(A) of Securities Exchange
Act...
182 ALR, Fed. 61, Title VII Race or National Origin Discrimination in Employment--Supreme Court Cases.
182 ALR, Fed. 387, Liability of Issuer of Securities, Parent Corporation, Subsidiary or Affiliate, or Other Similar
Entity as “Control Person” Under § 15 of Securities Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 77o) and § 20(A) of Securities Exchange
Act...
180 ALR, Fed. 325, Actions Brought Under Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 et seq.-Supreme Court Cases.
178 ALR, Fed. 129, When is Employer, Labor Union, Affiliated Entity or Person, or Pension or Welfare Plan “Fiduciary” Within Meaning of § 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974...
176 ALR, Fed. 1, State-Sponsored Terrorism Exception to Immunity of Foreign States and Their Property Under
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(A)(7).
176 ALR, Fed. 189, Modern Status of “In Custody” and Live-Controversy Requirements for Asserting Federal Habeas Corpus Challenge to Custody Pursuant to State Court Judgment.
170 ALR, Fed. 219, Title VII Sex Discrimination in Employment--Supreme Court Cases.
169 ALR, Fed. 369, What Constitutes “Serious Health Condition” Under § 101(11) or § 102(A)(1)(D) of Family and
Medical Leave Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 2611(11), 29 U.S.C.A. § 2612(A)(1)(D)).
157 ALR, Fed. 1, When is Supervisor's Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment Under Title VII of Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e et seq) Imputable to Employer.
157 ALR, Fed. 581, Comment Note: Sufficiency, in Federal Court, of Raising Issue Below to Preserve Matter for
Appeal.
148 ALR, Fed. 305, When is Individual Regarded as Having, or Perceived to Have, Impairment Within Meaning of
Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 12102(2)(C)).
144 ALR, Fed. 307, Limitation of Actions Under the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 et
seq.).
144 ALR, Fed. 427, Propriety and Effect of Heightened Standards of Pleading or Production Required of Plaintiff in
Action Under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
139 ALR, Fed. 517, Applicability, in Civil Action, of Provisions of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, Prohibiting Interception of Communications (18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(1)), to Interceptions by Spouse, or Spouse's
Page 10
Agent...
139 ALR, Fed. 553, Propriety of Use of Fictitious Name of Defendant in Federal District Court.
142 ALR, Fed. 511, Construction and Application of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C.A.
§§ 2601).
138 ALR, Fed. 253, Creditor's Right to Have Bankruptcy Discharge of Individual Debtor Revoked, Vacated, and Set
Aside.
132 ALR, Fed. 625, Validity, Construction and Application of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C.A. §
227).
127 ALR, Fed. 423, Availability of Affirmative Defenses in Action by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, or Resolution Trust Corporation to Recover Against Officers and Directors Of...
117 ALR, Fed. 263, Construction and Application of “Public Disclosure” and “Original Source” Jurisdictional Bars
Under 31 U.S.C.A. § 3730(E)(4) (Civil Actions for False Claims).
120 ALR, Fed. 1, Establishing “Release or Threatened Release” of Hazardous Substance from Facility for Purposes
of Liability Pursuant to § 107 of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act...
111 ALR, Fed. 83, Who May Maintain Action Under § 11(A) of Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77k(A)) in
Connection With False or Misleading Registration Statements.
113 ALR, Fed. 1, What Are “Necessary Costs of Response” Within Meaning of § 107(A)(4)(B) of Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 9607(A)(4)(B)).
114 ALR, Fed. 551, Persons Liable for False Registration Statement Under § 11 of Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C.A. § 77k).
107 ALR, Fed. 562, Application of Requirement in § 107(A) of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 9607(A)) that Private Cost-Recovery Actions be Consistent With National
Contingency...
104 ALR, Fed. 288, Seizure or Forfeiture of Real Property Used in Illegal Possession, Manufacture, Processing,
Purchase, or Sale of Controlled Substances Under § 511(A)(7) of Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970...
100 ALR, Fed. 821, What Circumstances Constitute Laches Barring Federal Judicial Review of Allegedly Wrongful
Discharge from Military Service.
88 ALR, Fed. 412, Validity, Construction, and Effect of Document or Agreement Alleged to Constitute Private Individual Release of Claim Under Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634).
81 ALR, Fed. 240, Effect of Filing as Separate Federal Action Claim that Would be Compulsory Counterclaim in
Pending Federal Action.
Page 11
76 ALR, Fed. 46, Discretionary Exercise of Pendent Jurisdiction of Federal Court Over State Claim When Joined
With Claim Arising Under Laws, Treaties, or Constitution of United States.
76 ALR, Fed. 522, When Will Federal Court of Appeals Review Issue Raised by Party for First Time on Appeal
Where Legal Developments After Trial Affect Issue.
71 ALR, Fed. 117, Pendent Jurisdiction of Federal Courts in Actions Based on Diversity of Citizenship.
72 ALR, Fed. 191, Pendent Jurisdiction of Federal Court Over State Claim Against Party Not Otherwise Subject to
Federal Jurisdiction Where State Claim is Sought to be Joined With Claim Arising Under Laws, Treaties, or Constitution Of...
67 ALR, Fed. 595, Waiver by Federal Government Agency as Affecting Agency's Right to Claim Exemption from
Disclosure Requirements, Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(B)).
70 ALR, Fed. 17, Liability of Supervisory Officials and Governmental Entities for Having Failed to Adequately
Train, Supervise, or Control Individual Peace Officers Who Violate Plaintiff's Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C.A.....
70 ALR, Fed. 637, “Target Area” Doctrine as Basis for Determining Standing to Sue Under § 4 of Clayton Act (15
U.S.C.A. § 15) Allowing Treble Damages for Violation of Antitrust Laws.
62 ALR, Fed. 106, What Constitutes “Series of Acts or Transactions” for Purposes of Rule 8(B) of Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Providing for Joinder of Defendants Who Are Alleged to Have Participated in Same Series of
Acts...
52 ALR, Fed. 679, Standards for Determining Whether Proceedings in Forma Pauperis Are Frivolous and Thus Subject to Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(D).
55 ALR, Fed. 418, Circumstances in Title VII Employment Discrimination Cases (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e et seq.)
Which Warrant Finding of “Constructive Discharge” of Discriminatee Who Resigns Employment.
47 ALR, Fed. 15, Exhaustion of State Administrative Remedies as Prerequisite to Federal Civil Rights Action Based
on 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
35 ALR, Fed. 551, Laches as Defense in Patent Infringement Suit.
26 ALR, Fed. 682, In Pari Delicto as Defense in Private Action for Violation of Securities Act or Securities Exchange Act.
27 ALR, Fed. 407, Construction and Application of Provision of Rule 9(B), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that
Circumstances Constituting Fraud or Mistake be Stated With Particularity.
27 ALR, Fed. 866, Standing of Lessor Under Percentage of Profits or Gross Receipts Lease to Sue for Treble Damages Under § 4 of Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 15) for Antitrust Violations Decreasing Profits or Gross...
28 ALR, Fed. 129, Construction and Application of Rule 15(D) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Providing for
Allowance of Supplemental Pleadings Setting Forth Transactions, Occurrences, or Events Subsequent to Original...
28 ALR, Fed. 279, Relief Under Federal Civil Rights Acts to State Prisoners Complaining of Denial of Medical
Page 12
Care.
29 ALR, Fed. 482, Statute of Limitations Under Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(B)).
18 ALR, Fed. 7, Relief, Under Federal Civil Rights Acts, to State Prisoners Complaining of Conditions Relating to
Corporal Punishment, Punitive Segregation, or Other Similar Physical Disciplinary Measures.
19 ALR, Fed. 709, State or Federal Law as Governing Applicability of Doctrine of Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel in Federal Court Action.
20 ALR, Fed. 488, Propriety of Dismissal for Failure of Prosecution Under Rule 41(B) of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
14 ALR, Fed. 342, Laches as Affecting Claim for Accounting and Damages in Federal Action for Infringement of
Trademark or Tradename.
15 ALR, Fed. 407, Propriety of Dismissal of Action With Prejudice, Under Rule 41(B) of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Upon Ground of Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With Order of Court.
16 ALR, Fed. 748, Scope of Relief Which May be Granted, Under Rule 54(C) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Except in Cases of Default Judgment, Even Though Party in Whose Favor Judgment is Rendered Has Not Demanded Such...
13 ALR, Fed. 145, Construction and Application of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361 Conferring on Federal District Courts
Original Jurisdiction of Actions in Nature of Mandamus to Compel Federal Officer, Employee, or Agency to Perform Duty Owed...
7 ALR, Fed. 347, Procedural Requirements for Judicial Enforcement of Subpoenas Issued by Federal Trade Commission Under § 9 of Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 49).
4 ALR, Fed. 123, Timeliness of Amendments to Pleadings Made by Leave of Court Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a).
4 ALR, Fed. 833, Time Requirements for Civil Action for Violation of Equal Employment Opportunities Provisions
Under § 706 of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5).
48 ALR 6th 1, Construction and Application of Limited Liability Company Acts--Issues Relating to Derivative Actions and Actions Between Members of Limited Liability Company.
41 ALR 6th 77, Interplay Between 21st Amendment and Sherman Act Concerning State Regulation of Intoxicating
Liquors.
39 ALR 6th 155, Application of Doctrine of Election of Remedies Where One Claim Sounds in Tort and Other
Claim Sounds in Contract.
36 ALR 6th 537, Applicability of Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine Barring Employment of Competitor's Former Employee.
16 ALR 6th 143, Recovery for Exposure to Beryllium.
Page 13
105 ALR 5th 351, Common-Law Retaliatory Discharge of Employee for Disclosing Unlawful Acts or Other Misconduct of Employer or Fellow Employees.
104 ALR 5th 1, Common-Law Retaliatory Discharge of Employee for Refusing to Perform or Participate in Unlawful or Wrongful Acts.
2002 ALR 5th 17, Unclean Hands as Bar to Equitable Relief in Domestic Relations Proceeding or Dispute.
90 ALR 5th 1, Construction and Application of Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.
86 ALR 5th 1, Liability, Under State Law Claims, of Public and Private Schools and Institutions of Higher Learning
for Teacher's, Other Employee's, or Student's Sexual Relationship With, or Sexual Harassment or Abuse Of...
81 ALR 5th 41, Internet Web Site Activities of Nonresident Person or Corporation as Conferring Personal Jurisdiction Under Long-Arm Statutes and Due Process Clause.
64 ALR 5th 519, Waiver Of, or Estoppel to Assert, Failure to Give or Defects in Notice of Claim Against State or
Local Political Subdivision--Modern Status.
54 ALR 5th 1, Liability of Manufacturer or Seller for Injury or Death Allegedly Caused by Use of Contraceptive.
48 ALR 5th 389, Liability of Independent Accountant to Investors or Shareholders.
35 ALR 5th 145, Allowance of Punitive Damages in Medical Malpractice Action.
37 ALR 5th 645, Existence and Nature of Cause of Action for Equitable Bill of Discovery.
26 ALR 5th 245, Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statutory Provisions Limiting Amount of Recovery in Medical Malpractice Claims.
8 ALR 5th 653, Propriety and Effect of Corporation's Appearance Pro Se Through Agent Who is Not Attorney.
82 ALR 4th 1115, Necessity and Permissibility of Raising Claim for Abuse of Process by Reply or Counterclaim in
Same Proceeding in Which Abuse Occurred--State Cases.
52 ALR 4th 488, Libel and Slander: Defamation by Photograph.
54 ALR 4th 746, Libel and Slander: Sufficiency of Identification of Allegedly Defamed Party.
25 ALR 4th 517, Tort Immunity of Nongovernmental Charities--Modern Status.
14 ALR 4th 170, Admissibility and Necessity of Expert Evidence as to Standards of Practice and Negligence in
Malpractice Action Against Attorney.
9 ALR 4th 942, Refusal to Pay Debt as Economic Duress or Business Compulsion Avoiding Compromise or Release.
Page 14
96 ALR 3rd 1064, What Conduct is Willful, Intentional, or Deliberate Within Workmen's Compensation Act Provision Authorizing Tort Action for Such Conduct.
98 ALR 3rd 767, Defendant's Participation in Action as Waiver of Right to Arbitration of Dispute Involved Therein.
90 ALR 3rd 1032, Who May Dispute Presumption of Legitimacy of Child Conceived or Born During Wedlock.
94 ALR 3rd 748, Liability of Manufacturer or Seller for Injury or Death Allegedly Caused by Failure to Warn Regarding Danger in Use of Vaccine or Prescription Drug.
86 ALR 3rd 1230, Validity of Release from Civil Liability Where Release is Executed by Person While Incarcerated.
30 ALR 3rd 1088, Comment Note.--Shareholders' Suits Against Investment Companies.
99 ALR 2nd 1315, Pleading of Election of Remedies.
95 ALR 2nd 648, Raising Res Judicata by Motion for Summary Judgment Under Federal Rule 56 and Similar State
Statutes or Rules.
84 ALR 2nd 1077, Recovery on Quantum Meruit Where Only Express Contract is Pleaded, Under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8 and 54 and Similar State Statutes or Rules.
78 ALR 2nd 594, Liability of Manufacturer or Seller for Injury Caused by Industrial, Business, or Farm Machinery,
Tools, Equipment, or Materials.
79 ALR 2nd 301, Liability of Manufacturer or Seller for Injury Caused by Drug or Medicine Sold.
59 ALR 2nd 169, Amendment of Pleadings to Assert Statute of Limitations.
59 ALR 2nd 239, Necessity and Manner of Pleading Assumption of Risk as a Defense.
59 ALR 2nd 273, Pleading Imputed Negligence as Defense.
59 ALR 2nd 841, Consolidated Trial Upon Several Indictments or Informations Against Same Accused, Over His
Objection.
61 ALR 2nd 300, Comment Note.--Raising Defense of Statute of Limitations by Demurrer, Equivalent Motion to
Dismiss, or by Motion for Judgment on Pleadings.
51 ALR 2nd 552, Pleading or Raising Defense of Privilege in Defamation Action.
47 ALR 2nd 490, Quarries, Gravel Pits, and the Like as Nuisances.
28 ALR 2nd 646, Civil Liability of Law Enforcement Officers for Malicious Prosecution.
22 ALR 2nd 621, Failure to Assert Matter as Counterclaim as Precluding Assertion Thereof in Subsequent Action,
Under Federal Rules or Similar State Rules or Statutes.
Page 15
25 ALR 2nd 254, Pleading Last Clear Chance Doctrine.
16 ALR 2nd 515, Presumptions and Burden of Proof as to Violation of or Compliance With Public Debt Limitation.
12 ALR 2nd 695, May Federal Court, Acquiring Jurisdiction Because of Federal Question But Deciding Such Question Adversely to Party Invoking Jurisdiction, Decide Non-Federal Questions.
14 ALR 2nd 264, Necessity and Sufficiency of Allegations in Complaint for Malicious Prosecution or Tort Action
Analogous Thereto that Defendant or Defendants Acted Without Probable Cause.
3 ALR 2nd 1097, Portal-To-Portal Act.
172 ALR 736, Reciprocal Duties of Driver of Automobile and Bicyclist or Motorcyclist.
173 ALR 326, Pleading Laches.
173 ALR 626, Duty as Regards Barriers for Protection of Automobile Travel.
174 ALR 549, Interest Necessary to Maintenance of Declaratory Determination of Validity of Statute or Ordinance.
175 ALR 438, Jurisdiction of Equity to Protect Personal Rights; Modern View.
166 ALR 10, Insurance: Facility of Payment Clause.
167 ALR 13, Admissibility of Declaration by Beneficiary Named in Will in Support of Claim of Undue Influence or
Lack of Testamentary Capacity.
167 ALR 124, Re-Employment of Discharged Servicemen.
169 ALR 767, Want of License as Affecting Broker's Recovery of Compensation for Services.
169 ALR 1307, Provision of Fair Labor Standards Act for Increased Compensation for Overtime.
170 ALR 449, Comment Note.--Rights and Remedies Independently of Patent Laws of One Who Makes an Invention or Discovery, or Conceives an Idea or Plan, as Against One Who Utilizes it Industrially or Commercially, or
Discloses It, Or...
171 ALR 1087, Amendment After Limitation Period of Allegations of Negligence as Stating New Cause of Action.
160 ALR 381, Participation in Illegal Combination as Defense to Action Under Anti-Trust Act.
161 ALR 1151, Pretrial Conference Procedure as Affecting Right to Discovery.
161 ALR 1237, What Activities Fall Within the Term “Production of Goods for Commerce,” as Used in the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
162 ALR 756, Application of Declaratory Judgment Acts to Questions in Respect of Contracts or Alleged Contracts.
Page 16
162 ALR 1204, Judgment in Tax Case as to One Period as Res Judicata as to Another Period.
163 ALR 15, Res Gestae Utterances in Actions Founded on Accidents.
163 ALR 1358, Governmental Control of Actions or Speech of Public Officers or Employees in Respect of Matters
Outside the Actual Performance of Their Duties.
165 ALR 1302, Constitutionality, Construction, and Effect of Statute or Regulation Relating Specifically to Divulgence of Information Acquired by Public Officers or Employees.
155 ALR 1061, Garnishment as Remedy in Case of Violation of Bulk Sales Law.
156 ALR 430, Plaintiff's Claim of Jurisdictional Amount in Action for Money Judgment as Affected by His Failure
to Credit Payment, or Error in Computation of an Obligation Actually Below the Jurisdictional Minimum.
157 ALR 881, Exemption of Retail Establishment from Fair Labor Standards Act, as Extending to Employer's
Warehouse or Other Agency Which Serves Its Retail Outlets.
158 ALR 89, Manner of Pleading Statute of Frauds as Defense.
158 ALR 705, Power of Court to Prescribe Rules of Pleading, Practice, or Procedure.
158 ALR 1274, Right of Creditor to Set Aside Fraudulent Transfer as Affected by Bankruptcy of Debtor.
158 ALR 1445, National Service Life Insurance Act.
158 ALR 1456, Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Acts.
158 ALR 1474, Constitutionality, Construction, and Application of Emergency Price Control Act.
148 ALR 210, Right to Writ of Mandamus as Affected by a Pending Action or Proceeding, or Existence of Injunction, to Which Relator is Not a Party.
148 ALR 1182, Of the Federal Civil Procedure Rules, Which Permits Defendant to Bring in as a Party a Third Person Liable in Whole or in Part for the Claim Made Against the Former, as Applicable or as Applied in Actions...
149 ALR 336, Power of Board to Make Appointment to Office or Contract Extending Beyond Its Own Term.
149 ALR 508, Liability of Unincorporated Labor Organization to Suit.
149 ALR 553, Provision that Judgment is “Without Prejudice” or “With Prejudice” as Affecting Its Operation as
Res Judicata.
149 ALR 787, Liability of Corporation for Debts of Predecessor.
149 ALR 1403, Plea of Guilty Without Advice of Counsel.
Page 17
150 ALR 700, What Constitutes a “Service Establishment” Within Exemption Provision of Fair Labor Standards
Act.
150 ALR 932, Libel and Slander: Statements Regarding Labor Relations or Disputes.
152 ALR 445, Power of Court to Award Alimony or Property Settlement in Divorce Suit as Affected by Failure of
Pleading or Notice to Make a Claim Therefor.
152 ALR 1147, Failure to Prove Allegation of Conspiracy in Complaint in Civil Action as Affecting Right to Recover.
153 ALR 1106, Comment Note.--May Presumption Rest Upon Admission by Opponent's Pleading Without Proof of
Constituent Fact.
142 ALR 1490, Liability of Manufacturer of Packer of Defective Article for Injury to Person or Property of Ultimate
Consumer Who Purchased from Middleman.
146 ALR 1356, Limitation Applicable to Cause of Action Created by Statute of Another State Which Allows a
Longer Period Than the Statute of the Forum.
137 ALR 362, Option of One Party to Terminate Lease Upon Condition Which Does Not Entitle Other Party to
Similar Option.
139 ALR 421, Power to Open or Modify “Consent” Judgment.
139 ALR 1017, Who May be Regarded as Injured in His Business or Property Within Provisions of Anti-Trust Acts
as to Person Who May Recover Damages Resulting from Violation of the Acts.
140 ALR 717, Duty of Federal Courts, Since Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, in Determining Ultimate Federal Question, to
Follow State Laws or State Court Decisions of Substantive Character, Upon Questions Which Are Preliminary, Incidental...
141 ALR 1363, Amendment of Pleading After Limitation Period by Changing from Allegation of Negligence to
Allegation of Fraud, or Vice Versa, as Stating a New Cause of Action.
130 ALR 882, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies as Condition of Resort to Court in Respect of Right Claimed
Under Social Security or Old Age Acts.
132 ALR 1424, Right of Defendant in Action for Personal Injury or Death to Bring in a Joint Tort-Feasor Not Made
a Party by Plaintiff.
132 ALR 1443, Judicial Questions Regarding Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (Wage and Hours Act) and State
Acts in Conformity Therewith.
134 ALR 242, Presumption and Burden of Proof Regarding Mitigation of Damages.
134 ALR 570, Manner and Sufficiency of Pleading Foreign Law.
Page 18
124 ALR 86, Amendment of Process or Pleading by Changing or Correcting Mistake in Name of Party.
125 ALR 809, Home Owners' Loan Act.
126 ALR 284, Stage of Trial at Which Plaintiff May Take Voluntary Nonsuit, Dismissal, or Discontinuance.
127 ALR 909, Commencement of Action as Suspending Running of Limitation Against Claim Which is Subject of
Setoff, Counterclaim, or Recoupment.
128 ALR 405, Choice of Laws as Regards Presumption, Burden of Proof, and Sufficiency of Evidence, in Actions in
Federal Courts Since Repudiation of Rule of Swift v. Tyson.
128 ALR 1447, Federal Venue Statute Providing that Where Jurisdiction is Founded on Diversity of Citizenship Suit
Shall be Brought Only in the District of the Residence of Either the Plaintiff or Defendant as Affected by Fact
That...
118 ALR 401, Necessity for and Degree of Relationship to Infant as Affecting Representation as Next Friend or
Guardian Ad Litem.
118 ALR 646, Failure to Procure Occupational or Business License or Permit as Affecting Validity or Enforceability
of Contract.
119 ALR 997, Pleading Duress as a Conclusion.
120 ALR 8, Pleading Waiver, Estoppel, and Res Judicata.
120 ALR 1154, Comment Note.--Rescission of Contract as Affecting Right to Recover Damages for Fraud in Procuring It.
121 ALR 1143, Workmen's Compensation Act as Exclusive of Remedy by Action Against Employer for Injury or
Disease Not Compensable Under Act.
122 ALR 1486, Recovery for Illness, Disease, or Death Claimed to Have Resulted from Worry or Mental Anguish
Following Breach of Contract or Tort.
112 ALR 289, Nonclaim Statute as Governing Claim Barred, Subsequent to Death of Obligor, by General Statute of
Limitations.
113 ALR 376, Statute of Limitations as Applicable to Action by Municipality or Other Political Subdivision in Absence of Specific Provision in that Regard.
115 ALR 178, Propriety and Effect of Including in Plaintiff's Pleading in Action for Negligence Diverse or Contradictory Allegations as to Status or Legal Relationship as Between Parties or as Between Party and Third...
115 ALR 271, Market Manipulation of Securities.
115 ALR 755, Necessity and Sufficiency of Reply to Answer Pleading Statute of Limitations.
Page 19
115 ALR 1489, Jurisdictional Amount in Its Relation to Suit for Declaratory Judgment.
106 ALR 437, Conclusiveness of Judgment on Demurrer.
106 ALR 1241, Right to Set-Off, Counterclaim, or Recoupment Against the United States or a Sovereign Foreign
State.
108 ALR 267, When Insurance Company Deemed to be a Disinterested Stakeholder for Purposes of Bill of Interpleader.
109 ALR 1381, Right or Duty of Corporation to Pay Dividend; and Liability for Wrongful Payment.
109 ALR 1404, Time Limitation as to Filing of Claims Against Insolvent as Affected by Excuses, and the Nature of
Such Excuses.
109 ALR 1450, Testimonial or Evidentiary Privilege in Respect of Business Transactions Between Banker or Broker and Customer.
111 ALR 879, Power and Duty of Court to Keep Its Files and Records Free from Scandalous Matter.
111 ALR 959, Judicial Notice of Municipal Ordinances Where Action Originates in a Municipal Court.
100 ALR 17, “Contractual” Consideration as Regards Parol-Evidence Rule.
100 ALR 264, May Payment be Proved Under General Issue or General Denial, or Must it be Specially Pleaded.
100 ALR 507, Specification in Employment Contract of Grounds or Causes of Discharge as Exclusive of Other
Grounds or Causes.
101 ALR 923, Doctrine of Part Performance in Suits for Specific Performance of Parol Contract to Convey Real
Property.
95 ALR 241, Right of Party Under Statute or Rule of Court to Order for Examination Of, or to Propose Interrogatories To, Adverse Party in Respect of Matters Within Knowledge of Former.
96 ALR 944, Necessity of Offering in Evidence the Record in the Prior Case in Support of Plea or Claim that Former Judgment is Bar.
96 ALR 990, Necessity of Process Against Plaintiff When Cross Bill or Answer in Nature of Cross Bill Comes in.
97 ALR 572, Right of Insurer to Have Issue of Fraud, Raised in Action on the Policy, Tried in Equity.
97 ALR 746, Defects or Informalities as to Appearance or Return Day in Summons or Notice of Commencement of
Action.
90 ALR 1393, Admissibility as Evidence of Pleading as Containing Admissions Against Interest.
91 ALR 315, Jurisdiction, at the Instance of Governmental Agency, to Enjoin an Act Amounting to a Crime.
Page 20
91 ALR 884, Motion for Summary Judgment as Searching Record.
82 ALR 808, Conflict Between Federal and State Statutes of Limitations.
83 ALR 1330, Inheritance By, From, or Through Illegitimate.
76 ALR 344, Retention of Consideration Paid Under Release in Settlement of Claim as Ratification.
76 ALR 990, Necessity of Pleading Affirmative Defense in Divorce Suit.
77 ALR 1044, Estoppel Against Defense of Limitation in Tort Actions.
78 ALR 1306, May Notice of Injury or Claim Contemplated by Workmen's Compensation Act be Waived.
79 ALR 592, Regulations, Rules, Custom, or Usage of Stock or Produce Exchange or of Stock or Produce Broker as
Affecting Customers.
70 ALR 1326, Adverse Inference from Failure of Party to Produce Available Witness or Evidence, as Affirmative or
Substantive Proof.
74 ALR 11, “Sentimental” Losses, Including Mental Anguish, Loss of Society, and Loss of Marital, Filial, or Parental Care and Guidance, as Elements of Damages in Action for Wrongful Death.
74 ALR 368, Sufficiency of Notice of Claim Against Decedent's Estate.
74 ALR 1269, Amendment of Pleadings After Limitation Has Run by Change in Capacity in Which Suit is Prosecuted.
74 ALR 1280, Amendment of Pleading After Limitation Period by Substituting New Defendant, or Changing Allegations as to Capacity in Which Defendant is Sued or the Theory Upon Which Defendant is Sought to be Held Responsible For...
64 ALR 900, Rights and Remedies of Tenant Who Remains in Possession of All or Part of the Premises Against
Landlord for Interfering With His Possession or Enjoyment.
68 ALR 809, Construction and Effect of Foreign Statutes or Judicial Decisions as Question for Court or for Jury.
56 ALR 310, Damages Recoverable by Owner or Occupier of Surface on Account of Subsidence Due to Mining
Operations.
50 ALR 223, Application for and Acceptance of Benefits Under Workmen Compensation Act as Affecting Right of
Action Against Employer Independently of that Act.
51 ALR 1208, Employees Contemplated by Statutes Imposing Penalty for Nonpayment Of, or Delaying of Paying,
Wages.
41 ALR 436, Mandamus to Compel Court or Judge to Require Witness to Testify or Produce Documents.
Page 21
34 ALR 978, Rights and Remedies in Case of Overpayment of Federal Income Tax.
35 ALR 780, Right to Plead Single Cause of Action as in Tort and on Contract.
30 ALR 1175, Right Under General Prayer to Relief Inconsistent With Prayer for Specific Relief.
26 ALR 369, Monopoly in Dramatic and Motion Pictures.
14 ALR 103, Admissibility of Pleadings for Purposes Other Than the Establishment of the Facts Set Out Therein.
8 ALR 550, Effect of Bill of Particulars on Proof.
8 ALR 694, Prior Action in Which Claim Might Have Been Asserted by Counter-Claim, Set-Off, or Cross Petition,
as Barring or Abating Subsequent Independent Action Thereon.
8 ALR 1510, Waiver of Statute or Court Rule Requiring Nonresident Plaintiff to Give Security for Costs.
2 ALR 1672, Burden of Proof as Regards Discharge in Bankruptcy.
4 ALR 44, He Who Comes Into Equity Must Come With Clean Hands.
Encyclopedias
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Monopoly, Restr. of Trade, Unf. Trade § 126.50, Opposition--To Motion to Dismiss--By Members of State Dental Association--Against Provider of Managed Care Dental Plan--Claims Based on State Unfair
Trade Practices Act, Breach of.
14 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 511, Racial Discrimination in Sale of Real Estate.
19 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 335, Interference With Attorney-Client Relationship.
20 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 511, Teacher's Use of Excessive Corporal Punishment.
22 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 593, Wrongful Failure of Corporate Directors to Declare Dividend.
23 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 203, Employee's Right to Compensation for Employer's Use of Employee's Inventive
Idea.
37 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 1, Hepatitis from Blood Transfusion.
37 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 141, Outdoor Advertising Sign or Billboard as Nuisance.
38 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 1, Negligent Operation of Private Swimming Pool.
38 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 731, Justified Use of Force in Defense of Private Property.
Page 22
43 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 303, Commercial Activity as Actionable Private Nuisance.
43 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 523, Recovery for Part Performance of Contract.
45 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 407, Inadequate Protection of Spectator at Sporting Event.
45 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 549, Parental Failure to Control Child.
3 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 581, Sexual Harassment by Landlord.
5 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 657, Special Injury Sufficient to Give Standing to Maintain Private Action Based on
Public Nuisance.
6 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 93, Defective Design of an All-Terrain Vehicle.
13 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1, Police Misconduct as Municipal Policy or Custom.
22 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 305, Affirmative Defenses in Libel Actions.
24 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 467, Proof of Unconstitutional Prison Conditions.
25 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 591, Avoidance and Recovery of Fraudulent Transfers.
27 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 103, Establishing Statutory Grounds to Vacate an Arbitration Award in Nonjudicial
Arbitration.
27 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 295, Proof of Failure to Provide Warn Act Notice.
28 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 87, Proof of Unsuitable and Unauthorized Trading by Securities Brokers.
32 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 129, Proving Fraudulent Concealment to Toll Statutory Limitations Periods.
33 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1, Proof of “Disability” Under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
33 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 235, Constructive Discharge--Employee's Resignation Due to Intolerable Working
Conditions as Tantamount to Discharge.
35 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 161, Proving Damages Caused by Securities Brokers' Excessive, Unsuitable, or Unauthorized Trading.
36 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 289, Application of the D'oench Doctrine in Litigation With the FDIC.
37 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 439, Recovery of Damages for Injury to Landowner's Property from Environmental
Condition on Neighboring Land.
39 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 55, Proof of Sex Discrimination in Job Assignment or Transfer Under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Page 23
39 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 309, Real-Estate Broker's Misrepresentation or Nondisclosure as to Condition or
Value of Realty.
41 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 253, Proving Securities Broker's Control Over Customer's Account in Churning and
Unsuitable Trading Cases.
44 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 79, Proof of Discrimination Under Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
46 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 99, Sex Discrimination in Employment Promotion Practices.
50 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 83, Proof of Negligent or Defective Design, Manufacture or Maintenance of Elevator.
52 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1, Proof of Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment Claims Under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
52 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 197, Alleged Debtor's Defense of Involuntary Bankruptcy Proceeding Brought by
Petitioning Creditors Under 11 U.S.C.A. § 303(A) and Recovery of Damages for Bad Faith Petition Under 11
U.S.C.A. § 303(i).
55 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 89, Proof of Negligence in Blood Transfusions.
59 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 291, Proof of Qualified Immunity Defense in 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 or Bivens Actions
Against Law Enforcement Officers.
61 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1, Employer Liability for Same-Sex Harassment.
61 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 245, Liability of a Physician for Improper Referral of Patients to a Medical CareFacility in Which the Physician Has a Financial Interest.
64 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 113, Topic: Proof of Objections to Discharge of Individual Debtor Under 11 U.S.C.A.
§ 727(A) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001 in a Liquidation Bankruptcy Case Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.
67 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 249, Proof of Liability for Violation of Privacy of Internet User, by Cookies or Other
Means.
70 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 379, Proof that an Arbitration Clause in a Commercial Transaction Agreement is
Properly Challenged as Inapplicable to or Unenforceable Against the Parties.
71 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 193, Enforcement of Casino Gambling Debts.
72 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1, Liability for Security or Burglar Alarm System Failure.
73 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 275, Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z.
74 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 141, Proof of Injury Resulting from Prescription Medication Rezulin.
76 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 193, Class Action for Failure to Disclose Under the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z.
Page 24
78 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 107, Liability for Petroleum Contamination from Leaking Underground Storage Tank.
82 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1, Proof of Injury Resulting from Liposuction Surgery.
87 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 119, Proof of Injury Resulting from Antidepressant Medication.
92 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1, Arbitrability Disputes: Proving What Facts to Whom.
93 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 415, Proof of Housing Discrimination Against a Prospective Tenant on Account of
Race or National Origin.
102 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 207, Proof of Nondischargeability of Debt Based on Fraud or Defalcation Committed by Debtor While Acting in a Fiduciary Capacity Under Bankruptcy Code § 523(A)(4) and (C).
104 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1, Proof Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
105 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 93, Establishing Liability of a Public School District for Injuries or Damage to a
Student Resulting from Bullying or Other Nonsexual Harassment by Another Student.
107 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 97, Proof of Contempt for Violation of Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction (11
U.S.C.A. § 524(A)(2)) by Individual Debtor.
112 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 99, Bankruptcy Action to Recover Preferential Prepetition Transfer of Property of
Debtor Under 11 U.S.C.A. § 547.
114 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 403, Establishing Elements for Disregarding Corporate Entity and Piercing Entity's
Veil.
3 Am. Jur. Trials 681, Tactics and Strategy of Pleading.
4 Am. Jur. Trials 441, Solving Statutes of Limitation Problems.
7 Am. Jur. Trials 279, Miller Act Litigation.
8 Am. Jur. Trials 359, Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Litigation.
8 Am. Jur. Trials 635, Federal Tort Claims Act Proceedings.
11 Am. Jur. Trials 397, Litigation Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
12 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Products Liability Cases.
12 Am. Jur. Trials 549, Actions on Life Insurance Policies.
13 Am. Jur. Trials 153, Interference With Attorney's Contingent Fee Contract.
14 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Actions for Unfair Competition -- Trade Secrets.
Page 25
14 Am. Jur. Trials 101, Glass Door Accidents.
17 Am. Jur. Trials 501, Preparing a Ship Collision Case for Trial.
20 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice.
22 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Prisoners' Rights Litigation.
24 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Defending Antitrust Lawsuits.
26 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Accountant Malpractice: Work Papers.
26 Am. Jur. Trials 463, Television Fire Litigation.
28 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Housing Discrimination Litigation.
32 Am. Jur. Trials 375, Pharmacist Liability.
33 Am. Jur. Trials 257, Sexual Harassment on the Job.
36 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Broker-Dealer Fraud: Churning.
37 Am. Jur. Trials 597, Trial Report: Defending a Celebrity in a Breach of Employment Contract Case.
39 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Automobile Warranty Litigation.
51 Am. Jur. Trials 493, Structural Damage to Residential Buildings.
53 Am. Jur. Trials 299, Sex Discrimination Based Upon Sexual Stereotyping.
54 Am. Jur. Trials 261, Defending the Software Infringement Case.
56 Am. Jur. Trials 293, A Guide to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
58 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Transfusion-Associated Aids Litigation.
60 Am. Jur. Trials 73, Asbestos Injury Litigation.
61 Am. Jur. Trials 489, Individual Liability for Sexual Harassment.
62 Am. Jur. Trials 235, Workplace Sexual Harassment: Quid Pro Quo.
62 Am. Jur. Trials 547, Obtaining Damages in Federal Court for State and Local Police Misconduct.
63 Am. Jur. Trials 347, Ship Collisions: Technical and Legal Aspects; Investigation and Preparation for Suit.
Page 26
64 Am. Jur. Trials 425, Asserting Claims of Unconstitutional Prison Conditions Under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
65 Am. Jur. Trials 65, Taking the Deposition of the Sexual Harassment Plaintiff.
67 Am. Jur. Trials 57, Medical Malpractice--Reduction Mammoplasty.
70 Am. Jur. Trials 101, Anesthesiology Malpractice Litigation.
75 Am. Jur. Trials 55, Diagnostic Radiology Malpractice Litigation.
75 Am. Jur. Trials 363, Age Discrimination in Employment Action Under ADEA.
76 Am. Jur. Trials 341, Snack Food Product Liability.
78 Am. Jur. Trials 407, Pharmacist Malpractice: Trial and Litigation Strategy.
79 Am. Jur. Trials 285, Premises Liability--Trip and Fall.
80 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Cosmetic Liposuction Malpractice Litigation.
82 Am. Jur. Trials 123, Snowmobile Litigation: Practice and Strategy.
83 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Automobile Airbag Malfunction Litigation: Practice and Strategy.
88 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Stockbroker Liability Litigation.
94 Am. Jur. Trials 211, Appealing Adverse Arbitration Awards.
109 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Arbitrating Securities Industry Disputes at Finra.
112 Am. Jur. Trials 365, Arbitration Award Vacatur & Confirmation at Common Law--A 21st Century Option.
114 Am. Jur. Trials 89, Litigation Under the Privacy Act.
117 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Litigating Claims Involving Foodborne Pathogens.
117 Am. Jur. Trials 485, Litigation Regarding Antidepressant Medications.
Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 410, Federal-Question Jurisdiction.
Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 413, Venue of District Courts.
Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 419, Constitutional Requirement of Case or Controversy.
Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 530, Form and Contents--Federal Courts.
Am. Jur. 2d Admiralty § 102, General Maritime Law.
Page 27
Am. Jur. 2d Admiralty § 176, By Defendant in Maritime Attachment or Garnishment Cases.
Am. Jur. 2d Aliens and Citizens § 2240, Birth on or After December 24, 1952.
Am. Jur. 2d Aliens and Citizens § 2253, Availability of Declaratory Relief.
Am. Jur. 2d Alternative Dispute Resolution § 194, Conclusiveness; Preclusive Effects.
Am. Jur. 2d Bankruptcy § 289, Pleading of Request for Attorney's Fees in Adversary Proceeding.
Am. Jur. 2d Bankruptcy § 921, Vacation of Order for Relief--Rules Applicable to Proceedings to Vacate.
Am. Jur. 2d Bankruptcy § 996, Responsive Pleading to Ancillary Case.
Am. Jur. 2d Bankruptcy § 1057, Rules Governing Contested Petitions.
Am. Jur. 2d Bankruptcy § 2318, Sufficiency of Pleadings.
Am. Jur. 2d Bankruptcy § 3659, Secured Property.
Am. Jur. 2d Banks § 1086, What Constitutes a Deposit and an Insured Deposit.
Am. Jur. 2d Banks § 1087, Nature of Depositor's Claims.
Am. Jur. 2d Banks § 1088, Administration, Disposition and Review of Deposit Insurance Claims.
Am. Jur. 2d Banks § 1089, Withholding of Insurance Payment.
Am. Jur. 2d Banks § 1090, Disposition of Unclaimed Deposits.
Am. Jur. 2d Banks § 1108, Priority Among Allowed, Unsecured Claims.
Am. Jur. 2d Carriers § 355, Loading and Unloading--Carrier's Liability Where Shipper Assumes Responsibility for
Loading.
Am. Jur. 2d Carriers § 392, Weather Conditions; Acts of God.
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 54, Pleadings.
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 152, Existence and Effect of Government Policy Where Municipality is Sued.
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 394, Publishing Preferences, Limitations, or Discriminations; Advertisements.
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 404, Applicability of 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000d et seq. to Public Housing Programs--Lease
of Public Housing Facilities.
Page 28
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 456, Civil Action.
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 468, Public Housing Residents.
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 470, Persons Outside Group Discriminated Against--Individuals Victimized by Racial
Steering.
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 479, Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence.
Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 485, Damages.
Am. Jur. 2d Corporations § 2374, Effect of Plaintiff's Participation in Acts; Unclean Hands.
Am. Jur. 2d Customs Duties and Import Regulations § 303, Liability and Remedies for Wrongful Seizure.
Am. Jur. 2d Drugs and Controlled Substances § 129, Exemptions Under Act's “Grandfather” Provisions.
Am. Jur. 2d Duress and Undue Influence § 32, Generally; Pleading.
Am. Jur. 2d Elevators and Escalators § 58, Petition, Declaration, or Complaint.
Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain § 911, Action Against State Agency.
Am. Jur. 2d Equity § 117, Legal Actions.
Am. Jur. 2d Equity § 170, Federal Courts; Pleadings, Motions to Dismiss, and for Summary Judgment.
Am. Jur. 2d Equity § 176, Joinder, Consolidation, and Severance of Actions.
Am. Jur. 2d Equity § 188, Affirmative and Negative Pleas and Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 160, Generally; Jurisdiction in Both Courts of Law and of Equity.
Am. Jur. 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 161, Nature of Defense.
Am. Jur. 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 162, Generally; Necessity of Pleading Affirmatively.
Am. Jur. 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 220, Necessity of Pleading Waiver Specially.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tax Enforcement § 711, Form and Content.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 2, Basic Requirements.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 3, Basic Requirements--Exception for Military Service-Connected Claims.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 5, Act as Waiver of Immunity.
Page 29
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 21, Acts for Benefit of Veterans.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 44, Activities by and for Armed Services.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 45, Medical Care.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 46, Licensing and the Like.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 50, Installation and Operation of Navigation Aids.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 54, Air Traffic Control.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 56, Manufacturing or Handling Explosives.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 58, Handling Radioactive Materials.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 61, Law Enforcement--Prisons and Prisoners.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 68, Flood Control.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 90, Assault; Battery.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 110, Strict or Absolute Liability.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 125, Limitations; Laches.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 129, Assumption of Risk.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 136, Recovery in Judicial Action as Affected by Amount Sought from
Agency.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 212, Complaint.
Am. Jur. 2d Federal Tort Claims Act § 216, Pleading Defense of Limitations.
Am. Jur. 2d Fraud and Deceit § 453, Manner of Pleading Fraud or Concealment; Generally--Rationale for Requiring
Specific Allegations.
Am. Jur. 2d Fraud and Deceit § 459, Defense of Fraud.
Am. Jur. 2d Indians § 43, Pleadings.
Am. Jur. 2d Indians § 157, Federal Question.
Am. Jur. 2d Indians § 158, Diversity.
Am. Jur. 2d Indians § 159, Mandamus.
Page 30
Am. Jur. 2d Indians § 169, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions § 255, Prayer for Relief.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 282, Liability Under Equal Pay Act.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 384, Proving the Employee's Case.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 403, Minimum Height and Weight Requirements.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 449, Criminal Convictions.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 602, Provisions as to Racial Discrimination.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 609, Under Title VII.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 612, Proving Seniority System Exception.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 617, System Negotiated or Maintained With Illegal Purpose.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 621, Generally; Limiting Liability for Unlawful Collectively Bargained Seniority
Provisions.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 631, Equality of Work Requirement.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 632, Equal Skill Requirement.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 634, Equal Responsibility Requirement.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 635, Similar Working Conditions Requirement.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 639, Wages Set by Seniority System.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 640, Wages Paid Under Merit System.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 641, Wages Paid on Incentive Basis.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 643, Jobs Paid Under Neutral Evaluation and Classification System.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 661, Salaries Established by Job Classification System.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 756, Sex and Pregnancy Discrimination.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 952, Proving Discriminatory Intent by Circumstantial Evidence--Evidence of Disparate Treatment as Supporting an Assertion of Pretext.
Page 31
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 959, Proving Constructive Discharge.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 964, Discriminatory Remarks as Aggravating Factors.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 1011, Statistical Evidence of Violations.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 1012, Appropriate Demographic Area for Statistical Proof.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 1022, Testing Requirements.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 1065, Referring Clients.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 1525, Time Limits for Processing Appeals.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 2222, Sufficiency of Filing Right-To-Sue Notice as Complaint.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 2226, EEOC Suits--Compliance With Statutory Prerequisites.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 2228, Statement of Claim.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 2232, Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 2443, Three-Part Proof Scheme; “Mcdonnell Douglas” Framework.
Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 630, Necessity of Pleading; as Affirmative Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 506, Jurisdiction--Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies as Prerequisite.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 2427, Statute of Limitations in Suits to Confirm or Vacate Arbitration
Awards.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 2469, Declaratory Judgment; Reformation of Contract.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 2900, Introduction.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 3379, Jurisdictional Allegation.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 3381, Basis of Claim.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 3391, Circumstances Where Answer is Required.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 3392, Pleading Affirmative Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 3403, Scope.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 453, Claims for Relief.
Page 32
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 458, Antitrust Claim as Counterclaim.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 459, Basis for Relief.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 461, Contract, Combination, or Conspiracy.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 464, Attempted Monopolization.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 465, Injury to Plaintiff in Actions Seeking Treble Damages and
Injunctive Relief.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 467, Anticompetitive Effect; Public Injury.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 468, Anticompetitive Effect; Public Injury--Anticompetitive
Mergers and Acquisitions.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 469, Anticompetitive Effect; Public Injury--Relevant Market.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 470, Price Discrimination.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 471, Price Discrimination--Discrimination by Denial of Services.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 472, Tying Claims Under Clayton and Sherman Acts.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 494, Pleading and Procedure; Limitations Period.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 507, Release; Payment.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 536, Contents; Requirements for Particular Types of Demands.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 541, Petition to Modify or Set Aside Civil Investigative Demand.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 1221, Enforcement of Rules and Orders, Generally.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 1222, Penalty Suits, Generally.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 1223, Amount of Penalty.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 1224, Who May be Liable for Penalty.
Am. Jur. 2d Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, etc. § 1225, Injunctive Relief Against Federal Trade Commission Action.
Am. Jur. 2d Patents § 529, Interference in Fact.
Am. Jur. 2d Patents § 747, Retroactive License.
Page 33
Am. Jur. 2d Patents § 871, Standing to Sue--Suit by Patentee.
Am. Jur. 2d Patents § 877, Answer; What Defenses Must be Pleaded.
Am. Jur. 2d Patents § 879, Counterclaim; for Declaratory Judgment of Patent Invalidity.
Am. Jur. 2d Patents § 893, Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, or Bad Faith.
Am. Jur. 2d Patents § 897, Failure to Mark Patented Articles or Notify Infringers.
Am. Jur. 2d Payment § 100, Payment.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 1, Generally; Character of Pleadings.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 6, Pleading in Federal Actions.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 32, Federal Practice.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 38, Brevity--Federal Practice.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 60, Generally; Statements of Claim.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 61, Sufficiency of Pleading.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 62, Inconsistent Claims or Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 65, Inconsistency With Pleadings in Subsequent Case--Judicial Estoppel.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 66, Limitations on Alternative or Inconsistent Pleading.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 74, Federal Practice.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 104, Rule of Liberal Construction.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 106, Construction on Appeal.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 152, Requisites of Proper Pleading.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 153, Other Documents as Complaint.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 155, Construction; Dismissal for Failure to State Claim.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 157, Construction; Dismissal for Failure to State Claim--Noncompliance With Rules Requirements; Remedy for.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 159, No Presumption in Favor of Federal Jurisdiction.
Page 34
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 164, Effect of Defective or Deficient Jurisdictional Statement--Effect of Failure to Cite Statute Conferring Jurisdiction.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 166, Multiple Grounds.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 170, Supplemental Jurisdiction; Counterclaims; Removal.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 171, How to State Claim.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 172, Scope of Pleading Requirements; Heightened Pleading Standard.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 173, Cause of Action.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 175, Pleading Legal Theories.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 176, Pleading Two or More Statements of Claim.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 178, Pleading Conclusions.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 181, Pleading Claim as to Each Defendant.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 182, Motion for More Definite Statement.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 184, Complex Case.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 185, Consequences of Filing Complaint Which is Not Short and Plain Statement.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 187, Multiple Claims from Single Transaction or Occurrence; Inconsistent Claims.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 188, Single Claim Involving Multiple Acts, Events, or Remedies.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 189, Claim Based on Multiple Legal Theories or Statutory Provisions.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 194, Amount of Damages.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 195, Civil Rights Cases.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 196, Defamation.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 198, Negligence; Other Torts.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 199, Automobile Accident.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 200, Conspiracy.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 292, Insufficient Knowledge or Information.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 294, Partial Denial.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 295, Effect of Failure to Deny in Responsive Pleading.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 296, Effect of Failure to Deny in Responsive Pleading--Clear Denial Required.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 297, Effect of Extensive and Repetitive Responses.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 299, Multiple and Inconsistent Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 300, Affirmative Defense Defined.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 301, Pleading Affirmative Defenses; Short and Plain Statement.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 304, Ordinary Defenses that Are Not Affirmative Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 306, Arbitration and Award.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 307, Contributory Negligence, Comparative Negligence, and Assumption of Risk.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 308, Failure of Consideration.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 309, Fraud.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 310, Illegality.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 311, Res Judicata; Collateral Estoppel; Claim and Issue Preclusion.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 312, Statute of Limitations and Laches.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 313, Enumerated Defenses Under Federal Statutes.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 317, Generally; Reference to State Law.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 318, Particular Nonenumerated Affirmative Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 319, In Responsive Pleading.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 322, Waiver.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 333, Joint and Separate Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 334, Res Judicata.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 337, Responsive Pleadings.
Page 35
Page 36
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 348, Generally; Requisites and Sufficiency of Denials.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 349, General Denial.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 350, General Denial--Coupled With Admissions.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 351, Effect of Denial of Knowledge as to Truth of Averment.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 353, By Failure to Plead or Deny.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 366, Necessity of Reply to Deny Allegations of Counterclaim or Affirmative Defense.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 428, Using Motion to Identify Possible Threshold Defenses--Statute of Limitations Defense.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 465, Defense Requiring Separate Statement.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 472, Evidentiary Matter.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 531, Test of Sufficiency of Complaint.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 535, Raising Affirmative Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 560, Circumstances Justifying Granting of Motion.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 700, Form of Amendment.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 744, Change in Form, Nature, or Theory of Action, or Relief Sought.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 748, New Defense--Under Federal Rules.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 751, Who May Move to Amend.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 781, Matters of Defense.
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 805, Particular Types of Amendments as Relating Back.
Am. Jur. 2d Pollution Control § 472, Who is “Person” Against Whom Enforcement May be Taken--State as Violator.
Am. Jur. 2d Pollution Control § 521, Defenses.
Am. Jur. 2d Pollution Control § 667, Governmental Entity as Violator.
Am. Jur. 2d Private Franchise Contracts § 121, Measure and Amount of Damages, Generally.
Am. Jur. 2d Private Franchise Contracts § 565, Complaint, Generally.
Page 37
Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability § 837, Fraud on Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability § 1244, Burden of Proof.
Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability § 1553, Complaints.
Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability § 1555, Pleading Alternative Claims.
Am. Jur. 2d Release § 40, Pleadings.
Am. Jur. 2d Salvage § 24, Salvors' Conduct as Affecting Right to Compensation--Acts Making Salvage Necessary.
Am. Jur. 2d Salvage § 57, Nature of Salvage Proceeding; Standard of Review.
Am. Jur. 2d Securities Regulation-Federal § 877, Statutory Bases of Federal Court Jurisdiction.
Am. Jur. 2d Securities Regulation-Federal § 879, Jurisdiction Based on the Judicial Code.
Am. Jur. 2d Securities Regulation-Federal § 914, Express Actions Under the Securities Act.
Am. Jur. 2d Securities Regulation-Federal § 919, Implied Actions Under the Antifraud Provisions of the Securities
Act.
Am. Jur. 2d Securities Regulation-Federal § 1042, Effect of Means of Communication or Omission.
Am. Jur. 2d Securities Regulation-Federal § 1194, Intent to Deceive.
Am. Jur. 2d Securities Regulation-Federal § 1400, Incorporation of Allegations by Reference.
Am. Jur. 2d Shipping § 273, Deductions, Setoffs, and Forfeitures.
Am. Jur. 2d Shipping § 281, Particular Circumstances--Deductions from Payments.
Am. Jur. 2d Shipping § 303, Defenses to Recovery of Wages--Waiver.
Am. Jur. 2d Shipping § 585, Loading and Stowage of Cargo--Stowage on or Under Deck.
Am. Jur. 2d Shipping § 605, Deviation in Stowage.
Am. Jur. 2d Shipping § 650, Effect of Usage or Custom.
Am. Jur. 2d Shipping § 701, Proof; Evidence.
Am. Jur. 2d Social Security and Medicare § 2245, Eligibility.
Am. Jur. 2d Social Security and Medicare § 2444, Exclusion When There is No Obligation to Pay or Provide Item or
Service.
Page 38
Am. Jur. 2d Statute of Frauds § 510, Necessity.
Am. Jur. 2d Unemployment Compensation § 10, Administrative Expenses; Grants to States--Requirements for
States to Qualify for Administrative Grants; “When Due” Requirement.
Am. Jur. 2d Unemployment Compensation § 29, “Employees” Under Federal Unemployment Tax Act.
Forms
Federal Procedural Forms § 1:6, Complaints and Accompanying Documents.
Federal Procedural Forms § 1:7, Answers and Defenses.
Federal Procedural Forms § 1:8, Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedural Forms § 1:10, Counterclaims and Cross-Claims.
Federal Procedural Forms § 4:14, Arbitration as Defense.
Federal Procedural Forms § 42:3, Pleadings; Contents.
Federal Procedural Forms § 44:8, Complaint for Interpleader--By Insurance Company Seeking Temporary Injunction Against Claimants to Life Insurance Policy--Rule Interpleader [28 U.S.C.A. § 2283; Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules
8(A)...
Federal Procedural Forms § 9:96, Pleading of Request for Attorney's Fees in Adversary Proceeding.
Federal Procedural Forms § 1:582, Answer in Intervention--Denials, Admissions, and Affirmative Defenses [Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(B), 8(C), 24(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 1:831, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B) Motions to Dismiss--Failure to State Claim on Which Relief Can be Granted--Test of Sufficiency of Claim for Relief.
Federal Procedural Forms § 10:60, Pleading Action Against Municipality.
Federal Procedural Forms § 13:30, Answer; Waiver of Defenses and Objections in Condemnation Actions in Federal Eminent Domain Proceedings.
Federal Procedural Forms § 16:30, Pleading Requirements.
Federal Procedural Forms § 17:67, Complaint.
Federal Procedural Forms § 21:53, Counterclaim in Answer--For Declaratory Relief--General Form [28 U.S.C.A. §
2201; Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, 57].
Federal Procedural Forms § 22:10, Pleadings--Complaint.
Page 39
Federal Procedural Forms § 27:12, Pleadings--Answer; Defenses.
Federal Procedural Forms § 30:60, Damage Actions on Claims Not Adjudicated in Administrative Proceedings.
Federal Procedural Forms § 30:61, Responses to Complaints to Initiate Paca Damage Actions.
Federal Procedural Forms § 37:13, Governing Law.
Federal Procedural Forms § 42:13, Defense in Answer--Affirmative Defense to Complaint Seeking Injunctive Relief
[Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 44:19, Allegations in Complaint for Interpleader--Jurisdiction Under Federal Interpleader Act [28 U.S.C.A. § 1335; Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 8(A), 22(B)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 44:23, Answer--With Counterclaim for Rule Interpleader [Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 8(B),
13, 22(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 45:52, Complaints.
Federal Procedural Forms § 45:55, Answers.
Federal Procedural Forms § 49:71, Supplemental Response to Order to Show Cause--By Plaintiffs--Illustrative
Statement of Recent Developments in Pending Brewery Antitrust Litigation [28 U.S.C.A. § 1407; Judicial Panel
On...
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:10, General Pleading Requirements.
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:12, Appropriate Pleadings in Which to Assert Defense--Answers.
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:13, Appropriate Pleadings in Which to Assert Defense--Motions to Dismiss.
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:15, Plaintiff's Reply to Defense.
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:17, Complaint--Legal Malpractice--Failure to File and Serve Complaint Within Applicable Limitations Period [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:18, Complaint--Conspiracy to Conceal Statute of Limitations--Failure to File and
Serve Civil Rights Complaint Within Applicable Limitations Period [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343, 42...
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:19, Complaint--Negligence and Promissory Estoppel from Asserting the Statute of
Limitations--Failure to Name Correct Defendant Due to Plaintiff's Reliance on Incorrect Party's...
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:20, Petition--For Automatic Extension of Statute of Limitations Authorized Under
State Statute [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8].
Page 40
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:21, Allegation in Complaint--Commencement of Running of Statute of Limitations
Postponed--Fraudulent Concealment of Facts [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:22, Allegation in Complaint--Commencement of Running of Statute of Limitations
Postponed--Action Based on Fraud [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:23, Allegation in Complaint--Defendant Estopped from Asserting Defense-Fraudulent or Negligent Misstatements to Plaintiff [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:24, Allegation in Complaint--Action Commenced Within Statutory Period--After
Manifestation and Diagnosis of Disease [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:25, Allegation in Complaint--Action Commenced Within Statutory Period--After
Discovery of Willful Misrepresentation [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:26, Allegation in Complaint--Defendant Estopped from Asserting Defense-Defendant's Affirmative Acts and Self-Concealing Nature of Actions Tolled Statute of Limitations [Fed. R. Civ. P.
8].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:29, General Form [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:30, General Form, With Denial [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(B), (C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:31, Clayton Act Action--Four-Year Limitation Period Expired [15 U.S.C.A. § 15b;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:32, Copyright Act Infringement Action--Three-Year Limitation Period Expired [17
U.S.C.A. § 507(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:33, Fair Labor Standards Act Claims--Two-Year Limitation Period Expired [29
U.S.C.A. § 255; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:34, Federal Employers' Liability Act (Fela) Action--Three-Year Limitation Period
Expired [45 U.S.C.A. § 56; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:35, Federal Tort Claims Act Action--Two-Year Limitation Period for Submitting
Claim to Appropriate Agency Expired [28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:36, Federal Tort Claims Act Action--Six-month Limitation Period for Bringing Action After Agency's Denial or Failure to Dispose of Claim Expired [28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2401(B), 2675; Fed. R. Civ. P....
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:37, Jones Act Action--Three-Year Limitation Period Expired [45 U.S.C.A. § 56; 46
U.S.C.A. § 30104; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:38, Packers and Stockyards Act Reparation Enforcement Action--One Year Limitation Period Expired [7 U.S.C.A. § 210(F); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Page 41
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:39, Title VII Employment Discrimination Action--90-Day Limitation Period Expired
[42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(F); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:40, Walsh-Healey Act Action on Government Materials or Supply Contract--TwoYear Limitation Period Expired [29 U.S.C.A. § 255; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:42, Plaintiff's Knowledge of Actionable Activities or Acts [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:43, Plaintiff's Knowledge of Actionable Activities or Acts--Omission or Untrue
Statement [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:44, Nonwillful Violation [29 U.S.C.A. § 255; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 61:45, Government Action to Recover Erroneous Refund--Absence of Fraud or Misrepresentation of Material Fact [26 U.S.C.A. § 6532(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 63:43, Time Limitations.
Federal Procedural Forms § 7:170, Statute of Limitations.
Federal Procedural Forms § 7:206, Answer--Defenses--In Response to Complaint Alleging Damage to Goods in
International Air Transit--Defenses Under Warsaw Convention [49 U.S.C.A. § 40105 Note; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(B),
(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 9:408, Vacation of Order for Relief.
Federal Procedural Forms § 9:437, Responsive Pleading.
Federal Procedural Forms § 9:459, Rules Governing Contested Petitions.
Federal Procedural Forms § 9:915, Pleadings.
Federal Procedural Forms § 10:117, Motion to Dismiss--Allegation--Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief Can
be Granted--Allegations Vague and Conclusory [Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(B), 12(B)(6)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 12:192, Affirmative Defenses--Answer to Complaint Alleging Broker-Dealer Registration Violations [15 U.S.C.A. § 78o].
Federal Procedural Forms § 13:133, Complaint or Petition for Inverse Condemnation--Low-Flying Air Force Aircraft Interfering With Enjoyment of Property as Compensable Taking [28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(A)(2), 1491; 42
U.S.C.A. § 4654(C);...
Federal Procedural Forms § 13:168, Complaint--Class Action by Residents in Slum Clearance Area--To Enjoin Displacement Until Adequate Relocation Facilities Provided [28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1441 et seq.,4630;...
Federal Procedural Forms § 14:234, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Against Consumer-Reporting Agency--For
Page 42
Negligent Noncompliance With the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Federal Procedural Forms § 15:239, Defense in Answer to CPSC Complaint as to Alleged Misbranded or Banned
Hazardous Substance--Denials [15 U.S.C.A. § 1265(A); FRCP Supp Rule C(6)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 15:255, Preemption; Generally.
Federal Procedural Forms § 30:143, Damage Actions for Violations Not Adjudicated in Administrative Proceedings.
Federal Procedural Forms § 30:144, Responses to Complaints to Initiate Packers and Stockyard Act Damage Actions.
Federal Procedural Forms § 43:179, Defense in Answer--Failure to State Claim on Which Relief Can be Granted for
Failure to File Timely Claim for Refund [26 U.S.C.A. §§ 6511, 7422; U.S. Court of Federal Claims R. 8(C), 12(B);
Fed....
Federal Procedural Forms § 43:220, Affirmative Defense--By Insurance Company in Action by United States to
Impose Liability for Failure to Honor Levy Against Taxpayer's Policy--Policy Has No Loan Value [26 U.S.C.A....
Federal Procedural Forms § 45:126, Defenses in Answer--Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief Can be
Granted--Failure to File Timely Charge of Discrimination--Action Barred by Laches [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(F)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 46:307, Answer.
Federal Procedural Forms § 46:369, Plaintiffs' Response--In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), (E)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 47:132, Collisions Generally.
Federal Procedural Forms § 52:312, Matters that Must be Pleaded as Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:272, SSA Must File Timely Answer.
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:287, Complaint--Seeking Review of Disallowance of Social Security Benefits-General Form [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:289, Allegation in Complaint--Review of Disallowance of Benefits--Erroneous Application of Res Judicata [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:290, Allegation in Complaint--Review of Disallowance of Benefits--Refusal to
Enlarge Time for Institution of Legal Action as Abuse of Discretion [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:300, Complaint--Seeking Review of Disallowance of Old-Age Benefits--Erroneous
Finding as to Insufficient Quarters of Coverage [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Page 43
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:301, Allegation in Complaint--Review of Disallowance of Old-Age Benefits-Erroneous Refusal to Credit Self-Employment Income [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:302, Complaint--Seeking Review of Disallowance of Disability Benefits--Erroneous
Finding as to Lack of Disability [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405(G), 423(D); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:309, Allegation in Complaint--Review of Disallowance of Disability Benefits-Unnecessary Medical Proof Required of Claimant [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405(G), 423(D); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:310, Allegation in Complaint--Review of Disallowance of Disability Benefits-Erroneous Denial of Benefits on Grounds of Refusal to Submit to Dangerous Operation [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405(G),
423(D);...
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:311, Complaint--By Deceased Wage Earner's Spouse and Stepchild--Seeking Review of Disallowance of Survivors' Benefits [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:312, Allegation in Complaint--Review of Disallowance of Survivors' Benefits--Child
Adopted by Decedent's Surviving Spouse [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:313, Allegation in Complaint--Review of Disallowance of Survivors' Benefits-Erroneous Refusal to Apply Presumption of Death [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:314, Allegation in Complaint--Review of Disallowance of Survivors' Benefits-Erroneous Finding as to Want of Legal Marriage [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(G); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:315, Complaint--Seeking Review of Determination as to Claimant's Nonentitlement
to SSI Benefits--Erroneous Determination that Impairment Will Not Prevent Gainful Activity [42 U.S.C.A....
Federal Procedural Forms § 60:316, Complaint--By Medicare Claimant--Seeking Review of Determination as to
Nonentitlement to Benefits [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405(G), 1395ff(B)(1)(A), (B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:393, Complaint--For Enforcement of FCC Cease-and-desist Order Against Broadcaster--By Party Injured by Disobedience of Order [47 U.S.C.A. § 401(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(A), 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:395, Complaint--For Injunction and Damages for Unauthorized Use of Radio Broadcast--By Radio Licensee [28 U.S.C.A. § 1337; 47 U.S.C.A. § 605; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:396, Complaint--By Telephone Company--For Injunctive and Declaratory Relief-To Enforce FCC Orders [28 U.S.C.A. § 1337; 47 U.S.C.A. § 401(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(A), 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:403, Motion--For Preliminary Injunction--To Enforce FCC Orders [47 U.S.C.A. §
401(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(A), 7(B), 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:405, Affidavit--In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction--To Enforce FCC
Orders [47 U.S.C.A. § 401(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(A), 7(B), 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:406, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Action by United States for Recovery of Statutory Forfeiture--Disclosure, in Paid Political Broadcast, of Name of Political Candidate Not Required by Rules...
Page 44
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:407, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Action by United States for Recovery of Statutory Forfeiture--Recovery for Failure of Broadcaster to Name Sponsor Precluded by Good-Faith Mistake And...
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:411, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law--Recovery of Statutory Forfeiture
Precluded by Good-faith Mistake of Fact [47 U.S.C.A. § 504(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:427, Complaint--Against FCC--Under Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C.A. §
552(A)(4)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(A), 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 62:428, Complaint--Against FCC--Under Privacy Act of 1974 [5 U.S.C.A. § 552a(G);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(A), 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:324, Pleading Affirmative Defenses and Special Matters.
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:491, Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:557, Complaint--Infringement of Federal Trademark Rights, With Separate Count
for Common-Law Unfair Competition--Skeleton Form [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 1121; 28 U.S.C.A. §
1338; Fed. R....
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:558, Complaint--Infringement of Federal Trademark Rights, With Separate Count
for Common-Law Unfair Competition--Detailed Form [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 1121; 28 U.S.C.A. §
1338; Fed. R....
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:559, Complaint--Trademark Infringement--In Connection With Smoke Detection
Device--Use of Similar Mark [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 1121; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:560, Complaint--Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition--In Connection
With Goods Produced by Nonunion Labor and Bearing Union Label [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051 et seq.,1114(1), 1125(A);
28...
With Food Product--To Enjoin Use of Name for Product Which, Although Spelled Differently, is Pronounced The...
;Federal Procedural Forms § 64:562, Complaint--Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition--In Connection
With Food Product--Use of Nearly Identical Mark [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114(1)(B), 1116 to 1118, 1121; 28 U.S.C.A....
With Periodic Directory--Use of Similar Mark [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114 to 1121, 1125(A); 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331(A),
1338;...
With Newspaper--To Enjoin Use by Competing Publisher of Name Similar to Name of Plaintiff's Newspaper [15...
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:565, Complaint--Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition--Simulating
Trade Dress and Misrepresenting Source of Origin of Products--Injunctive Relief and Damages [15 U.S.C.A. §§
1114(1)...
Page 45
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:566, Complaint--Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, and False Designation of Origin--In Connection With Computer Software for Video Games [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114(1), 1116 to 1119,
1121...
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:567, Complaint--Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, and False Designation of Origin--In Connection With Space Heaters [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114(1), 1116 to 1119, 1121, 1125(A); 28
U.S.C.A....
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:568, Complaint--Trademark and Service Mark Infringement and Unfair Competition--Simulating Trade Dress--Presentation and Sale of Products in Retail Stores...
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:569, Complaint--Trademark Infringement and “Palming Off”--Use of Similar Mark
[15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 1121; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:570, Complaint--Infringement of Service Mark--In Connection With Television Series [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 1121, 1125(A); 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:571, Complaint--Registration of Service Mark Through Deceit and Misrepresentation--For Injunction and Damages [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051 et seq.,1121; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1332, 1338; Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(A)...
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:572, Complaint--Common-Law Trademark Infringement and False Designation of
Origin--In Connection With Vehicle Tires--Use of Identical Mark [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1121, 1125(A); 28 U.S.C.A. §§
1338...
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:575, Complaint--Infringement of Trademark and Collective Mark by Cooperative
Association [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 1121, 1125; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:576, Complaint--Infringement of Certification Mark and Unfair Competition [15
U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1116, 1117, 1118; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:578, Allegations in Complaint--Trademark Infringement Due to Use of Mark With
Pronunciation Same as that of Plaintiff [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1121; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A), 65].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:579, Allegations in Complaint--Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition by
Means of Simulated Trade Dress [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1125(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:580, Allegations in Complaint--Misleading of Public as to Source or Origin of
Magazine [15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:582, Complaint--Tradename Infringement and Unfair Competition--Colorable Imitation of Plaintiff's Trade Name and Business Establishments in Design, Color Combinations, and Decor [15
U.S.C.A...
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:592, Motion--To Strike Matter from Complaint [15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(A), 12(F)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:606, Answer--To Complaint for Infringement of Federal Trademark Rights--General
Form [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1114, 1121; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(B), 8(C), 13].
Page 46
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:607, Answer--With Affirmative Defense-Mark is Common Descriptive Term
Unlikely to Cause Confusion of Public [15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(E); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(B), 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:608, Affirmative Defense--Word in Common Use [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1052(E)(1),
1065(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:609, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Misrepresentation of Nature of Products (Misbranding) [15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(E)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:610, Affirmative Defense in Answer--False Designation of Origin of Goods [15
U.S.C.A. § 1125(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:611, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Notice of Registration Not Displayed With
Trademark [15 U.S.C.A. § 1111; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:612, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Registration Not Renewed Within Allotted
Time [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1059, 1115(B)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:613, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Plaintiff Estopped by Laches from Asserting
Infringement of Trademark [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:614, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Plaintiff's Mark is Weak and Has Not Acquired Any Secondary Meaning [Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:615, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Innocent Infringer [15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(2)(A);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:616, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Service Mark Null and Void; Plaintiff Does
Not Provide Type of Service for Which Mark is Registrable [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1053, 1065; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:617, Affirmative Defense in Answer--No Actual Competition Exists Between Parties
[28 U.S.C.A. § 1338(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:618, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Fraud in Procurement of Registration [15
U.S.C.A. §§ 1065, 1115(B)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:619, Affirmative Defense in Answer--Mark Improperly Registered--Merely Descriptive of Goods to Which Applied [15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(E); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(C)].
Federal Procedural Forms § 64:620, Counterclaim--Allegation--False or Fraudulent Registration [15 U.S.C.A. §§
1065, 1115(B)(1), 1120; Fed. R. Civ. P. 13].
Federal Procedural Forms § 65:183, Actions by Private Parties--Pleadings.
Federal Procedural Forms § 66:174, Actions Involving Disputed Freight or Demurrage Charges--Jurisdiction;
Venue.
Page 47
Federal Procedural Forms § 9:1268, Contents of Pleadings, Generally.
Federal Procedural Forms § 65:198.50, Complaint--For Rescission--By Purchaser of Condominium [15 U.S.C.A. §§
1701, 1702, 1719; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)].
Securities Litigation: Forms and Analysis § 3:3, Pleading Jurisdiction and Venue.
Securities Litigation: Forms and Analysis § 3:5, Pleading Fraud With Particularity.
Securities Litigation: Forms and Analysis § 4:3, Answers.
Securities Litigation: Forms and Analysis § 5:8, Brief in Opposition.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1021, Allegation of Jurisdiction Founded on Diversity of Citizenship and Alienage.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1022, Natural Persons--Single Plaintiff or Single Defendant.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1023, Natural Persons--Single Plaintiff or Single Defendant--Another Form.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1024, Natural Persons--Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1025, Corporations.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1026, Corporations--Another Form.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1027, Corporations--Against State Official.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1028, Municipal Corporations.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1029, Municipal Corporations--Natural Person Against County.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1030, National Banking Association.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1031, Partnerships.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1032, Partnerships--Partnership Against Partnership.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1033, Assignees of Choses in Action.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1034, Representative Parties--Administrator of Estate of Deceased.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1035, Representative Parties--Executors and Trustees Against Corporation.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1036, Representative Parties--Guardian.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1037, Representative Parties--Administrator Against Corporation.
Page 48
2 West's Federal Forms § 1038, Representative Parties--Administrator Against Corporation--Another Form.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1039, Representative Parties--Receivers Against Corporation.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1040, Representative Parties--Corporation Against Corporation Joined With Individual
Executors.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1041, Interpleader--Under Interpleader Statute.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1042, Interpleader--Under Rule 22.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1043, Alien.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1044, Alien--Another Form.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1045, Corporation Incorporated in Foreign Country.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1046, Alien Partnership.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1047, Allegation of Jurisdiction Founded on Federal Question.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1048, Diversity of Citizenship and Federal Question.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1049, Action to Enforce Payment of Delinquent Taxes and Foreclose Tax Liens.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1050, Action to Enforce Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1410, Reply--To Affirmative Defense of Release--Alleging Fraud.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1411, Reply--To Affirmative Defense of Release--Alleging Lack of Mental Capacity,
Fraud and Mistake.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1412, Reply--To Affirmative Defense--Discharge in Bankruptcy.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1413, Reply--To Affirmative Defense--Statute of Limitations.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1563, Complaint.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1564, Introductory Clause.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1565, Introductory Clause--Single Claim Stated.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1566, Introductory Clause--Another Form.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1567, Introductory Clause--Several Claims Stated in Separate Counts.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1568, Allegations on Information and Belief.
Page 49
2 West's Federal Forms § 1569, Allegations on Information and Belief--Another Form.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1570, Allegations on Information and Belief--Another Form.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1571, General Prayer for Relief.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1572, General Prayer for Relief--Another Form.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1573, Appealing Administrative Ruling on Petition Challenging Milk Zone Price Differentials.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1574, Appealing Administrative Ruling on Petition Challenging Area Milk-Pricing System in Milk Marketing Order.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1575, Violation of Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1576, Review of Administrative Action Disqualifying Retail Store from Participation in
Food Stamp Program.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1577, Challenging Adverse Action Notice in Food Stamp Program.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1578, Declaratory Judgment and Injunction on Ground of Unconstitutionality of Statute
Limiting Food Stamp Issuance to Households Whose Members Are Not Related.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1579, Injunction and Declaratory Judgment Enjoining State Educational Institution's Action Refusing In-State Tuition to G-4 Nonimmigrant Aliens.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1580, Failure to Provide Preschool Student With Free Appropriate Public Education.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1583, Destroying Competition and Securing Monopoly.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1584, Monopolizing and Excluding Plaintiff from Business.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1585, Fixing Prices--By Minimum Fee Schedules.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1586, Fixing Prices--By Parallel Pricing Conduct.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1587, Fixing Prices--By Charging Uniform Prices and Allocating Sales Quotas and Customers.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1588, Group Boycott.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1589, Consignment Contracts and Lease Agreements.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1590, Conspiracy in Regulated Industry to Deter Plaintiffs from Free and Unlimited Access to Relevant Agencies and Courts.
Page 50
2 West's Federal Forms § 1591, Violations by Real Estate Brokers.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1592, Class Action by Consumer.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1593, Enjoining Corporation from Acquiring Stock in Plaintiff.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1594, Enjoining Acquisition of Company Operating in Market Not Served by Acquiring
Company on Ground of Elimination of Potential Competition.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1595, Health Insurance Providers' Failure to Pay Benefits for Services of Psychologist.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1596, Excerpt Alleging Former Judgment Finding Unlawful Combination.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1597, Price Fixing and Manipulation.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1598, Discriminatory Prices Affecting Competition.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1600, Disenfranchised Dealer Against Regional Distributor.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1601, Negligence in Publishing Inaccurate Charts.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1576.5, Declaratory Judgment and Injunction to Require State Officials to Take Decisive
and Final Action on Food Stamp Application.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1577.5, To Enjoin Treatment of AFDC and General Assistance Housing Security Deposit
Payments as Income Under Food Stamp Program.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1578.5, Challenging Order of Deportation Because of Lack of Notification of Right to
Appeal.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1580.5, Challenging Level of Funding for Private School Placements.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1584.5, Public Utility's Attempt to Monopolize and Monopolization.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1585.5, Fixing Prices--By Maximum Fee Schedules.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1586.5, Fixing Prices--By Forcing Price Fixing Agreement Upon Wholesaler.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1587.5, Fixing Prices--By Market Division and Fraud in Obtaining Patent.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1590.5, Local Business Restraints.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1592.5, Actions by Apparent Agents of Defendants.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1594.5, Refusal of Provider of Group Health Care Reimbursement Plans to Deal With
Hospital.
2 West's Federal Forms § 1595.5, Use of Peer Committee by Insurance Company to Review Chiropractors' Charges.
Page 51
2 West's Federal Forms § 1597.5, Price Discrimination to Substantially Weaken and Destroy Competition.
5 West's Federal Forms § 7670, Notice by Committed Witness to Have Deposition Taken.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10669, Allegation of Claim--Comment.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10673, Prayer for Money Judgment--Official Form.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10674, Prayer for Relief Other Than Money Judgment.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10710, Prayer for Money Judgment--Official Form.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10719, Introductory Phrase.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10721, Headings for Parts of Answer--Official Forms.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10722, Denials and Admissions--Official Form 21.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10723, Denials and Admissions--Numbered Paragraphs.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10726, General Comment Applicable to Affirmative Defenses.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10756, Prayer for Relief On--Counterclaim.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10757, Prayer for Relief On--Cross-Claim--Official Form.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10758, Prayer for Relief On--Defendant's Claim Against Person Who is Not a Party.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10762, Complaint for Damage to Cargo (In Personam and in Rem).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10765, Complaint--Short Delivery (Ore).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10767, Complaint--Loss of Cargo (Sinking).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10778, Affirmative Defense--Alleging Insufficient Packaging, No Negligence, No Notice
of Damage (Paper).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10779, Affirmative Defense--Admitting Liability, Alleging $500 Package Limitation
(Machinery).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10782, Answer--War, Restraint of Rulers, Inherent Vice (Flour).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10783, Affirmative Defense--By Time Charterer, Denying Liability and Alleging One
Year Time Bar (Cotton).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10784, Affirmative Defense--Alleging Fault of Shipper--Misdescribing Goods (Fragile
Page 52
Cargo).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10785, Affirmative Defense--Alleging Fault of Shipper--Failure Properly to Set Thermostatic Control.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10786, Affirmative Defense--Alleging Inherent Vice (Frozen Fish).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10787, Affirmative Defense--Alleging Inherent Vice (Fruit).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10788, Affirmative Defense--Alleging Wastage in Bulk, No Negligence, No Notice of
Damage (Ore).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10789, Affirmative Defense--Fire Statute.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10790, Affirmative Defense--Perils of On-Deck Stowage, Exemption for Undeclared
Items of High Value, $500 Unit Limitation (Mobile Home).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10791, Affirmative Defense--Waiver of Subrogation.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10814, Complaint for Unpaid Freight.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10815, Complaint for Unpaid Freight--Maritime Lien on Cases of Fish.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10824, Complaint by Shipowner--Contribution in General Average (Breakdown, Transshipment).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10825, Complaint in General Average by Shipowner--Fire.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10831, Collision at Sea--Excessive Speed in Fog.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10832, Collision at Sea--Conditions of Fog: Complaint in Personam and in Rem.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10833, Collision in Channel--Failure to Keep to Right (Starboard).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10834, Collision in Channel--Excessive Tow Line/Proper Lookout.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10836, Collision in Canal--Failure to Heed Bend Signal.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10837, Collision in Canal--Failure to Abide by Whistle Agreement.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10838, Collision in Channel--Breach of Local Custom/Embarassment of Navigation.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10839, Collision in Canal--Breach of Lock Regulation.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10840, Collision in River--Failure to Yield (Local Rule).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10851, Collision in River--Excessive Speed in Fog.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10852, Collision in River--Crowding.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10854, Collision in Inland Waters--Changing Course.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10855, Alleging Improper Course--Excessive Speed.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10856, Alleging Failure to Alter Course.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10857, Alleging Negligent Crossing.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10859, Complaint--Allision/Striking Moored Ship.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10860, Affirmative Defense--Storm, No Negligence.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10862, Affirmative Defense--Fault of Dock Owner.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10863, Affirmative Defense--Fault of Another Vessel.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10865, Complaint For--Striking Dredge Spudded in Harbor--Stand-By Act.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10866, Complaint For--Striking Ship at Anchor by a United States Vessel.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10867, Affirmative Defense--Obstruction of Channel.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10868, Affirmative Defense--Fault of Third-Party.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10870, Complaint--Alleging Fault.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10871, Complaint for Damage to Pier.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10873, Answer by Assisting Tug.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10874, Answer by Assisting Tug--Ship Under Her Own Power, Not Tug's.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10875, Complaint For--Damage to Bridge.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10877, Complaint For--Damage to Causeway.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10882, Complaint for Damage Caused by Failure to Remove Wreck.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10884, Answer by United States.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10885, Complaint Against Vessel Causing Wreck.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10886, Answer By--Tug.
Page 53
Page 54
7 West's Federal Forms § 10887, Answer By--Owner of Wreck.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10888, Complaint for Damage Caused by Underwater Main.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10889, Complaint for Damage Caused by Excessive Wake.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10890, Answer by Vessel Owner--Unlawful Obstruction.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10893, Complaint for Injury.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10895, Complaint for Injury to Passenger--Assault by Fellow Passenger.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10896, Complaint for Injury to Passenger--By Guardian Ad Litem for Infant.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10909, Complaint for Injury to Seaman--Official Form.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10933, Complaint for Injury to Harbor Worker--With Prayer for Maritime Attachment.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10941, Affirmative Defense--Assertion of Limited Liability.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10945, Complaint for Wrongful Death of Longshoreman.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10946, Complaint for Death of Guest.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10947, Complaint Against--Tort Feasor (Collision in Territorial Waters).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10961, Complaint--To Discharge Mortgage Lien and Establish Title.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10967, Voyage Charter--Complaint for Balance Due (Tank Cleaning and Demurrage).
7 West's Federal Forms § 10968, Voyage Charter--Complaint for Charter Hire.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10969, Time Charter--Complaint for Hull Damage.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10970, Complaint for Damage to Cargo--Action Brought Against Time Charterer in Personam and in Rem.
7 West's Federal Forms § 10983, Affirmative Defense--Sole Remedy is by Way of Arbitration.
7 West's Federal Forms § 11006, Hull Insurance--Complaint for Total Loss.
7 West's Federal Forms § 11047, Complaint--Unmanned Craft.
7 West's Federal Forms § 11080, Answer--Alleging Benefit of Himalaya Clause.
7 West's Federal Forms § 11086, Answer Blaming Tug.
Page 55
7 West's Federal Forms § 11089, Answer by Wharfinger Alleging Fault of Vessel.
7 West's Federal Forms § 11097, Complaint for Cleanup Expense.
7 West's Federal Forms § 11099, Complaint--Cost of Marking Wreck.
7 West's Federal Forms § 11106, Pleading Capacity of a Party.
8 West's Federal Forms § 13296, Amendments to Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
1A West's Federal Forms § 166, Complaint.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1603, Exceeding Percentage of Surplus; False and Misleading Reports of Condition.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1604, To Wind Up Affairs of National Bank.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1605, To Wind Up Affairs of National Bank--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1606, To Wind Up Affairs of National Bank--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1607, Tying Arrangements by Bank--Exaction of Illegal Contributions from Bank Customers.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1608, State Regulations Forbidding Owning or Controlling Investment Advisory Service
Businesses.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1609, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Against Former Officers and Directors of
Failed Savings Institution.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1610, Introduction.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1611, Deprivation of Rights by Police Officer.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1613, Against Discrimination in Use of Public Facilities.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1614, Prohibition of Highway Use of Certain Twin Trailers.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1615, Limitations on Sale of Milk from Another State.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1616, Prohibition of Display of Out-Of-State Grades for Apples.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1617, Prohibiting Selling Water for Use Outside County.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1618, Municipal Ordinance Concerning Interstate Transportation.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1619, Discriminatory State Statute Governing Commerce.
Page 56
2A West's Federal Forms § 1620, State Action Preventing Transactions in Foreign Commerce.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1622, Fabric Design.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1623, Royalties Due Under Copyrights.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1624, Licensing Copyright Material With Unlawful Tie-In Arrangements.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1625, Hybrid Credit Disclosure.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1626, Multiple Transactions.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1627, Violations by Multiple Creditors.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1628, Violation of Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1629, Various Charges of Violations.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1630, Harassment or Abuse, Deceptive and Improper Threats, and Unfair Practices.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1636, Exclusion of African-Americans as Teachers by Testing.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1637, Termination Because of Gender.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1638, Pregnancy--Termination of Employment.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1639, Pregnancy--Requiring Leaves.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1640, Alien Barred from Employment by State Law.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1641, Free Speech--Discharge.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1642, Free Speech--Freedom to Speak on Issues.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1643, Free Speech--Political Affiliation--Discharge.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1646, Disparate Treatment--Conditions of Employment.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1647, Disparate Treatment--Race--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1648, Disparate Treatment--National Origin.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1649, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Refusal to Hire Females.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1650, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Conditions of Employment.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1651, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Conditions of Employment.
Page 57
2A West's Federal Forms § 1652, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Sexual Harassment and Constructive
Discharge.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1653, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Sexual Harassment and Constructive
Discharge--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1654, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Same-Sex Sexual Harassment-Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1655, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Pregnancy--Effect of Sick Leave Plan.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1656, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Suit by EEOC.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1657, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Suit by EEOC--Maternity Benefits for
Spouses.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1658, Disparate Treatment--Different Standard of Conduct Applied to White Employees.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1659, Disparate Treatment--Retaliation for Opposing Unlawful Discrimination.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1660, Disparate Impact--Educational Requirement.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1661, Pro Se Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1663, Enjoin Violation of Equal Pay Act--Suit by EEOC.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1664, Refusal to Work Because of Reasonable Apprehension of Death or Serious Injury.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1666, Refusal to Hire.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1667, Forcing Employee to Accept Early Retirement.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1668, Breach of Implied Contract of Employment.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1669, Replacement by Younger Member in Protected Class.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1671, Termination of Employment--Suit by EEOC.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1672, Termination of Employment--Employee With Aids.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1673, Violation of Americans With Disabilities Act and Sex Discrimination.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1674, Employee Not Treated Like Others Employed by Competitors.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1675, Benefits Under Early Retirement Agreement.
Page 58
2A West's Federal Forms § 1676, Termination Due to Change in Ownership and Management.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1677, Liability of Controlled Group Upon Termination of Pension Agreement--Suit by
Pension Guaranty Corporation.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1679, Overtime Pay.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1680, Willful Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Overtime Pay.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1681, Enjoining Violation of Act--By Secretary of Labor.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1683, Negligence.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1684, Injury from Icy Roof of Box Car.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1687, Penalty for Violation of Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1689, Unseaworthiness.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1690, Negligence by Failure to Furnish Proper Ice Cream Removal Tool.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1692, Injuries Caused by the Negligence of a Vessel.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1693, For Injunction to Implement Agreement With Union.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1696, Compelling NLRB to Conduct an Election.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1697, Employer's Unilateral Modification or Termination of Benefits for Retirees.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1698, Defamation During Union Organizing Campaign.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1699, Damages for Violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement by Union.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1700, Compelling Compliance With Ruling Under Grievance Procedure.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1701, Wrongful Discharge by Employer and Lack of Fair Representation by Union.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1702, Wrongful Discharge by Employer and Lack of Fair Representation by Union-Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1703, Wrongful Discharge by Employer and Lack of Fair Representation by Union-Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1704, Wrongful Discharge by Employer and Lack of Fair Representation by Union--
Page 59
Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1705, Compelling Arbitration.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1706, Vacating Arbitration Award.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1707, For Benefits Employer Agreed to Pay Pursuant to “Prehire” Agreement.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1708, Violation of Constitution of International Union by Issuance of Order Requiring
Consolidation of Local Unions.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1709, Challenging Union Election.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1713, Building Dam.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1714, Challenging Effect of Land and Resource Management Plan on Fish.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1715, Failure to Provide Adequate Environmental Statement.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1716, For Cleanup and Investigatory Costs by Former Landowner.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1717, Action Seeking Penalties for Discharge of Industrial Effluent.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1718, Injunction and Penalties for Violating Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1719, Enjoining Storm Water Discharge.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1720, Disclosure Conditions Governed by Consumer Product Safety Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1721, To Compel Information Regarding Endangered Species.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1726, By Surety Under Performance Bonds on Federally Subsidized Construction.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1727, Asking that Savings and Loan Association be Granted Deposit Insurance Under
National Housing Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1728, Foreclosure of Mortgage Under National Housing Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1729, Defendant's Housing Steering Practices.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1730, Operator and Residents of Group House for Disabled Elderly.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1731, Injunctive and Other Relief Under Fair Housing Act.
Page 60
2A West's Federal Forms § 1732, Racially Discriminatory Public Housing.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1733, Overbilling for Utilities in Violation of Rent Ceiling.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1734, State Regulation of Hunting and Fishing on Indian Reservation.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1735, Indian Gaming.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1736, Determining Which Games Were Proper Subject of Negotiation Under Indian
Gaming Regulation Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1737, Determining Whether Indian Allottees Had Received Mineral Rights in Perpetuity
Under Certain Congressional Acts.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1738, Injunction to Restrain Trespass on Indian Reservation Land.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1739, Quiet Title to Land Owned and Purchased by Pueblo.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1740, Seeking Supplemental Unemployment Benefits.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1741, Reemployment Rights Under Military Training and Service Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1743, Subcontractor on Bond Under the Miller Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1744, Subcontract Terminated.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1745, Damages to Scow Caused by Improper Loading.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1746, Establishment of Oil Shale Claims.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1751, Infringement of Patent.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1752, Infringement of Patent--Official Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1753, Infringement of Patent--Short Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1754, Production Process--Short Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1755, Count for Infringement--Making Device and Shipping to Foreign Countries.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1756, Importing Product Made Abroad and Using or Selling it in the United States.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1757, Manufacture, Sale and Use.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1758, Selling and Offering for Sale.
Page 61
2A West's Federal Forms § 1759, Ladies Dress Design.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1760, Design of Flatware.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1761, Adjudication of Validity in Prior Action and Acquiescence.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1762, Infringement of Patent and Unfair Competition.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1763, State Trade Secrets Law.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1604.5, To Wind Up Affairs of National Bank--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1605.5, To Wind Up Affairs of National Bank--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1606.5, To Recover Twice the Amount of Usurious Interest Charged.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1608.5, Receiver for Savings Association to Foreclose on Mortgages.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1611.5, Deprivation of Civil Rights by Police Officer--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1613.5, Treatment and Care of Noncriminal, Mentally Ill Patients.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1614.5, Prohibition of Highway Use of Certain Twin Trailers--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1616.5, Prohibition of Transportation of Uncrated Produce to Another State for Packing
and Processing.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1619.5, Discriminatory State Statute Governing Commerce--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1624.5, Complaint for Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1629.5, Various Charges of Violations--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1639.5, Pregnancy--Relief from Enforcement of Statute Prohibiting Pregnant Women
from Receiving Unemployment Benefits.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1641.5, Free Speech--Altered Employment Conditions.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1643.5, Free Speech--Political Affiliation--Demotion.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1646.5, Disparate Treatment--Race.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1647.5, Disparate Treatment--Hiring and Promoting Police Officers.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1648.5, Disparate Treatment--Race and National Origin.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1650.5, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Payment of Lower Wages.
Page 62
2A West's Federal Forms § 1653.5, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Same-Sex Sexual Harassment.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1654.5, Disparate Treatment--Sex Discrimination--Retaliation for Reporting Sexual
Harassment.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1659.5, Disparate Treatment--Retaliation for Engaging in Civil Rights Activities.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1663.5, Enjoin Violation of Equal Pay Act and for Damages--Private Action.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1666.5, Termination of Employment--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1671.5, Termination of Employment--Employee Infected With Hiv.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1672.5, Constructive Discharge of Employee With Mental Illness.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1673.5, Complaint Alleging Employment Discrimination Against Person Related to Person With Disability and Violation of Family and Medical Leave Act.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1674.5, Benefits Under Separation Payment Policy.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1675.5, Termination for Purpose of Interfering With Attainment of Pension Rights.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1676.5, Transfer of Part of Assets and Liabilities of Pension Fund to Pension Plan of
Newly Formed Corporation.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1677.5, Withdrawal Liability Under Multi-Employer Benefit Plan.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1679.5, Overtime Pay--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1680.5, Lack of Payment for Certain Working Time.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1683.5, Injury from Slipping on Roadbed.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1684.5, Injury by Sliding from Culvert.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1686.5, Violation of Act--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1689.5, Violation of Coast Guard Regulation.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1690.5, Maintenance and Cure and Unseaworthiness.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1692.5, Injuries Caused by the Negligence of a Vessel--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1698.5, Enjoining Secondary Boycott.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1704.5, Wrongful Discharge by Employer and Lack of Fair Representation by Union--
Page 63
Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1705.5, Compelling Arbitration--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1611.10, Deprivation of Civil Rights by Police Officer--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1611.15, Failure to Protect Prison Inmate from Sexual Abuse and Physical Assault.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1613.15, Against Retroactive Tuition Increases.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1613.20, Nonconsensual Sterilization.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1613.25, Contesting Ineligibility of Nonresidents for Medical Assistance.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1671.10, Termination of Employment--Employee Infected With Hiv--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1679.10, Overtime Pay--By Secretary of Labor.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1679.15, Complaint for Failure to Pay Overtime and for Retaliation.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1683.10, Injury from Action of Fellow Servant Combined With Falling Over Debris.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1683.15, Injury Sustained While Flagging Traffic at Highway Intersection.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1683.20, Injury While Loading Defective Car of Another Railroad.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1684.10, Derailment Resulting in Death of Employee.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1684.15, Chronic Foot Condition.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1686.10, Violation of Act--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1686.20, Violation of Act--Suit by Government.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1690.10, Maintenance and Cure and Unseaworthiness--Another Form.
2A West's Federal Forms § 1704.10, Wrongful Discharge by Employer and Lack of Fair Representation by Union-Another Form.
Page 64
2B West's Federal Forms § 1764, Injunction Against Withholding Allegedly Obscene Material from the Mails.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1765, Prohibiting the Mailing of Unsolicited Advertisements for Contraceptives.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1766, Segregative Conduct of School Board.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1767, Suspension from Public Schools.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1768, Refusal of Women's College to Admit Male for Credit Study.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1769, Violation of First Amendment Rights of University Students.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1770, Violation of First Amendment Rights of Public School Students.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1771, Sexual Harassment in Violation of Title IX.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1772, Barring Meetings of Religious Student Group on Campus.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1773, State Regulation of Religious Group.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1775, Scheme to Defraud and to Steal Jewels.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1776, Extortion, Assault, and Other Illegal Activities.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1777, Scheme to Defraud and Procure Secret Profits.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1783, Securities Act of 1933--Liability of Inside Directors as Well as Issuer.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1784, Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Misleading Forecasts.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1785, Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Misleading and
False Statements and Concealment of Facts.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1786, Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Notes as Securities.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1787, Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Fraud on Market.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1788, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Misleading Forecasts.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1789, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Affirmative Representation by One Who Does
Not Sell Securities.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1790, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Knowingly Making False and Misleading
Statements About Control in Sale of Stock.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1791, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Fraud in Connection With Sale of Securities
But Not as to Terms of Transaction.
Page 65
2B West's Federal Forms § 1792, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Misleading Printed Solicitation of Withdrawal
of Capital Shares.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1793, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Failure to Disclose.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1794, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--False and Misleading Statements in Consummated Merger.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1795, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Against Enforcement of State Takeover Statutes.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1796, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--When “Purchase” Occurs.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1797, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Matching Transactions With Those of Wife.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1798, Securities Exchange Act of 1934--Accounting of Profits.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1799, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Private Investment Company Act of 1940-Increase of Advisor's Fee of No Benefit to Company.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1800, Private Securities Litigation Reform Act--Misrepresentation in Stock Price and
Insider Trading--Class Action.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1801, Review of Decision of Commissioner of Social Security.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1807, Infringement of Trademark and Unfair Competition.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1808, Infringement of Trademark and Unfair Competition--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1811, Infringement of Trademark and Trade Name and Unfair Competition.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1812, Infringement of Trademark and Trade Name and Unfair Competition--Another
Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1813, Infringement of Service Mark.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1814, Infringement of Copyright and Trademark.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1815, Challenging State Legislative Reapportionment Plan.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1816, Intervenors' Challenge to Constitutionality of Plan Apportioning House of State
Legislature.
Page 66
2B West's Federal Forms § 1817, Relief Against County Commissioners Alleging Redistricting Plan Violated Equal
Protection Clause and State Statute.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1818, Approval of Reapportionment Plan for City Council Districts.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1819, Prohibiting Implementation of Apportionment Plan for Electing Legislators.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1820, Prohibiting Implementation of Apportionment Plan for Congressional Districts.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1821, Challenging Enforcement of Poll Tax as a Condition of Voting in State Elections.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1822, Challenging State Statutory Candidate Filing Deadline.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1824, Violation of False Claims Act.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1825, Violation of False Claims Act--By United States.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1826, Violation of False Claims Act--By the United States--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1829, Violation of Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1830, Violation of Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1832, Employer's Recording Telephone Conversations.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1833, Unauthorized Reception of Cable Services.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1834, Torture and Other Cruel Acts.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1836, Erroneous Treatment of Earned Income.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1837, Erroneous Determination of Fair Market Value of Material and Denial of Deduction by Corporation.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1838, Refund for Certain Expenses.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1839, Gift Tax Paid by Settlor of Irrevocable Inter Vivos Trust.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1840, Recovery of Unemployment Tax Paid.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1842, Failure to Pay Re-Enlistment Bonus to Members of Armed Service.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1844, Negligence--Automobile Accident.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1845, Negligence--Medical Care at U.S. Public Health Service.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1846, Negligence--Medical Care at Veterans' Administration Hospital.
Page 67
2B West's Federal Forms § 1847, Negligence--Medical Care at Correctional Institution.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1848, Negligence--Medical Care at Army Hospital.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1849, Negligence--Injuries to Child Who Pulled Over Mailbox.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1850, Negligence--Third-Party Claim.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1852, Action by Beneficiary.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1853, Action Under Special Act of Congress.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1854, Failure of Bidder to Perform.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1855, Defaults on Contracts and Establishing Priority Against Assignee for Benefit of
Creditors.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1856, Against State to Quiet Title to Off-Shore Areas.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1857, Note Under Small Business Act.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1858, Action Under Trading With the Enemy Act to Recover Royalties.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1859, Land Contract.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1860, Claiming Interest on Purchase Money and Deduction for Deficiency.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1861, Oral Contract of Sale.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1862, Option Agreement.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1863, Contract for Payment of Royalties.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1864, Surety Subrogated to Rights of City Upon Payment of Misappropriations of
Treasurer.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1865, Workers' Compensation Insurer Subrogated to Rights of Surviving Spouse.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1866, Nuisance from Gases and Fumes.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1867, Nuisance from Noise and Vibration of Heavy Machinery.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1868, Use of Corporate Name.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1869, Trustee of Second Mortgage Seeking to Determine Rights Under Mortgage.
Page 68
2B West's Federal Forms § 1870, Assignment of Interest Coupon.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1871, Owner Not in Possession.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1872, Owner in Possession.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1873, Canceling Deed to Lands and for Injunction Against Destruction.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1874, Canceling Paid Mortgage.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1876, Pedestrian Crossing Highway--Against Operator of Automobile.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1877, Pedestrian Crossing Highway--Against Operator of Automobile and Employer.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1878, Pedestrian Crossing Highway--Against Driver.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1879, Several Plaintiffs Asserting Rights to Relief Arising Out of Automobile Collision.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1880, Personal Injuries to Plaintiff and Wrongful Death of Spouse.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1881, Death Resulting from Collision at Railroad and Highway Intersection.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1882, Violation of City Ordinance.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1883, Violation of City Ordinance--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1884, Death of Child Struck by Automobile.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1885, Driver of an Automobile Against Another Driver.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1886, Passenger Against Driver of Automobile.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1887, Injured Person Against Tortfeasor and Automobile Liability Insurer.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1888, Against Tortfeasor and Automobile Liability Insurer for Death of Child.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1889, Injured Person Against Automobile Liability Insurer.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1890, Insured Against Liability Insurer.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1891, Judgment Creditor to Compel Automobile Liability Insurer to Pay Judgment.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1892, Against Manufacturer for Negligent Design and Manufacture.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1893, Injuries from Exploding Oxygen Tank.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1894, Injuries from Explosion of Bottle.
Page 69
2B West's Federal Forms § 1895, Injuries Caused by Chemicals.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1896, Inherent Dangerous Nature of Article.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1897, Damages Caused by Silicone Breast Implants.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1898, Strict Product Liability.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1899, Strict Product Liability--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1900, Strict Tort Liability and Breach of Warranty.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1901, Injury to Store Patron.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1902, Injury from Defective Sidewalk.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1903, Injury to Traveler on Highway from Explosion on Premises Adjoining Highway.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1904, Injury in Hotel Elevator.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1905, Injuries Caused by Lifting Device.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1906, Against Physician and Surgeon.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1907, Against Physician and Surgeon--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1908, Against Dentist and Medical Clinic.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1909, Invasion of Privacy and Defamation.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1910, Slanderous Remarks of Corporate Officer.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1911, False Imprisonment.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1912, Trespass to Land.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1913, Conversion of Bonds.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1914, Conversion--By Stockbroker.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1915, Failure to Make Delivery.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1916, Sale of Pipe.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1917, Subcontractor Against General Contractor.
Page 70
2B West's Federal Forms § 1918, Damages and Rescission.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1919, Failure of Carrier to Collect on C.O.D. Shipments.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1920, Against Guarantor of Account.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1921, Agreement to Indemnify Plaintiff for Oil Spill Damages.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1922, Breach of Contract and Fraud by Trustees.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1923, Contract of Employment.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1924, Breach of Contract by Ousted Officer and Director.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1925, Breach of Contract by Purchaser of Business.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1926, Sums Due Welfare and Retirement Trust.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1927, Breach of Warranty.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1928, Breach of Warranty--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1929, Promissory Note.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1930, Promissory Note--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1931, Promissory Note--Allegation of Execution by Agent.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1932, Promissory Note--Allegation of Execution by Corporation.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1933, Promissory Note--Provision for Reasonable Attorney Fees.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1934, Promissory Note--First Endorsee Against Maker.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1935, Promissory Note--Allegation Regarding Subsequent Endorsee Against Maker.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1936, Promissory Note--First Endorsee Against Endorsing Payee.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1937, Promissory Note--Remote Endorsee Against Endorsing Payee.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1938, Promissory Note--Remote Endorsee Against Immediate Endorser.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1939, Promissory Note--Payee Against Maker and Guarantor.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1940, Promissory Note--Payee Against Makers and Guarantors.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1941, Bill of Exchange--Payee Against Acceptor.
Page 71
2B West's Federal Forms § 1942, Bill of Exchange--Pleading Bill Verbatim.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1943, Bill of Exchange--Payee Against Drawer for Nonacceptance.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1944, Bill of Exchange--Allegation Bill Not Presented Because Drawee Not Found.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1945, Bill of Exchange--Allegation of Demand and Notice Waived.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1946, To Recover Death Benefit.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1947, To Recover Death Benefit--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1948, To Recover Total Disability Benefits and Reasonable Attorney Fees.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1949, On Life Policy to Recover Double Indemnity.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1950, To Recover for Accidental Death.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1951, Policy Insuring Goods.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1952, Policy Insuring Goods Against Loss by Fire.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1953, Total Disability and Hospital Expenses.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1954, Bond by Securities Broker for Loss Sustained.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1955, Declaratory Judgment that Insurance Policy Does Not Afford Coverage.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1956, On an Account.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1957, Goods Sold and Delivered.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1958, Goods Sold and Delivered--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1962, Services Rendered.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1963, Services Rendered--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1964, Hire of Personal Property.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1965, Money Lent.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1966, Money Paid by Mistake.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1967, Surety Against Principal to Recover Money Paid on Bond.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1968, Surety on Appeal Bond or Undertaking.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1969, Money Had and Received.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1970, Money Had and Received--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1971, Debt Founded on Agreement to Finance Oil Development.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1972, Breach of Lease.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2011, Introduction to Separate Defenses.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2012, Presenting Defenses--Official Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2013, With Counterclaim for Interpleader.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2014, Denials and Admissions.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2015, Denials, Admissions and Affirmative Defenses.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2016, Separate Answer of Two Defendants.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2017, Separate Answer of Third Defendant.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2018, Reciting Paragraphs and Subparagraphs of Complaint.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2019, Reciting Paragraphs and Subparagraphs of Complaint--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2020, One of Multiple Defendants.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2021, One of Multiple Defendants--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2022, Answer to Complaint for Employment Discrimination.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2023, Answer to Complaint for Employment Discrimination--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2024, Denial of Particular Averment.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2025, Admission of Particular Averment.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2026, Denial of All Averments of Paragraph.
Page 72
Page 73
2B West's Federal Forms § 2027, Admission of All Averments of Paragraph.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2028, Denial in Part and Admission in Part of Paragraph.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2029, General Denial.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2030, Qualified General Denial.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2031, Denial of Knowledge or Information Sufficient to Form a Belief.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2032, Denial of Jurisdictional Allegations--Jurisdictional Amount.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2033, Denial of Jurisdictional Allegations--Jurisdictional Amount--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2034, Denial of Jurisdictional Allegations--Federal Question.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2035, Denial of Jurisidictional Allegations--Federal Question--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2036, Denial of Jurisdictional Allegations--Federal Question--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2037, Denial of Jurisdictional Allegations--Diversity of Citizenship.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2038, Denial of Jurisdictional Allegations--Property Within District.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2039, Insufficient Amount in Controversy.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2040, Want of Diversity of Citizenship.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2041, Denial of Diversity Alleged in Complaint.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2042, Inapplicability of Sherman Act to Public Instrumentality.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2043, Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Person.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2044, Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Person--Insufficiency of Service of Process.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2045, Improper Venue.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2046, Improper Venue--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2047, Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2048, Failure to Join a Party Under Rule 19(a).
2B West's Federal Forms § 2049, Failure to Join a Party Under Rules 19(A) and (B).
Page 74
2B West's Federal Forms § 2050, Failure to Join a Party Under Rules 19(A) and (B)--Party Over Whom Personal
Jurisdiction May Not be Obtained.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2051, Accord and Satisfaction.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2052, Abstention.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2053, Accord and Satisfaction.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2054, Accord and Satisfaction--By Acceptance and Retention of Checks.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2055, Another Pending Action.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2056, Arbitration and Award.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2057, Assumption of Risk.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2058, Contributory Negligence.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2059, Contributory Negligence--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2060, Contributory Negligence--Failure to Heed Signals and Warnings.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2061, Contributory Negligence--In Operation of Automobile.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2062, Contributory Negligence--Negligence of Bicycle Rider.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2063, Contributory Negligence--As Partial Defense in Action Under Federal Employers'
Liability Act.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2064, Discharge in Bankruptcy.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2065, Duress--By Imprisonment.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2066, Duress--By Threats.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2067, Estoppel--By Deed.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2068, Estoppel--By Matter in Pais.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2069, Different Skill, Effort and Responsibility Under Equal Pay Act.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2070, Exemption as Retail or Service Establishment in Action Under Fair Labor Standards Act.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2071, Former Judgment.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2072, Former Judgment--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2073, Failure of Consideration.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2074, Fraud.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2075, Fraud--Inducement of Contract.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2076, Fraud--Procuring Policy of Life Insurance.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2077, Illegality--Contract Void by Statute.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2078, Illegality--Usurious Contract.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2079, Infancy.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2080, Injury by Fellow Servant.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2081, Insanity.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2082, Invalidity of Patent--Asserting Prior Use.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2083, Invalidity of Patent--Asserting Various Grounds of Invalidity.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2084, Laches--Acquiescence in Use of Trademark.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2085, Mistake.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2086, Payment--Before Action.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2087, Payment--After Action.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2088, Privilege in Defamation Action.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2089, Release--According to Legal Effect.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2090, Release--Release by Exhibit.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2091, Release--By One Joint Tortfeasor.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2092, Res Judicata.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2093, Res Judicata and Estoppel--Trademark Infringement.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2094, Sickness or Disease Not Included Within Terms of Insurance Policy.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2095, Sole Proximate Cause of Death.
Page 75
Page 76
2B West's Federal Forms § 2096, Sole Proximate Cause of Death--Another Form.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2097, Lack of Standing to Sue.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2098, Statute of Frauds--Defense as to Leasing or Sale of Lands.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2099, Statute of Frauds--Agreement Not to be Performed Within a Year.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2100, Statute of Frauds--Special Promise to Answer for Default of Another.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2101, Statute of Frauds--Sale of Personal Property.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2102, Statute of Frauds--Declaration of Trust.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2103, Statute of Limitations.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2104, Statute of Limitations--Several Claims.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2105, Statute of Limitations--In Tort Action.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2106, Statute of Limitations--Discovery of Facts.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2107, Truth in Defamation Action.
2B West's Federal Forms § 2108, Challenging Arbitrator's Award.
2B West's Federal Forms § 1800.4, Class Action Complaint for Violation of Securities Laws.
2C West's Federal Forms § 2526, Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted--Another Form.
5B West's Federal Forms App. A, Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
7A West's Federal Forms § 12039, Complaint to Foreclose Ship Mortgage--Alleging Assignment of Mortgage to
Plaintiff.
7A West's Federal Forms § 12040, Complaint to Foreclose Ship Mortgage--Merger by Plaintiff With Mortgagee.
7A West's Federal Forms § 12041, Complaint to Foreclose Ship Mortgage--Failure to Insure Vessel.
7A West's Federal Forms § 12042, Complaint to Foreclose Ship Mortgage--Failure to Continue Insuring Vessel.
7A West's Federal Forms § 12043, Complaint to Foreclose Ship Mortgage--Failure to Release Vessel from Attachment.
7A West's Federal Forms § 12044, Complaint to Foreclose Ship Mortgage--Notice of Default in Accordance With
Mortgage Terms--Condition Precedent.
Page 77
7A West's Federal Forms § 12059, Answer to Intervening Complaint.
7A West's Federal Forms § 12098, Prayer for Relief.
10 West's Legal Forms § 12:2, Introduction.
10 West's Legal Forms § 12:7, Settlement Agreement.
11 West's Legal Forms § 18:16, Statute of Limitations.
9B West's Legal Forms § 31:16, Answer to Complaint to Sell Jointly-owned Property.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Admiralty § 5, Checklist--Procedural Rules that Should be Considered When Drafting
Pleading Seeking Affirmative Relief in Admiralty.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Animals § 112.50, Complaint in Federal Court--Diversity of Citizenship--Knowledge of
Dog's Vicious Propensities--Personal Injuries.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Automobiles & Hwy Traffic § 581, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Bankruptcy § 415, Defense in Debtor's Answer in Suit to Collect Predischarge Debt-Discharge as Affirmative Defense.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Captions, Prayers & Formal Parts § 200, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Civil Rights § 95, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Civil Rights § 12.20, Complaint in Federal Court--Discrimination Based on Race and National Origin; Ethnic Harassment--Against State and State Highway Patrol Officers--Unreasonable Seizure and Use
Of...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Civil Rights § 18.15, Answer--To Federal Civil Rights Suit--By Defendants City and Police Officers--With Affirmative Defenses.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Corporations § 289.9, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation--Violations of Rico
§ 1962(C) and (D)--Class Action.
Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms Duress and Undue Influence § 1, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Equity § 20, Introductory Comments.
Page 78
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Estoppel and Waiver § 1, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Estoppel and Waiver § 2, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Estoppel and Waiver § 5, Procedural Rules References.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 25, Checklist--Drafting Jurisdictional Allegation Based on Diversity
of Citizenship to Comply With Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A)(1).
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 26, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Individual
Plaintiff and Individual Defendant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 27, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Multiple Individual Plaintiffs and Multiple Individual Defendants.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 28, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Individual
Plaintiff and Corporate Defendant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 29, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Corporate
Plaintiff, and Corporate and Individual Defendants.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 30, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Partnership as
Plaintiff and Unincorporated Association as Defendant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 31, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Alien Individual and Alien Corporation as Plaintiffs, and Individual as Defendant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 32, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Partnership as
Plaintiff and Municipal Corporation as Defendant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 33, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Individual as
Plaintiff and Municipal Corporation as Defendant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 34, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Assignee as
Plaintiff and Individual as Defendant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 35, Complaint--Allegation--Diversity of Citizenship--Personal Representative as Plaintiff and Individual as Defendant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 36, Consent--To Amendment of Complaint--To Allege Citizenship of
Parties--By Defendant's Attorney.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 37, Motion--For Order Permitting Plaintiff to Amend Complaint--To
Allege Principal Place of Business of Corporate Defendant--Diversity Shown by Allegations of Answer.
Page 79
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 38, Order--Permitting Plaintiff to Amend Complaint--To Allege Principal Place of Business of Corporate Defendant in State Other Than State of Plaintiff's Citizenship.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 40, Complaint--Allegation--Action Arising Under Constitution.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 41, Complaint--Allegation--Action Arising Under Amendment to
Constitution.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 42, Complaint--Allegation--Action Arising Under Act of Congress.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 43, Complaint--Allegation--Action Arising Under Act of Congress-Citation to Specific Federal Statute.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 44, Complaint--Allegation--Action Arising Under Treaty.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 46, Complaint--Allegation--Jurisdiction Conferred by Particular Statute.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 47, Complaint--Allegation--Capacity to Sue Under International Organizations Immunities Act and Federal-Question Jurisdiction.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 49, Complaint--Allegation--Admiralty.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 53, Complaint--Allegation--Action to Recover Property Seized Under
Law of United States.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 54, Complaint--Allegation--Jurisdiction of Civil Action Against
United States for Breach of Contract Where Amount in Controversy Less Than Required Jurisdictional Amount.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 55, Complaint--Allegation--By Tenant in Common or Joint Tenant
for Partition of Lands Where United States is Tenant in Common or Joint Tenant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 61, Complaint--Single Count.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 62, Complaint--Multiple Counts--With Same Jurisdictional Base for
Each.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 63, Complaint--Multiple Counts--With Different Jurisdictional Bases
for Each.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 80, Answer--General Denial.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 81, Answer--Specific Denials and Admissions--Denial of Knowledge
Page 80
or Information Sufficient to Form Belief as to Certain Allegations--Affirmative Defenses--Lack of Due Process--...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 82, Answer--To Separate Counts of Complaint--Lack of Knowledge
or Information Sufficient to Form Belief--Specific Admissions and Denials--Adoption by Reference of Answer to
First...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 84, Checklist--Itemized Affirmative Defenses Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(C).
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 85, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Accord and Satisfaction--Check in
Full Payment.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 86, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Arbitration and Award.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 87, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Assumption of Risk.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 88, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Contributory Negligence.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 89, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Discharge in Bankruptcy.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 90, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Duress.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 91, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Estoppel--Failure of Vendor to
Object to Improvements to Property by Vendee Under Belief of Ownership--Action for Rescission of Contract for
Sale of Real...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 92, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Failure of Consideration.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 93, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Fraud.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 94, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Illegality.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 95, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Injury by Fellow Servant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 96, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Laches.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 97, Answer--Affirmative Defense--License.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 98, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Payment.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 99, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Release.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 100, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Res Judicata.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 101, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Statute of Frauds.
Page 81
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 102, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Statute of Limitations.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 103, Answer--Affirmative Defense--Waiver.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 122, Answer--To Cross-Claim--Specific Denials--Denial of Negligence--Rule 12(B) Defense of Failure to State Claim--Affirmative Defense of Assumption of Risk.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 253, Answer--Defense--Improper Venue--Nondiversity Case.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 560, Third-Party Complaint--By Fictitious Limited Partner-Fraudulent Misrepresentation by General Partner.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 604, Answer in Intervention--Denials, Admissions, and Affirmative
Defenses.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 608, Complaint for Interpleader--By Insurance Company Seeking
Interpleader and Temporary Injunction Against Claimants to Life Insurance Policy--Rule Interpleader.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 610, Complaint for Interpleader--By Insurance Company Against
Claimants to Proceeds of Automobile Accident Insurance Policy--Statutory Interpleader.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 613, Complaint for Interpleader--By Bank Against Claimants to Bank
Deposit--Rule Interpleader.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 614, Complaint for Interpleader--By Escrow Agent Against Claimants to Escrow Account--Statutory Interpleader.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 618, Complaint for Interpleader--Allegations--Jurisdiction Under
Federal Interpleader Act.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 619, Complaint for Interpleader--Allegations--Conflicting Claims to
Cash Surrender Value of Life Insurance Policy.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 622, Answer--With Counterclaim for Rule Interpleader.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 623, Answer--With Counterclaim for Rule Interpleader and Temporary Injunction--By Escrow Agent in Action Involving Assigned Interests in Oil and Gas Leases.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 624, Answer--With Counterclaim for Statutory Interpleader--By Oil
Company Interpleading Claimants to Proceeds of Oil Lease.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Federal Tax Enforcement § 16, Answer--Defense--By Insurance Company--In Action by
Page 82
United States to Impose Liability for Failure to Honor Levy Against Taxpayer's Policy--Policy Has No Loan...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Federal Tort Claims Act § 12, Complaint--Personal Injury--Medical Malpractice by Surgeon and Staff at Military Hospital--Diagnostic Error Injuring Minor.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Federal Tort Claims Act § 56, Answer--Typical Denials and Defenses.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Negligence § 217, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Negligence § 297, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Pleading § 35, Introductory Comments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Public Lands § 11, Answer--To Complaint in Federal Court--Land Exchange Properly
Approved by U.S. Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Statute of Frauds § 3, Procedural Rules References.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 8, Answer--Defense--Transaction Exempt from Application of Statute.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 9, Answer--Defense--Transaction Exempt from Application of Statute--Extension of Credit for Business, Commercial, or Agricultural Purposes.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 10, Answer--Defense--Transaction Exempt from
Application of Statute--Installment Agreement for Purchase of Home Fuels in Which No Finance Charge is Imposed.
Application of Statute--Debtor Not a “Consumer”.
Application of Statute--No Finance Charge Imposed.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 13, Answer--Defense--Defendant Exempt from Coverage of Statute--Not a “Creditor”.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 14, Answer--Defense--Violation Resulted from Bona
Fide Error.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 15, Answer--Defense--Acts Done in Good Faith in
Reliance on Rules.
Reliance on Interpretation of Rule or Regulation by Federal Reserve System Official or Employee.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 18, Motion to Dismiss--State-Regulated Transaction
Exempt from Federal Statute.
Page 83
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 20, Motion to Dismiss--Transaction Exempt from
Coverage of Federal Statute--Extension of Credit for Business, Commercial, or Agricultural Purposes.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 21, Motion to Dismiss--Action With Prejudice-Plaintiff's Cause of Action Barred by Statute of Limitations.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 31, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Incorrect Determination of Annual Percentage Rate--Closed End Credit Transaction.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 35, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Creditor's
Failure to Disclose Finance Charge.
Failure to Make Specific Disclosures on Opening New Account.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 38, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Failure to Timely Disclose Change in Terms.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 39, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Failure to Make Any Disclosures on Opening New Account.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 40, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Failure to Make Disclosures in Written Statement on Opening New Account.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 41, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Refusal to Permit Consumer to Retain Copy of Disclosure Statement on Opening New Account.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 42, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Failure to Properly Disclose Method of Computing Finance Charge in Open End Billing Statement.
Failure to Make Required Disclosures in Closed End Credit Transaction.
Failure to Make Required Disclosures in Connection With Mail or Telephone Order.
Failure to Make Required Disclosures Where Payment in More Than Four Installments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 52, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Concealed
Closed End Credit Arrangement--Assignment of Installment Note.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 53, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Improper Arrangement of Disclosures.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 54, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Untimely Disclosure in Transaction.
Page 84
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 55, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Untimely Disclosure in Transaction--Another Form.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 56, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Untimely Disclosures in Telephone or Mail Transaction, Where Basic Information Not Available to Consumer in
Creditor's Printed...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 57, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Include Statement Referring Consumer to Contract Document for Pertinent Information Affecting...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 58, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Disclose Demand Provision and Basis of Payment; Mortgage With Demand Features.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 59, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Make Required Disclosures of Prospective Changes in Interest Rates.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 62, Answer--Defense--Disclosure Error Timely Corrected.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 63, Answer--Defense--Adequate Disclosure of Payments in Demand Loan Transaction Where Alternative Maturity Date Not Specified.
Failure to Make Required Disclosures in Periodic Statement.
Failure to Make Required Disclosures in Periodic Statement--Another Form.
Failure to Disclose Annual Percentage Rate in Periodic Statement--Where No Interest Rate Yet Applied.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 81, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Failure to Disclose in Periodic Statement Finance Charge Resulting from More Than One Periodic...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 82, Answer--Defense--Failure to Disclose Crediting
Date in Periodic Statement Did Not Result in Late Charges.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 83, Answer--Defense--Information Identifying
Transaction Not Available for Preparation of Periodic Statement.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 84, Answer--Defense--Reliance, in Preparation of
Periodic Statement, Upon Information Supplied by Seller.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 88, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--For Recovery of Downpayment, Earnest Money, or the Like--After Rescission of Transaction by Plaintiff.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 89, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--To Rescind
Mortgage Loan Transaction--Improper Disclosure of Multiple Brokers' Commissions Charged for Negotiating Loan.
Page 85
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 90, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-To Rescind Closed-End Consumer Credit Transaction--Failure to Disclose Right of Rescission.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 91, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Inaccurate Disclosure of Date by Which Customer Could Rescind Transaction.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 93, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Improper Form of Disclosure of Right to Rescind.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 94, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Provide Customer With Form to Exercise Right of Rescission.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 95, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Right of Recovery of Downpayment After Rescission of Refinanced Transaction.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 96, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Performance of Acts Before Expiration of Time for Rescission.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 97, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Waiver of Right to Rescind Not Effective.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 98, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Invalidity of Waiver of Right of Rescission Not Signed by All Joint Owners.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 99, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Credit Transaction Rescindable Despite Creditor's Waiver of Security Interests.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 100, Answer--Defense--Invalidity of Notice of Rescission.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 101, Answer--Defense--Debtor Lacking Right to
Rescind Where Transaction Involved Refinancing of Existing Debt.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 102, Answer--Defense--Customer Waived Right to
Rescind.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 103, Answer--Defense--Rescission Provisions Not
Applicable--Exempt Transaction.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 104, Answer--Defense--Rescission of Transaction as
Election of Remedies.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 105, Answer--Defense--Invalidity of Rescission
Regulation Promulgated Under Truth in Lending Statute.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 106, Answer--Defense--In Action by Creditor for
Recovery of Property Delivered to Customer--Failure of Creditor to Take Possession of Property After Rescission
And...
Page 86
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 107, Answer--Defense--In Action by Creditor for
Finance Charge--Customer Not Liable After Timely Rescission.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 111, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Failure to Furnish Statement Regarding Right to Dispute Billing Errors.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 112, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Creditor's Wrongful Reporting of Disputed Amount as Being Delinquent.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 113, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Improper Imposition of Finance Charge by Creditor.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 114, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure of Credit Card Issuer to Credit Customer's Account on Receipt of Refund Statement.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 115, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Wrongful Offset of Credit Card Account With Checking or Savings Account Funds.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 116, Answer--Defense--Report of Delinquency of
Customer's Disputed Account Made in Compliance With Requirements of Fair Credit Billing Act.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 117, Answer--Defense--Credit Card Issuer Not Subject to Claims and Defenses of Cardholder Against Merchant--Transaction Occurred Outside Specified Geographical...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 121, Answer--Defense--Debt Not Enforceable-Extortionate Extension of Credit.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 122, Answer--Defense--Debt Not Enforceable-Extortionate Extension of Credit--Another Form.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 128, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Failure of
Defendant to Make Required Disclosures.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 129, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Improper
Requirement of Signature of Applicant's Spouse on Loan Application.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 132, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Improper Requirement of Information Regarding Former Spouse.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 133, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Improper Inquiry as To, and Consideration Of, Childbearing Intentions.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 134, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Improper Combining of Accounts to Determine Finance Charges and Loan Limits.
Reliance on Rules.
Page 87
Reliance on Interpretation or Approval by Board Employee.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 137, Answer--Defense--Spouse's Signature Required
Only to Free Collateral or Inchoate Interest, Not as Cosigner for Creditworthy Loan Applicant.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 142, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Against
Consumer Reporting Agency--For Negligent Noncompliance With Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 143, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Wilful Failure to Comply With Statute.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 144, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Jurisdiction of Court in Action Brought Under Federal Statute.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 145, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Timeliness of Action Where Defendant's Misrepresentation was Wilful.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 147, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Refusal of Reporting Agency to Allow Another Person to be Present During Disclosure to Consumer.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 148, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure of Reporting Agency to Provide Trained Personnel to Explain Consumer Information in Files.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 149, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Improper Charge by Reporting Agency for Disclosure or Report of Deletion of Information.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 150, Answer--Defense--Reporting Agency's Information Received or Reports Furnished Prior to Effective Date of Statute.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 151, Answer--Defense--Consumer Notified by Reporting Agency of Use of Public Record Information for Employment Purposes.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 152, Answer--Defense--Reporting Agency's Charge
for Disclosure Permissible--Consumer's Request Untimely.
Consumer Reporting Agency--For Wilful Violation of Disclosure Requirements.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 155, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Disclose Preparation of Investigative Consumer Report.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 156, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Disclose Consumer's Right to Request Additional Disclosures in Investigative Consumer Report.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 157, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure of Reporting Agency to Disclose Information in Files.
Page 88
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 158, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Refusal of Reporting Agency to Disclose Sources of Information.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 159, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Refusal of Reporting Agency to Disclose Recipients of Consumer Reports.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 160, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure of Reporting Agency to Make Disclosures on Request and Personal Appearance of Consumer.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 161, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure of Reporting Agency to Make Disclosures on Telephone Request of Consumer.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 162, Answer--Defense--Reasonable Procedures
Maintained to Assure Compliance With Disclosure Requirements.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 163, Answer--Defense--Information Received or
Reports Furnished Prior to Effective Date of Statute.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 164, Answer--Defense--Reporting Agency's Charge
for Disclosure Permissible--Consumer's Request Untimely.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 168, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Report for Improper Purpose.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 169, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Report for Improper Purpose--Bankruptcy.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 170, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Report of Prohibited Information--Suit or Judgment.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 171, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Report of Prohibited Information--Paid Tax Lien.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 172, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Report of Prohibited Information--Account Placed for Collection or Charged to Profit and Loss.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 173, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Report of Prohibited Information--Criminal Record.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 174, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Make Reasonable Effort to Verify Identity of Prospective User.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 176, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Wrongful Disclosure to Governmental Agency.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 177, Answer--Defense--Exception to Prohibition on
Obsolete Information.
Page 89
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 178, Answer--Defense--Investigative Report to be
Used for Employment Purposes for Which Plaintiff Had Not Applied.
Consumer Reporting Agency--Negligent Failure to Correct Errors in File.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 188, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Maintain Accuracy.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 189, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Reinvestigate on Consumer's Request.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 190, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Delete Information Found to be Inaccurate, Incomplete, or Unverified.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 191, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Include Statement of Dispute With Consumer Reports.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 192, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Disclose Consumer's Right to Make Request for Notification to Users of Inaccurate Reports.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 193, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Notify Users of Deletion of Information from File.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 194, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Improper Charge for Notification of Deletion of Inaccurate Information.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 195, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Public Record Information Incorrect.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 196, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Adverse Information in Investigative Consumer Report Not Verified.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 197, Answer--Defense--Strict Procedures Maintained
to Insure Accuracy of Public Information.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 198, Answer--Defense--Public Record Information
Reported According to Status at Time of Report.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 199, Answer--Defense--Verification of Adverse Information Not Required--Received Within Three Months of Report.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 201, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Refusal of User of Consumer Report to Disclose Source of Adverse Information.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 202, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Disclose Nature of Information from Source Other Than Consumer Reporting Agency.
Page 90
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 203, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure to Disclose Nature of Information from Source Other Than Consumer Reporting Agency--Allegation on
Information And...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 204, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure of Person Procuring Investigative Consumer Report to Disclose Preparation of Report.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 205, Complaint, Petition, or Declaration--Allegation-Failure of Person Procuring Investigative Consumer Report to Disclose Consumer's Right to Request Disclosure of
Nature and Scope Of...
Maintained to Assure Compliance With Disclosure Requirements for Procurers of Investigative Consumer Reports.
Maintained to Assure Compliance With Requirements on User of Report.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 89.10, Complaint in Federal Court--To Rescind Refinanced Loan--Failure to Provide Correct Version of Right-To-Cancel Form--Form Provided was for Transaction
Involving Refinancing With Same...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Truth in Lend. & Cons. Cred. Prot. § 89.20, Complaint in Federal Court--To Rescind Consumer Loans Secured by Consumer's Residence--Failure of “Subprime” Lender to Provide Adequate Right-ToCancel Form--Provision Of...
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Unemployment Compensation § 61, Complaint in Federal Court--By Claimant--To Secure
Benefits and to Impose Maximum Time Limit on Processing of Application.
Treatises and Practice Aids
28 Securities and Federal Corporate Law Report 1, Seventh Circuit's View of When Cautionary Statements Are
Meaningful.
25 Securities and Federal Corporate Law Report 1, Commission Adopts Final Rules Implementing Standards of
Professional Conduct for Attorneys--Part II.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 4:49, Religious Entities.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 4:79, Reasonable Modifications Required--Modifications
that Are Not Reasonable.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 9:93, Action for Relief.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 1:224, Sufficiency of Complaint.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 12:49, Allegations Required--Notice Pleading in Actions
Alleging Municipal Liability.
Page 91
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 12:50, Allegations Required; Overview--Qualified Immunity.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 2:156, Standing.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 4:186, Pleadings; Generally.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 4:199, Not Available Where Suit Brought by Private Party.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 7:428, Content, Generally.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 7:430, Content, Generally--Statement of Claim.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 7:432, Denial of Conditions Precedent.
Americans With Disab. Pract. & Compliance Manual § 8:313, Discrimination Prohibited; Who is Covered.
Bankruptcy Law Manual § 2A:39, Procedure--Adversary Proceedings; Contested Matters.
Bankruptcy Practice for the General Practitioner § 6:2, Initiating an Adversary Proceeding--Deadlines and Statutes
of Limitation.
Bankruptcy Practice for the General Practitioner § 6:3, Initiating an Adversary Proceeding--Complaint and Summons.
Bankruptcy Practice for the General Practitioner § 11:18, Denial of Discharge to Debtor--Procedural Considerations.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7003:2, Adversary Proceeding Commences With Complaint.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7007:4, Reply to a Counterclaim.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7008:1, Application of Rule 8 F.R.Civ.P.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7008:4, Sufficiency of the Pleadings.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7008:5, Denials.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7008:7, Affirmative Defenses.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7009:4, Failure to Plead Fraud or Mistake With Particularity.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7010:3, Paragraphs--Separate Statements.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7012:4, Civil Rule 12(B)--How to Present Defenses.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual § 7013:13, Crossclaim.
Page 92
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual Rule 7007, Pleadings Allowed.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual Rule 7008, General Rules of Pleading.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual Rule 7010, Form of Pleadings.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual Rule 7013, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual Rule 7014, Third-Party Practice.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual Rule 7055, Default.
Bankruptcy Procedure Manual Rule 9011, Signing of Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions; Verification
and Copies of Papers.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 30:55, Illustrative Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 34:90, Pleading, Generally.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 34:91, Pleading, Generally--Particularity Requirement.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 34:92, Pleading, Generally--Sufficiency of Complaints.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 39:42, Sufficiency of Pleading.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:20, Prejudice or Lack of Prejudice; Harmless Error.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 12:208, Factors Considered in Determining If One is Insider.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 20:114, Agricultural Property.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 23:248, Fraudulent Transfers, Generally.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 23:250, Preferential Transfers, Generally.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 23:273, Other Determinations.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 23:974, Miscellaneous.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 25:389, Determining Presence of Injury or Undue Advantage; Showing Required.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 25:457, Adequacy of Complaint.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 31:271, Identification of Specific Creditor.
Page 93
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:116, Transactions Involving Insiders--Corporate Subsidiaries.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:164, Other Illustrative Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:289, Principal, Shareholder, Officer, or Director of Debtor.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:328, Insolvency to be Determined as of Date of Transfer--Miscellaneous.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:430, Other Illustrative Applications--Security Interests and Their Perfection.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:433, Factors Considered in Determining Insider Status, Generally.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:485, Evidence.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:494, Receipt of Less Than 100% Dividend by Unsecured Creditors-Illustrative Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:957, Sufficiency of Pleading, Generally.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 33:958, Sufficiency of Pleading, Generally--Notice Pleading Requirement.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 34:224, Held Avoidable or to State Grounds for Avoidance.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 34:263, Pleading.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 34:397, Alter Ego, Subsidiary, or Other Related Company--Fraud Found or
Avoidance Warranted.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 35:361, Pleading--Amendment of Pleading.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 35:362, Pleading--Requirement to Plead Particular Allegations.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 36:266, Pleadings and Motions.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 36:366, Jurisdiction Over Disputes Related to Abandoned Property--Federal
Courts--Illustrative Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 39:269, Sufficiency of Pleading.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 39:270, Sufficiency of Pleading--Merely Tracking or Repeating Language of
Statute.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 39:527, Sufficiency of Pleading, Generally.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 39:528, Sufficiency of Pleading, Generally--Specificity of Allegations; Mere
Page 94
Tracking of Language of Statute.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 39:714, Specificity of Allegations in Pleading.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 39:716, Sufficiency of Amendment, Generally.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 48:100, Other Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 53:306, Form of Proceeding--Contested Matter.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:164, Text of Rule.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:166, Overview of Rule.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:169, Alternative and Inconsistent Theories.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:170, Construction of Pleading to Do Substantial Justice.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:171, Consent to Jurisdiction.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:172, Notice Pleading.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:174, Notice Pleading--Short and Plain Statement of Claim.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:175, Notice Pleading--Illustrative Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:178, Statement of Jurisdictional Grounds; Core or Noncore Status-Dismissal as Warranted or Unwarranted in Event of Noncompliance With Rule.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:179, Statement of Claim and Demand for Judgment.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:181, Discharge of Debtor.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:182, Dischargeability of Debts.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:184, Dischargeability of Debts--Under Code Provisions Other Than §
523(A)(2).
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:186, Preference Actions.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:188, Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses.
Page 95
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:190, Statutes of Limitation.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:191, Other Particular Counterclaims and Defenses.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:208, Dischargeability of Particular Debts--Under Code § 523(A)(4).
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:210, Fraudulent Transfers and Obligations.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:215, Common-Law Fraud Claims.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:216, Other Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:230, Effect of Untimely Filing.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:232, Sufficiency of Pleadings.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:233, Sufficiency of Pleadings--Illustrative Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:245, Failure to State Claim.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:246, Plausibility of Claim.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:262, Code § 523(A)(4) Actions.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:268, Avoidance Actions--Preferences.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:270, Fraud and Bad Faith.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:280, Stock and Shareholders.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:286, For More Definite Statement--Illustrative Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:334, Futility--Illustrative Particular Applications.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:364, Scope and Applicability of Relation-Back Provisions.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:717, Other Considerations.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 57:728, Discharge Actions.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 58:293, Miscellaneous Considerations.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 59:456, Proofs of Claim; Objections to Claims.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 59:457, Proofs of Claim; Objections to Claims--Administrative Expenses.
Page 96
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 59:460, Proofs of Claim; Objections to Claims--Tax Claims.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 27:2128, Particularity and Vagueness, Generally.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 27:2134, Under § 523(A)(4)--Complaints Found Insufficient.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 27:2137, Under § 523(A)(6)--Complaints Found Sufficient.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 27:2283, Admissions.
Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition § 50:327.50, Statutory Exclusion of § 506 from Applicability--Purchase
Money Security Interest Requirement.
Callmann on Unfair Compet., TMs, & Monopolies § 23:5, The Plaintiff--Government Proceedings in Aid of Private
Plaintiffs in Antitrust Cases--Prima Facie Evidence Under Section 5(A) of the Clayton Act.
Callmann on Unfair Compet., TMs, & Monopolies § 23:21, Laches--In General.
Callmann on Unfair Compet., TMs, & Monopolies § 24:2.50, Pleading.
Casey Federal Tax Practice § 11:26, Estoppel.
Casey Federal Tax Practice § 11:28, Res Judicata: Estoppel by Judgment.
Casey Federal Tax Practice § 11:32, Fraudulently Presented Claims.
Casey Federal Tax Practice § 11:38, Sufficiency of Complaint.
Casey Federal Tax Practice § 11:43, Pleading of Defenses.
Disclosures & Remedies Under the Securities Laws § 21:11, Complaints--The Standard for Pre-1995 Cases-General
Principles.
Disclosures & Remedies Under the Securities Laws § 21:13, Complaints--The Standard for Pre-1995 Cases-General
Principles--Pleading State of Mind.
Disclosures & Remedies Under the Securities Laws § 3:154, Defendant's Knowledge--Burden of Proof.
Disclosures & Remedies Under the Securities Laws § 21:18.50, Complaints--The Standard for Post-1995 Cases-In
General--Loss Causation.
Eckstrom's Licensing in Foreign & Domestic Ops. § 8A:22, Duration When Secrecy is Terminated--Effect of Copyright Notice.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 110:3, Statute of Limitations as an Affirmative Defense.
Page 97
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:3, Required Elements of a Complaint.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:4, Naming the Parties.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:5, Alleging Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:10, Statement of Claim.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:11, Requirements of Factual Allegations.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:12, Sufficiency of Factual Allegations.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:14, Demand for Relief.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:16, EEOC Suits.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:26, Requirements of Answers.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 126:27, Necessity of Pleading Affirmative Defenses.
Emp. Discrim. Coord. Analysis of Federal Law § 128:10, Standards for Granting Motions to Strike.
Employment Discrimination Law and Litigation § 2:3, Allocation of Burdens.
Employment Discrimination Law and Litigation § 11:17, Ending the 90-Day Period to File Suit.
Employment Discrimination Law and Litigation § 25:31, Immunities Available to Defendants--Pleading Standard.
Federal Evidence § 3:2, Burdens of Pleading, Production, and Persuasion.
Federal Evidence § 3:3, Allocating the Trial Burdens.
Federal Evidence § 5:7, State Privileges--Erie's Influence.
Federal Evidence § 3:13, Background and Purpose.
Federal Evidence § 4:62, Paying Medical and Similar Expenses--Inadmissible to Prove Liability.
Federal Evidence § 6:16, Jurors May Not Impeach Verdict--Scope, Origins, Underlying Philosophy.
Federal Evidence § 8:44, Individual and Representative Admissions Under Rule 801(D)(2)(a).
Federal Evidence § 8:51, Authorized Admissions Under Rule 801(D)(2)(C)--Prior Pleadings, Discovery, Argument
by Counsel.
Federal Information Disclosure § 8:3, The Complaint.
Page 98
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 25:8, Applicability of Other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 4:17, Arbitration as Defense.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 49:4, Adversity and Multiplicity of Claimants or Claims.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 49:8, Insurance Companies.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 59:4, Standing Must be Alleged.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:3, Election of Remedies.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:4, Continuing Validity of Substantive Rules.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:9, Necessity of Reply.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 14:28, Introduction; When to Answer.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 14:29, Extension of Time to Answer.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 17:35, Pleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 2:357, Relief Sought.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 25:67, Compliance With General Rules of Pleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 3:158, Tests for Multiple Claims; What is a Claim.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 30:41, Contents and Form of Complaint.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 30:47, Effect of Failure to Plead Limitation of Action.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 49:12, Other Particular Parties.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 49:13, Counterclaim or Cross Claim for Interpleader.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 49:23, Statutory Interpleader.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 49:31, Determination of Right to Interpleader.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 49:45, Rule Interpleader.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 51:21, Relationship Between Relief Demanded and Relief Granted.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:10, Motion for Leave to Reply.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:24, Dismissal or Striking Entire Pleading for Violation of Requirement.
Page 99
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:26, Sufficiency.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:34, Other Documents as Complaint.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:35, Construction.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:36, Construction--Dismissal for Failure to State Claim.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:38, Need for Statement.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:40, Multiple Grounds.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:41, Constitution or Laws of United States.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:42, Diversity of Citizenship.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:44, Supplemental Jurisdiction; Counterclaims; Actions to Enforce Judgment.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:45, How to State a Claim.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:48, Pleading Legal Theories.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:51, Withstanding Motion for More Definite Statement.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:55, What Constitutes Short and Plain Statement.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:59, Amount of Damages.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:61, Fraud or Mistake.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:63, Contracts--Alternative Pleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:71, General and Partial Denial.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:72, Motion to Strike Answer.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:73, Insufficient Knowledge or Information.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:74, Insufficient Knowledge or Information--Duty to Make Reasonable
Investigation.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:75, Effect of Failure to Deny in Responsive Pleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:77, Averments as to Which No Responsive Pleading Required.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:78, Assertion of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:80, Enumerated Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:86, Mistaken Designation.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:90, In Motion for Summary Judgment.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:91, Other Methods.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:92, Res Judicata.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:93, Statute of Limitations.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:95, Res Judicata.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:96, Statute of Limitations.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:98, Waiver.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 65:47, What Constitutes a Complaint.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 66:97, Decisions Subject to Review.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 69:71, Short and Plain Statement of Grounds.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 9:122, Pleading of Request.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 9:524, Vacation of Order--Applicable Rules of Procedure.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 9:595, Responsive Pleading to Ancillary Case.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 9:661, Rules Governing Contested Petitions.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 11:145, Specificity of Allegations.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 11:316, Specificity of Factual Allegations.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 11:322, Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 11:326, Existence and Effect of Government Policy.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 14:409, Action Against State Agency.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 18:164, Complaint.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 19:109, General Rules of Pleading.
Page 100
Page 101
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 19:133, Effect of Failure to Deny Averments in Pleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 19:135, Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 20:602, Pleadings.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 20:603, Pleadings--Punitive Damages.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 20:606, Limitation of Actions--Borrowing of State--Limitations Provision.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 32:136, District Court Jurisdiction--Under Particular Federal Statutes.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 32:802, Injunctive Relief.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 32:803, Imposition of Penalty.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 32:902, Prior Notice to Administrator.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 32:903, Prior Notice to Administrator--How to Give Required Notice.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 32:909, Prior Notice to Administrator, State, and Violator.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 33:614, Stage of Proceeding at Which Notice Can be Given.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 36:520, Pleading and Proof.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 41:506, Contents of Motion; Affidavit Requirement.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 42:946, Filing Requirements.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 42:988, Class Actions.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 45:656, Jurisdiction.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:651, Effect of Judicial Proceeding on Tax Lien.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:652, What is a Judicial Proceeding or Sale.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:653, Effect of Nonjudicial Sale on Tax Lien.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:671, Service of Notice of Levy.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:678, Property in Bank Office Outside the United States.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:679, Life Insurance or Endowment Contract; Cash Loan Value.
Page 102
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:680, Life Insurance or Endowment Contract; Cash Loan Value--Cash Surrender Value.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:681, Procedures With Regard to Exempt Property.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:683, By Insuring Organization.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:684, Surrender of Deposits by Banks.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:689, Return of Property in Certain Cases.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:690, Return of Property Wrongfully Levied Upon.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:692, Taxpayer's Sale Request.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:694, Notice by Advertisement.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:695, Notice in Connection With Jeopardy Levy.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:696, Contents of Notice.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:697, Effect of Inadequate Notice.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:698, Time and Place of Sale.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:699, Adjournment.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:700, Minimum Price.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:701, Method of Sale.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:707, Redemption Before Sale.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:708, Redemption of Real Property After Sale.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:709, Time Limit.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:710, Redemption Procedures.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 48:711, Validity of Tender.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:506, Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:553, Generally; Time Limitations as Affirmative Defense.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:665, Suits by “Aggrieved” Individuals.
Page 103
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:670, Suits by Individuals.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:683, Equal Pay Act Suits.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:756, Inapplicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; Plaintiffs Must Opt in.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:799, Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:804, Factual Averments.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:808, Demand for Relief.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 50:820, Pleading of Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 54:128, Claim Preclusion, Generally.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 54:265, Antitrust Claim as Counterclaim.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:102, Exception Where Issue is Tried by Consent; Plaintiff's Failure to Object to Introduction of Evidence.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:103, Generally; Appendix of Forms.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:113, Claim Based on Multiple Legal Theories or Statutory Provisions.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:135, Applicability of Requirement.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:138, Pleading in the Alternative.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:142, Requirement of Simplicity, Conciseness, and Directness; Relationship to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:151, Dismissal of Claims; Amendment of Pleadings.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:169, Time and Place.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:170, Time and Place--Statute of Limitations.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:173, What Constitutes a “Claim”.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:190, The Responsive Pleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:202, Pleading, Labeling, and Service of Counterclaim.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:262, Form of Amendment.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:267, Amending Once as a Matter of Right.
Page 104
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:296, Matters of Defense.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:299, Who May Move to Amend.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:319, Matters of Defense.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:390, Relationship to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and Notice Pleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:395, Using Motion to Identify Possible Threshold Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:408, Striking of Entire Complaint.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:468, Test of Sufficiency of Complaint.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:469, Test of Sufficiency of Complaint--Fair Notice of the Nature of the
Action.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:470, Test of Sufficiency of Complaint--Heightened Pleading Standards.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:471, Raising Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 62:608, Affirmative Defense.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 69:102, Repleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:433, Relaxation of Pleading Requirements.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:437, Generally; Applicability of Rule 9(B).
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:491, Standing.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:513, Implied Right of Action, Generally.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:518, Complaints.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:520, Counterclaims, Cross Claims, and Third-Party Claims.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:522, Plaintiffs-- Injury Requirement.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:523, Plaintiffs--Reliance Requirement.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:524, Defendants.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:527, Relief in Moot Cases.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 70:528, Appointing a Receiver.
Page 105
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 71:216, Obligation of Claimant to Produce Evidence of Impairment.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 71:264, Claimant's Fear of Treatment.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 71:945, Claim by Nonparticipating Hospital for Emergency Services--Proof
of Emergency.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 71:998, Amount in Controversy.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 73:417, Pleading Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 74:279, Denials and Defenses, in General.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 74:509, Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 76:581, District Court Forum; Orders for Payment of Money.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 76:661, State Law Pre-Empted Except as to Statute of Limitations.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 76:668, Burden of Proof.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 76:680, Jurisdiction of Private Action.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 9:1230, Pleading.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 9:1254, Sufficiency of Pleadings.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 42:1569, Injunctions.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 45:2180, Judicial Review.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:1004, Pleadings; Demand for Mandamus.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 52:1723, Allegations in Complaint--Jurisdiction.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 52:1725, Allegations in Complaint--Basis of Claim.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 52:1735, When Answer is Required.
Page 106
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 52:1736, Inclusion of Affirmative Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 52:1737, Inclusion of Affirmative Defenses--Pleading Particular Defenses.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 52:1879, Complaint and Allegations by Employee.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 52:2232, Complaints.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 60:1043, Intervention.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 60:1083, What Defenses Must be Pleaded.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 71:1000, Commencement of Action.
Handbook of Federal Evidence § 201:9, Establishment of Incontrovertible Matters Other Than by Judicial Notice.
Handbook of Federal Evidence § 301:2, Burden of Proof: Allocating the Elements; Burden of Pleading.
Handbook of Federal Evidence § 301:3, Burden of Proof: Description and Nature of Responsibility; State Law Supplying Rule of Decision.
Handbook of Federal Evidence § 301:6, Presumptions in Civil Cases: Definition and Nature; Constitutionality.
Handbook of Federal Evidence § 801:26, Judicial and Evidentiary Admissions: Superseded and Alternative Pleadings; Testimony of a Party.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 1:25, Unfair Competition and the Antitrust Laws--Cases of
Overlap of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 32:2, Federal Question Jurisdiction.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 20:30, Forms.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 20:46, Standing to Petition to Cancel--Likelihood of Damage is
Basis of Standing--Liberal Rules.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 20:72, Form: Petition to Cancel Federal Registration.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 20:135, Motions to Amend and to Strike.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 32:112, Actual Estoppel--Judicial and Equitable Estoppel.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 32:201, Comment: Pleading in Federal Courts.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 32:202, Pleading Existence of Secondary Meaning.
Page 107
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 32:204, Answer to Complaint for Trademark Infringement and
Unfair Competition.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 25:74.75, Icann 2000 Domain Name Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP).
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition App A3 § 2.106, Answer.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition App A3 § 2.114, Answer.
Mertens: Law of Federal Income Taxation § 60:04, Limitations on Equitable Estoppel.
Newberg on Class Actions § 6:11, Jurisdiction; Venue; Process--Jurisdiction.
Newberg on Class Actions § 6:13, Pleading Considerations.
Newberg on Class Actions § 6:18, Compliance With Rule 23 Criteria: Pleading Techniques.
Newberg on Class Actions § 7:15, Timing Relative to Disposition of Certain Motions.
Newberg on Class Actions § 7:19, Initial Burden of Notice Pleading Sufficient to Raise Class Issues.
Newberg on Class Actions App XI, Studies.
Newberg on Class Actions § 11:56, Filing Objections.
Newberg on Class Actions § 18:46, Class Pleading Considerations.
Newberg on Class Actions § 22:74, Strategies Before Filing Suit; Pleading Considerations.
Newberg on Class Actions § 22:75, Strategies Before Filing Suit; Pleading Considerations--Pleading Allegations of
Fraud in Rule 10b-5 Class Action Suits.
Newberg on Class Actions § 24:79, Timing of Certification Determination.
Patent Law Fundamentals § 6:8, Copyright as the Exclusive Right to Copy--Copyright Distinct from the Physical
Object--Internet Use as Generating a “Copy” and as Constituting Copyright Infringement.
Patent Law Fundamentals § 19:27, Antitrust Analysis and Critique--Clayton Act § 3 (15 U.S.C.A. § 14).
Patent Law Fundamentals § 20:39, Defenses.
Patent Law Fundamentals § 20:78, Pleadings--Answer.
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 143, Unenforceable Contract as Evidence.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act in Perspective § 11:2, Extending the Period of Limitations.
Page 108
Securities and Federal Corporate Law § 8:82, The Civil Litigation.
Securities and Federal Corporate Law § 31:36, Liability of Professionals as Control Persons.
Securities and Federal Corporate Law § 17:33.50, The Sarbanes-Oxley Omnibus Statute of Limitations.
Securities and Federal Corporate Law § 16:112.65, Intervening Events and Loss Causation--Post-Dura Cases.
Securities Litigation: Damages § 24:2, Pleading Stage.
Securities Litigation: Damages § 11A:10, Satisfying the Supreme Court's Standards in the Limited Cases in Which
Those Standards Apply.
Securities Litigation: Damages § 11A:13, Pleading Loss Causation: Rule 8 vs. Rule 9.
Securities: Public and Private Offerings § 11:25, Audit Requirements--Illegal Company Activity and Primary Securities Fraud Liability.
Securities: Public and Private Offerings § 11:29, Basis for Liability.
Social Security Law and Practice § 56:4, Contents of Complaint.
Social Security Law and Practice § 56:25, SSA Must File Timely Answer.
Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Practice Procedure App 3, Pleadings.
Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Practice Procedure App 5, Stipulations and Motions.
Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Practice Procedure § 3:43, Opposition and Cancellation Procedures--Pleadings-Answer.
Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Practice Procedure App 12, Ex Parte Appeals.
Trade Secrets Law § 4:1, The Contract Theory.
Trade Secrets Law § 5:38, Pleadings and Jury Instructions.
Trade Secrets Law § 56:2, Common-Law Definitions.
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 812, Service of Petitions.
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 4027, Protection Against Unauthorized Fixation and Trafficking in Sound
Recordings and Music Videos.
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 7774, Pleading--Basic Requirement.
Page 109
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 8020, Pleading--Complaint.
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 8021, Pleading--Answer.
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 11321, Official Immunity--Executive and Administrative.
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 11403, Disparate Impact--Seniority Systems.
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 11502, Filing of a Civil Action.
West's Federal Administrative Practice § 11517, Trial--Defenses and Exceptions.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1054, Commencement of Action--Construction With Federal Statutes.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1201, History of Rule 8.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1202, Objectives and Functions of Pleadings Under the Federal Rules.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1203, Relationship Between Rule 8 and Other Federal Rules.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1204, Law Governing Pleading in the Federal Courts.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1205, Pleading a Claim for Relief--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1206, Pleading Jurisdiction--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1207, Pleading Jurisdiction--Pleadings Beyond the Initial Complaint.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1208, Pleading Jurisdiction--Diversity of Citizenship Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1209, Pleading Jurisdiction--Federal Question Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1210, Pleading Jurisdiction--Special Federal Question Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1211, Pleading Jurisdiction--Admiralty Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1212, Pleading Jurisdiction--When the United States is a Party.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1213, Pleading Jurisdiction--Jurisdictional Amount.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1214, Pleading Jurisdiction--Consequences of Failure to Comply With
Rule 8(A)(1).
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1215, Statement of the Claim--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1216, Statement of the Claim--Significance of “Claim for Relief”.
Page 110
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1217, Statement of the Claim--“Short and Plain”.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1218, Statement of the Claim--“Ultimate Facts,” “Evidence,” and “Conclusions”.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1219, Statement of the Claim--Theory of the Pleadings Doctrine.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1220, Statement of the Claim--Dioguardi v. Durning.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1221, Statement of the Claim--No Special Rules for Certain Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1222, Statement of the Claim--Use of the Common Counts.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1223, Statement of the Claim--The Official Pleading Forms.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1224, Statement of the Claim--Pleading on Information and Belief.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1225, Statement of the Claim--Effect on the Doctrines of Res Judicata and
Collateral Estoppel.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1226, Statement of the Claim--Built-In Defenses.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1227, Statement of Particular Matters--Admiralty and Maritime Claims.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1228, Statement of Particular Matters--Antitrust, Monopoly, and Restraint
of Trade.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1229, Statement of Particular Matters--Bankruptcy.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1230, Statement of Particular Matters--Civil Rights.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1231, Statement of Particular Matters--Class Actions and Shareholder
Derivative Suits.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1232, Statement of Particular Matters--Condemnation Proceedings.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1233, Statement of Particular Matters--Conspiracy.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1234, Statement of Particular Matters--Constitutional Rights.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1235, Statement of Particular Matters--Contracts.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1236, Statement of Particular Matters--Conversion.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1237, Statement of Particular Matters--Copyrights, Trademarks, and Unfair Competition.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1238, Statement of Particular Matters--Declaratory Judgments.
Page 111
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1239, Statement of Particular Matters--Fair Labor Standards and PortalTo-Portal Acts.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1240, Statement of Particular Matters--False Imprisonment.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1241, Statement of Particular Matters--Fraud, Mistake, and Conditions of
Mind.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1242, Statement of Particular Matters--Housing and Rent Disputes.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1243, Statement of Particular Matters--Insurance.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1244, Statement of Particular Matters--Labor-Management Disputes.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1245, Statement of Particular Matters--Libel and Slander.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1246, Statement of Particular Matters--Malicious Prosecution.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1247, Statement of Particular Matters--Money Lent, Paid by Mistake, or
Had and Received.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1248, Statement of Particular Matters--Multiple Claims and Parties.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1249, Statement of Particular Matters--Negligence.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1250, Statement of Particular Matters--Ownership and Title.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1251, Statement of Particular Matters--Patents.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1252, Statement of Particular Matters--Reapportionment.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1253, Statement of Particular Matters--State or Foreign Law.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1254, Statement of Particular Matters--Miscellaneous Actions.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1255, Demand for Judgment--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1256, Demand for Judgment--Particular Remedies.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1257, Relief in the Alternative or of Several Different Types.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1258, Amendment of Demand.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1259, Specific Allegation of Amount of Damages.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1260, Relationship Between the Demand for Judgment and Jury Trial.
Page 112
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1261, Denials--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1262, Denials Based on Lack of Knowledge or Information.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1263, Denials Upon Information and Belief.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1264, Denial Must Meet Substance of Averment Denied.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1265, General Denials.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1266, Specific and Qualified General Denials.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1267, Negative Pregnants.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1268, Argumentative Denials.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1269, Denial Improperly Labeled as an Affirmative Defense.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1270, Affirmative Defenses--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1271, Affirmative Defenses--Defenses Not Mentioned in Rule 8(C).
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1272, Affirmative Defenses--Diversity Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1273, Partial Defenses and Mitigation of Damages.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1274, Pleading Affirmative Defenses.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1275, Mistaken Designation.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1276, Plaintiff's Anticipation of an Affirmative Defense.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1277, Raising Affirmative Defenses by Motion.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1278, Effect of Failure to Plead an Affirmative Defense.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1279, Effect of Failure to Deny--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1280, Effect of Failure to Deny--Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1281, Averments in Pleadings to be Simple, Concise, and Direct.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1282, Alternative and Hypothetical Pleading.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1283, Consistency in Pleadings Not Demanded.
Page 113
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1284, Effect of Insufficiency of One of the Alternative Statements.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1285, Rule 11 Limitations on Pleading.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1286, Construction of Pleadings.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1297, Pleading Fraud With Particularity--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1298, Pleading Fraud With Particularity--Extent of Requirement.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1301, Malice, Intent, or Condition of Mind.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1322, Requirement of Separate Paragraphs.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1324, Requirement of Separate Counts.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1325, Relationship Between Rule 8(E)(2) and Rule 10(B).
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1326, Adoption by Reference Permitted.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1331, Background and History of Rule 11.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1332, Criticisms of the 1983 and 1993 Amendments.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1350, Motions to Dismiss--Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1356, Motions to Dismiss--Purpose of the Rule 12(B)(6) Motion.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1357, Motions to Dismiss--Practice Under Rule 12(B)(6).
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1363, Relevance and Construction of the Pleading on a Rule 12(B) Motion.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1368, Judgment on the Pleadings--Practice Under Rule 12(C).
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1377, Motion for a More Definite Statement--Current Practice Under Rule
12(E).
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1379, Motion for a More Definite Statement--Compliance and Enforcement of Order.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1381, Motion to Strike--Insufficient Defense.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 2663, Demand for Judgment--Judgments in Default Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 2664, Demand for Judgment--Judgments in Nondefault Cases.
Page 114
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 2735, Defenses--Claim and Issue Preclusion.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3611, The Requirement and Meaning of Citizenship--In General.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3624, Diversity Jurisdiction in Actions Involving Corporations--The Application and Effect of Section 1332(C) of Title 28.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3702, Determination of the Amount in Controversy --General Rules and
the Legal Certainty Test.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3703, Viewpoint from Which Amount in Controversy is Measured.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3724, Removal Based on Diversity of Citizenship and Alienage Jurisdiction--Removal Based on the Class Action Fairness Act.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3733, Procedure for Removal--Content and Amendment of the Notice of
Removal.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3738, Procedure After Removal.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3827, Transfer to Proper Venue or Dismissal.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3954, Motion for a Stay or Injunction.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 4021, Independent and Adequate State Ground--Rationale.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 4405, Raising and Enforcing Res Judicata.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 4476, Election of Remedies.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 4477, Preclusion of Inconsistent Positions--Judicial Estoppel.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 4508, The Erie Doctrine, Rules Enabling Act, and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure--Matters Covered by the Civil Rules.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 4511, The Erie Doctrine and Matters Not Directly Covered by the Civil
Rules.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 7026, Judicial and Evidentiary Admissions: Superseded and Alternative
Pleadings; Testimony of a Party.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 8223, Pleading.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 8301, Pleading.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. App. C, Advisory Committee Notes for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts.
Page 115
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1241.1, Statement of Particular Matters--Habeas Corpus Proceedings.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1251.1, Statement of Particular Matters--Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1301.1, Malice, Intent, or Condition of Mind--Effect of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3602.1, Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction--Basic Principles.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3722.1, Removal Based on Federal Question Jurisdiction--Removal Based
on Artful Pleading.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3950.1, Jurisdictional Effect of the Rule.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. CIV App. B, Appendix B Orders of the Supreme Court of the United States
Adopting and Amending Rules.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. PT. I App. A, Appendix a Reporter's Memorandum on the Claim-Specific
Nature of the Original Jurisdiction of the District Courts.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. 28 U.S.C. § 1445, Procedure for Removal of Criminal Prosecutions.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Procedure for Removal of Civil Actions.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(A), A. Subsection (a).
NOTES OF DECISIONS
I. GENERALLY 1-60
II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 61-100
III. JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS 101-170
IV. STATEMENT OF ENTITLEMENT 171-450
V. FORM OF DENIALS 451-510
VI. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 511-690
VII. FAILURE TO DENY 691-730
VIII. SIMPLE, CONCISE AND DIRECT AVERMENTS 731-780
IX. CONSISTENCY OF PLEADINGS GENERALLY 781-840
X. CONSISTENCY OF PLEADINGS IN PARTICULAR ACTIONS 841-880
XI. SEPARATE COUNTS OR DEFENSES 881-920
XII. CONSTRUCTION OF PLEADINGS 921-970
I. GENERALLY
<Subdivision Index>
Affirmative defenses, law governing 16
Alternative pleadings, law governing 17
Amendment of pleadings 31
Antitrust actions 22
Cause of action, law governing 18
Civil rights actions 23
Common law, law governing 15
Construction 1
Construction with other rules 2-7
Construction with other rules - Generally 2
Construction with other rules - Discovery and production of documents 3
Construction with other rules - Dismissal for failure to state claim 4
Construction with other rules - Fraud pleading 5
Construction with other rules - More definite statement 6
Construction with other rules - Representations to the court 6a
Construction with other rules - Summary judgment 7
Construction with statutory provisions 8
Court of International Trade proceedings 24
Damages, law governing 19
Discovery and production of documents, construction with other rules 3
Dismissal for failure to state claim, construction with other rules 4
Fraud pleading, construction with other rules 5
Instructions, law governing 20
Law governing 14-21
Law governing - Generally 14
Law governing - Affirmative defenses 16
Law governing - Alternative pleadings 17
Law governing - Cause of action 18
Law governing - Common law 15
Law governing - Damages 19
Law governing - Instructions 20
Law governing - Miscellaneous cases 21
Miscellaneous cases, law governing 21
More definite statement, construction with other rules 6
Notice to opposing party, purpose 10
Prevention of surprise, purpose 11
Pro se complaints 28
Pro se motions 29
Purpose 9-13
Purpose - Generally 9
Purpose - Notice to opposing party 10
Purpose - Prevention of surprise 11
Purpose - Simplification of procedures 12
Purpose - Substance over form 13
Removed actions 25
Representations to the court, construction with other rules 6a
RICO actions 26
Scope of review 32
Simplification of procedures, purpose 12
Striking of pleadings 30
Substance over form, purpose 13
Summary judgment, construction with other rules 7
Tax refund actions 27
1. Construction
Page 116
Page 117
Complaints are construed favorably to their drafters. Hrubec v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1992,
981 F.2d 962, on remand 829 F.Supp. 1502. Federal Civil Procedure
657
This rule requiring that claim be a plain and short statement showing that pleader is entitled to relief is to be liberally
673
construed. Hanson v. Hunt Oil Co., C.A.8 (N.D.) 1968, 398 F.2d 578. Federal Civil Procedure
This rule, restricting pleading to short, plain statement of grounds for court's jurisdiction, similar statement of claim
showing pleader's right to relief, and demand for judgment granting relief to which he deems himself entitled, is
applied generously by courts. Sidebotham v. Robison, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1954, 216 F.2d 816. Federal Civil Procedure
673
While the allegations of the complaint are construed favorably to the plaintiff, the court will not read causes of action into the complaint which are not alleged. Superior Kitchen Designs, Inc. v. Valspar Industries (U.S.A.), Inc.,
D.Mass.2003, 263 F.Supp.2d 140. Federal Civil Procedure
654.1
This rule should be interpreted so that common sense and ends of justice are not circumvented. Powers v. Troy
Mills, Inc., D.C.N.H.1969, 303 F.Supp. 1377.
This rule requiring a short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depends is to be liberally
32
construed. Barnes v. Irving Trust Co., S.D.Tex.1968, 290 F.Supp. 116. Federal Courts
2. Construction with other rules--Generally
Pleading rules, designed to avoid and reduce long and technical allegations, are necessarily supplemented by procedures, including summary judgment, which enable a party to have a judgment in a relatively short time if there is
actually no bona fide claim presented. A. T. Brod & Co. v. Perlow, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1967, 375 F.2d 393. Federal Civil
Procedure
2463
Whether pleading was sufficient to raise defense of limitations under this rule need not be decided in view of rule
15. Haskins v. Roseberry, C.C.A.9 (Nev.) 1941, 119 F.2d 803, certiorari denied 62 S.Ct. 106, 314 U.S. 655, 86
L.Ed. 525. See, also, Lockwood v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.Mo.1947, 7 F.R.D. 24; Curtis v. George J. Meyer
Malt & Grain Corp., D.C.N.Y.1947, 6 F.R.D. 444.
The liberal notice pleading requirements of the procedural rules apply to a constitutional rights violation claim under
§ 1983, with the heightened pleading requirements of the rules inapplicable. McLaughlin v. Rose Tree Media School
Dist., E.D.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 476. Civil Rights
1394
Rule 9 of these rules must be read together with this rule. Foodtown v. Sigma Marketing Systems, Inc.,
D.C.N.J.1980, 518 F.Supp. 485. Federal Civil Procedure
38
Rule 9 of these rules with respect to pleading conditions precedent applies to pleading performance or occurrence of
conditions precedent to liability but does not apply to pleading of matters which affect the court's jurisdiction, which
are governed by this rule which sets out general rules for pleading claims for relief. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. Griffin Wheel Co., N.D.Ala.1973, 360 F.Supp. 424. Federal Courts
32
This rule requiring averments of a pleading to be simple, concise and direct, and rule 12, of these rules, compel court
to strike such averments as offend, subject to a liberal discretion by court. Thor Corp. v. Automatic Washer Co.,
S.D.Iowa 1950, 91 F.Supp. 829, 86 U.S.P.Q. 265. Federal Civil Procedure
1125.1; Federal Civil Procedure
Page 118
1127
This rule and rule 15 of these rules indicate policy against extending doctrine of estoppel because of mere pleadings
and admissions in testimony in another lawsuit which has never been determined. W. F. & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co., N.D.Ill.1943, 51 F.Supp. 254, affirmed 145 F.2d 915, certiorari denied 65 S.Ct. 687, 324
U.S. 850, 89 L.Ed. 1410. Evidence
207(1)
Under rules 9 and 12 of these rules and this rule, defense of limitations must ordinarily be interposed by answer,
unless legal effect of such bar conclusively appears from complaint. Barnhart v. Western Maryland R. Co.,
D.C.Md.1941, 41 F.Supp. 898, affirmed 128 F.2d 709, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 75, 317 U.S. 671, 87 L.Ed. 538.
755
Brevity, conciseness and directness in the framing of bills of complaint are contemplated by this rule and rule 9 of
631.1
these rules. Buckley v. Altheimer, N.D.Ill.1942, 2 F.R.D. 285. Federal Civil Procedure
Under subdivision (e) of this rule, and subdivisions (a) of rules 18 and 20 of these rules, a plaintiff may plead his
claim alternatively and even hypothetically. Taiyo Trading Co. v. Northam Trading Corporation, S.D.N.Y.1940, 1
F.R.D. 382. Federal Civil Procedure
675.1
3. ---- Discovery and production of documents, construction with other rules
Function of pleadings is to give notice and function of deposition-discovery process aided by pretrial hearing is to
narrow and clarify basic issues and ascertain facts relative to those issues. Turkish State Rys. Administration v. Vulcan Iron Works, M.D.Pa.1957, 153 F.Supp. 616. Federal Civil Procedure
623; Federal Civil Procedure
1922
Rule 34 of these rules relating to power of court to order the production of documents and records can be invoked
only after it is ruled or conceded that the party plaintiff has met the requirements of this rule pertaining to requisites
of a claim for relief, and has stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.,
D.C.Hawai'i 1953, 114 F.Supp. 643. Federal Civil Procedure
1611
Under these rules, it is the purpose of pleadings merely to apprise the adverse party of the nature of the pleader's
claim or defense and other means are provided by the rules for compelling pleader to disclose facts upon which he
623
bases his claim. In re Stroh, M.D.Pa.1943, 52 F.Supp. 958. Federal Civil Procedure
One important object of these rules was to require simplicity and brevity in pleadings, but with more ample provision for facilities of discovery of facts before trial so that surprise at the trial and possible miscarriage of justice
thereby could be avoided. Coca Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories, D.C.Md.1939, 30 F.Supp. 275. Federal Civil
Procedure
34
Under liberal pleading requirement of these rules a complaint need contain only most basic grounds upon which
court's jurisdiction is based, and a short statement of claim and relief sought; concomitantly liberal discovery rules
permit parties to flesh out their respective claims, defenses, and counterclaims, in due course after issue has been
joined. In re Boland, D.C.D.C.1978, 79 F.R.D. 665. Federal Civil Procedure
1262.1
A litigant may under this rule make general averments in his pleading, since under remedy of discovery, all information not revealed in complaint may be obtained by simple method of making inquiry or by deposition or interrogatories under rules 26 and 33 of these rules. Mahon v. Bennett, W.D.Mo.1946, 6 F.R.D. 213. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 119
633.1
4. ---- Dismissal for failure to state claim, construction with other rules
Dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is inappropriate if the complaint satisfies the
requirement of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”; a “short and
plain” statement needs only enough detail to provide a defendant with fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 2011, 2011 WL 1228768.
1772
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must be viewed in conjunction with and balanced against the general
rules of pleading; on the one hand, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should only be granted if, after
accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot
prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief; on the other hand, under the general rules of
pleading, a complaint need only set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief. Jordan v. Western Distributing Co., D.Md.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 545, affirmed 135 Fed.Appx. 582, 2005
WL 1009642. Federal Civil Procedure
1773
In motion to dismiss racial discrimination claim under equal protection clause, federal district court requires no more
from plaintiffs' allegations of intent than what would satisfy notice pleading minimum under Civil Rule 8 and requirement under Civil Rule 9(b) that motive and intent be pleaded generally. Hodges by Hodges v. Public Bldg.
Com'n of Chicago, N.D.Ill.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1493, reconsideration denied 873 F.Supp. 128. Federal Civil Procedure
1788.6
Motion to dismiss for failure to state claim under rule 12(b)(6) of these rules tests formal sufficiency of statement of
claim for relief, and court's inquiry is whether allegations state sufficient claim under this rule setting forth requirements for pleading and calling for “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”; complaint is to be liberally construed in favor of plaintiff and its material allegations taken as true, and only
when pleading fails to meet this liberal standard should it be dismissed. Fednav Ltd. v. Sterling Intern.,
N.D.Cal.1983, 572 F.Supp. 1268. Federal Civil Procedure
1829; Federal
Civil Procedure
1835
Provided that claim for relief fulfills requirements of this rule, it should not be dismissed for failure to state claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts which will entitle him to relief. Fifield v. International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America, Local 137, W.D.Mich.1983, 570
F.Supp. 562. Federal Civil Procedure
1773
Although Chapter 7 trustee's adversary complaint did not comport with notice pleading rule in asserting setoff
claims, in that complaint alleged only that some of leasing companies to which debtor sold its customers' contracts
for telecommunications services and equipment had engaged in invalid setoffs prepetition, instead of setting forth
specifically trustee's setoff claims as against each defendant, complaint did set forth claims for relief that were facially plausible and not merely formulaic recitation of elements of cause of action, and therefore dismissal for failure
to state claim was not warranted; trustee would be given opportunity to amend complaint and remedy deficiencies
2680
therein. In re Norvergence, Inc., Bkrtcy.D.N.J.2009, 405 B.R. 709. Bankruptcy
5. ---- Fraud pleading, construction with other rules
An action for unlawful deceptive acts and practices under New York's General Business Law is not subject to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's pleading-with-particularity requirements for fraud, only the notice-pleading requirements. City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com, Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2008, 541 F.3d 425, certified question
Page 120
accepted 897 N.E.2d 1061, 868 N.Y.S.2d 580, 11 N.Y.3d 800, certiorari granted 129 S.Ct. 2159, 173 L.Ed.2d 1155,
certified question answered 911 N.E.2d 834, 883 N.Y.S.2d 772, 12 N.Y.3d 616, reversed and remanded 130 S.Ct.
983, 175 L.Ed.2d 943. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
636
Complaint to recover for defendants' alleged unfair practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act only had to satisfy notice pleading standard, and did not have to satisfy any heightened
particularity standard, given that neither fraud nor mistake was element of “unfair conduct” under this Illinois Act.
Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Technology Financing Services, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2008, 536
F.3d 663. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
636
An action under the deceptive trade practices provision of the New York Consumer Protection Act is not subject to
the pleading-with-particularity requirements for fraud claims, but need only meet the bare-bones notice-pleading
requirements. Pelman ex rel. Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2005, 396 F.3d 508, on remand 396
F.Supp.2d 439. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
636
Combining the rule requiring a complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the claim and the rule requiring
that circumstances constituting fraud or mistake be stated with particularity, the Court of Appeals requires that the
pleader state the time, place, and content of the false misrepresentations, the fact misrepresented, and what was retained or given up as a consequence of the fraud. U.S. ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd.,
C.A.D.C.2004, 389 F.3d 1251, 363 U.S.App.D.C. 419, rehearing denied. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Rule 9 of these rules requiring that circumstances constituting fraud be stated with particularity must be reconciled
with this rule which requires a short and concise statement of claims. Felton v. Walston & Co., Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1974, 508 F.2d 577. See, also, In re Nat. Student Marketing Litigation, D.C.D.C.1976, 413 F.Supp. 1156. Federal
Civil Procedure
636
Investors' class action complaint alleging unified course of abandoning sound underwriting practices by mortgage
company, company's officers, underwriters and auditors, did not sound in fraud, and thus ordinary pleading requirements, rather than particularity requirements, applied to investors' Securities Act claims; only certain defendants were expressly alleged to act fraudulently, complaint specified unique, particularized facts as to those defendants, and particularized facts raised scienter inference as to those defendants, but not all. In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, C.D.Cal.2008, 588 F.Supp.2d 1132. Federal Civil Procedure
636; Securities
Regulation
25.65
An action under New York statute prohibiting deceptive acts or practices is not subject to the pleading-withparticularity requirements of Rule 9(b); rather, liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) apply. Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Policy No. 991361018 v. Church Loans and Investments Trust,
S.D.N.Y.2006, 432 F.Supp.2d 330. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
636
Investors' class action complaint that did not expressly plead fraud and pled non-fraud bases for liability of brokerage firm, officers, trustees, and auditor, for alleged misrepresentations of mutual fund's risk profile and assets in
registration statements and for improperly changing fund's investment policies, did not necessarily sound in fraud,
thereby requiring notice pleading rather than particularized pleading under federal rules, since complaint alleged that
misrepresentations arose from potentially non-fraudulent cause due to breakdowns in internal controls, and many
defendants could have been unaware of fund's increasing risk and deviations from investment policies, and/or were
merely negligent in failing to recognize and prevent them. In re Charles Schwab Corp. Securities Litigation,
N.D.Cal.2009, 257 F.R.D. 534. Federal Civil Procedure
636; Securities Regulation
25.25
Requirement that fraud be pled with particularity must be read in conjunction with requirement that plaintiff plead
only a short, plain statement of grounds upon which he is entitled to relief. Future Tech Intern., Inc. v. Tae Il Media,
Ltd., S.D.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1538. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 121
636
Where claim seeking to pierce corporate veil is based on allegations of injustice or illegality, proper standard of
evaluation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and not Rule 9(b), which is appropriate for other types of corporate veil claims based on fraud. Jack LaLanne Fitness Centers, Inc. v. Jimlar, Inc., D.N.J.1995, 884 F.Supp. 162.
1085(1)
Corporations And Business Organizations
Particularity requirement of rule governing pleading of fraud must be read in conjunction with rule providing that
complaints should contain short and plain statement of claim. Levine v. Prudential Bache Properties, Inc.,
N.D.Ill.1994, 855 F.Supp. 924. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Rule requiring particularity in pleading fraud must be read in conjunction with rule requiring short and concise
pleading. Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Kapoor, N.D.Ill.1993, 814 F.Supp. 720. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Rule requiring fraud to be stated with particularity must be read in conjunction with rule under which complaint
need only give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests; moreover, if information surrounding allegations is peculiarly within knowledge of defendant, less detail is required in complaint.
636
Cadle Co. v. Schultz, N.D.Tex.1991, 779 F.Supp. 392. Federal Civil Procedure
Rule requiring that circumstances constituting fraud or mistake should be stated with particularity must not be read
to abrogate rule providing that complaint shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim. Federal Deposit Ins.
Corp. v. Haddad, S.D.Fla.1991, 778 F.Supp. 1559. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) suit, which did not sound in fraud and involved
organized crime, was governed by pleading standards of rule requiring only short and plain statement of claim
showing entitlement to relief, rather than rule requiring that, in averments of fraud or mistake, circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. U.S. v. District Council of New York City and Vicinity of
United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, S.D.N.Y.1991, 778 F.Supp. 738. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Requirement that fraud be pleaded with particularity is not to be assessed in a vacuum: it should be harmonized with
general command of rule that complaint contain short and plain statement of claim and that each averment should be
simple, concise and direct. S.E.C. v. Willis, S.D.N.Y.1991, 777 F.Supp. 1165, on reargument 787 F.Supp. 58.
636
Civil rule requiring that fraud be pleaded with specificity must be read in light of rule requiring a short and plain
statement. Schwartz v. NCNB Corp., W.D.N.C.1991, 768 F.Supp. 164, vacated , on subsequent appeal 23 F.3d 403.
636
Rule requiring that averments of fraud be pled with particularity must be read in conjunction with rule requiring
plaintiff to plead only short, plain statement of grounds upon which he is entitled to relief. Eickhorst v. E.F. Hutton
Group, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1990, 763 F.Supp. 1196. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Rule [Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A.] requiring that “[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity” must be read in conjunction with rule
[Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 8, 28 U.S.C.A.] stating that pleading should contain “short and plain statement of the
claim or defense” and that each averment should be “simple, concise and direct.”. Minotti v. Wheaton,
D.Conn.1986, 630 F.Supp. 280. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Page 122
Rule 9 of these rules requiring that fraud be alleged with particularity must be read in harmony with this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, and thus complaint which alleges
securities fraud must state with particularity specific fraudulent acts comprising fraud, but plaintiff is not required to
plead detailed evidentiary matters. D & G Enterprises v. Continental Illinois Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago,
636
Subd. (a) of this rule and rule 9(b) of these rules concerning pleadings and pleading of fraud are complementary to
one another and must be read in that fashion, avoiding an exclusive focusing on the requirements of one or the other.
621
Brown v. Joiner Intern., Inc., S.D.Ga.1981, 523 F.Supp. 333. Federal Civil Procedure
While rule requiring circumstances constituting alleged fraud or mistake to be stated with particularity creates an
exception to general requirement of only a short and plain statement of the claim, the former was not meant as an
overall policy of abandoning other civil rules or they could not be read together with other pleading rules. Valles
Salgado v. Piedmont Capital Corp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1978, 452 F.Supp. 853. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Subdivision (e)(1) of this rule providing that no technical forms of pleading are required, and rule 9(b) of these rules
providing that in averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake may be averred generally, when read together, indicate legislative intent that such pleadings might be conditioned on “state of mind”
rather than in detailed manner. Wolf Sales Co. v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., D.C.Colo.1952, 105 F.Supp. 506. Federal
Civil Procedure
621
Rule 9 of these rules requiring that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity does not abrogate this rule which requires short and plain statements in the pleading. Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.,
W.D.Pa.1944, 54 F.Supp. 588. Federal Civil Procedure
631.1
Rule 9(b) of these rules requiring that all averments of fraud be stated with particularity must be harmonized with
notice pleading mandate of this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim. Denny v. Carey, E.D.Pa.1976, 72
636
Rule 9(b) of these rules requiring that circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity
should be considered in light of whole spirit of modern federal pleading which emphasizes that the pleading should
be short, concise and direct. U.S. v. Dittrich, E.D.Ky.1943, 3 F.R.D. 475. See, also, U.S. v. Kralmann, D.C.Ky.1943,
3 F.R.D. 473. Federal Civil Procedure
636
A 260-page complaint that set out evidentiary matter and was highly argumentative both as to the facts and the law
was subject to motion to strike for violation of this rule requiring a concise and plain statement of the claim showing
that pleader is entitled to relief, notwithstanding rule 9 of these rules requiring that circumstances constituting fraud
or mistake be stated with particularity. Buckley v. Altheimer, N.D.Ill.1942, 2 F.R.D. 285. Federal Civil Procedure
1138
6. ---- More definite statement, construction with other rules
All ambiguities concerning meaning of pleader's language must be resolved in favor of claim attempted to be stated,
and, if language employed to state claim is not sufficiently definite to enable the adversary to prepare his responsive
pleadings or to prepare for trial, the remedy is a motion for a more definite statement or a bill of particulars. Clyde v.
Broderick, C.C.A.10 (Colo.) 1944, 144 F.2d 348. Federal Civil Procedure
947.1
Federal rules employ concept of notice pleadings and liberal discovery practices and, thus, motion for more definite
Page 123
statement is disfavored and should be granted only if pleading to which motion is directed is so vague or ambiguous
that party cannot reasonably be expected to respond. Scarfato v. National Cash Register Corp., M.D.Fla.1993, 830
945
Rule 12 of these rules relating to a more definite statement should not be construed to repeal subdivision (a)(2) of
this rule. Agricultural Lands v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., W.D.Mo.1945, 60 F.Supp. 108. Federal Civil Procedure
38
Rule 12(e) of these rules, authorizing a party to move for more definite statement may only be invoked when pleading is so uncertain that defendant cannot adequately prepare responsive pleading, and short, direct and concise
pleading required by subdivision (a) of this rule should be encouraged. Walling v. Black Diamond Coal Min. Co.,
W.D.Ky.1943, 59 F.Supp. 348. Federal Civil Procedure
948
If plaintiff has complied with this rule respecting general rules of pleading in drafting his complaint, he should not
be met with a motion under rule 12(e) respecting motions for more definite statement or for bill of particulars.
950
Fleming v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., W.D.Ark.1941, 39 F.Supp. 237. Federal Civil Procedure
It is evident that the framers of these rules did not intend that compliance with the brevity provisions of this rule
should expose a plaintiff to a motion for more definite statement under rule 12(e) of these rules. Brinley v. Lewis,
M.D.Pa.1939, 27 F.Supp. 313.
Complaint which meets requirements of subdivisions (a, e) of this rule providing that pleading which sets forth a
claim for relief shall contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, and that
each averment of pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct, and that no technical forms of pleading or motions
are required, is sufficient except where, as provided by rule 12(e) of these rules, pleading is so vague or ambiguous
that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading. Arthur A. Aranson, Inc. v. Ing-Rich Metal
Products Co., W.D.Pa.1952, 12 F.R.D. 528. Federal Civil Procedure
948
Motions under Rule 12 of these rules to require plaintiff to make his averments of negligence more definite, aside
from inherent sufficiency and clarity of complaint, are no longer favorites of the courts and will not be granted
where effect of granting such motion would amount to nullification of subdivision (a) of this rule providing that
complaint shall consist, among other things, of a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled
941
to relief. Ferrara v. Interstate Transit Lines, W.D.Mo.1945, 5 F.R.D. 54. Federal Civil Procedure
A plaintiff, who in compliance with subdivision (a)(2) of this rule has presented in his complaint “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”, must be accorded immunity to motion for bill of
particulars under rule 12 of these rules except to extent that he may have stated his claim “in such general terms that
defendant cannot understand the general nature of the charges and cannot frame an answer” to them. U. S. v. Association of Am. Railroads, D.C.Neb.1945, 4 F.R.D. 510. Federal Civil Procedure
948
Complaint is not immune from attack by motion for more definite statement under rule 12 of these rules merely because it satisfies requirements of this rule stating general rules of pleading. Bowles v. Flotill Products,
N.D.Cal.1945, 4 F.R.D. 499. Federal Civil Procedure
950; Pleading
367(2)
The definiteness which may be required of a pleading under rule 12(e) of these rules, authorizing motion for more
definite statement, is only such as will be sufficient for party to prepare responsive pleadings, in view of subdivision
(a)(2) of this rule, providing that claim for relief must be a short and plain statement and of rules 16, 26-37 of these
rules, for pretrial procedure and discovery. Braden v. Callaway, E.D.Tenn.1943, 4 F.R.D. 147. Federal Civil Procedure
948
Page 124
Rule 12(e) of these rules relating to motions for more definite statement cannot be given greater emphasis than subdivision (a) of this rule requiring a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and
subdivision (e) of this rule requiring that each averment of pleading shall be simple, concise and direct. Best Foods
v. General Mills, D.C.Del.1943, 3 F.R.D. 275. Federal Civil Procedure
950;
38
Where a pleading fails to contain a fair and full disclosure of position of pleader in simple, concise and direct language as required by this rule, adverse party may resort to rule 12(e) of these rules providing for an order for a more
definite statement of any matter which is not averred with sufficient definiteness to enable him properly to prepare
his responsive pleading or to prepare for trial. Westland Oil Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., D.C.N.D.1943, 3
947.1
Framers of these rules did not intend that this rule relating to pleading generally should destroy the effectiveness of
rule 12 of these rules providing for motion for more definite statement, or this rule relating to pleadings generally
should be used by one party to hide from adversary and the court the real issues ultimately to be tried. Walling v.
West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., E.D.S.C.1942, 2 F.R.D. 416. Federal Civil Procedure
950; Pleading
315
The framers of these rules did not intend that compliance with this rule stating that a pleading should be short and
the allegations should be simple, concise, and direct should expose a plaintiff to a motion for a bill of particulars or a
more definite statement. Smith v. Buckeye Incubator Co., S.D.Ohio 1940, 2 F.R.D. 134. See, also, Martz v. Abbott,
D.C.Pa.1941, 2 F.R.D. 17; Buckley v. Music Corporation of America, D.C.Del.1941, 1 F.R.D. 602. Federal Civil
Procedure
952.1
6a. ---- Representations to the court, construction with other rules
While pleading rule permits parties to plead inconsistent factual allegations, an alternative pleading is nonetheless
subject to the terms of Rule 11; pleader may assert contradictory statements of fact only when legitimately in doubt
about the facts in question. 2004 Stuart Moldaw Trust v. XE L.I.F.E., LLC, S.D.N.Y.2009, 642 F.Supp.2d 226, af2771(1)
firmed 374 Fed.Appx. 78, 2010 WL 915866. Federal Civil Procedure
7. ---- Summary judgment, construction with other rules
Plaintiffs whose complaint did not pray for restitution as form of relief were not entitled to summary judgment order
granting restitution or ruling addressing merits of restitution claim. Davis v. Sun Oil Co., S.D.Ohio 1996, 953
F.Supp. 890, affirmed 148 F.3d 606, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 543, 525 U.S. 1018, 142 L.Ed.2d 451. Federal Civil
Procedure
2471
8. Construction with statutory provisions
Federal court may not apply heightened pleading standard more stringent than usual pleading requirements of civil
rule, in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under §§ 1983. Flanagan v. Anne Arundel County, D.Md.2009,
593 F.Supp.2d 803. Civil Rights
1394
Class action plaintiffs' notice and Latin translation of suit against Holy See, which arose from sexual abuses by local
Catholic priests, was adequate, notwithstanding Holy See's demand for detailed, treatise-like explanations of various
court documents and legal terms, and even though Latin translations were not perfect, where notice provided the
basic information required by the letter of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). O'Bryan v. Holy See,
W.D.Ky.2005, 490 F.Supp.2d 826. International Law
10.43
Page 125
Rule of civil procedure requiring that certain affirmative defenses be raised in a responsive pleading did not apply to
require District of Columbia and Superintendent of District schools to raise statute of limitations defense in administrative proceedings on claim by student and his mother that District and Superintendent violated Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), since there was no requirement under IDEA or implementing regulations that
District and Superintendent file any responsive pleading in the administrative proceedings. Anthony v. District of
Columbia, D.D.C.2006, 463 F.Supp.2d 37. Schools
155.5(1)
This rule supersedes former § 69 of Title 35. Municipal Street Sign Co. v. City Street Sign Corporation,
E.D.N.Y.1940, 30 F.Supp. 795. See, also, Smith v. Thompson, D.C.Cal.1941, 43 F.Supp. 848.
9. Purpose--Generally
Under these rules, the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Conley v. Gibson,
U.S.Tex.1957, 78 S.Ct. 99, 355 U.S. 41, 2 L.Ed.2d 80. See, also, Brier v. Northern Cal. Bowling Proprietors' Ass'n,
C.A.Cal.1963, 316 F.2d 787; Hughes v. Noble, C.A.Ala. 1961, 295 F.2d 495. Federal Civil Procedure
623
Purpose of this rule is to protect defendants from undefined charges and to keep federal courts free of frivolous suits.
623
Howard v. Koch, E.D.N.Y.1982, 575 F.Supp. 1299. Federal Civil Procedure
Purpose of this rule requiring that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise and direct is to avoid verbose allegations, to notify the defendants of claim upon which plaintiff seeks recovery, and to assist the disposition of the
litigation on its merits. Walter Reade's Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's Inc., S.D.N.Y.1957, 20 F.R.D. 579. Federal Civil
Procedure
631.1
The new procedure rules were designed to provide a speedy disposition of a case on its merits and contemplate that
the pleadings shall be kept short and plain. Lasicki v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., M.D.Pa.1940, 1 F.R.D. 384. See,
also, Piorkowski v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 1 F.R.D. 386; Capdevielle v. American Commercial Alcohol Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1940, 1 F.R.D. 365; Zoller v. Smith, Levin & Harris, D.C.Pa.1940, 1 F.R.D. 182.
10. ---- Notice to opposing party, purpose
Purpose of this rule prescribing simplified pleading and indicating that pleading should contain short and plain
statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief is to give notice to other party and not to formulate issues
or fully summarize facts involved. Clausen & Sons, Inc. v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., C.A.8 (Minn.) 1968, 395
F.2d 388. Federal Civil Procedure
623
While mislabeled as a claim for “assault,” former employee's claim that a manager touched his body “in a sexual
manner, without consent,” adequately pled a claim for battery under North Carolina law to withstand a motion for
summary judgment; the complaint gave the defendants fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds of the claim and
a general indication of the type of litigation involved. Strickland v. Jewell, M.D.N.C.2007, 562 F.Supp.2d 661.
24(1)
Assault And Battery
Purpose of the complaint under federal pleading rules is simply to give fair notice to the opposing party of plaintiff's
672
claim. Campbell v. Ethex Corp., W.D.Va.2006, 413 F.Supp.2d 738. Federal Civil Procedure
Purpose of notice pleading is to provide defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it
672
rests. Arrington v. Dickerson, M.D.Ala.1995, 915 F.Supp. 1503. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 126
Requirement that complaint contain “short and plain statement” of plaintiff's cause of action is designed to give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests. Burks v. City of Philadelphia,
E.D.Pa.1995, 904 F.Supp. 421. Federal Civil Procedure
672
Purpose of “notice pleading” is to provide defendant with fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds on
672
which it rests. Ross v. State of Ala., M.D.Ala.1995, 893 F.Supp. 1545. Federal Civil Procedure
Notice pleading is intended to give fair notice to opposing party so that they may properly respond to and/or defend
claim. Pierce v. Montgomery County Opportunity Bd., Inc., E.D.Pa.1995, 884 F.Supp. 965. Federal Civil Procedure
623
Requirement that complaint give short and plain statement of plaintiff's claim has purpose of giving opposing party
fair notice and will not prevent court from reading pro se pleadings with “a generous eye.” Parsons v. Burns,
W.D.Ark.1993, 846 F.Supp. 1372. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(1)
Purpose of rule requiring affirmative defenses be set forth in pleadings is to give opposing party notice of issue and
opportunity to argue its position. Richmond Steel, Inc. v. Legal and General Assur. Soc., Ltd., D.Puerto Rico 1993,
821 F.Supp. 793. Federal Civil Procedure
751
Function of complaint is to give defendant fair notice of plaintiff's claim and grounds on which plaintiff relies.
672
Dimuccio v. D'Ambra, M.D.Fla.1991, 779 F.Supp. 1318. Federal Civil Procedure
Purpose of this rule is to give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and the grounds on which it rests.
Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia, E.D.Pa.1973, 358 F.Supp. 684. See, also, Heisman v. Giordano, D.C.Pa.1972,
343 F.Supp. 1258; Fastner Corp. v. Spotnails, Inc., D.C.Ill.1968, 291 F.Supp. 974; Hatten v. Worden, D.C.Pa.1965,
38 F.R.D. 496.
Pleadings serve a notice-giving function under these rules. Wisbey v. American Community Stores Corp.,
D.C.Neb.1968, 288 F.Supp. 728.
The whole purpose of pleading is to advise defendant of the facts on which plaintiff relies for recovery. Poe v.
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., E.D.Ky.1946, 64 F.Supp. 358. Federal Civil Procedure
672
Purpose of this rule which requires that complaint contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is
entitled to relief is to give fair notice of claim being asserted so as to permit adverse party opportunity to file responsive answer, prepare adequate defense and determine whether doctrine of res judicata is applicable; beyond this, this
rule serves to sharpen issues to be litigated and to confine discovery and presentation of evidence at trial within reasonable bounds. Brown v. Califano, D.C.D.C.1977, 75 F.R.D. 497. See, also, Lucas v. Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc.,
D.C.Ill.1974, 62 F.R.D. 399. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Theory of this rule is that a defendant's pleading should apprise the plaintiff of the allegations in the complaint that
stand admitted and will not be in issue at trial and those that are contested and will require proof to be established to
732
enable plaintiff to prevail. Yarnell v. Roberts, E.D.Pa.1975, 66 F.R.D. 417. Federal Civil Procedure
The purpose sought to be achieved by this rule providing that a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment for the relief he seeks is sufficient, is that the adversary
party or parties have sufficient notice to prepare their defense and that court is sufficiently informed to determine
issue presented. Philadelphia Dressed Beef Co. v. Wilson & Co., E.D.Pa.1956, 19 F.R.D. 198. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Page 127
The purpose of these rules is merely to notify the defendant of the facts on which plaintiff relies for recovery.
672
McKenzie v. Blidberg Rothchild Co, S.D.N.Y.1952, 12 F.R.D. 392. Federal Civil Procedure
Under the “plausibility” standard that now guides the court, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to
give fair notice to defendants of the grounds of the claim against them. In re Bryant Manor, LLC,
Bkrtcy.D.Kan.2010, 434 B.R. 629. Bankruptcy
2162
Purpose of this rule is to permit simplified complaint sufficient merely to give fair notice of claim. In re O.P.M.
Leasing Services, Inc., Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1982, 21 B.R. 986. Federal Civil Procedure
623
11. ---- Prevention of surprise, purpose
Purpose of this rule pertaining to contents of answers and requiring matters constituting avoidance or affirmative
defense to be affirmatively pleaded is to prevent surprise. Lopez v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., D.C.Alaska 1955,
18 F.R.D. 59, 15 Alaska 633. Federal Civil Procedure
751
12. ---- Simplification of procedures, purpose
These rules intend that pleadings shall be simple and direct. Graff v. Nieberg, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1956, 233 F.2d 860.
630
Purpose of this rule is to eliminate prolixity in pleading and to achieve brevity, simplicity and clarity. Knox v. First
Sec. Bank of Utah, C.A.10 (Utah) 1952, 196 F.2d 112. See, also, Dewell v. Lawson, C.A.Okl.1974, 489 F.2d 877.
631.1
This rule was promulgated in furtherance of policy to simplify procedure and facilitate speedy determination of litigation. McKenna v. U.S. Lines, S.D.N.Y.1939, 26 F.Supp. 558. See, also, U.S. v. Carolina Warehouse Co.,
D.C.S.C.1945, 4 F.R.D. 291; Pearson v. O'Connor, D.C.D.C.1942, 2 F.R.D. 521; Mitchell v. Brown, D.C.Neb.1942,
2 F.R.D. 325.
Objective of this rule was to make complaint simpler, rather than more expansive, and thus, the only permissible
pleading in a federal district court is a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief on any legally sustainable ground. Harrell v. Directors of Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,
E.D.Tenn.1975, 70 F.R.D. 444. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Although great liberality is allowed in pleading under these rules, and it is permissible that a party set forth two or
more statements of claim, either alternatively or hypothetically, in one count or in separate counts, simplicity and
clarity of pleading were intended to be achieved by the new rules. Johnson v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California,
D.C.Minn.1941, 1 F.R.D. 554. Federal Civil Procedure
631.1
13. ---- Substance over form, purpose
These rules are designed to avoid basing decisions on the merits on pleading technicalities. In re Credit Indus. Corp.,
C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 366 F.2d 402. Federal Civil Procedure
34
Intent and effect of these rules are to permit claim to be stated in general terms, and rules are designed to discourage
battles over mere form of statement and to sweep away needless controversies that serve either to delay trial on mer-
Page 128
its or prevent party from having trial because of mistakes in statement. Nagler v. Admiral Corporation, C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1957, 248 F.2d 319. Federal Civil Procedure
630
14. Law governing--Generally
Federal courts apply these rules in questions regarding pleadings, not state rules. Bank of St. Louis v. Morrissey,
C.A.8 (Mo.) 1979, 597 F.2d 1131. Federal Civil Procedure
621
The manner of setting forth allegations is a matter of procedure, not substance, and a federal court cannot be bound
by a state's technical pleading rules. Asay v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., C.A.8 (Iowa) 1979, 594 F.2d 692. See, also,
373
Princepe v. U.S., D.C.N.Y.1962, 207 F.Supp. 301. Federal Courts
In matter of pleading, federal courts are not governed by state practice but by these rules. Follenfant v. Rogers,
C.A.5 (Tex.) 1966, 359 F.2d 30. See, also, Garcia v. Bernabe, C.A. Puerto Rico 1961, 289 F.2d 690; Republic of
Romania, D.C.Ill.1975, 403 F.Supp. 1298. Federal Civil Procedure
621
While substantive right to recover on a claim is governed by state law, form or mode of claim for relief is a matter of
application of these rules under which no technical forms of pleadings are required. Blazer v. Black, C.A.10 (Kan.)
673
Since the effective date of these rules, federal courts are no longer controlled by state practice in matters of pleading.
621
Continental Collieries v. Shober, C.C.A.3 (Pa.) 1942, 130 F.2d 631. Federal Civil Procedure
Although a forum state may apply a heightened pleading requirement, a federal court sitting in diversity, should,
with limited exceptions, look instead to federal rule governing pleadings. Leavitt v. Cole, M.D.Fla.2003, 291
F.Supp.2d 1338. Federal Courts
433
In a diversity action, federal court assesses adequacy of pleadings under federal law, rather than stricter require621
ments of state law. Cleland v. Stadt, N.D.Ill.1987, 670 F.Supp. 814. Federal Civil Procedure
These rules govern pleadings in federal malicious prosecution case arising out of filing of criminal action in New
691
York. Hamid v. Jamil, E.D.N.Y.1984, 580 F.Supp. 855. Federal Civil Procedure
Plaintiff's framing of complaint is starting point for determining whether action arises under federal law.
242.1
Zimmerman v. Conrail, S.D.N.Y.1982, 550 F.Supp. 84. Federal Courts
Federal rule requiring short and plain statement of claim for relief, and not state law, controls form of pleading state
51
law claims in federal court. Liguori v. Alexander, S.D.N.Y.1980, 495 F.Supp. 641. Federal Civil Procedure
Whether complaint in diversity action stated claim against one defendant was matter for determination under substantive law of state as decided by highest court of that state. Killebrew v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.,
W.D.Okla.1964, 233 F.Supp. 250. Federal Courts
381
Whether cause of action is set forth by complaint, filed in federal court, alleging negligence causing death must be
determined by state law, where jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. King v. Macwhyte Co.,
630
This rule controls a federal court despite the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, since the rule regulates pro-
Page 129
cedure and not a matter of substance. Sims v. United Pacific Ins. Co., D.C.Idaho 1943, 51 F.Supp. 433. Federal Civil
Procedure
630
Under these rules, which superseded the Conformity Act, the sufficiency of pleadings to raise the issue of authority
of person signing a written instrument involved in litigation is to be determined solely by reference to these rules
and not to state law. Granite Trust Bldg. Corp. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., D.C.Mass.1940, 36 F.Supp. 77.
741.1
The federal courts are governed no longer by the state practice in matters of pleading, but by these rules. Schenley
Distillers Corp. v. Renken, E.D.S.C.1940, 34 F.Supp. 678. Federal Civil Procedure
621; Pleading
2
15. ---- Common law, law governing
Pleadings in federal cases are no longer tested by the rigid standard of the common law with prescribed verbal formulae but by the more liberal standards promulgated in these rules. Stranford v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.N.J.1957,
621
Under these rules, pleadings are not held to the rigid standards of common law and neither absolute clarity nor absolute precision is required. U.S. v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., N.D.Ill.1956, 141 F.Supp. 118, 110 U.S.P.Q. 399.
630
16. ---- Affirmative defenses, law governing
In diversity actions, the court looks to state law to inform the determination of whether a certain defense is “any
other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense” under the federal rule requiring that, in pleading to a
preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively any matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.
433
Proctor v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc., C.A.11 (Ala.) 2007, 494 F.3d 1337. Federal Courts
Matters treated as affirmative defenses under state law are generally treated the same way by federal courts in diversity cases. Elliott & Frantz, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., C.A.3 (Pa.) 2006, 457 F.3d 312. Federal Civil Procedure
751
Louisiana law [LSA-C.C.P. art. 928] that prescription may be pleaded at any stage of proceeding in trial court prior
to submission of case or decision was not conclusive nor persuasive in diversity case, where sublessee did not assert
defense of prescription to action for breach of sublease until three and one-half months after return of jury's verdict
against it. Trinity Carton Co., Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., C.A.5 (La.) 1985, 767 F.2d 184, rehearing denied 775
F.2d 301, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 1202, 475 U.S. 1017, 89 L.Ed.2d 315. Federal Civil Procedure
845
In diversity cases, determining whether a contention is an affirmative defense for purposes of this rule requiring
such defenses to be set forth affirmatively is matter of state law. Troxler v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., C.A.11 (Ga.) 1983,
717 F.2d 530. Federal Civil Procedure
751
Federal courts look to applicable state limitations statute, including its tolling provisions, in determining timeliness
of claims under civil rights provisions, but such adoption of state limitations period does not effect supplanting of
these rules governing procedure by which affirmative defenses, including defenses of limitations and laches, must be
755;
raised. Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd., C.A.5 (La.) 1979, 594 F.2d 489. Federal Civil Procedure
422.1; Federal Courts
427
Federal Courts
Whether statutory defense is an affirmative defense within meaning of this rule is determined by looking to the sub-
Page 130
stantive law of the state where the federal district court sits. Funding Systems Leasing Corp. v. Pugh, C.A.5 (Ga.)
751
Whether a particular matter is to be regarded as an affirmative defense in a removed case is determinable by state
115
law. Seal v. Industrial Elec., Inc., C.A.5 (Miss.) 1966, 362 F.2d 788. Removal Of Cases
This rule that contributory negligence is an affirmative defense, thus requiring same to be pleaded, does not shift
burden of proof from where state substantive law has placed it. Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Eller, C.A.6 (Ky.)
1952, 197 F.2d 652, certiorari denied 73 S.Ct. 105, 344 U.S. 864, 97 L.Ed. 670. Evidence
96(1)
The question whether waiver must be pleaded, such as waiver by insurers of conditions precedent to insured's right
to sue on fire policy, is a matter of procedure and practice as to which rulings of state courts are not controlling on
federal courts. Gipps Brewing Corp. v. Central Mfrs.' Mut. Ins. Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1945, 147 F.2d 6. Federal Courts
419
Subdivision (c) of this rule must be construed in light of Supreme Court decision requiring federal courts to apply
state statutory law and state decisions on questions of general law except in matters governed by federal constitution
or statutes, which decision was handed down after federal rules were adopted by the Supreme Court but before date
when rules became effective. Fort Dodge Hotel Co. of Fort Dodge v. Bartelt, C.C.A.8 (Iowa) 1941, 119 F.2d 253.
96(1)
Courts
In a diversity case, a state's substantive law will determine whether a defense not enumerated in civil procedure rule
will constitute an affirmative defense. Kennan v. Dow Chemical Co., M.D.Fla.1989, 717 F.Supp. 799. Federal
Courts
373
Provision of this rule stating in pertinent part that, in pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively contributory negligence and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense, governs matters of pleading in diversity cases regardless of state pleading rules. Gilmore v. Witschorek, E.D.Ill.1976, 411
752
In instances not specifically covered by this rule on pleading of affirmative defenses, it is most appropriate to consult state law to formulate appropriate definition of “any other matter constituting an . . . affirmative defense.”
751
Tormo v. Yormark, D.C.N.J.1975, 398 F.Supp. 1159. Federal Civil Procedure
In stockholder's derivative action for an accounting of profits allegedly diverted from corporation to defendant partnership, the law of Pennsylvania was applicable in determining whether answer stated a sufficient defense. Higgins
v. Shenango Pottery Co., W.D.Pa.1951, 99 F.Supp. 522. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Manner of raising defense in federal District Court is governed by these rules rather than by rules of a state court.
51
French v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., D.C.N.J.1950, 88 F.Supp. 714. Federal Civil Procedure
Burden is upon plaintiff in action under Federal Tort Claims Act, former § 921 et seq. of this title, arising out of tort
committed in Iowa to establish freedom from contributory negligence, and subdivision (c) of this rule providing that
contributory negligence is an affirmative defense is not applicable, since Iowa rule requiring plaintiff to plead and
establish freedom from contributory negligence is one of substantive law and not of procedure. Van Wie v. U.S.,
N.D.Iowa 1948, 77 F.Supp. 22. Federal Civil Procedure
752
Where the court of last resort in Connecticut established that the burden of proof on the issue of contributory negligence is no part of the substantive law of Connecticut, the federal District Court for the District of Connecticut must
Page 131
follow the state law and treat the subject matter as one of procedure, and hence under this rule must treat contributory negligence as an affirmative defense required to be set forth affirmatively by defendant. MacDonald v. Central
Vermont Ry., D.C.Conn.1940, 31 F.Supp. 298. Federal Courts
428
The requirement of Illinois law that a plaintiff in a suit for damages must plead and prove his freedom from contributory negligence is “substantive law” which must be followed by the federal court, rather than “procedural law”
controlled by this rule providing that certain defenses, such as contributory negligence, are affirmative defenses
428
which should be pleaded. Francis v. Humphrey, E.D.Ill.1938, 25 F.Supp. 1. Federal Courts
This rule, providing that statute of limitations is a matter of affirmative defense, must, in case of conflict with state
substantive law, give way to demands of judicial decision requiring application of state substantive law in diversity
423
actions. Owens Generator Co. v. H. J. Heinz Co., N.D.Cal.1958, 23 F.R.D. 121. Federal Courts
The defense of statute of limitations in action under Federal Tort Claims Act, former § 921 et seq. of this title
brought in Federal District Court in New York must be set up affirmatively in answer pursuant to subdivision (c) of
this rule, and could not be raised by motion to dismiss complaint pursuant to New York Rules of Civil Practice, rule
107, subd. 6, since the federal law prevails over the state rule. Weber v. U.S., W.D.N.Y.1948, 8 F.R.D. 161. Federal
Civil Procedure
1754
Under the rule declaring contributory negligence to be a matter of affirmative defense, the Supreme Court has in
effect declared the matter to be one of “procedure” subject to the exclusive power of legislation by Congress and
regulation by the federal courts themselves, and it is not a matter of “substantive common law” with respect to
which decisions of state courts of last resort are binding on the federal courts. Kellman v. Stoltz, N.D.Iowa 1941, 1
F.R.D. 726. Federal Courts
373
17. ---- Alternative pleadings, law governing
Where circumstances surrounding an adverse employment action could give rise to an inference of discrimination on
multiple grounds, the ultimate requirement under the ADEA and New York's Executive Law that age be the “but
for” cause to recover on an age discrimination claim does not foreclose a plaintiff from pleading in the alternative;
ultimately, all that is required at this stage of the proceedings is that the complaint contain sufficient facts to make
plausible the conclusion that “but for” their age the plaintiffs would still be employed. Fagan v. U.S. Carpet Installation, Inc., E.D.N.Y.2011, 2011 WL 923965. Civil Rights
1532; Civil Rights
1740
Allegation that automobile manufacturer negligently failed to disclose defects and continuously made negligent misrepresentations regarding defects in class vehicles to automobile owners during the sale, lease, or servicing of said
vehicles gave manufacturer adequate notice of negligent misrepresentation claim under New Jersey law. Dewey v.
Volkswagen AG, D.N.J.2008, 558 F.Supp.2d 505. Fraud
41
Plaintiff's claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage could be pleaded as alternative to
claim of tortious interference with contract under New York law; if defendants demonstrated that plaintiff's contract
with agent was not fully enforceable or, assuming validity of the contract, that there was no breach, then claim for
tortious interference with contract might fail but alternative claim for tortious interference with economic advantage
would be viable. G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Baron & Budd, S.D.N.Y.2002, 238 F.Supp.2d 521. Federal Civil Procedure
675.1
In diversity action, defendant's right to plead and argue in the alternative is a matter of procedure, and as such, is
governed by federal law. Koedding v. Slaughter, E.D.Mo.1979, 481 F.Supp. 1233, affirmed 634 F.2d 1095. Federal
Civil Procedure
675.1
Page 132
18. ---- Cause of action, law governing
Determining whether, as a matter of law, amended complaint in litigation transferred from bankruptcy court to federal district court stated cause of action, district court sitting in adversary proceeding to bankruptcy action was required to look to Illinois law where action was originally brought, but, in determining whether amended complaint
sufficiently set out cause of action, district court was not bound by prior state court ruling under Illinois fact-finding
pleading rules; rather district court was compelled to make independent judgment pursuant to notice pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Redfield v. Continental Cas. Corp., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1987, 818 F.2d 596.
851
This rule that each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct does not alter substantive requirement
in Indiana in an action for negligence that existence of a causal relationship between negligence charged and damage
alleged must be shown by averments of fact before complaint states a cause of action. Mitchell v. White Consolidated, C.A.7 (Ind.) 1949, 177 F.2d 500, certiorari denied 70 S.Ct. 574, 339 U.S. 913, 94 L.Ed. 1339. Federal Civil
Procedure
39; Negligence
1526
In action based on a federal question, with plaintiff also asserting pendent state law claims, the defendant, who filed
counterclaim, did not have to meet strict pleading requirements for slander under Illinois law but was required only
to meet this rule's requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim. Hernas v. City of Hickory Hills,
51
A “cause of action” is not required to be stated under these rules for wrongful death action based on Indiana statute,
and Indiana cases are not controlling in determining sufficiency of complaint and all that is required is that a claim
be stated. Heuer v. Loop, S.D.Ind.1961, 198 F.Supp. 546. Federal Civil Procedure
673
In action in federal district court under Maryland law for damage to paving which collapsed because of artificial
diversion of surface waters by defendants in course of installation of sewer, district court was not bound by state law
as to form or mode of pleading of trespass count of complaint, since that was a matter of procedure governed by
these rules, but question whether allegations of the trespass count constituted a statement of claim, on which relief
might be granted, was a substantive matter and required application of the substantive law of Maryland, and, to extent that Maryland statutory forms of pleading might be considered indicative of such substantive law, they were
binding on district court. Whitehall Const. Co. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, D.C.Md.1958, 165
713
19. ---- Damages, law governing
Federal procedural rule requiring concise statement identifying pleader's remedies, which allowed plaintiffs to include request for punitive damages in initial complaint, was not unconstitutional and did not transgress Rules Enabling Act, since it related to practice and procedure of district courts; thus, Florida statute, which conflicted with rule
by requiring plaintiffs to obtain leave from court before including prayer for punitive damages in pleading, would
not apply in federal diversity case. Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., C.A.11 (Fla.) 1999, 184 F.3d 1292, opinion vacated
in part on rehearing 204 F.3d 1069, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 381, 531 U.S. 957, 148 L.Ed.2d 294. Federal Courts
433
Georgia statute requiring plaintiffs to file an affidavit of an expert in any action for damages alleging professional
malpractice is inapplicable in a diversity action; the sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint is judged by the standard
set out in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which does not require the affidavit of an expert. Roberts v. Jones,
M.D.Ga.2005, 390 F.Supp.2d 1333. Federal Courts
428
Page 133
Patient's request for punitive damages in malpractice claim against physician was not “claim” within meaning of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus did not conflict with state statute governing punitive damage awards
against health care officials; it was only form of relief prayed for as part of claim, facts underlying claim could be
stated in initial complaint thereby satisfying both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state statute. Jones v. Krautheim, D.Colo.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 1173. Federal Courts
415
Punitive damages in action filed in federal court is governed by federal civil rules, which require only a short and
plain statement of claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, and not by Florida statute requiring that there be
evidence in record or proffered by plaintiff establishing reasonable basis for such damages. In re Sahlen & Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation, S.D.Fla.1991, 773 F.Supp. 342. Federal Courts
415
Pleading the amount of damages in an ad damnum clause in a medical malpractice action brought in federal court is
a procedural matter governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not by state rules. Milano by Milano v.
Freed, E.D.N.Y.1991, 767 F.Supp. 450. Federal Civil Procedure
679
In action for breach of marriage promise, brought in federal district court for Missouri, Missouri court decisions that
exemplary damages are not allowable in such actions are controlling, and motion to strike portion of complaint respecting such damages should be sustained. Adams v. Griffith, W.D.Mo.1943, 51 F.Supp. 549. Federal Civil Procedure
1137; Federal Courts
415
20. ---- Instructions, law governing
In action for death of motorist struck by train, in Tennessee, question whether pleading was sufficient to justify instruction on last clear chance was governed by these rules. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Rochelle, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1958,
2174
21. ---- Miscellaneous cases, law governing
Federal notice pleading standard, rather than conflicting state law standard, governed whether allegations in complaint that was before district court pursuant to its diversity jurisdiction were sufficient to state claim under “unfair
practices” provision of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; prescribing specificity
with which claim had to be pled related solely to practice and procedure of court and clearly fell within scope of the
Rules Enabling Act, and there was no basis for concluding that regulation of pleading requirements in federal court
exceeded limits of federal constitutional authority. Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Technology
Financing Services, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2008, 536 F.3d 663. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
358
Claim filed in federal court, asserting defamation per se under Illinois law, was governed by federal notice pleading
rule, not Illinois pleading rules. Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2003, 322 F.3d 918, rehearing
431
and rehearing en banc denied , on remand 2003 WL 22872117. Federal Courts
Where injury resulting in death occurred in Florida and District Court was sitting in that state in death action, though
the local substantive law governed, the reviewing court in determining whether the complaint stated a cause of action was not bound by Florida rule that pleadings should be construed most strongly against the pleader. Hannah v.
Gulf Power Co., C.C.A.5 (Fla.) 1942, 128 F.2d 930. Federal Civil Procedure
657
Texas certificate-of-merit rule, requiring plaintiff to file contemporaneously with professional negligence complaint
an expert affidavit setting forth theory of recovery, professional's alleged negligence, errors, or omissions, and factual basis for each claim, did not apply, in diversity action against architect, alleging negligent design of swimming
Page 134
pool in which high school student drowned, under Texas law; Texas rule conflicted with federal rules of civil procedure governing pleadings, and expert disclosure and reports, as it affected the content of the complaint and accelerated the expert disclosure and reporting procedures, and Texas rule involved a procedural requirement, rather than
substantive state law requirement. Estate of C.A. v. Grier, S.D.Tex.2010, 752 F.Supp.2d 763. Federal Courts
428
Sufficiency of complaint alleging defamation under Kansas law was judged under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
instead of under Kansas pleading standards. Snyder v. American Kennel Club, D.Kan.2008, 575 F.Supp.2d 1236.
433
Federal Courts
Federal rules control the issue of whether claims are better recognized as defenses or as counterclaims in general
where jurisdiction is premised on a federal question. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v.
Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., N.D.Cal.2007, 487 F.Supp.2d 1099, mandamus denied 516 F.3d 1003, 85
U.S.P.Q.2d 1843, rehearing en banc denied , affirmed 583 F.3d 832, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1442, rehearing and rehearing
en banc denied , certiorari granted 131 S.Ct. 502, 178 L.Ed.2d 368, affirmed 131 S.Ct. 2188, 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761.
433
Federal Courts
Federal notice pleading standard, rather than Virginia standard requiring a high level of specificity in pretrial pleadings, applied to appeal from arbitration panel's decision that had been removed to federal district court. Yukon Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Island Creek Coal Co., Inc., W.D.Va.2006, 428 F.Supp.2d 490. Federal Courts
403
To the extent Georgia law required more specific pleading of a claim for breach of contract, it was preempted by the
federal standard in the federal rules of civil procedure. Davita Inc. v. Nephrology Associates, P.C., S.D.Ga.2003,
253 F.Supp.2d 1370. Federal Courts
412.1
Federal notice pleading standards, rather than state law, applied in evaluating sufficiency of the pleadings in breach
of contract case. Hustlers Inc. v. Thomasson, N.D.Ga.2002, 253 F.Supp.2d 1285, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1037. Federal
Courts
433
Presuit requirements under Florida medical malpractice statutes, including requirement that complaint include an
affidavit from a medical expert, must be enforced by federal district courts in diversity actions, even though those
statutes impose heightened pleading requirements in comparison with federal rules. Clark v. Sarasota County Public
Hosp. Bd., M.D.Fla.1998, 65 F.Supp.2d 1308, affirmed 190 F.3d 541. Federal Courts
428
Federal court sitting in diversity would not apply Florida statutory presuit procedural requirements governing medical malpractice actions in Florida court, as those statutes, which required heightened notice procedure followed by
waiting period before formally filing suit, as well as affidavit from medical expert, directly conflicted with federal
rules providing that civil action is commenced by filing complaint with court, that service of process upon filing of
action provides adequate notice, and that “short and plain statement” of claim is sufficient. Braddock v. Orlando
Regional Health Care System, Inc., M.D.Fla.1995, 881 F.Supp. 580. Federal Civil Procedure
51; Federal
Courts
428
Although a Michigan court will ordinarily choose to apply its own law, the lex fori, as to procedure, federal court
sitting in Michigan is not required to apply Michigan procedural rules. Papizzo v. O. Robertson Transport, Ltd.,
E.D.Mich.1975, 401 F.Supp. 540. Federal Civil Procedure
51
Where Pennsylvania resident, who had been sued in New York court, removed action to federal district court in
New York before filing answer, pleading rules of federal court and not those of state court applied to the action. B.
B. Weit Printing Co. v. Frances Denney, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1969, 300 F.Supp. 405. Removal Of Cases
115
Page 135
In action in federal court in Pennsylvania to establish title to mineral rights in Pennsylvania land and to recover
money damages, an abstract of title was not required to be set forth in pleading in compliance with rules of Pennsylvania state practice. Proctor v. Sagamore Big Game Club, W.D.Pa.1955, 128 F.Supp. 885. Federal Civil Procedure
629
Florida statute which establishes pleading requirements for punitive damage claims, under which plaintiff may not
make demand for punitive damages in initial complaint, is directly in conflict with provision of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure which allows a pleading to contain a demand for judgment, and thus, under Erie doctrine, federal
pleading rule, rather than Florida statute, governs claims brought under Florida law in federal court, regardless of
whether jurisdiction is based on diversity, or is pendent and ancillary. Vacation Break U.S.A., Inc. v. Marketing
Response Group & Laser Co., Inc., M.D.Fla.1999, 189 F.R.D. 474. Federal Courts
415; Federal Courts
433
Even though law of Florida might control on the ultimate trial of issues, adequacy of pleadings is determined by
these rules, which require only that pleading put defendant on notice of claim to be proved. Smith v. Shaffer Stores
Co., E.D.Pa.1961, 28 F.R.D. 308. Federal Civil Procedure
630
In action in Pennsylvania Federal District Court against resident of Pennsylvania predicated on wrongful death of
plaintiff's son in Florida, plaintiff was not required to comply with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, 12
P.S.App., relating to action for wrongful death, since these rules governed pleading regardless of which state's sub42
stantive law was followed. Rothschild v. Ritter, M.D.Pa.1945, 4 F.R.D. 495. Federal Civil Procedure
Although New York and Pennsylvania each imposed strict pleading requirements on claims sounding in defamation,
defamation action, under New York and Pennsylvania law, brought in federal court would be governed by federal
procedural rule governing pleading, requiring a short and plain statement of claim. O'Diah v. New York City,
S.D.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1941179, Unreported, reconsideration denied 2002 WL 31246508, reconsideration denied
431
2003 WL 223418. Federal Courts
22. Antitrust actions
Heightened pleading standard does not apply in antitrust cases; notice pleading standard applies with the same level
of rigor in all civil actions. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. v. UPMC, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2010, 627 F.3d 85, petition for certiorari filed 2011 WL 1670702, petition for certiorari filed 2011 WL 1670881. Antitrust And Trade
Regulation
972(1)
Sherman Act antitrust claims, at least those not akin to fraud, are subject to the notice-pleading standard of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure, which requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; however, such claims must allege facts sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., C.A.3 (N.J.) 2007, 501 F.3d 297, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1129. Antitrust And
Trade Regulation
972(3)
Antitrust complaints are subject to liberal pleading requirements of the federal rules, and, at a minimum, complaint
must give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Amey, Inc. v.
Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., C.A.11 (Fla.) 1985, 758 F.2d 1486, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 1513, 475 U.S. 1107, 89
L.Ed.2d 912, rehearing denied 106 S.Ct. 2267, 476 U.S. 1153, 90 L.Ed.2d 712. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(1)
Notice pleading is all that is required for valid antitrust complaint. Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. v. Latin
Page 136
American Agribusiness Development Corp., S.A., C.A.11 (Fla.) 1983, 711 F.2d 989. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Liberal rules of pleading are as applicable to claims in antitrust or price discrimination cases as they are in any other
656
case. Fusco v. Xerox Corp., C.A.8 (Neb.) 1982, 676 F.2d 332. Federal Civil Procedure
Notice pleading is all that is generally required under this rule, even in antitrust cases. Control Data Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., C.A.8 (Minn.) 1970, 421 F.2d 323. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(1)
Liberal rules of pleading are as applicable to antitrust cases as any other case. New Home Appliance Center, Inc. v.
Thompson, C.A.10 (Colo.) 1957, 250 F.2d 881. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(1)
Purchasers stated antitrust conspiracy claim against large self-adhesive labelstock producer on theory of concerted
action based upon consciously parallel business conduct, on allegations that large producers had elected to not compete for customers despite newly developed excess capacity, competitor entered market, notwithstanding existence
of industry-wide excess capacity, and successfully undercut prices by ten percent or more, and there was temporal
proximity between smaller producer's price increase, in spite of its historical reticence to spearhead price increases,
and larger producer's price increase; complaint contained enough factual allegations to plausibly suggest producer's
participation in a conspiracy to restrain trade, and pleaded more than conclusory assertions of conspiracy. In re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litigation, M.D.Pa.2008, 566 F.Supp.2d 363. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(4)
Claim that litigation fell within sham exception to Noerr-Pennington doctrine was not subject to heightened pleading requirement. Skinder-Strauss Associates v. Massachusetts Continuing Legal Educ., Inc., D.Mass.1994, 870
F.Supp. 8. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
There is no heightened pleading requirement in actions alleging violation of antitrust laws by subjecting plaintiffs to
sham litigation, but rather the usual pleading standards provided in these rules are applicable. Sage Intern., Ltd. v.
Cadillac Gage Co., E.D.Mich.1981, 507 F.Supp. 939. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
These rules contain no special provisions with reference to pleading of antitrust suits, as distinguished from other
type cases. Professional & Business Men's Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Life Co., D.C.Mont.1958, 163 F.Supp. 274.
972(1)
Antitrust And Trade Regulation
Motion to dismiss counterclaim, like plaintiff's motion to strike, would have to be considered in the light of standards set forth in rule relating to general rules of pleading, since the pleading requirements of this rule are fully applicable to antitrust cases. Essex Intern., Inc. v. Industra Products, Inc., N.D.Ind.1974, 64 F.R.D. 361, 182 U.S.P.Q.
56. Federal Civil Procedure
38
23. Civil rights actions
Federal court may not apply “heightened pleading standard,” more stringent than usual pleading requirements of
civil rule, in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under § 1983. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics
Intelligence and Coordination Unit, U.S.Tex.1993, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 507 U.S. 163, 122 L.Ed.2d 517, on remand 993
F.2d 1177. Civil Rights
1394
Actions under section 2000e et seq. of Title 42 do not have special status under these rules with respect to pleading
requirements. Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, U.S.Ala.1984, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 466 U.S. 147, 80 L.Ed.2d
196, rehearing denied 104 S.Ct. 2691, 467 U.S. 1231, 81 L.Ed.2d 885, on remand 740 F.2d 833. Civil Rights
Page 137
1532
There is no heightened pleading standard in civil rights cases, and, instead, court must determine whether complaint
satisfies the basic notice pleading requirements. Mangual v. Toledo, D.Puerto Rico 2008, 536 F.Supp.2d 127. Civil
Rights
1394
There is no heightened pleading standard in § 1983 actions; rather, the general and less stringent requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. Allen v. Pennsylvania Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
M.D.Pa.2007, 488 F.Supp.2d 450. Civil Rights
1394
Complaints alleging municipal liability under § 1983 are not subject to a heightened pleading standard and must
only comport with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's minimal pleading requirements. Costabile v. County of Westchester, New York, S.D.N.Y.2007, 485 F.Supp.2d 424. Civil Rights
1394
More rigorous test for civil rights cases is not required under this rule; declining to follow Kauffmann v. Moss, 420
F.2d 1270. Waller v. Butkovich, M.D.N.C.1984, 584 F.Supp. 909. Federal Civil Procedure
632
24. Court of International Trade proceedings
Construction of this rule has no bearing on a complaint in Customs Court. Mitsubishi Intern. Corp. v. U.S.,
Cust.Ct.1973, 364 F.Supp. 453, 71 Cust.Ct. 259.
25. Removed actions
Rules of notice pleading apply with as much vigor to petitions for removal as they do to other pleadings. Rachel v.
State of Ga., C.A.5 (Ga.) 1965, 342 F.2d 336, rehearing denied 343 F.2d 909, certiorari granted 86 S.Ct. 39, 382
U.S. 808, 15 L.Ed.2d 58, affirmed 86 S.Ct. 1783, 384 U.S. 780, 16 L.Ed.2d 925. Removal Of Cases
86(1)
26. RICO actions
Pleading of RICO conspiracy is subject only to the more liberal pleading standards of the rule setting forth general
rules for pleading rather than the strictures of the rule governing the pleading of special matters. D'Orange v. Feely,
S.D.N.Y.1995, 877 F.Supp. 152. Conspiracy
18
Notice pleading requirements are applicable to RICO, and failure to place defendant and court on adequate notice of
plaintiff's claim generates basis for dismissing complaint. U.S. v. Private Sanitation Industry Ass'n of Nassau/Suffolk, Inc., E.D.N.Y.1992, 793 F.Supp. 1114. Federal Civil Procedure
1811
27. Tax refund actions
Although claims for refunds are not governed by common-law pleadings, and although equitable principles govern
defenses to tax refund suits, the rudimentary notice requirements of these rules apply. Cyclops Corp. v. U. S.,
716
28. Pro se complaints
Basic pleading requirements under rules of civil procedure apply to self-represented and counseled plaintiffs alike.
Wynder v. McMahon, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2004, 360 F.3d 73, on remand 2005 WL 2179069. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 138
657.5(1)
Amended pro se complaint alleging that “both above-named defendants took an[ ] oath to uphold and enforce Constitution[al] Rights and Federal Laws for Citizens of the United States,” that “said named defendants knowing[ly]
and willfully and intentionally did nothing to protect the above-named plaintiff[,]” and that “both named defendants
aided and abet[t]ed these criminal act[s] against the above-named plaintiff....” was insufficiently clear to put defendants United States Department of Justice and State of Minnesota on notice of claims against them, as it failed to
articulate comprehensible legal or factual basis for relief. Powers v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, D.D.C.2009, 646
F.Supp.2d 153. Civil Rights
1395(1)
Mandate to read papers of pro se litigants generously makes it appropriate to consider a pro se plaintiff's papers in
opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim as effectively amending allegations of the
plaintiff's complaint, to extent that those factual assertions are consistent with allegations of plaintiff's complaint;
moreover, district courts must construe pro se pleadings broadly, and interpret them to raise strongest arguments that
657.5(1)
they suggest. Dallio v. Hebert, N.D.N.Y.2009, 678 F.Supp.2d 35. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint filed by former chaplain who had worked for National Institutes of Health Care Center, alleging violations of her constitutional rights and violation of Privacy Act, Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and Declaratory
Judgment Act, failed to comply with rule requiring short and plain statement of claim and requiring that claim be
limited to single set of circumstances, and therefore, dismissal of complaint was warranted, despite fact that chaplain
was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis; allegations did not identify agency action for which relief was sought
and had nothing do with acts cited, and complaint was too long, rambling, convoluted and confusing. Rogler v. U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, D.D.C.2009, 620 F.Supp.2d 123, appeal denied 2009 WL 3571249. Federal
Civil Procedure
1772
Pro se status does not relieve plaintiff of pleading standards otherwise prescribed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Saidin v. New York City Dept. of Educ., S.D.N.Y.2007, 498 F.Supp.2d 683, reconsideration denied 245
657.5(1)
Pro se plaintiff failed to make short and plain statement of claim based on alleged contract between the parties;
complaint failed to identify contract and facts and circumstances surrounding its alleged breach. Rasidescu v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., S.D.Cal.2006, 435 F.Supp.2d 1090. Contracts
337(2)
Tenant's pro se civil rights complaint against mortgage corporation, which was filed after landlord brought nonpayment proceedings against tenant and which mentioned corporation in caption and one paragraph but did not provide
any facts to indicate how corporation could have injured tenant, failed to meet minimal threshold of notice pleading;
however, sufficiency of complaint itself would be considered in light of tenant's pro se status. Humpherys v. Nager,
E.D.N.Y.1997, 962 F.Supp. 347. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(2)
Court must construe pro se complaints liberally. Turner-Adeniji v. Accountants on Call, D.N.J.1995, 892 F.Supp.
657.5(1)
Pro se civil litigant's complaint, which was apparently intended to challenge tax laws, was insufficient to meet federal pleading requirements and would be dismissed; complaint did not set forth basis for jurisdiction, did not contain
sufficient facts to give notice of nature of claims, and did not contain prayer for relief. Anderson v. Office of Atty.
Gen., Dept. of Justice, E.D.Mich.1995, 890 F.Supp. 648. Federal Civil Procedure
1810
Pro se complaints are to be liberally construed and must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
657.5(1)
drafted by lawyers. McClendon v. Turner, W.D.Pa.1991, 765 F.Supp. 251. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 139
Court will scrutinize pleadings of a nonlawyer appearing pro se with special care to determine whether a colorable
1829
claim exists. Gordon v. Crouchley, D.C.R.I.1982, 554 F.Supp. 796. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaints drawn by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standard than those drawn by legal counsel. King v.
Fayette County, W.D.Pa.1981, 92 F.R.D. 457. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(1)
Even pro se litigants must meet certain minimal standards of pleading. Holsey v. Collins, D.C.Md.1981, 90 F.R.D.
621
29. Pro se motions
Court would examine pro se litigant's motion for summary judgment and response to defendant's motion under more
liberal standard than pleadings drafted by attorney. Dumas v. Chicago Housing Authority, N.D.Ill.1996, 930 F.Supp.
2547.1
30. Striking of pleadings
It is appropriate in some situations to strike a pleading for gross violation of this rule governing general rules of
pleading, or when material contained in pleading is scandalous, immaterial or redundant. Asay v. Hallmark Cards,
Inc., C.A.8 (Iowa) 1979, 594 F.2d 692. Federal Civil Procedure
1125.1;
1138
Striking was warranted of debt collector's affirmative defenses to debtors' putative class action, alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Maryland statutes, where defenses were conclusory, failed to
provide notice of factual grounds upon which they rested, and only recited bare legal conclusions. Bradshaw v.
Hilco Receivables, LLC, D.Md.2010, 725 F.Supp.2d 532. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
359
Rule which requires only short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief is not designed
to strike inartistic pleadings or to provide more definite statement to answer an apparent ambiguity. Trustees of Hotel Industry Pension Fund v. Carol Management Corp., S.D.Fla.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1548. Federal Civil Procedure
672
31. Amendment of pleadings
In light of strong presumption that parent company is not the employer of its subsidiary's employees, mere allegation
by African-American employees that defendants had centralized operations and jointly employed them in Minnesota
did not plead sufficient facts to provide defendants with notice as to alleged employer/employee relationship, as
required to state claim for employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Minnesota Human Rights Act
(MHRA) and Minneapolis Civil Rights Ordinance (MCRO). Martin v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., D.Minn.2010, 710
1532; Civil Rights
1740
Parties cannot amend their pleadings through issues raised solely in their briefs, and such facts are irrelevant for
purposes of determining whether plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim or failure to
plead fraud with the requisite specificity. Pollio v. MF Global, Ltd., S.D.N.Y.2009, 608 F.Supp.2d 564. Federal
Civil Procedure
1832
Plaintiffs were not required, in their action, pursuant to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), alleging liability
of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) for injuries to plaintiffs' dece-
Page 140
dent in terrorist bombing, to amend their complaint in order to raise their state law claims; complaint sufficiently
raised issues to put defendants on notice as to the basic facts underlying the claims and the relief sought. Greenbaum
v. Islamic Republic of Iran, D.D.C.2006, 451 F.Supp.2d 90. International Law
10.43
Plaintiff would not be granted leave to amend his complaint, to attach copies of letters and some of the grievances
filed by plaintiff with defendant for purposes of showing plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies and to
show that defendants were on notice of injuries and deprecatory condition that plaintiff suffered as result of his detention; civil procedure rules did not mandate the filing of exhibits or attachments to a complaint, the action had
barely progressed in 14 months since its inception, the lack of progress was due in large part to plaintiff having already amended the complaint three times, and further amendment would cause additional delays and undue hardship
839.1
to defendants. Banks v. York, D.D.C.2006, 448 F.Supp.2d 213. Federal Civil Procedure
Rather than dismissing their deficient disparate impact claims, court would permit police officers opportunity to cure
pleading defects in amended complaint, urging them to set forth separate section dedicated to disparate impact
claims in which they identified particular policies allegedly having disparate impact on minority officers, and encouraging them to review recent caselaw from higher courts regarding level of specificity required in identifying
1838
such policies. Fulcher v. City of Wichita, D.Kan.2006, 445 F.Supp.2d 1271. Federal Civil Procedure
Ordinarily, dismissal under this rule should be with leave to amend; such deference, however, is uncalled for when
plaintiff persists in ignoring admonitions of the court. Michaelis v. Krivosha, D.C.Neb.1983, 566 F.Supp. 94, af1838
firmed 717 F.2d 437. Federal Civil Procedure
Justice required denial of motion to amend answer to add affirmative defenses known to defendant when it moved
for summary judgment almost two months before filing motion to amend, even though plaintiff knew about affirmative defenses when summary judgment motion was filed; omitting proposed amended answer alone required denial
of motion, all evidence for defenses was in defendant's possession, allowing amended answer would require reopening of discovery and force adjournment of trial, and prejudice to plaintiff and court thus justified denial of motion.
846
Toth v. Glazer, E.D.Wis.1995, 163 F.R.D. 549. Federal Civil Procedure
Leave to amend pleading should be freely granted to correct or clarify insufficient statement of court's jurisdictional
827
basis over suit. Jacobi v. Blocker, E.D.Va.1994, 153 F.R.D. 84. Federal Civil Procedure
Although government and all nonsettling defendants would be relieved from any responsibility for serving papers
and pleadings on any settling defendant and any settling defendant was relieved of service requirements of rule 5 of
these rules governing service and filing of pleadings and other papers and of responsibility for serving and filing
answer, with respect to complaint seeking recovery for funds expended in connection with surface cleanup, that order was not operative as to any supplemental complaint, amended complaint, new cause of action or additional
claims for relief. U.S. v. Environmental Conservation and Chemical Corp., D.C.Ind.1984, 100 F.R.D. 490. Federal
Civil Procedure
402
Where a cross-claim fails to satisfy pleading requirements, amendment should be allowed if interests of justice will
be served and if opposing party would not be unfairly prejudiced thereby. Rainbow Trucking, Inc. v. Ennia Ins. Co.,
E.D.Pa.1980, 88 F.R.D. 596. Federal Civil Procedure
847
If, in fact, broad notice pleading is not to be deemed sufficient in cases in which employees sues his union and his
employer alleging bad faith representation by union in relation to grievances, there should be at least an opportunity
given the employee to amend so as to show himself entitled to recourse in the federal court. Sedlarik v. General Motors Corp., W.D.Mich.1971, 54 F.R.D. 230. Federal Civil Procedure
839.1
Page 141
These rules contemplate greatest liberality in pleadings, and amendments thereof are liberally allowed in interest of
833
justice. Dairy Engineering Corp. v. De-Raef Corp., W.D.Mo.1942, 2 F.R.D. 378. Federal Civil Procedure
A motion by incompetent, who by his guardian had commenced an action to recover total and permanent disability
benefits under a life policy to amend the complaint by inserting the guardian as plaintiff, would be denied on ground
that proposed amendment created a “new cause of action”, or a “new claim for relief” as designated by this rule.
392
Schwartz v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mass.1941, 2 F.R.D. 167. Federal Civil Procedure
Where cases based on negligence were removed from the state court before initial pleading was filed, and the substance and form of declarations as prepared for state court did not comply with spirit and letter of these rules, the
declarations would be stricken in their entirety with leave granted plaintiffs to file within 15 days complaints conforming to the federal rules, and official form provided in Appendix of Forms. Wild v. Knudsen, E.D.Tenn.1941, 1
F.R.D. 646. Removal Of Cases
115
32. Scope of review
Dismissal under this rule establishing general rules of pleading is not appealable order since it is lacking finality.
Schnell v. City of Chicago, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1969, 407 F.2d 1084.
Determination as to whether there has been a reasonable compliance with this rule requiring that each averment of
pleading shall be simple, concise and direct rests with trial court and such determination must be made with judicial
discretion subject to review by Court of Appeals if an abuse of discretion exists. Carrigan v. California State Legislature, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1959, 263 F.2d 560, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 901, 359 U.S. 980, 3 L.Ed.2d 929. Federal Civil
Procedure
631.1
II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
<Subdivision Index>
Ad damnum clause, demand for judgment 69
Common count 62
Default order, demand for judgment 70
Demand for judgment 68-72
Demand for judgment - Generally 68
Demand for judgment - Ad damnum clause 69
Demand for judgment - Default order 70
Demand for judgment - Legal or equitable relief 71
Demand for judgment - Partition actions 72
Duty of court 61
General claims for relief 67
Justiciability 64
Legal or equitable relief, demand for judgment 71
Notice to opposing party 66
Partition actions, demand for judgment 72
Requirements of rule generally 65
Single or multiple claims for relief 63
61. Duty of court, claims for relief
There is no duty on part of trial court or appellate court to create a claim which plaintiff does not spell out in his
Page 142
pleading. Clark v. National Travelers Life Ins. Co., C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1975, 518 F.2d 1167. See, also, Case v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Inc. Co., C.A.Miss.1961, 294 F.2d 676. Federal Civil Procedure
673; Federal Courts
611
Despite the liberal pleading standard of rule requiring pleader to only make a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that pleader is entitled to relief, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must
allege a plausible entitlement to relief. Gallagher v. Cigna Healthcare of Maine, Inc., D.Me.2008, 538 F.Supp.2d
1772
In ruling on motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, court must assume truth of all well-pleaded facts in plaintiff's complaint and view them in light most favorable to plaintiff; in addition, all reasonable inferences must be indulged in favor of plaintiff and pleadings must be liberally construed. Butler v. Capitol Federal Sav., D.Kan.1995,
1835
Every plaintiff filing a complaint in a federal district court must prepare his complaint in conformity with general
rule of pleading relating to claims for relief, and it is not the function of trial judges to redraft, edit or otherwise conform complaints to the requirements of such rule. Silver v. Queen's Hospital, D.C.Hawai'i 1971, 53 F.R.D. 223.
901
62. Common count, claims for relief
A common count in complaint satisfies minimal requirements of this rule. Sidebotham v. Robison, C.A.9 (Cal.)
671
Common counts may be used under present system of pleading prescribed by these rules. Re v. Fullop, E.D.Ill.1958,
671
63. Single or multiple claims for relief
For purposes of these rules, a complaint asserting only one legal right, even if seeking multiple remedies for alleged
violation of that right, states single claim for relief. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, U.S.Pa.1976, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 424
U.S. 737, 47 L.Ed.2d 435, on remand 535 F.2d 1248. Federal Civil Procedure
81
64. Justiciability, claims for relief
Question of technical or even substantive sufficiency of pleadings for other purposes is not controlling in resolution
of basic question of justiciability, since it is to be assumed that justiciable actions will be processed in accordance
with rules governing subject of pleading, including amendments to pleadings. Ramer v. Saxbe, C.A.D.C.1975, 522
F.2d 695, 173 U.S.App.D.C. 83. Federal Courts
161
65. Requirements of rule generally, claims for relief
While a complaint attacked by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Phillips v. County of Allegheny,
C.A.3 (Pa.) 2008, 515 F.3d 224, on remand 2008 WL 2541694. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
District court could not dismiss plaintiff's action for failure to comply with order to supply complaint that substantially exceeded requirements of rules of civil procedure. Wynder v. McMahon, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2004, 360 F.3d 73, on
1771
remand 2005 WL 2179069. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 143
A “complaint” must contain a statement of facts showing the jurisdiction of the court, ownership of a right by plaintiff, violation of that right by defendant, injury resulting to plaintiff by such violation, justification for equitable relief where that is sought, and a demand for relief. Pierce v. Wagner, C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1943, 134 F.2d 958. Pleading
42
Notice and clarity of claims is all that is required under federal pleading rules. LeDuc v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins.
Co., N.D.Cal.1992, 814 F.Supp. 820. Federal Civil Procedure
621
These rules do not require anything more than a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, other than the grounds of jurisdiction and prayer for relief. Simmons Co. v. Cantor, W.D.Pa.1943,
671
66. Notice to opposing party, claims for relief
Arrestee's mere one-time mention of training was insufficient to put county sheriff on notice of any failure to train
claim under §§ 1983, arising out of deputies' alleged failure to provide proper medical care to arrestee in suffering
1395(6)
epileptic seizure at mall. Everson v. Leis, C.A.6 (Ohio) 2009, 556 F.3d 484. Civil Rights
In deciding whether a complaint fairly notifies a defendant of matters sought to be litigated, courts may look beyond
pleadings to pretrial conduct and communications of parties. Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman Industries,
Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1973, 488 F.2d 807. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Under either the notice pleading standard or the heightened standard for fraud claims, consumers' allegations failed
to provide manufacturer of allegedly defective television with adequate notice of manufacturer's alleged violations
of the California False Advertising Law (FAL); consumers failed to identify specific advertisements, when and
where they were shown, or why they were untrue or misleading. In re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series
Rear Projection HDTV Television Litigation, S.D.Cal.2010, 2010 WL 4892114. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
636
Debtors who brought action against bank and other “Doe” defendants, asserting violations of California's Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (RFDCPA) and state law claims for libel, invasion of privacy, and commission
of a tort-in-se, made clear connection between specific allegations and specific defendants, as required to notify
bank as to allegations against it, since entirety of complaint was clearly directed at all named defendants, including
the bank; even though some paragraphs of the complaint referred to bank's name and other paragraphs referred more
generally to defendants' “agents, employees, members, directors” and others, it was clear from reading entire complaint that debtors were referring to defendant bank. Marseglia v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, S.D.Cal.2010, 750
F.Supp.2d 1171. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
358; Banks And Banking
226; Libel And Slander
80; Torts
415
Although complaint filed by federal and state governments failed to identify third-party marketing dealers whose
conduct was allegedly imputed to seller of satellite television programming to consumers, complaint sufficiently
alleged claim that seller caused network of dealers under contracts with seller to violate amended Telemarketing
Sales Rule (TSR), by calling telephone numbers on do-not-call registry, failing to connect calls to representative
within two seconds of consumers' completed greeting, offering to provide financial payments for sales of programming, entering into relationships in which dealers marketed on behalf of seller, and failing to monitor and enforce
compliance with amended TSR, since complaint provided seller notice of claims, alleged facts plausibly stating
claims, and did more than recite elements of claims and conclusions of law. U.S. v. Dish Network L.L.C.,
C.D.Ill.2011, 754 F.Supp.2d 1004. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
224
Page 144
Generally, a complaint need only give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon
673
which it rests. Leavitt v. Cole, M.D.Fla.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 1338. Federal Civil Procedure
In suit in which insurer had essentially alleged that insureds fraudulently misrepresented or failed to adequately disclose extent of risk, insurer could not seek partial summary judgment under pleadings finding insurance contract
invalid for lack of insurable interest and insurable loss; such theories did not appear in complaint, and no notice to
defendant insureds of such claim could be inferred. Ocaso, S.A., Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros v. Puerto
Rico Maritime Shipping Authority, D.Puerto Rico 1996, 915 F.Supp. 1244. Insurance
3426; Insurance
3571
Complaint must give opposing party fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests.
671
Underwood v. Archer Management Services, Inc., D.D.C.1994, 857 F.Supp. 96. Federal Civil Procedure
For purposes of requirement that plaintiff must plead short and plain statement of claim showing pleader is entitled
to relief, defendant must receive adequate notice of plaintiff's claims to allow a response or a defense. Mallett v.
Timco Elec. Power and Controls, Inc., E.D.Tex.1993, 815 F.Supp. 992. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Under these rules it is generally held that no pleading shall be bad in substance when it reasonably informs the opposition of the nature of a claim or defense which he is called upon to defend. Temperato v. Rainbolt, E.D.Ill.1957,
163 F.Supp. 744, 119 U.S.P.Q. 68. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Complaint failed to meet minimal notice pleading requirements, and thus would be dismissed as to defendants not
named in caption or body of complaint; complaint was entirely devoid of factual allegations against such defendants.
1744.1
Mason v. County of Delaware Sheriff's Dept., N.D.N.Y.1993, 150 F.R.D. 27. Federal Civil Procedure
67. General claims for relief
Fair notice of claim requires a showing rather than a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief; without some factual allegation in the complaint, a claimant cannot satisfy the requirement that he or she provide not only fair notice,
but also the “grounds” on which the claim rests. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2008, 515 F.3d 224,
673
on remand 2008 WL 2541694. Federal Civil Procedure
Government could assert claims against secured creditor for having arranged for disposal of hazardous substances,
despite failure to assert claims in original complaint, in light of complaint's general claim for relief under CERCLA,
unusual procedural history of case, creditor's extensive discovery on situation at textile plant, and similarity of facts
with complaint's claim for operator liability. U.S. v. Fleet Factors Corp., S.D.Ga.1993, 819 F.Supp. 1079. Federal
Civil Procedure
884.1
68. Demand for judgment, claims for relief--Generally
Complaint of theater owner seeking to enjoin city from vacating public sidewalk and from issuing a building permit
for construction of new building over sidewalk and alleging that city and redevelopment authority misled theater
owner, but requesting no relief against redevelopment authority, failed to comply with provision of this rule that
complaint contain demand for judgment for relief to which pleader deems himself entitled. RKO-Stanley Warner
Theatres, Inc. v. Mellon Nat. Bank & Trust Co., C.A.3 (Pa.) 1970, 436 F.2d 1297. Municipal Corporations
657(4)
Plaintiff's technical error titling the relief she sought as a “claim” did not, by itself, mean she was precluded from
Page 145
seeking punitive damages; plaintiff adequately notified defendant of her claims and demands for relief. Robinette v.
WESTconsin Credit Union, W.D.Wis.2010, 686 F.Supp.2d 1206. Federal Civil Procedure
679
FLSA claim for overtime compensation did not contain demand for judgment for relief sought in that regard; employee failed to provide sufficient information for district court to be able to calculate damages claimed with regard
to overtime violation, where he merely alleged he worked “beyond 40 hours per week.” Zhong v. August August
Corp., S.D.N.Y.2007, 498 F.Supp.2d 625. Labor And Employment
2380(1)
Although black employee bringing action against employer under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 and Title VII failed to make
demand for judgment for relief to which employee deemed himself entitled as required under Rule 8(a), complaint
stated a claim for relief, since employee would be entitled to both equitable and legal remedies under such statutes,
but employee should consider amending complaint in order to specifically state demand for relief he seeks. Barlow
v. Pep Boys, Inc., E.D.Pa.1985, 625 F.Supp. 130. Federal Civil Procedure
843
69. ---- Ad damnum clause, demand for judgment, claims for relief
Surety on combined performance and payment bond for municipal debris-removal project did not waive request for
monetary relief in its declaratory judgment action against city arising when city released funds to general contractor
despite notice of contractor's default and request by surety to withhold funds pending investigation; although surety
never requested “damages,” liberal reading of its complaint and survey of parties' arguments before district court
revealed that it was pursuing recovery from municipal pockets, and city consistently argued its immunity from damages. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Pine Bluff, C.A.8 (Ark.) 2004, 354 F.3d 945, rehearing and
321
rehearing en banc denied. Declaratory Judgment
Former state university architect who brought First Amendment retaliatory discharge action against university administrator, stemming from his speech regarding alleged improprieties in renovation project, properly pleaded injunctive remedy as element of claim by virtue of ad damnum clause in complaint, requesting “such equitable and
further relief as may be just and appropriate,” and thus architect would be entitled to injunction ordering reinstate1395(8)
ment in event of successful claim. Galli v. Morelli, S.D.Ohio 2003, 277 F.Supp.2d 844. Civil Rights
The ad damnum is only estimate by drafter of complaint of the relief to which he deems himself entitled, and plaintiff is not restricted or bound by relief requested. Gillespie v. Brewer, N.D.W.Va.1985, 602 F.Supp. 218. Federal
Civil Procedure
2395
Local rule forbidding ad damnum clauses claiming damages above $10,000 was not inconsistent with requirement
of this rule that claim for relief shall contain demand for judgment for relief to which plaintiff deems himself enti679
tled. R. S. E., Inc. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., M.D.Pa.1977, 77 F.R.D. 702. Federal Civil Procedure
70. ---- Default order, demand for judgment, claims for relief
Proposed default order served upon defendant carrier amounted to an amendment of the prayer for relief by plaintiffs, a class of shippers seeking to enforce Interstate Commerce Commission refund order; the proposed default
order was definite enough to allow defendant to calculate its maximum liability, and the verification procedure incorporated by the district court's “default order” protected defendant from fraudulent claims that could have invalidated that calculation. Appleton Elec. Co. v. Graves Truck Line, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1980, 635 F.2d 603, certiorari de843
nied 101 S.Ct. 2058, 451 U.S. 976, 68 L.Ed.2d 357. Federal Civil Procedure
71. ---- Legal or equitable relief, demand for judgment, claims for relief
Page 146
On tobacco company's motion for judgment on pleadings in multi-district litigation, plaintiffs were allowed to assert
multiple and duplicative legal and equitable claims for relief, and thus judgment dismissing plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, on grounds that they pled adequate remedies at law, was unwarranted. In re Light Cigarettes Marketing Sales Practices Litigation, D.Me.2010, 751 F.Supp.2d 183. Federal Civil Procedure
675.1
Federal pleading rule permits a party to plead alternative theories of relief under both legal and equitable grounds,
even if the theories are inconsistent. Diamond Center, Inc. v. Leslie's Jewelry Mfg. Corp., W.D.Wis.2008, 562
F.Supp.2d 1009. Federal Civil Procedure
675.1
Under the united procedure contemplated by these rules, a claimant may pray for all relief, legal or equitable, to
which he is entitled as a matter of substantive rights. Bowles v. Cohen, E.D.Pa.1944, 65 F.Supp. 499. Federal Civil
Procedure
675.1
Under these rules, a plaintiff is entitled to join all of his claims, either legal or equitable, in the same pleading and to
demand relief of several different types. Card v. Elmer C. Breur, Inc., N.D.Ohio 1941, 42 F.Supp. 701. Federal Civil
Procedure
85
72. ---- Partition actions, demand for judgment, claims for relief
A petition, alleging jurisdiction in Federal District Court under former § 41(25) of this title authorizing suits for partition of lands where the United States is one of tenants in common or joint tenants, and which alleged in a short and
plain statement a claim of joint ownership between plaintiffs and defendants in the land and plaintiffs' rights to their
respective definite parts, and which made a demand for judgment for relief to which they deemed themselves entitled, was sufficient to state a claim against the United States under this rule. Rambo v. U.S., N.D.Ga.1941, 2 F.R.D.
200. Federal Courts
313
III. JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS
<Subdivision Index>
Admiralty actions 134
Affidavits 112
Amendment of pleadings 131
Ancillary jurisdiction 125
Antitrust actions 135
Arbitration 135a
Bankruptcy actions 136
Cause of action 109
Civil rights actions 137
Complete reading of complaint or record 110
Counterclaims 133
Defamation, libel or slander actions 138
Different types of relief sought 105
Dismissal of complaint, failure to allege jurisdictional grounds 130
Diversity of citizenship 118-123
Diversity of citizenship - Generally 118
Diversity of citizenship - Foreign corporations 122
Diversity of citizenship - Information and belief 120
Diversity of citizenship - Jurisdictional amount 119
Page 147
Diversity of citizenship - Miscellaneous allegations 123
Diversity of citizenship - Third-party defendants 121
Duty of court 102
ERISA actions 139
Facts supporting jurisdiction 113
Failure to allege jurisdictional grounds 129, 130
Failure to allege jurisdictional grounds - Generally 129
Failure to allege jurisdictional grounds - Dismissal of complaint 130
Federal question jurisdiction 124
Foreign corporations, diversity of citizenship 122
Immigration and nationality actions 140
Information and belief, diversity of citizenship 120
Joinder of actions 108
Jones Act actions 141
Jurisdictional amount, diversity of citizenship 119
Jurisdictional grounds generally 101
Manner of raising 128
Miscellaneous actions 147
Miscellaneous allegations, diversity of citizenship 123
Patent actions 142
Pendent jurisdiction 126
Portal-to-Portal Act actions 143
Price control or stabilization actions 144
Qualification to do business 115
Removed actions 107
RICO actions 145
Short and plain statement 111
Statement of claim for relief 103
Statutory provisions 114
Striking of allegations 132
Subject matter and in personam jurisdiction 104
Supplementary proceedings 127
Third-party defendants, diversity of citizenship 121
Venue 116
Waiver of immunity 117
Zoning actions 146
101. Jurisdictional grounds generally
Plaintiffs must affirmatively plead jurisdiction of federal court. Dracos v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., C.A.4 (Va.) 1983, 705
F.2d 1392, on rehearing 762 F.2d 348, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 311, 474 U.S. 945, 88 L.Ed.2d 288. Federal
Courts
32
Jurisdiction of a federal court must appear in the plaintiff's statement of his claim. Schultz v. Cally, C.A.3 (N.J.)
1975, 528 F.2d 470. See, also, Patton v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., C.A.Pa.1952, 197 F.2d 732; Cline v. Richards,
D.C.Tenn.1977, 455 F.Supp. 42; Haynes v. James H. Carr, D.C.Va.1969, 307 F.Supp. 1228, affirmed 427 F.2d 700,
32
certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 238, 400 U.S. 942, 27 L.Ed.2d 245. Federal Courts
Where a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States is an essential element of the
cause of action, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff adequately and properly to allege jurisdictional facts according to
Page 148
the nature of the case. Dewell v. Lawson, C.A.10 (Okla.) 1974, 489 F.2d 877. See, also, Krouse v. U.S. Government
Treasury Dept. I.R.S., D.C.Cal.1974, 380 F.Supp. 219. Federal Courts
241
Jurisdiction of federal court must appear in plaintiff's statement of his claim. Smith v. Spina, C.A.3 (N.J.) 1973, 477
F.2d 1140. See, also, Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, C.A.Minn.1968, 397 F.2d 124; Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Rue,
D.C.Iowa 1962, 210 F.Supp. 952; Cresci v. Music Publishers Holding Corp., D.C.N.Y.1962, 210 F.Supp. 253.
32
Federal Courts
If a party seeking to enforce federal jurisdiction asserts substantial claim under federal statute, the prerequisite of
making jurisdiction appear affirmatively on face of complaint is satisfied. Chasis v. Progress Mfg. Co., C.A.3 (Pa.)
1967, 382 F.2d 773. Federal Courts
242.1
It is incumbent upon plaintiff in federal court to properly allege jurisdictional facts according to nature of case.
Yoder v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Mont., C.A.9 (Mont.) 1964, 339 F.2d 360.
32
Federal Courts
One who invokes the jurisdiction of a federal District Court must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show
jurisdiction. Illinois Terminal R. Co. v. Friedman, C.A.8 (Mo.) 1953, 208 F.2d 675, rehearing denied 210 F.2d 229.
See, also, Stewart v. U.S., C.A.Ill.1952, 199 F.2d 517; City of Memphis v. Ingram, D.C.Ark.1952, 195 F.2d 338.
32
Federal Courts
Failure to plead federal jurisdiction is fatal. Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Systems, Inc., N.D.Iowa 1994, 869 F.Supp.
1413, affirmed 61 F.3d 908. Federal Courts
32
Federal courts, being courts of limited jurisdiction, are never presumed to have subject matter jurisdiction; complaint
must demonstrate basis for federal jurisdiction. Block v. Boeing Military Airplane Co., D.Kan.1987, 671 F.Supp. 19.
32; Federal Courts
34
Federal Courts
Party bringing an action before a federal court has the burden of pleading the grounds upon which the court's juris32
diction depends. In re Longhorn Securities Litigation, W.D.Okla.1983, 573 F.Supp. 255. Federal Courts
If jurisdiction is not pleaded in complaint, subsequent oral or written reference to claimed sources of jurisdiction do
32
not suffice. Matherly v. Lamb, E.D.Pa.1976, 414 F.Supp. 364. Federal Courts
Plaintiff must allege the ground upon which court's jurisdiction depends. Pargament v. Fitzgerald, S.D.N.Y.1967,
272 F.Supp. 553, affirmed 391 F.2d 934. Federal Courts
32
A party seeking to invoke jurisdiction of federal district court must plead, and prove, existence of facts sufficient to
32
support that jurisdiction. Brandt v. Bay City Super Market, N.D.Cal.1960, 182 F.Supp. 937. Federal Courts
Jurisdiction of federal District Court must be supported by the allegations of the complaint. Jeffers v. U.S.,
E.D.Wis.1955, 133 F.Supp. 426. Federal Courts
32; Pleading
45
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and in courts of limited jurisdiction petition must set forth facts to
show that court has jurisdiction of claim presented. Luff v. U.S., Ct.Cl.1951, 100 F.Supp. 925, 120 Ct.Cl. 682. See,
also, Crockard v. Publishers, Saturday Evening Post Magazine of Philadelphia, Pa., D.C.Pa.1956, 19 F.R.D. 511.
5
Federal Courts
Page 149
All facts in pleading upon which court's jurisdiction depends are material facts and all issues raised as to such jurisdictional facts are material issues. Williams v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., S.D.Cal.1953, 14 F.R.D. 1. Federal
Civil Procedure
630
Statement of facts on which existence of federal jurisdiction depends must affirmatively and distinctly appear in
complaint. Stein v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, D.C.N.J.1950, 11 F.R.D.
153. Federal Courts
242.1
Under these rules, the grounds upon which district court's jurisdiction depends must be set forth in the complaint.
32
Coyle v. Philadelphia Macaroni Co., E.D.Pa.1949, 9 F.R.D. 331. Federal Courts
If facts alleging jurisdiction are challenged, burden rests upon party claiming jurisdiction to demonstrate that jurisdiction of subject matter exists. In re Tip-Pa-Hans Enterprises, Inc., Bkrtcy.W.D.Va.1983, 27 B.R. 780. Federal
Courts
34
102. Duty of court, jurisdictional grounds
Federal court, as court of limited jurisdiction, has duty to assure itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction in each
case. Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Systems, Inc., N.D.Iowa 1994, 869 F.Supp. 1413, affirmed 61 F.3d 908. Federal
Courts
30
Federal District Court must notice, sua sponte, failure of plaintiff to include in complaint short and plain statement
of grounds upon which Court's jurisdiction depends. Wagner v. Career Opportunities, Inc., M.D.Tenn.1984, 602
F.Supp. 887. Federal Courts
30
Although the defendant in an action brought in federal court fails to challenge plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations, it
is the duty of the court to refuse to proceed upon a record which does not disclose a basis for federal jurisdiction.
30
Harrington v. Mure, S.D.N.Y.1960, 186 F.Supp. 655, 126 U.S.P.Q. 506. Federal Courts
103. Statement of claim for relief, jurisdictional grounds
Under subdivision (a) of this rule complaint must set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted and also
grounds of federal jurisdiction, and allegation of the ground upon which jurisdiction depends is not the equivalent of
a statement of the claim for relief. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of
America, CIO, E.D.N.Y.1953, 115 F.Supp. 231. Federal Civil Procedure
673
104. Subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, jurisdictional grounds
“Jurisdiction” within provision of this rule requiring that complaint must contain short and plain statement of
grounds upon which the trial court's jurisdiction depends means subject matter rather than personal jurisdiction.
32
Stirling Homex Corp. v. Homasote Co., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1971, 437 F.2d 87. Federal Courts
105. Different types of relief sought, jurisdictional grounds
Rule within federal courts is that basis of jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint; such rule has particular force when several different causes of types of relief sought. U. S. ex rel. Becker v. Semmons, E.D.Wis.1973,
357 F.Supp. 1135. Federal Courts
32
Page 150
106. Pro se complaints, jurisdictional grounds
Pro se medical malpractice complaint was subject to dismissal, with leave to amend, for failure to allege court's sub1742(2);
ject matter jurisdiction. Wilkerson v. Butler, E.D.Cal.2005, 229 F.R.D. 166. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
Although pro se complaint of state prisoner lacked a specific jurisdictional allegation, as required by rule that complaint shall contain a short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depends, where prisoner
invoked Constitution as a ground for his complaint and alleged facts which, if proven, would indicate a denial of
constitutional rights, complaint was sufficient to satisfy requirements of this rule. Uhler v. Com. of Pa.,
691
107. Removed actions, jurisdictional grounds
Notice of removal stating that basis for removal was statute allowing removal in cases where United States district
courts have original jurisdiction satisfied requirement that notice contain a short and plain statement of the grounds
for removal, even though the notice did not state the jurisdictional basis for the district court's original jurisdiction.
84
Wilkinson v. U.S., W.D.N.C.1989, 724 F.Supp. 1200. Removal Of Cases
Federal court had jurisdiction of action for alienation of affections under the removal procedure, and the summons
needed no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it. Madron v. Thomas, E.D.Tenn.1965, 38 F.R.D. 177. Removal
Of Cases
118
108. Joinder of actions, jurisdictional grounds
The fact that joinder of two causes of action is proper under these rules, so far as subject-matter thereof is concerned
is insufficient to extend court's jurisdiction of one of such causes over the other cause, of which it is otherwise without jurisdiction, as joinder becomes improper when effect is to enlarge court's jurisdiction. Weintraub v. Fitzgerald
Bros. Brewing Co., S.D.N.Y.1941, 40 F.Supp. 473. Federal Civil Procedure
71
109. Cause of action, jurisdictional grounds
Under these rules a complaint must set forth a basis for jurisdiction but it need not state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action. Compton v. Union Supply Co., W.D.Pa.1953, 110 F.Supp. 3.
110. Complete reading of complaint or record, jurisdictional grounds
Although complaint which alleged diversity jurisdiction in suit to void fraudulent conveyance was not amended to
state new jurisdictional basis that arose when bankruptcy trustee of defendant became a party, Court of Appeals
would grant motion for leave to amend without requiring perfunctory remand for that purpose, since it appeared
plainly from the record that jurisdiction existed. Carlton v. Baww, Inc., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1985, 751 F.2d 781. Federal
Courts
775
Alleged absence of allegation in complaint pertaining to jurisdiction of district court was not violative of this rule
requiring short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depends, where complaint, fairly read,
presumptively showed that court had jurisdiction. Freeman v. Mayer, D.C.N.J.1956, 146 F.Supp. 202. Federal Civil
Procedure
671
111. Short and plain statement, jurisdictional grounds
Page 151
Complaint need contain only short and plain statement of grounds upon which jurisdiction depends, in respect to
355.1
jurisdictional amount. Jaconski v. Avisun Corp., C.A.3 (Pa.) 1966, 359 F.2d 931. Federal Courts
A cause of action must be so stated in complaint as to contain short and plain statement of grounds of court's jurisdiction and of plaintiff's claim, showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Smith v. Dulles, C.A.D.C.1956, 236 F.2d
739, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 6, certiorari denied 77 S.Ct. 329, 352 U.S. 955, 1 L.Ed.2d 244. Federal Civil Procedure
630
112. Affidavits, jurisdictional grounds
In order to satisfy pleading requirement that complaint include statement of grounds upon which jurisdiction depends, it is not enough to attach affidavit to complaint which itself asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists, at least
when complaint does not incorporate affidavit by reference. Reynolds and Reynolds Co. v. 1mage Software, Inc.,
S.D.Ohio 2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 761. Federal Courts
32
113. Facts supporting jurisdiction, jurisdictional grounds
Where jurisdictional allegations were traversed, plaintiff had burden of supporting such allegations. Tanzymore v.
Bethlehem Steel Corp., C.A.3 (Pa.) 1972, 457 F.2d 1320. See, also, Vorachek v. M.S., C.A.N.D.1964, 337 F.2d 797;
Whittington v. Sewer Const. Co., Inc. D.C.W.Va.1973, 367 F.Supp. 1328, affirmed 541 F.2d 427. Federal Courts
34
A plaintiff has the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity the facts creating jurisdiction. Sparks v. England,
C.C.A.8 (Mo.) 1940, 113 F.2d 579. Federal Courts
355.1
General rule governing pleading federal jurisdiction requires more that a simple allegation that jurisdiction exists or
citation of a federal statute; rather, it is required that the complaint clearly set out the basic facts necessary to support
the conclusion that there is federal jurisdiction. Lopes v. Vieira, E.D.Cal.2007, 488 F.Supp.2d 1000. Federal Courts
242.1
This rule governing pleading of federal jurisdiction requires more than a simple allegation that jurisdiction exists or
citation of a federal statute; rather, it is required that the complaint clearly set out basic facts necessary to support
conclusion that there is federal jurisdiction. Fountain v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., E.D.La.1967, 265 F.Supp.
630. Federal Courts
32; Federal Courts
242.1
114. Statutory provisions, jurisdictional grounds
Under the short and plain statement pleading standard, a complaint need not identify the statutory or constitutional
source of the claim raised in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Alvarez v. Hill, C.A.9 (Or.) 2008, 518 F.3d 1152,
1772
on remand 2010 WL 582217. Federal Civil Procedure
No jurisdiction-conferring provision had to be specifically alleged by plaintiffs in complaint which alleged facts
showing violation of due process by individual government officials and which expressly stated that due process
was violated in order for the district court to have subject matter jurisdiction. Love v. U.S., C.A.9 (Mont.) 1989, 915
F.2d 1242, rehearing denied 944 F.2d 632. Federal Courts
243
If facts giving court jurisdiction are set forth in the complaint, statutory provision conferring jurisdiction need not be
specifically pleaded. Williams v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 405 F.2d 951. See, also, Sanborn v. U.S., D.C.Cal.1979,
Page 152
453 F.Supp. 651; City Federal Sav. and Loan Ass's v. Crowley, D.C.Wis.1975, 393 F.Supp. 644; Glodgeth v. Betit,
D.C.Vt.1973, 368 F.Supp. 211, affirmed 95 S.Ct. 1893, 421 U.S. 707, 44 L.Ed.2d 525; Eidschun v. Pierce, D.C.
Iowa 1971, 335 F.Supp. 603. Federal Courts
32
Under liberal pleading standards, aliens' clear submission to jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act at hearing on
motion to dismiss their action against the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security, alleging that defendants' requirement that they pay additional biometrics fee upon re-registration of temporary protective status
(TPS) under the Immigration Act violated regulation limiting registration fee for TPS to $50, was sufficient to warrant exercise of jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act, even though aliens did not plead Little Tucker Act claims in
974.1
their complaint. Bautista-Perez v. Holder, N.D.Cal.2009, 681 F.Supp.2d 1083. Federal Courts
Federal court may sustain jurisdiction if allegations of complaint reveal a proper basis for jurisdiction even though
plaintiff has not cited specific jurisdictional basis for his claim for review in his complaint. Mulvaney v. Stetson,
N.D.Ill.1979, 470 F.Supp. 725. Federal Courts
242.1
Allegations in complaint charging violations of sections 1-7 and 14-26 of Title 15, which merely assert that jurisdiction is founded upon such sections, is insufficient. Seligson v. Plum Tree, Inc., E.D.Pa.1972, 350 F.Supp. 440.
972(3)
Allegation in petition for injunction that jurisdiction is invoked under provisions of certain titles of the U.S. Code is
insufficient to indicate jurisdiction over the subject matter. Cornelius v. Moxon, D.C.N.D.1969, 301 F.Supp. 783.
242.1
Federal Courts
Complaint which alleged subject matter jurisdiction under numerous statutes without specifying which statute or
provisions were applicable to which defendants or which claims failed to set forth plain and short statement of
ground upon which jurisdiction was dependent. Woody v. Sterling Aluminum Products, Inc., E.D.Mo.1965, 243
F.Supp. 755, affirmed 365 F.2d 448, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 1026, 386 U.S. 957, 18 L.Ed.2d 105, rehearing de242.1
nied 87 S.Ct. 1371, 386 U.S. 1027, 18 L.Ed.2d 471. Federal Courts
A complaint in an action arising under a federal statute to invoke federal jurisdiction must specifically disclose the
241
statute involved. Dittmar v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., E.D.N.Y.1957, 156 F.Supp. 48. Federal Courts
While § 1349 of this title providing that Federal District Court shall not have jurisdiction of corporations created by
Act of Congress unless United States is owner of more than one-half of its capital stock is a limitation of jurisdiction
rather than a grant of jurisdiction, failure to cite correct section of this title in action by bank against Reconstruction
Finance Corporation for breach of blanket participation agreement was immaterial where it was clear from face of
complaint that federal jurisdiction existed. Central Nat. Bank in Chicago v. R. F. C., N.D.Ill.1955, 134 F.Supp. 873.
243
Federal Courts
A counterclaim against the United States that failed to plead specific statutory authority to maintain such claim
against the United States did not comply with subdivision (a)(1) of this rule requiring that a short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depends be set forth except in cases where court already has jurisdiction and claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it. U. S. v. Lauer, E.D.Pa.1942, 45 F.Supp. 670.
782.1
Where a complaint fails to cite the statute conferring jurisdiction, the omission will not defeat jurisdiction if the facts
alleged satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the statute. Amous v. Trustmark Nat. Bank, N.D.Miss.2000, 195
32
Page 153
Reference in amended complaint to Noise Control Act of 1972, section 4901 et seq. of Title 42, did not correct ju671
risdictional deficiency. Dutkiewicz v. Foster, D.C.Mass.1980, 88 F.R.D. 85. Federal Civil Procedure
Rules contemplate that grounds for jurisdiction be specified in complaint, but it would seem inappropriate for court
to order dismissal where recitation of statutory section would unquestionably be permitted as an amendment of
1742(1)
complaint. Hellermann v. Romney, E.D.Wis.1973, 59 F.R.D. 558. Federal Civil Procedure
115. Qualification to do business, jurisdictional grounds
Plaintiff corporation's failure to plead that it was qualified to do business in Alabama was not a jurisdictional defect
depriving district court of power to hear plaintiff's breach of contract action. Jefferson Pilot Broadcasting Co. v.
Hilary & Hogan, Inc., M.D.Ala.1978, 458 F.Supp. 310. Federal Civil Procedure
699
116. Venue, jurisdictional grounds
Artist's failure to plead venue in her copyright infringement action was not fatal to her claims. Brackett v. Hilton
Hotels Corp., N.D.Cal.2008, 619 F.Supp.2d 810, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1012. Copyrights And Intellectual Property
82
Allegations of venue are not required in complaint. Croney v. Louisville & N.R. Co., S.D.N.Y.1953, 14 F.R.D. 356.
94
Federal Courts
117. Waiver of immunity, jurisdictional grounds
Allegation that “[a]ll conditions precedent have been satisfied, complied with or waived, including but not limited to
applicable notice provisions” was sufficient to satisfy state and federal pleading requirements for action to recover
damages from state agency or subdivision, pursuant to statutory waiver of sovereign immunity for the state, its
196(4)
agencies, and its subdivisions. Smith v. Rainey, M.D.Fla.2010, 747 F.Supp.2d 1327. States
Party suing United States, its agencies or officers, must allege both basis for court's jurisdiction and specific statute
containing waiver of Government's immunity from suit. Thomas v. Pierce, D.Kan.1987, 662 F.Supp. 519. United
States
140
Neither section 1331 of this title nor Bivens decision acknowledging constitutional tort satisfied requirement that
plaintiff suing agency of United States state in complaint grounds upon which sovereign consented to suit; thus,
complaint which only raised those jurisdictional grounds asserted no basis for jurisdiction over United States border
patrol action alleging border patrol officers intentionally, willfully, recklessly and maliciously filed charges and procured warrant for plaintiff's arrest. Swift v. U.S. Border Patrol, S.D.Tex.1983, 578 F.Supp. 35, affirmed 731 F.2d
886. United States
140
118. Diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional grounds--Generally
In diversity case, it is not enough for plaintiff to allege that claim is within diversity jurisdiction; rather, complaint
must allege the citizenship of parties and the amount in controversy. Hammes v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.,
C.A.7 (Ind.) 1994, 33 F.3d 774, rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied. Federal Courts
312.1;
354
Federal Courts
Although complaint did not contain a short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depended
diversity jurisdiction was evident from face of complaint where it did allege citizenship of parties. Continental Cas.
Co. v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., C.A.5 (La.) 1979, 605 F.2d 1340, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 1317, 445 U.S.
929, 63 L.Ed.2d 762. Federal Courts
Page 154
312.1
Federal jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in pleadings, and, where it is based on diversity of citizenship,
citizenship of parties must be positively averred. Geidel Fuel Oil Corp. v. Peninsula Nat. Bank, E.D.N.Y.1984, 581
F.Supp. 19. Federal Courts
32; Federal Courts
311
Jurisdiction is not a speculative matter, and it is a fundamental principle of federal law that matters upon which jurisdiction depends, such as citizenship and amount in controversy, must be clearly alleged. Wolsum v. J. W. Bateson
Co., W.D.Mo.1960, 182 F.Supp. 879. Federal Courts
355.1
Diversity of citizenship could not be relied on as grounds of federal jurisdiction in absence of allegations in complaint from which such diversity could be inferred. Kaske v. Rothert, S.D.Cal.1955, 133 F.Supp. 427. Federal Courts
311
In alleging citizenship of individual parties, for federal jurisdictional purposes, it is not sufficient to allege permanent mailing address or residence of parties. Gorman v. King, E.D.Wis.1970, 50 F.R.D. 195. Federal Courts
312.1
For federal District Court to entertain jurisdiction of action on ground of diversity of parties' citizenship, complaint
must affirmatively show that action is between citizens of different states. Brown v. Ingraham, W.D.Pa.1951, 11
311
119. ---- Jurisdictional amount, diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional grounds
Complaint wherein plaintiff sought $150 damages for unlawful removal of tombstone, $2,000 compensatory and
$1,000 exemplary damages for willful trespass and desecration of graves committed when the tombstone was removed, and $2,000 compensatory and $1,000 exemplary damages for willful trespass committed in connection with
substitution of an inferior tombstone was sufficient to give adequate notice to defendants and to the District Court
that plaintiff claimed and intended to prove that acts of defendants were committed under circumstances and were of
a character which under Missouri law would entitle plaintiff to recover damages for mental suffering and was not
subject to motion to dismiss for failure to disclose that jurisdictional amount was in controversy. Sparks v. England,
C.C.A.8 (Mo.) 1940, 113 F.2d 579. Federal Courts
356
Plaintiff bears the initial burden of pleading requisite jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdiction, and defendant
then bears the burden of establishing to a legal certainty that claim allegedly meeting the $10,000 threshold is in
actuality only for an amount less than $10,000, and pleadings fair on their face are assumed to comply with statutory
requirements unless merely colorable. Wagner v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co., N.D.Ohio 1987, 673 F.Supp. 908.
354
Federal Courts
Allegation in complaint that matter in controversy exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $3,000,
standing alone, was all that was required to be alleged in order to show jurisdictional amount. Corcoran v. Royal
Development Co., E.D.N.Y.1940, 35 F.Supp. 400, affirmed 121 F.2d 957, certiorari denied 62 S.Ct. 360, 314 U.S.
691, 86 L.Ed. 552. Federal Courts
356
Complaint which alleged that amount in controversy exceeded $3,000 and prayed for judgment against defendant in
sum of $500,000 sufficiently alleged amount necessary for jurisdiction by federal District Court. Bader v. Zurich
Gen. Acc. & Liability Ins. Co., S.D.N.Y.1952, 12 F.R.D. 437. Federal Courts
356
120. ---- Information and belief, diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional grounds
Page 155
Upon information and belief pleading of jurisdiction in diversity case depends the very power of federal court to
adjudicate claim alleged and, until jurisdiction is clear from record, any order court may enter relating to rights of
311
parties involved is void. Carroll v. General Medical Co., D.C.Neb.1971, 53 F.R.D. 349. Federal Courts
121. ---- Third-party defendants, diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional grounds
Where third-party complaint did not disclose citizenship of third-party defendants, amended complaint, which alleged that plaintiffs were citizens of Ohio, but which did not disclose citizenship of third-party defendants, was not
sufficient to show jurisdiction for plaintiffs' claims against third-party defendants. Pasternack v. Dalo, W.D.Pa.1955,
17 F.R.D. 420. Federal Courts
313
122. ---- Foreign corporations, diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional grounds
Pleading which asserted that individual plaintiffs were residents of certain states and that defendant was Delaware
corporation doing business within state of Texas defectively alleged grounds for diversity jurisdiction. Nadler v.
American Motors Sales Corp., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1985, 764 F.2d 409. Federal Courts
314
Plaintiff in diversity suit did not carry burden of pleading diverse citizenship, both with regard to himself and with
regard to his corporation which was added as party plaintiff after bench trial, where complaint alleged only residency rather than citizenship and failed to mention corporation at all. Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., C.A.5 (Tex.)
313; Federal Courts
314
Section 1332 of this title providing that, for federal jurisdictional purposes, a corporation shall be deemed to be a
citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and in which it has its place of business is read in the disjunctive and,
thus, complaints are required to include allegations of both the place of incorporation and principal place of business
of the corporate parties. Moore v. Sylvania Elec. Products, Inc., C.A.3 (Pa.) 1972, 454 F.2d 81. Federal Courts
311
Complaint by individual residents of Texas against Delaware corporation based on diversity of citizenship was defective for failure to assert that corporation's principal place of business was not Texas, but the court would assume
that complaint could have been amended to allege this. George v. Douglas Aircraft Co., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1964, 332
904.1; Federal
Courts
314
Complaint, which alleged that plaintiff and his subrogee were residents of state of Nebraska, that moving defendant
was incorporated under laws of Ohio, and that none of the defendants had a principal place of business within Nebraska, sufficiently averred jurisdiction in suit seeking to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff when beverage
bottle he was carrying exploded. McAndrews v. Goody Co., D.C.Neb.1978, 460 F.Supp. 104. Federal Courts
314
In establishing jurisdiction by virtue of diversity of citizenship, a corporation or a party suing a corporation does not
have a choice of alleging the place of incorporation or the principal place of doing business, and must allege both to
establish diversity for jurisdictional purposes. McGlynn v. Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. of America,
D.C.Puerto Rico 1974, 386 F.Supp. 774. Federal Courts
314
Allegation of diversity jurisdiction was defective, where defendant was alleged to be Massachusetts corporation, but
it was not alleged in what state its principal place of business was located nor was it alleged that its principal place
of business was in state other than Ohio, and plaintiff was alleged to be Ohio corporation with its principal place of
Page 156
business there. Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. American Coastal Lines, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1963, 222 F.Supp. 923. Federal
Courts
314
Allegations of insurer, which sought declaratory judgment on liability, that amount in controversy exceeded $10,000
and that insurer was incorporated under laws of particular state and was citizen thereof, were insufficient to show
diversity jurisdiction requiring dismissal of action for want of jurisdiction unless it appeared that jurisdiction did in
1742(2);
fact exist. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Baker, E.D.Ky.1961, 196 F.Supp. 234. Federal Civil Procedure
314
Federal Courts
Where complaint, in action against unincorporated labor association and several individually named members
thereof, averred that plaint was Delaware corporation and that individual defendants were all citizens of Pennsylvania, but there was no averment as to citizenship of all members of union, complaint failed to disclose requisite
diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and all defendants. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Amalgamated Ass'n
of St. Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Emp. of America, Division 1063, W.D.Pa.1952, 105 F.Supp. 537. Federal Courts
311
Allegation of complaint that there was “diversity of citizenship” between plaintiff and defendant which was domiciled in a foreign state, was not a mere legal conclusion, and complaint would not be dismissed on ground that it did
not properly allege diversity of citizenship, but plaintiff would be required to allege specifically the state of which he
was a citizen, since “diversity of citizenship” means that plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states.
313
Cooper v. Globe Indem. Co., W.D.La.1949, 9 F.R.D. 430. Federal Courts
123. ---- Miscellaneous allegations, diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional grounds
Allegations of plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint that plaintiff was citizen of state of Pennsylvania and defendant was citizen of state of Nebraska, practicing medicine as professional corporation, having its principal place of
business at stated address in Nebraska, and that damages were in a sum presently unknown but greatly exceeding
$10,000 were sufficient to meet requirements of this rule and was adequate to state grounds upon which district
314
court's jurisdiction depended. Kurtz v. Draur, E.D.Pa.1977, 434 F.Supp. 958. Federal Courts
Plaintiff did not fail to allege grounds on which jurisdiction was based, as required by this rule, though complaint
did not expressly state that jurisdiction was grounded on diversity of citizenship, where all facts for which that conclusion could readily be drawn were adequately stated in the complaint. Quality Beverage Co. v. Sun-Drop Sales
Corp. of America, E.D.Wis.1968, 291 F.Supp. 92. Federal Courts
312.1
Federal district court lacked jurisdiction over action for defendants' alleged conspiracy to prevent plaintiff from
earning his living by selling insurance, where complaint, which lacked allegations as to citizenship, failed to show
complete diversity of citizenship or basis for federal jurisdiction. Taylor v. DuRose, E.D.Wis.1967, 277 F.Supp.
398. Federal Courts
311
In libel action, complaint alleging “diversity of inhabitants” as distinguished from “diversity of citizenship” was
defective for failure to allege jurisdictional facts. Crockard v. Publishers, Saturday Evening Post Magazine of Philadelphia, Pa., E.D.Pa.1956, 19 F.R.D. 511. Federal Courts
313
In wrongful death action in Federal District Court in New York against foreign corporation, allegations that plaintiff
was appointed executor by New York surrogate and that he was resident of Borough of Manhattan, City of New
York, fell short of compliance with requirement of alleging plaintiff's citizenship but such defect was not fatal.
313
Croney v. Louisville & N.R. Co., S.D.N.Y.1953, 14 F.R.D. 356. Federal Courts
Page 157
124. Federal question jurisdiction, jurisdictional grounds
A case is not cognizable in federal trial court, in absence of diversity of citizenship, unless it appears from face of
complaint that determination of suit depends upon question of federal law. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Superior
Court of Del. In and For New Castle County, U.S.Del.1961, 81 S.Ct. 1303, 366 U.S. 656, 6 L.Ed.2d 584. Federal
Courts
241
Presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that
federal jurisdiction exists only when federal question is presented on face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.
241
Burda v. M. Ecker Co., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1992, 954 F.2d 434, on remand. Federal Courts
Complaint that merely anticipates that defense will raise federal issue does not create federal jurisdiction. Cable
Television Ass'n of New York, Inc. v. Finneran, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1992, 954 F.2d 91. Federal Courts
246
Complaint must state on its face ground for federal court's jurisdiction, regardless of whether it is a case of diversity
jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Bowman v. White, C.A.4 (Va.) 1968, 388 F.2d 756, certiorari denied 89
S.Ct. 214, 393 U.S. 891, 21 L.Ed.2d 172. Federal Courts
241; Federal Courts
311
Under well-pleaded complaint rule, district court must decide whether claim arises under federal law, so as to permit
court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, based on what necessarily appears in plaintiff's statement of claim set
241
forth in complaint. Collins v. AAA Rent All, Inc., M.D.La.1993, 812 F.Supp. 642. Federal Courts
“Petition to Expunge Criminal Record,” in which petitioner sought to have Alcohol and Tax Division of Treasury
Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies of United States Government remove certain records concerning arrest for alleged violation of section 5179 of Title 26, insofar as petition did not contain any allegations or assertion even remotely suggesting an infringement of a constitutional or other federally created right,
failed to set forth requisite jurisdictional grounds. U. S. v. Bush, E.D.Pa.1977, 438 F.Supp. 839. Criminal Law
1226(3.1)
Federal question jurisdiction must be apparent on face of plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Carway v. Progressive
County Mut. Ins. Co., S.D.Tex.1995, 183 B.R. 769. Federal Courts
241
125. Ancillary jurisdiction, jurisdictional grounds
Complaint brought under ancillary jurisdiction of district court did not need to contain jurisdictional statement.
Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. C and A Currency Exchange, Inc., N.D.Ill.1990, 738 F.Supp. 302. Federal
Courts
20.1
A defendant's third-party complaint was not fatally defective for failure to state a basis for federal jurisdiction where
the third-party complaint was ancillary and incidental to the principal diversity action. Donley v. Whirlpool Corp.,
E.D.Mich.1964, 234 F.Supp. 869. Federal Civil Procedure
294
126. Pendent jurisdiction, jurisdictional grounds
Pendent jurisdiction of federal court is not a matter which must be pleaded since the court already has jurisdiction
over case. Leather's Best, Inc. v. S.S. Mormaclynx, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1971, 451 F.2d 800, on remand 346 F.Supp. 962.
14.1
Federal Courts
127. Supplementary proceedings, jurisdictional grounds
Page 158
The requirement that the basis of jurisdiction be plainly shown in the complaint was satisfied by an allegation that
action was brought by a receiver in supplementary proceedings to enforce judgment previously obtained in the same
243
court. Klages v. Cohen, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1945, 146 F.2d 641. Federal Courts
128. Manner of raising, jurisdictional grounds
Whether question of jurisdiction is raised in federal district court by motion or by plea, burden of proof rests upon
party asserting existence of jurisdiction. Williams v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., S.D.Cal.1953, 14 F.R.D. 1.
34
Federal Courts
129. Failure to allege jurisdictional grounds--Generally
Complaint which makes no adequate statement of jurisdictional facts is fatally defective. Ivey v. Frost, C.A.8 (Mo.)
1965, 346 F.2d 115. See, also, Spain v. U.S. Through Atomic Nuclear Regulatory Commission Through U.S.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Bd., D.C.La.1975, 397 F.Supp. 15. Federal Courts
32
The party who seeks exercise of jurisdiction in his favor must allege in his pleadings facts essential to show jurisdiction and, if he fails to make necessary allegation, he has no standing. Joy v. Hague, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1949, 175 F.2d
395, certiorari denied 70 S.Ct. 147, 338 U.S. 870, 94 L.Ed. 534. See, also, Battaglia v. General Motors Corp.,
C.A.N.Y.1948, 169 F.2d 254; Grazeski v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., D.C.N.J.1948, 76 F.Supp. 845;
Bates v. U.S., D.C.Neb.1948, 76 F.Supp. 57; Holland v. General Motors Corp., D.C.N.Y.1947, 75 F.Supp. 274, affirmed 169 F.2d 254, certiorari denied 69 S.Ct. 236, (4 mems) 335 U.S. 887, 93 L.Ed. 425; Berger v. Clouser,
D.C.Pa.1940, 36 F.Supp. 168; Gulbenkian v. Gulbenkian, D.C.N.Y.1940, 33 F.Supp. 19; Gates v. Graham Ice
Cream Co., D.C.Neb.1940, 31 F.Supp. 854; Hays v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.Mo.1947, 7 F.R.D. 747. Federal
Courts
32
Personal injury plaintiff would be required to produce, by affidavits, depositions, or other appropriate means, any
evidence he might have to show extent of damages claimed, where it appeared doubtful that he would be able to
establish claim for requisite jurisdictional amount. Behroozi v. James, E.D.Pa.1963, 219 F.Supp. 784. Federal
Courts
357.1
Complaint containing no statement of grounds of federal jurisdiction was deficient. Kaske v. Rothert, S.D.Cal.1955,
671
Where complaint seeking to enjoin enforcement of state statute contained no allegation of jurisdiction as required by
this rule and defendant did not raise the issue or urge the lack of jurisdiction, District Court would consider issue of
30
its own accord. Bender v. Connor, D.C.Conn.1939, 28 F.Supp. 903. Federal Courts
Complaint which failed to allege statutory basis for federal jurisdiction or a prayer for relief failed to meet standards
of rule governing pleading of claims for relief. Folsom v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., W.D.Okla.1980, 85 F.R.D. 651.
673
Complaint to recover monies and interest allegedly owed on a past due note was insufficient where the complaint
lacked the most basic element required to litigate in the federal courts, viz., the assertion of a jurisdictional ground
upon which the district court could exercise its limited jurisdiction. Miclau v. Miclau, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 58
32
130. ---- Dismissal of complaint, failure to allege jurisdictional grounds
Page 159
Even if one of disjunctive allegations of jurisdiction in declaratory judgment action to have defendant's patent declared invalid or not infringed were insufficient, dismissal of action for such insufficiency was improper. Technical
Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1952, 200 F.2d 876, 95 U.S.P.Q. 406. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
Failure to state grounds on which jurisdiction depends will not automatically result in dismissal of complaint if factual basis for claim is stated; leave to amend complaint in order to cure this defect is normally freely given. Sauers v.
Salt Lake County, D.Utah 1989, 722 F.Supp. 676. Federal Civil Procedure
1742(1)
Defendant's contention that plaintiff failed to set out in its complaint any factual ground supporting exercise of district court's jurisdiction over defendant did not require dismissal, where requirements of notice pleading were met,
and defendant was on notice of complaint. International Steel Co. v. Charter Builders, Inc., S.D.Ind.1984, 585
1742(2)
Failure to comply with the requirement that the complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds upon
which the court's jurisdiction depends” does not require dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, provided the complaint
32
reveals a proper basis for jurisdiction. Wong v. Bacon, N.D.Cal.1977, 445 F.Supp. 1177. Federal Courts
Failure to state proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdic1742(1)
tion. Oliver v. Donovan, E.D.N.Y.1968, 293 F.Supp. 958. Federal Civil Procedure
Non-compliance with this rule requiring that claim for relief contain short and plain statement of grounds upon
which court's jurisdiction depends results in dismissal of complaint unless defect is corrected by amendment. Truck
Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 696 v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., D.C.Kan.1962, 209 F.Supp. 164. Federal
Civil Procedure
1772
Plaintiff must show in his pleading affirmatively and distinctly the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, federal District Court, on having defect called to its attention, must dismiss the
case unless the defect is corrected by amendment. Jeffers v. U.S., E.D.Wis.1955, 133 F.Supp. 426. See, also, Lewis
v. Clarence Coal Min. Co., D.C.Pa.1955, 127 F.Supp. 797. Federal Courts
32; Pleading
45
A plaintiff suing in a federal court must show in his pleading affirmatively and distinctly the existence of whatever
is essential to federal jurisdiction, and if he does not do so the court on having the defect called to its attention or on
discovering the defect, must dismiss the case unless the defect is corrected by amendment. Gustafson v. Fred
Wolferman, Inc., W.D.Mo.1945, 6 F.R.D. 503. Federal Courts
32
Complaint would be dismissed for failure to aver grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depended. Bockelman v.
Seaton, W.D.Mo.1944, 4 F.R.D. 326. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
131. Amendment of pleadings, jurisdictional grounds
Outright dismissal of petition to compel arbitration was not appropriate based on petitioner's failure to allege, as
required by procedural rule, basis for diversity jurisdiction within petition itself; appropriate course was to grant
leave to amend petition to set forth diversity of parties and amount in controversy. Reynolds and Reynolds Co. v.
1mage Software, Inc., S.D.Ohio 2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 761. Alternative Dispute Resolution
209
Civil rights complaint which failed to include basis for court's jurisdiction over any particular defendant on specific
cause of action, failed to distinguish various causes of action and specific facts that gave rise to each, but was in-
Page 160
stead lengthy and confusing narrative, replete with characterizations, conclusions and personalities, did not meet
requirement that complaint be “short and plain,” and “simple, concise and direct” and plaintiffs would be given opportunity to amend complaint to comply with rules. Hampton v. Hanrahan, N.D.Ill.1981, 522 F.Supp. 140. Federal
Civil Procedure
839.1
Although plaintiff's complaint contained no statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depended, as required by this rule, in view of section 1653 of this title, indicating that defective allegations of jurisdiction may be
amended in trial court and section 1343 of this title, giving court jurisdiction over claims for redress of rights under
section 1983 of Title 42, court would treat complaint for injunctive relief and damages based on alleged conspiracy
to violate section 1983 of Title 42, as having been amended to contain statement that court's jurisdiction depended
upon section 1343 of this title. Hofferber v. First Nat. Bank of Guymon, Oklahoma, W.D.Okla.1977, 451 F.Supp.
444. Federal Courts
775
Since it was evident from complaint that the action arose under a federal statute, the Atomic Energy Act, section
2011 et seq., of Title 42, and accompanying regulations, and since the Act was passed pursuant to Congress' power
to regulate commerce, and since section 1337 of this title giving courts jurisdiction over acts relating to commerce
has no jurisdictional amount provision, and since the action presented a federal question, it was not necessary to
require plaintiffs to amend their complaint to set forth their allegations of jurisdiction. Drake v. Detroit Edison Co.,
W.D.Mich.1978, 443 F.Supp. 833. Federal Courts
243
Where action raised independent federal question under antifraud provisions of Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
section 78j of Title 15, district court could, in its discretion, assume pendent jurisdiction over state “Blue Sky”
claim, in view of fact that those questions arose from common nucleus of operative fact, and, where such pending
jurisdiction was not pleaded, district court would grant plaintiff's permission to amend complaint so as to comply
with these rules. Harrison v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., W.D.Mich.1977, 435 F.Supp. 281. Federal Civil
Procedure
17
Where plaintiff-serviceman wished to establish diversity jurisdiction over state-created cause of action, he would be
required to include in proposed amendment to complaint short and plain statement of claim asserted in order that
court might ascertain whether punitive damages sought were legally recoverable and therefore includable for purpose of determining jurisdictional amount. Huftstetler v. Davies, N.D.Ga.1970, 309 F.Supp. 1372. Federal Courts
356
Where the District Court was not put to great effort to ascertain matters on which the federal court's jurisdiction depended, the court would not require plaintiff to amend further because of plaintiff's failure, strictly speaking, to set
forth in complaint a short and complete statement of grounds on which the court's jurisdiction depended, as required
by subdivision (a)(1) of this rule. Arndt v. Bank of America, N.D.Cal.1943, 48 F.Supp. 961. Federal Civil Procedure
671; Pleading
42
Amended complaint which clearly contained required jurisdictional allegations should not be dismissed based on
original pro se complaint's failure to contain statement of jurisdictional grounds. Jacobi v. Blocker, E.D.Va.1994,
1742(1)
Where court could not ascertain from plaintiff's pro se complaint whether court's jurisdiction was properly invoked,
actual claim plaintiff was making for relief, or the nature of the relief to which plaintiff deemed herself entitled,
complaint failed to comply with rules of pleading and plaintiff would be ordered to amend her complaint so as to
comply substantially with this rule. Harrell v. Directors of Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,
843
Although section 1702 of Title 12 authorizing Secretary of Department of Housing and Urban Development to sue
Page 161
and be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction was not referred to in complaint seeking damages and other relief
because of alleged arbitrary refusal of Secretary and Federal Housing Commissioner to approve rental charges for
premises in which plaintiff claimed a life interest, where recitation of said section 1702 would have unquestionably
been permitted as an amendment to complaint, court did not lack jurisdiction over subject matter, and complaint was
not subject to dismissal. Hellermann v. Romney, E.D.Wis.1973, 59 F.R.D. 558. Federal Civil Procedure
1742(2)
Presence of defects in intervenor's pleading will not defeat motion for intervention, but if there are defects with respect to federal jurisdictional and pleading requirement, intervenor will be required to amend his pleadings so as to
comply with such requirements. City of Cleveland, Ohio v. Cities Service Oil Co., N.D.Ohio 1969, 47 F.R.D. 543,
20 Ohio Misc. 179, 49 O.O.2d 174, 49 O.O.2d 291. Federal Civil Procedure
321
132. Striking of allegations, jurisdictional grounds
Averments in complaint filed in federal District Court in Pennsylvania as to amount of damages sought were impertinent and immaterial and must be stricken, where jurisdictional allegation was adequately set forth in another para1126; Federal
graph. Mitchell v. American Tobacco Co., M.D.Pa.1961, 28 F.R.D. 315. Federal Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure
1127
133. Counterclaims, jurisdictional grounds
A counterclaim, which did not contain a statement of the grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depended, as required by subdivision (a)(1) of this rule, was defective on its face. U.S. v. Failla, D.C.N.J.1954, 120 F.Supp. 797,
782.1
affirmed 219 F.2d 212. Federal Civil Procedure
Counterclaim which alleged that plaintiff, knowing that its copyrights were invalid and unenforceable, nevertheless
sought to intimidate competitors by threatening those competitors which copyright infringement charges and by filing copyright infringement suits against the competitors and that the plaintiff, knowing that its copyrights were invalid and void, sought to and did succeed in reducing substantially the competition offered by its competitors, and
which alleged that the counterclaim arose under the antitrust laws did not allege sufficient facts from which it could
be determined that the conduct charged to be in violation of the antitrust laws vested the court with subject matter
jurisdiction. Precision Universal Joint Corp. v. Republic Parts, Inc., N.D.Ill.1978, 83 F.R.D. 14. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
134. Admiralty actions, jurisdictional grounds
Where original action brought against manufacturer of paint used when explosion of flash fire occurred on vessel,
allegedly due to ignition of flammable paint vapors, did not assert that products liability actions related to “marine”
paint were within maritime jurisdiction, and plaintiffs did not attempt to amend complaint to cure defect, they could
not rely on maritime jurisdiction as basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. DeMelo v. Toche Marine, Inc.,
C.A.5 (Miss.) 1983, 711 F.2d 1260. Federal Courts
243
Where only allegations of agents for insurers was that insured owed premiums due for policies which agents had
procured for it, and that insured had failed to pay such premiums, complaint did not set forth the grounds on which
court's jurisdiction depended in admiralty where it was not alleged in the libel nor shown by affidavit or otherwise
that the agents were obligated to pay or actually did pay the premiums owing on executed marine insurance policies
to the insurers, so that agents did not show by pleading or otherwise that they were subrogated to insurers' rights to
recover the unpaid premiums. Alexander Agency, Inc. v. Gateway Clipper, Inc., W.D.Pa.1969, 294 F.Supp. 354.
60
Admiralty
Page 162
135. Antitrust actions, jurisdictional grounds
Buyers failed to plead facts showing that it was plausible that foreign parent corporation controlled subsidiary that
manufactured titanium dioxide, such that exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporation, pursuant to Maryland's
long-arm statute, was warranted in buyers' action alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of titanium dioxide, based on
subsidiary's contacts with the forum, where buyers merely made conclusory allegations that subsidiary was the agent
or alter ego of corporation, and they failed to provide any supporting facts. Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., D.Md.2011, 2011 WL 1298257. Federal Courts
82
In view of this rule requiring a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief to contain a short and plain statement of
the grounds upon which jurisdiction of court depends, and a short and plain statement of claims showing that pleader
is entitled to relief, it is not necessary in an anti-trust action for treble damage under § 15 of Title 15 to set out in
detail the acts complained of nor the circumstances from which plaintiff draws his conclusion that violations of acts
of Congress have occurred and that plaintiff had been damaged. Brownlee v. Malco Theatres, W.D.Ark.1951, 99
693
In theater owner's treble damage action under § 1 et seq. of Title 15, against producer-distributor and exhibitor of
motion pictures on ground that defendants pursuant to agreements and arrangements with co-conspirators imposed
unreasonable clearances upon plaintiff's theater in favor of other theaters, and that plaintiff's request for earlier exhibition rights was denied because of unlawful agreements, complaint in its entirety was defective for failure to comply with this rule requiring short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depends and requiring that each averment be simple, concise and direct. Walter Reade's Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's Inc., S.D.N.Y.1957, 20
632
135a. Arbitration, jurisdictional grounds
In litigation brought pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provision stating that actions brought under the
FAA “shall be made and heard in the manner provided by law for the making and hearing of motions,” the normal
pleading requirements of the rule of procedure requiring a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction” do not apply. Technologists, Inc. v. MIR's Ltd., D.D.C.2010, 725 F.Supp.2d 120. Alternative Dispute
Resolution
209
136. Bankruptcy actions, jurisdictional grounds
Specific citation to applicable statutes which vest subject-matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters in bankruptcy
court generally is all that is necessary to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and satisfy federal rule of civil procedure requiring “short and plain statement of the grounds” for jurisdiction; therefore, error in gratuitous citation belonging to prayer clause of complaint will not defeat jurisdiction. In re Kelley, Bkrtcy.E.D.Va.1985, 46 B.R. 63.
243
Federal Courts
Gravamen of debtor's complaint was a chose in action for money had and received, breach of contract and fraud, and
therefore bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over subject matter; thus, debtor was not required, pursuant to this rule,
to set out grounds upon which jurisdiction depended. In re International Coins & Currency, Inc., Bkrtcy.D.Vt.1982,
22 B.R. 121. Bankruptcy
671
137. Civil rights actions, jurisdictional grounds
Employee-numerosity requirement for establishing Title VII defendant's “employer” status was element of plaintiff's
Page 163
claim for relief, whose satisfaction was conceded where challenged prior to trial on merits, rather than jurisdictional
requirement that could questioned at any stage of litigation; abrogating Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332.
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., U.S.La.2006, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 546 U.S. 500, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097, on remand 446 F.3d 573.
29.1
Civil Rights
Plaintiff's failure to allege in her employment discrimination complaint issuance of right-to-sue letter, which was not
issued until after complaint was filed, did not render complaint deficient under this rule, as court at no time lacked
jurisdiction of the subject matter. Gooding v. Warner-Lambert Co., C.A.3 (N.J.) 1984, 744 F.2d 354.
Complaint which was filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in which it was alleged that all
conditions precedent to institution of the lawsuit had been fulfilled was sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to comply with this rule and rule 9 of these rules pertaining to pleading of
jurisdictional prerequisites and conditions precedent. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. TimesPicayune Pub. Corp., C.A.5 (La.) 1974, 500 F.2d 392, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 1353, 420 U.S. 962, 43 L.Ed.2d
440. Civil Rights
1793.1
138. Defamation, libel or slander actions, jurisdictional grounds
Plaintiffs' allegation of conspiracy in defamation action, made for first time during appeal and not appearing on face
of complaint could not serve as basis for exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident defendant. Tavoulareas v. Comnas, C.A.D.C.1983, 720 F.2d 192, 232 U.S.App.D.C. 17. Federal Courts
96
139. ERISA actions, jurisdictional grounds
Professional association failed to allege its fiduciary capacity, as required to be a proper ERISA plaintiff, and therefore association was only a pendent party and district court could not exercise pendent jurisdiction over association's
state claims. Anoka Orthopaedic Associates, P.A. v. Mutschler, D.Minn.1991, 773 F.Supp. 158. Federal Courts
15
Complaint would be considered to include proper allegation of ERISA jurisdiction, as result of prior order finding
plaintiff's state law claims preempted by ERISA, which was law of the case. Benvenuto v. Connecticut General Life
Ins. Co., D.N.J.1988, 678 F.Supp. 469. Courts
99(2)
140. Immigration and nationality actions, jurisdictional grounds
In actions under Nationality Act of 1940 by alleged nationals of the United States, who were born in China, for declaratory judgments that they were nationals of the United States, complaints which failed to allege that alleged nationals of the United States had claimed and had been denied a right or privilege as a national of the United States on
ground that they were not nationals of the United States, were insufficient. Lee Hung v. Acheson, D.C.Nev.1952,
103 F.Supp. 35. Aliens, Immigration, And Citizenship
669
141. Jones Act actions, jurisdictional grounds
Complaint in action by administratrix against owner of vessel to recover under the Jones Act for seaman's death
under § 688 of Title 46, was sufficient to establish jurisdiction in federal district court, though complaint failed to
state specifically that court had jurisdiction of subject matter because action arose under such section giving court
concurrent jurisdiction with state courts. Ritchie v. Atlantic Refining Co., D.C.N.J.1947, 7 F.R.D. 671. Federal
Courts
243
Page 164
142. Patent actions, jurisdictional grounds
Jurisdictional allegations of patent applicant's District Court complaint, that complaint was filed under section 145
of Title 35, providing for civil action to obtain patent, that District Court had jurisdiction under patent laws, and that
Patent Office examiner had improperly refused to permit applicant to amend his critical patent claims, satisfied this
rule requiring that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction
depends.” Sikora v. Brenner, C.A.D.C.1967, 379 F.2d 134, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 357, 153 U.S.P.Q. 585. Patents
114.10(1)
143. Portal-to-Portal Act actions, jurisdictional grounds
Allegations in language of § 251 et seq. of Title 29 are insufficient to give district court jurisdiction under chapter 9
of Title 29 over subject matter of action for overtime compensation. Coyle v. Philadelphia Macaroni Co.,
E.D.Pa.1949, 9 F.R.D. 331. Federal Courts
32
Under Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, § 251 et seq. of Title 29, contract or custom entitling claimant to compensation
for time spent in preparation for day's employment is jurisdictional, and in such cases claimant must allege, as required by subdivision (a) of this rule, facts which show jurisdiction. Hays v. Hercules Powder Co., W.D.Mo.1947, 7
32
144. Price control or stabilization actions, jurisdictional grounds
A complaint, in Price Administrator's action to recover treble amount of excess consideration in sale of ungraded
wholesale beef, which contained short and plain statement of jurisdictional grounds and of claim showing that plaintiff was entitled to relief, was sufficient as against motion to dismiss. Bowles v. Shirey, D.C.Neb.1944, 60 F.Supp.
1795
145. RICO actions, jurisdictional grounds
For purposes of determining futility of amendment, proposed complaint failed to plead grounds for jurisdiction and
was thus deficient, even though it asserted Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim and
jurisdiction was presumably based on that statute. Browning Ave. Realty Corp. v. Rosenshein, S.D.N.Y.1992, 142
851
146. Zoning actions, jurisdictional grounds
Federal court was without jurisdiction where complaint had as its basis zoning ordinances of city. Wallach v. City of
Pagedale, E.D.Mo.1966, 41 F.R.D. 547, affirmed 376 F.2d 671. Federal Courts
192
147. Miscellaneous actions, jurisdictional grounds
Allegations that National Air Pollution Control Administration had arbitrarily failed to designate an air quality control region for protection of plaintiffs and further failed to require state air pollution control commission to develop
an effective implementation plan for air pollution control in and around plaintiffs' area of residence did not comply
with this rule governing pleading of jurisdiction in federal court. Hagedorn v. Union Carbide Corp.,
N.D.W.Va.1973, 363 F.Supp. 1061. Federal Courts
243
Complaint and two amended complaints of pro se insureds who were involved in automobile accident did not comply with rule of procedure requiring short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction rested, in
Page 165
action against attorneys of law firm who represented them in arbitration with insurance company that provided uninsured motorist coverage, the arbitrator, insurance company's employee and attorney, and a state court judge; insureds did not allege diversity of citizenship, it appeared that they as well as many if not all of the defendants were
residents of same state, complaints did not cite any constitutional provision or federal statute to raise federal question jurisdiction, and liberal reading of pleadings did not present a federal issue. Titus v. Ewert, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2004, 92
Fed.Appx. 334, 2004 WL 237721, Unreported. Federal Courts
243; Federal Courts
313
IV. STATEMENT OF ENTITLEMENT
<Subdivision Index>
ADA actions, civil rights actions 301
ADEA actions, civil rights actions 300
Age discrimination, civil rights actions 300
Agency relationship 275
Agreement between conspirators, antitrust actions 280
Agricultural marketing actions 276
Airline transportation actions 277
Amended complaints, dismissal of complaint 266
Amended complaints, pleadings subject to rule 174
Amendment of pleadings 251-260
Amendment of pleadings - Generally 251
Amendment of pleadings - Antitrust actions 252
Amendment of pleadings - Bankruptcy actions 253
Amendment of pleadings - Contract actions 254
Amendment of pleadings - Fraud actions 255
Amendment of pleadings - Labor actions 256
Amendment of pleadings - Miscellaneous actions 260
Amendment of pleadings - Negligence actions 257
Amendment of pleadings - Price control or stabilization actions 258
Amendment of pleadings - Unfair competition actions 259
Anti-Terrorism Act 395
Antitrust actionsAntitrust actions - Generally 278
Antitrust actions - Agreement between conspirators 280
Antitrust actions - Amendment of pleadings 252
Antitrust actions - Causation 281
Antitrust actions - Conclusory statements 229
Antitrust actions - Copying of criminal indictment 279
Antitrust actions - Damages 282
Antitrust actions - Details of claim 210
Antitrust actions - Evidentiary matters 218
Antitrust actions - Geographic market 283
Antitrust actions - Horizontal conspiracy 284
Antitrust actions - Miscellaneous antitrust actions 287
Antitrust actions - Multiple defendants 286
Antitrust actions - Price fixing 285
Arbitration, contract actions 323
Argumentative statements 241
Arrest and detention, civil rights actions 295
Assignment of contracts, contract actions 324
Attorney-client relationship, breach of fiduciary duty actions 292
Bad faith, contract actions 316
Banking actions 288
Bankruptcy actions 289
Bankruptcy actions, amendment of pleadings 253
Bankruptcy actions, conclusory statements 230
Bidding, contract actions 325
Bills of lading, contract actions 326
Bivens action 290
Blue sky laws, securities or stock actions 390
Breach of contract, contract actions 315
Breach of fiduciary duty actions 291, 292
Breach of fiduciary duty actions - Generally 291
Breach of fiduciary duty actions - Attorney-client relationship 292
Calling or production of witnesses 247
Causation, antitrust actions 281
Causation, tort actions 397
Cause of action 195
Characterization of claim 193
Choice of counsel 181
Civil rights actionsCivil rights actions - Generally 293
Civil rights actions - Age discrimination 300
Civil rights actions - Arrest and detention 295
Civil rights actions - Conclusory statements 231
Civil rights actions - Condemnation proceedings 296
Civil rights actions - Demonstrations and parades 297
Civil rights actions - Details of claim 211
Civil rights actions - Disability discrimination 301
Civil rights actions - Due process 298
Civil rights actions - Education and schools 302
Civil rights actions - Employment 299
Civil rights actions - Miscellaneous civil rights actions 308
Civil rights actions - Perjury by federal officers 303
Civil rights actions - Prima facie case 294
Civil rights actions - Prisoners and prisons 304
Civil rights actions - Search and seizure 305
Civil rights actions - Sexual harassment and discrimination 306
Civil rights actions - Voting and elections 307
Claim 172
Class actions 204
Collective bargaining, labor actions 372
Commodities actions 311
Common carrier actions 309
Complexity of action 192
Conclusory statements 228-240
Conclusory statements - Generally 228
Conclusory statements - Antitrust actions 229
Conclusory statements - Bankruptcy actions 230
Conclusory statements - Civil rights actions 231
Conclusory statements - Condemnation proceedings 232
Conclusory statements - Conspiracy actions 233
Conclusory statements - Contract actions 234
Conclusory statements - Contribution or indemnity actions 235
Page 166
Conclusory statements - Labor actions 236
Conclusory statements - Miscellaneous actions 240
Conclusory statements - Negligence actions 237
Conclusory statements - Prisoners' actions 238
Conclusory statements - Stocks and securities actions 239
Condemnation or forfeiture proceedings 312
Condemnation proceedings, civil rights actions 296
Condemnation proceedings, conclusory statements 232
Confusing allegations 242
Consortium loss 313
Conspiracy actions 310
Conspiracy actions, conclusory statements 233
Contract actionsContract actions - Generally 314
Contract actions - Amendment of pleadings 254
Contract actions - Arbitration 323
Contract actions - Assignment of contracts 324
Contract actions - Bad faith 316
Contract actions - Bidding 325
Contract actions - Bills of lading 326
Contract actions - Breach of contract 315
Contract actions - Conclusory statements 234
Contract actions - Damages 317
Contract actions - Details of claim 212
Contract actions - Evidentiary matters 219
Contract actions - Existence of contract 318
Contract actions - Foreign law 319
Contract actions - Franchises 327
Contract actions - Implied contracts 328
Contract actions - Joint ventures 329
Contract actions - Leases 330
Contract actions - Miscellaneous contract actions 337
Contract actions - Obligations on contract 320
Contract actions - Oral or written contracts 331
Contract actions - Persons bound by contract 321
Contract actions - Recoupment 332
Contract actions - Rescission 333
Contract actions - Royalties 334
Contract actions - Suit on judgment 335
Contract actions - Time of agreement 322
Contract actions - Warranty 336
Contribution or indemnity actions, conclusory statements 235
Control person liability, securities or stock actions 391
Conversion actions 338-340
Conversion actions - Generally 338
Conversion actions - Livestock 339
Conversion actions - Stocks and securities 340
Copying of criminal indictment, antitrust actions 279
Copyright actions 341
Counterclaims 273
Counterclaims, pleadings subject to rule 175
Credit actions 342-345
Credit actions - Generally 342
Page 167
Credit actions - Debt collection 343
Credit actions - Fair Credit Reporting Act 344
Credit actions - Truth in Lending Act 345
Cross-claims, pleadings subject to rule 177
Damages, antitrust actions 282
Damages, contract actions 317
Damages, tort actions 398
Debt collection, credit actions 343
Defamation, libel or slander actions 346
Demonstrations and parades, civil rights actions 297
Details of claim 209-215
Details of claim - Generally 209
Details of claim - Antitrust actions 210
Details of claim - Civil rights actions 211
Details of claim - Contract actions 212
Details of claim - Negligence actions 213
Details of claim - Real property actions 214
Details of claim - Special Acts of Congress 215
Disability discrimination, civil rights actions 301
Discovery 248
Discretion of court, dismissal of complaint 264
Dismissal of complaint 263-271
Dismissal of complaint - Generally 263
Dismissal of complaint - Amended complaints 266
Dismissal of complaint - Discretion of court 264
Dismissal of complaint - Limitations 267
Dismissal of complaint - Miscellaneous dismissals of complaint 271
Dismissal of complaint - Multiple counts 268
Dismissal of complaint - Prejudicial dismissal 270
Dismissal of complaint - Pro se complaints 269
Dismissal of complaint - Vagueness 265
Dredging actions 347
Due process, civil rights actions 298
Education and schools, civil rights actions 302
Education and students actions 348
Element of claim, notice to opposing party 184
Elements of claim 196
Emotional distress 349
Employment actions 220, 350-353
Employment actions - Generally 350
Employment actions - Evidentiary matters 220
Employment actions - Fair Labor Standards Act actions 351
Employment actions - Pensions and benefits 352
Employment actions - Wrongful discharge 353
Employment, civil rights actions 299
Entire complaint considered as whole 189
Environmental actions 354
ERISA actions 355
Estoppel 272
Evidentiary matters 216-225
Evidentiary matters - Generally 216
Evidentiary matters - Antitrust actions 218
Page 168
Evidentiary matters - Contract actions 219
Evidentiary matters - Employment actions 220
Evidentiary matters - Exhibits and attachments 217
Evidentiary matters - Fraud actions 221
Evidentiary matters - Miscellaneous actions 225
Evidentiary matters - Negligence actions 222
Evidentiary matters - Prisoners' actions 223
Evidentiary matters - Stocks and securities actions 224
Exhaustion of administrative remedies, prisons and prisoner actions 383
Exhibits and attachments, evidentiary matters 217
Existence of contract, contract actions 318
Explosives, tort actions 408
Facts 226, 227
Facts - Generally 226
Facts - Ultimate facts 227
Facts of particular case controlling 190
Fair Credit Reporting Act, credit actions 344
Fair Housing Act actions 356
Fair Labor Standards Act actions, employment actions 351
Family and Medical Leave Act 357
Foreclosure 358
Foreign law, contract actions 319
Franchises, contract actions 327
Fraud actionsFraud actions - Generally 359
Fraud actions - Amendment of pleadings 255
Fraud actions - Evidentiary matters 221
Fraud actions - Fraudulent conveyances 360
Fraud actions - Miscellaneous fraud actions 364
Fraud actions - Patents 361
Fraud actions - Stocks and securities 362
Fraud actions - Trademarks 363
Fraudulent conveyances, fraud actions 360
Freedom from contributory negligence, tort actions 399
General terms 207
Geographic market, antitrust actions 283
Gross negligence, tort actions 404
Habeas corpus 365
History of grievances 243
Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act actions 357a
Horizontal conspiracy, antitrust actions 284
Immigration and naturalization actions 366
Implied contracts, contract actions 328
In forma pauperis petitions 179
Indemnity actions 367
Indian actions 368
Injunctive relief actions 369
Insurance actions 370
Interference with contracts or commercial relationships, tort actions 409
Joint ventures, contract actions 329
Labels 194
Labor actionsLabor actions - Generally 371
Labor actions - Amendment of pleadings 256
Page 169
Labor actions - Collective bargaining 372
Labor actions - Conclusory statements 236
Labor actions - Labor Management Relations Act actions 373
Labor actions - Portal-to-Portal Act actions 374
Labor actions - Strikes 375
Labor Management Relations Act actions, labor actions 373
Lack of any allegations 203
Law or legal basis 199
Leases, contract actions 330
Legal theory 197
Length of complaint 191
Limitations, dismissal of complaint 267
Livestock, conversion actions 339
Malpractice, tort actions 411
Medical treatment, prisons and prisoner actions 384
Medicare or Medicaid actions 376
Miscellaneous actions 424
Miscellaneous actions, amendment of pleadings 260
Miscellaneous actions, conclusory statements 240
Miscellaneous actions, evidentiary matters 225
Miscellaneous actions notice not sufficient, notice to opposing party 186
Miscellaneous actions notice sufficient, notice to opposing party 185
Miscellaneous antitrust actions 287
Miscellaneous civil rights actions 308
Miscellaneous contract actions 337
Miscellaneous dismissals of complaint, dismissal of complaint 271
Miscellaneous fraud actions 364
Miscellaneous tort actions 414
More definite statement 249
Motor vehicle accidents, tort actions 410
Multiple causes of action 206
Multiple counts, dismissal of complaint 268
Multiple defendants 205
Multiple defendants, antitrust actions 286
Negligence actions, amendment of pleadings 257
Negligence actions, conclusory statements 237
Negligence actions, details of claim 213
Negligence actions, evidentiary matters 222
Notice to opposing party 183-186
Notice to opposing party - Generally 183
Notice to opposing party - Element of claim 184
Notice to opposing party - Miscellaneous actions notice not sufficient 186
Notice to opposing party - Miscellaneous actions notice sufficient 185
Nuisance actions 377
Obligations on contract, contract actions 320
Occupational hazards, tort actions 412
Offsets 378
Oil and gas actions 379
Oral or written contracts, contract actions 331
Passive negligence, tort actions 405
Patent actions 380
Patents, fraud actions 361
Page 170
Pensions and benefits, employment actions 352
Perjury by federal officers, civil rights actions 303
Persons bound by contract, contract actions 321
Persons liable, tort actions 400
Pleadings subject to rule 173-178
Pleadings subject to rule - Generally 173
Pleadings subject to rule - Amended complaints 174
Pleadings subject to rule - Counterclaims 175
Pleadings subject to rule - Cross-claims 177
Pleadings subject to rule - Replies 176
Pleadings subject to rule - Third-party complaints 178
Portal-to-Portal Act actions, labor actions 374
Prejudicial dismissal, dismissal of complaint 270
Preparation of responsive pleading 187
Pretrial order as substitute 188
Price control or stabilization actions 381
Price control or stabilization actions, amendment of pleadings 258
Price fixing, antitrust actions 285
Prima facie case, civil rights actions 294
Prior conduct, tort actions 401
Prisoners' actions, conclusory statements 238
Prisoners' actions, evidentiary matters 223
Prisoners and prisons, civil rights actions 304
Prisons and prisoner actions 382-384
Prisons and prisoner actions - Generally 382
Prisons and prisoner actions - Exhaustion of administrative remedies 383
Prisons and prisoner actions - Medical treatment 384
Privacy actions 385
Pro se complaints, dismissal of complaint 269
Products liability, tort actions 413
Proxy fights, securities or stock actions 392
Punitive damage actions 386
Rambling allegations 244
Real property actions, details of claim 214
Recoupment, contract actions 332
Repetitious pleadings 245
Repleading 261
Replies, pleadings subject to rule 176
Reputation actions 387
Res ipsa loquitur, tort actions 402
Rescission, contract actions 333
RICO actions 388
Royalties, contract actions 334
Scope of review 274
Search and seizure, civil rights actions 305
Securities or stock actions 389-393
Securities or stock actions - Generally 389
Securities or stock actions - Blue sky laws 390
Securities or stock actions - Control person liability 391
Securities or stock actions - Proxy fights 392
Securities or stock actions - Stockholder derivative actions 393
Page 171
Sexual harassment and discrimination, civil rights actions 306
Special Acts of Congress, details of claim 215
State law 201
Statement of entitlement generally 171
Statistical categorization 202
Statutes or ordinances, tort actions 403
Statutory provisions 200
Stockholder derivative actions, securities or stock actions 393
Stocks and securities actions 389-393
Stocks and securities actions, conclusory statements 239
Stocks and securities actions, evidentiary matters 224
Stocks and securities, conversion actions 340
Stocks and securities, fraud actions 362
Strikes, labor actions 375
Striking of pleadings 262
Suit on judgment, contract actions 335
Summary of case 208
Supplemental pleadings 250
Tax actions 394
Technical forms of pleading or motions 182
Terrorism 395
Theory 197
Third-party complaints, pleadings subject to rule 178
Third-party complaints, tort actions 407
Time of agreement, contract actions 322
Tort actions 396-414
Tort actions - Generally 396
Tort actions - Causation 397
Tort actions - Damages 398
Tort actions - Explosives 408
Tort actions - Freedom from contributory negligence 399
Tort actions - Gross negligence 404
Tort actions - Interference with contracts or commercial relationships 409
Tort actions - Malpractice 411
Tort actions - Miscellaneous tort actions 414
Tort actions - Motor vehicle accidents 410
Tort actions - Occupational hazards 412
Tort actions - Passive negligence 405
Tort actions - Persons liable 400
Tort actions - Prior conduct 401
Tort actions - Products liability 413
Tort actions - Res ipsa loquitur 402
Tort actions - Statutes or ordinances 403
Tort actions - Third-party complaints 407
Tort actions - Willfulness 406
Trade secret actions 416
Trademark actions 415
Trademarks, fraud actions 363
Trespass actions 417
Trusts actions 418
Truth in Lending Act, credit actions 345
Type of litigation involved 198
Page 172
Page 173
Ultimate facts 227
Unfair competition actions 419
Unfair competition actions, amendment of pleadings 259
Unjust enrichment 420
Unlawful arrest actions 421
Unnecessary allegations 246
Vagueness, dismissal of complaint 265
Voting and elections, civil rights actions 307
Warranty, contract actions 336
Willfulness, tort actions 406
Workers compensation actions 422
Wrongful discharge, employment actions 353
Zoning actions 423
171. Statement of entitlement generally
These rules require only notice pleading but nevertheless such notice must contain a short and plain statement of a
claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Hoshman v. Esso Standard Oil Co., C.A.5 (La.) 1959, 263 F.2d 499,
630
certiorari denied 80 S.Ct. 60, 361 U.S. 818, 4 L.Ed.2d 64. Federal Civil Procedure
It is not a sine qua non to the sufficiency of a pleading that it be artistically drawn. Selby Mfg. Co. v. Grandahl,
C.A.2 (Conn.) 1952, 200 F.2d 932. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Under subdivision (a)(2) of this rule only permissible pleading is a short and plain statement of claim showing that
pleader is entitled to relief on any legally sustainable grounds. Blazer v. Black, C.A.10 (Kan.) 1952, 196 F.2d 139.
631.1
Unless claim is one that must be pleaded with particularity pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure, pleading need only
contain a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v.
Gofen & Glossberg, Inc., N.D.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 713. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Under subdivision (a)(2) of this rule, a claim must contain a statement of such circumstances or facts as would lead
to the legal conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. Stichman v. Fischman, S.D.N.Y.1957, 154
673
Subd. (a)(2) of this rule which calls for a short and plain statement of a claim establishes two interrelated aspects of
notice pleading, these being conciseness and understandability, and neither of these requirements should be overemphasized or applied to the exclusion of the other; rather, they should be read together and applied with due regard
to the nature of the case at hand. Essex Intern., Inc. v. Industra Products, Inc., N.D.Ind.1974, 64 F.R.D. 361, 182
U.S.P.Q. 56. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Legally sufficient claim can be developed from a set of facts which give rise to one or more legal rights. Bush v.
Masiello, S.D.N.Y.1972, 55 F.R.D. 72. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Statement by plaintiff to effect that he feels aggrieved is insufficient to comply with this rule that pleading should
contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Black v. Board of Ed. of Amityville, N. Y., E.D.N.Y.1962, 31 F.R.D. 44. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Under these rules, what is required is a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to re-
lief. David v. Sinclair Refining Co, S.D.N.Y.1960, 25 F.R.D. 190. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 174
630
Simplicity in form is the cardinal rule with respect to pleadings. Lynn v. Valentine, S.D.N.Y.1956, 19 F.R.D. 250.
625.1
A complaint must be reasonably clear and definite, and it must contain such facts as show that the pleader is entitled
671; Federal Civil Proceto relief. Cole v. Riss & Co., W.D.Mo.1954, 16 F.R.D. 116. Federal Civil Procedure
dure
673
A short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, is all that is required to sufficiently
673
state a claim. U.S. v. Potolski, N.D.N.Y.1950, 10 F.R.D. 235. Federal Civil Procedure
Under this rule, a very meager petition suffices, but subsequent proper pleadings may force a fuller statement.
360
Rambo v. U.S., N.D.Ga.1941, 2 F.R.D. 200. Federal Civil Procedure
In setting forth valid claim, party is required only to plead a short, plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. Tennsco Corp. v. Estey Metal Products, Inc., D.N.J.1996, 200 B.R. 542. Federal Civil
Procedure
673
172. Claim, statement of entitlement
“Claim for relief” as used in this rule has been defined as the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right
enforceable in the courts while a “civil action” or an “action” is the sum total of claims which parties assert against
each other. Smith, Kline and French Laboratories v. A. H. Robins Co., E.D.Pa.1973, 61 F.R.D. 24, 181 U.S.P.Q. 12.
673
Action
“Claim” under these rules denotes aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.
Birnbaum v. Birrell, S.D.N.Y.1948, 9 F.R.D. 72 See, also, U.S. v. Iroquois Apartments, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1957, 21
673
173. Pleadings subject to rule, statement of entitlement--Generally
In federal court, cases are generally to be tried on proofs rather than pleadings, and such rule applies in determining
sufficiency not only of an original claim but also of a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim. United Gas
Corp. v. Guillory, C.A.5 (La.) 1953, 206 F.2d 49, rehearing denied 207 F.2d 308. Federal Civil Procedure
621
Petition for an order to compel production of records of a corporation for examination by internal revenue agent
would be treated as a complaint and was subject to requirement of this rule that it contain a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Martin v. Chandis Securities Co., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1942, 128
F.2d 731. Internal Revenue
4505
An application for an ex parte order directing respondent to obey an internal revenue service summons with respect
to income tax records is treated as a complaint and under this rule, it is necessary for the complaint to contain a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Application of Carroll, S.D.N.Y.1957,
149 F.Supp. 634, affirmed 246 F.2d 762, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 85, 355 U.S. 857, 2 L.Ed.2d 64. Federal Civil
Procedure
716; Internal Revenue
4515
Under this rule, a pleading which sets forth a claim, whether an original claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is suffi-
Page 175
cient if it contains short and plain statement of claim, showing that pleader is entitled to relief. U.S. v. General Motors Corp., N.D.Ill.1942, 2 F.R.D. 346.
174. ---- Amended complaints, pleadings subject to rule, statement of entitlement
Position of defendants in inmate's action challenging constitutional validity of conditions in state prison's protective
custody unit, by which they sought to contrast allegations of amended complaint filed by appointed counsel with
more particularized statements in inmate's original pro se effort, to former's disadvantage, was at odds with notice
852.1
pleading concept of this rule. Williams v. Lane, N.D.Ill.1982, 548 F.Supp. 927. Federal Civil Procedure
Omission from amended complaint of any material portion of what pleader relies on for relief infringes this rule
requiring that a complaint show that pleader is entitled to relief. Oppenheimer v. F.J. Young & Co., S.D.N.Y.1943, 3
673
175. ---- Counterclaims, pleadings subject to rule, statement of entitlement
Irrespective of whether a setoff claim is properly characterized as an affirmative defense, or a compulsory or permissive counterclaim, it must be set forth in the pleadings to provide a basis for relief. Arch Ins. Co. v. Precision
Stone, Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2009, 584 F.3d 33. Federal Civil Procedure
772.1
In the trial context, defendant's failure to formally plead a counterclaim prevents the court from granting affirmative
relief on the basis of defendant's arguments. Acands, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co., C.A.3 (Pa.) 2006, 435 F.3d
252, certiorari denied 126 S.Ct. 2291, 547 U.S. 1159, 164 L.Ed.2d 833. Federal Civil Procedure
773
Matter in counterclaim which did not comply with requirement that there be short and plain statement showing that
pleader is entitled to relief, was ordered deleted. Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Kleenize Chemical Corp., N.D.Ga.1961,
1122
Counterclaim alleging that defendant had made advances to and on behalf of plaintiff for advertising and supplies on
an open account basis for which a net indebtedness in a certain amount remained due and owing to defendant by
plaintiff, for which defendant had made due demand and plaintiff had refused to pay conformed to requirements of
subd. (a) of this rule providing that a pleading which sets forth a counterclaim need contain only a short and plain
statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief and was consistent with general language of certain
forms found in the Appendix to these rules. Elwonger v. Career Academy, Inc., E.D.Wis.1972, 54 F.R.D. 514.
782.1
176. ---- Replies, pleadings subject to rule, statement of entitlement
“Short and plain” standard of civil procedure rule applicable to substantive pleadings asserting “a claim for relief,
whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim” does not govern replies. Schultea v.
Wood, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1995, 47 F.3d 1427. Federal Civil Procedure
801
177. ---- Cross-claims, pleadings subject to rule, statement of entitlement
Where cross-bill of complaint and its various amendments were prolix and muddled, and separate claims of the several cross-plaintiffs against the several defendants were jumbled in the single cross-bill, and it was difficult to ascertain just what the cross-plaintiffs' claims were and they varied with each amendment, and part of the cross-bill attempted to assert claims existing in favor of the original plaintiff, the amended cross-bill of complaint violated subdivision (a) of this rule providing that a pleading shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
Page 176
the pleader is entitled to relief. Collier v. First Michigan Co-op. Housing Ass'n, C.A.6 (Mich.) 1960, 274 F.2d 467.
630
Answer and cross-claim which merely referred to answer and cross-claim in another pending action did not sufficiently set forth claim under subdivision (a) of this rule providing that a pleading shall contain a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Texas Water Supply Corp. v. R. F. C., C.A.5
782.1
(Tex.) 1953, 204 F.2d 190. Federal Civil Procedure
Although pleadings standard may be lessened somewhat for cross claims, which derive substance from complaint
itself, cross defendant must be able to determine upon which allegations of complaint cross claimants are basing
their claims for indemnity and contribution. Askanase v. Fatjo, S.D.Tex.1993, 148 F.R.D. 570. Federal Civil Procedure
782.1
178. ---- Third-party complaints, pleadings subject to rule, statement of entitlement
This rule requiring a claim for relief to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief applies equally to third-party complaint. Fennell v. Svenska Amerika Linien A/B, D.C.Mass.1958,
294
Under these rules, a third party complaint should set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. Quilty v. United Fruit Co., S.D.N.Y.1946, 6 F.R.D. 216. Federal Civil Procedure
294
179. In forma pauperis petitions, statement of entitlement
Issues raised by plaintiff in complaint were plainly frivolous, and violated this rule providing that a complaint must
set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; therefore, trial court
properly denied her leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Harris v. U. S. Dept. of Justice, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1982, 680 F.2d
1109, rehearing denied 685 F.2d 1385, certiorari denied 103 S.Ct. 1209, 459 U.S. 1212, 75 L.Ed.2d 449. Federal
Civil Procedure
2734
Under this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, lengthy handwritten complaint by complainant acting in propria persona and proceeding in forma pauperis, charging, inter alia,
kidnapping by agents of sheriff's office who were not listed as defendants, was not sufficient, even with sympathetic
and liberal interpretation, to warrant further harassment of defendants including doctors and State Hospital Commission, and complaint was dismissed on motion. Gale v. Wagg, E.D.Mich.1956, 140 F.Supp. 6. Federal Civil Procedure
1811
180. Pro se complaints, statement of entitlement
Rule governing notice pleading does not require any plaintiff, let alone a pro se plaintiff, to plead specific facts.
673
Boykin v. KeyCorp, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2008, 521 F.3d 202. Federal Civil Procedure
Pro se civil rights complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where the pleadings, which alleged discriminatory disciplinary treatment by plaintiff's employer, narrated a
sequence of events which arguably gave rise to a cause of action and could be addressed by a responsive pleading.
1395(8)
Miles v. Ertl Co., C.A.8 (Iowa) 1983, 722 F.2d 434. Civil Rights
Pro se civil rights complaints were properly dismissed where the complaints were so hopelessly general that they
Page 177
could give no notice of plaintiff's claims and, even if letters sent to defendants could properly be read along with the
complaints, they did little to enlarge upon plaintiff's allegation and where, though a magistrate's report alerted plaintiff to the deficiencies in her allegations, the documents she tendered for filing in the months afterward were not
informative and no curative amendments were effected. Pavilonis v. King, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1980, 626 F.2d 1075, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 96, 449 U.S. 829, 66 L.Ed.2d 34. See, also, Micklus v. Carlson, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1980, 632 F.2d
1788.6
Pro se complaint which contained 69 paragraphs but failed to state claim entitling plaintiffs to relief failed to comply
with this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim. Plotkin v. Grayson, Em.App.1973, 485 F.2d 1243.
671
Pro se plaintiff did not satisfy pleading rules requiring short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depends and of entitlement to relief, in his civil rights action against state, judges, and prosecutors, where
complaint did nothing more than denominate by name the claims or “charges” against the different defendants, contained no allegations of any involvement or participation as to some defendants, and contained no allegations of
wrongdoing as to remaining defendant. Whayne v. State of Kan., D.Kan.1997, 980 F.Supp. 387. Civil Rights
1394
Plaintiff's pro se complaint alleging that judge engaged in ex parte communications in connection with case which
involved plaintiff and which was pending before judge did not comply with federal rule requiring complaint to contain short and plain statement of claim, even considering that pro se complaint should be liberally construed; plaintiff's handwritten complaint was partially illegible, and plaintiff did not identify action in which alleged ex parte
communications occurred or damage caused by such communications. Shuster v. Oppelman, S.D.N.Y.1997, 962
657.5(1); Judges
36
Complaint was subject to dismissal for violation of rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing that
plaintiff is entitled to relief, even though plaintiff was proceeding pro se; complaint, including attachments, exceeded 150 pages and contained surfeit of information, some of complaint was incomprehensible, and plaintiff had
completed at least two years of law school and possessed capacity to set forth relevant facts and applicable law.
1781
Thomson v. Olson, D.N.D.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1267, affirmed 56 F.3d 69. Federal Civil Procedure
Although pro se litigant is entitled to some leeway when court reviews sufficiency of allegations in his complaint to
support claim for relief, even pro se complaint must outline all elements of claim and is subject to dismissal if pleading fails reasonably to inform adverse party of asserted cause of action. Delgado v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
D.D.C.1989, 727 F.Supp. 24, reconsideration denied. Federal Courts
1040.1
Plaintiff's tendering to clerk of court his handwritten pro se complaint which contained recitation of grounds for his
claim of racial discrimination complied with pleading requirements that pleading set forth short and plain statement
of his claim, and that discrimination plaintiff file “civil action,” and Rule of Civil Procedure that civil action be
commenced by filing complaint. McClelland v. Herlitz, Inc., N.D.Tex.1989, 704 F.Supp. 749. Civil Rights
1532
Initial and amended complaint of pro se plaintiff, alleging conspiracy between Federal Bureau of Investigation and
city police department to prevent conviction of an individual for assault on plaintiff, failed to comply with requirement of this rule that complaint contain a short and plain statement of claim. Chodos v. F.B.I., S.D.N.Y.1982, 559
F.Supp. 69, affirmed 697 F.2d 289, certiorari denied 103 S.Ct. 741, 459 U.S. 1111, 74 L.Ed.2d 962, rehearing de632
nied 103 S.Ct. 1451, 460 U.S. 1048, 75 L.Ed.2d 805. Federal Civil Procedure
Pro se plaintiff's complaint was vague and repetitive throughout and did not state damage claims clearly, but under
liberal construction of requirements of this rule, complaint that gives defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is
Page 178
and grounds upon which it rests complies with rule, and under principle that pro se plaintiffs are not to be held to
same standard as imposed on trained lawyers, complaint complied with rule. White v. C. I. R., D.C.Colo.1982, 537
657.5(1)
In action for damages allegedly due to wrongful and malicious conduct of defendants as officers of town in condemning plaintiff's building, although plaintiff's pleadings were lengthy, repetitive and prolix, where plaintiff was a
layman not represented by counsel, requirements of rules of pleading were waived. Baker v. Mueller, E.D.Wis.1954,
127 F.Supp. 722, affirmed 222 F.2d 180. Federal Civil Procedure
901; Pleading
406(1)
Policy that pro se complaints be liberally construed and all possible inferences be drawn in favor of pro se plaintiff
did not mandate that court sustain pro se complaint which was incoherent, rambling, and unreadable. Barsella v.
U.S., S.D.N.Y.1991, 135 F.R.D. 64. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(1)
Action filed by pro se litigant would be dismissed, and litigant afforded 30 days to move for leave to file amended
complaint which comports with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where complaint included numerous charges,
none of which alleged even the basic elements necessary to support a cause of action, and vague and general allegations of fraud in complaint did not meet specificity requirements of Federal Rule 9(b). Green v. Com. of Mass.,
D.C.Mass.1985, 108 F.R.D. 217. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Pro se complaints charging over 100 defendants with violations of several constitutionally protected rights and literally scores of criminal statutes would be dismissed for failure to comply with this rule requiring a short and plain
statement of claim, where complaints were indecipherable and there was virtually no way defendants could file
meaningful replies, and dismissal would be final and with prejudice where plaintiff had ignored opportunities to
amend his pleadings. U. S. ex rel. Dattola v. National Treasury Emp. Union, W.D.Pa.1980, 86 F.R.D. 496. Federal
Civil Procedure
1827.1
This rule which sets out minimum standard for sufficiency of complaints, providing that complaint shall contain
short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, generously accords plaintiff wide latitude in framing his claims for relief, particularly where plaintiff is proceeding pro se; however, even a pro se complaint is subject to dismissal if pleading fails reasonably to inform adverse party of asserted cause of action. Brown
v. Califano, D.C.D.C.1977, 75 F.R.D. 497. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(1)
Where court could not determine from amended pro se complaint identity of parties plaintiff sought to make defendants, whether plaintiff properly invoked jurisdiction of the court, actual claim plaintiff was making for relief, and
nature of relief to which plaintiff deemed herself entitled, and where it seemed unlikely that plaintiff would be able
to plead successfully enough to lend sense to any subsequent proceedings, complaint would be dismissed for failure
to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Harrell v. Directors of Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,
1773
181. Choice of counsel, statement of entitlement
Although brevity is desirable in pleading in order that time of court and counsel may be conserved and cost of printing minimized, brevity does not rank in importance with right and duty of a litigant to present his demands through
counsel of his own choosing and in a style and form of expression which represents attorney's honest effort to present claims according to his own notions of their merits. Atwood v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1957,
243 F.2d 885, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 41, 355 U.S. 829, 2 L.Ed.2d 42. Federal Civil Procedure
631.1
182. Technical forms of pleading or motions, statement of entitlement
Page 179
Lawsuits are to be determined on merits, and not whether plaintiffs meet technical exactness when pleading.
Jennings v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, M.D.N.C.2002, 240 F.Supp.2d 492. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Under these rules, technical niceties of pleading should not be exalted, but sufficiency of complaint should be tested
by whether it gives fair notice of complainant's claim to opposing party. Watsco, Inc. v. Henry Valve Co.,
S.D.N.Y.1964, 232 F.Supp. 38, 142 U.S.P.Q. 219. Federal Civil Procedure
673
While it is not necessary under provision of this rule requiring complaint to set forth a short and plain statement of
claim to present extensive or technically precise pleadings, rule envisions presentation of factual allegations of sufficient clarity and certainty to enable defendant to formulate a responsive pleading. Nishiyama v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., C.D.Cal.1970, 49 F.R.D. 288. Federal Civil Procedure
630
183. Notice to opposing party, statement of entitlement--Generally
Under civil procedure rule governing contents of a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, applicable to ordinary
civil proceedings, a complaint need only provide fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests. Mayle v. Felix, U.S.2005, 125 S.Ct. 2562, 545 U.S. 644, 162 L.Ed.2d 582, on remand 420 F.3d 915,
673
rehearing denied , rehearing denied 126 S.Ct. 25, 545 U.S. 1158, 162 L.Ed.2d 923. Federal Civil Procedure
To provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as is required to
satisfy pleading requirements, a complaint must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., U.S.2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 182
A.L.R. Fed. 725, 152 L.Ed.2d 1. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Under simplified standard for pleading set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the
allegations; if a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can
move for a more definite statement before responding, and moreover, claims lacking merit may be dealt with
through summary judgment. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., U.S.2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 182 A.L.R.
Fed. 725, 152 L.Ed.2d 1. Federal Civil Procedure
1773
Complaint need only provide a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claim that gives fair notice of claim and of
grounds for relief. Smith v. St. Bernard's Regional Medical Center, C.A.8 (Ark.) 1994, 19 F.3d 1254. Federal Civil
Procedure
671
If claim is legally sufficient, office of plaintiff's pleading is merely to give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's
claim is and grounds upon which it rests. Miller v. School Dist. No. 167, Cook County, Illinois, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1974,
495 F.2d 658, rehearing denied 500 F.2d 711. See, also, In re Hart, D.C.Ark.1978, 461 F.Supp. 328; Matter of Cabezal Supermarket, Inc., D.C.N.D.1976, 406 F.Supp. 345; Stam v. Trigg, D.C.Ohio 1973, 368 F.Supp. 83; Lewis v.
U.S. Slicing Mach. Co., D.C.Pa.1970, 311 F.Supp. 139; Leas v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Wis.1968, 278 F.Supp.
673
Litigant is only required to construct complaint which truly and accurately reflects basis on which he believes he
should recover and one which gives fair notice to party against whom relief is sought. Reed v. Board of Ed. of
Parkway School Dist., C.A.8 (Mo.) 1972, 460 F.2d 824. See, also, Austin v. House of Vision, Inc., C.A.Ill.1967, 385
F.2d 171; U.S. v. Bruce, C.A.Ala.1965, 353 F.2d 474. Federal Civil Procedure
673
A complaint, from which it could not be discovered what claim was intended to be made, was insufficient. Nicol v.
Page 180
National Sav. & Trust Co., C.A.D.C.1957, 250 F.2d 36, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 68, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 1155, 357
U.S. 909, 2 L.Ed.2d 1159, rehearing denied 79 S.Ct. 15, 358 U.S. 859, 3 L.Ed.2d 93. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Under liberal pleading standard of Rule 8, plaintiff only must give a defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is
and grounds upon which it rests; all of the facts underlying a plaintiff's claim need not be pled, and where parties
disagree whether complaint was sufficient to put defendant on notice of a particular claim, notice pleading standards
require that complaint be read liberally in favor of plaintiff. Perry v. American Airlines, Inc., E.D.Va.2005, 405
673
To comply with general rule of pleading, plaintiffs need not provide anything more than sufficient notice to permit
defendant to file an answer. In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y.2003, 241 F.Supp.2d 281.
673
Complaint is sufficient, even if no facts are alleged, if it provides fair notice of claim to opposing party. Jennings v.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, M.D.N.C.2002, 240 F.Supp.2d 492. Federal Civil Procedure
673
In general, notice pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require claimant to set out in detail
facts upon which he bases his claim, but rather, all Rules require is short plain statement of claim that will give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and ground upon which it rests. Plant v. I.R.S., N.D.Ohio 1996, 943
673
To survive motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, plaintiff may not merely label his or her claims; at minimum,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require short and plain statement of claim that will give defendant fair notice of
what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests. Arenal v. City of Punta Gorda, Fla., M.D.Fla.1996, 932
1772
To survive motion to dismiss, plaintiff may not merely label his or her claims; at minimum, procedural rules require
short and plain statement of claims that will give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are and grounds
upon which they rest. Veltmann v. Walpole Pharmacy, Inc., M.D.Fla.1996, 928 F.Supp. 1161. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only short and plain statement of the claim that will give a defendant fair
notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Caplan v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.,
673
Test for sufficiency of complaint requires plaintiff to set forth set of facts that serves to put defendant on notice as to
nature and basis for claim. Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp., E.D.Pa.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1378, motion to certify
appeal denied 867 F.Supp. 319, affirmed in part , vacated in part 79 F.3d 1358, on remand 983 F.Supp. 624. Federal
Civil Procedure
673
For purposes of rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, it is
enough that complaint gives defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests. Morris
v. State of Kan. Dept. of Revenue, D.Kan.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1421. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Claim as stated is sufficient if defendant is on notice as to claim being asserted against him and ground on which it
rests. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Ross, Saarinen, Bolton & Wilder, Inc., S.D.Fla.1992, 815 F.Supp. 444. Federal
Civil Procedure
671
Page 181
As long as defendants are on sufficient notice of nature of claim, plaintiff has satisfied federal pleading requirements. Ganton Technologies, Inc. v. Quadion Corp., N.D.Ill.1990, 755 F.Supp. 203. Federal Civil Procedure
630
To satisfy Rule of Civil Procedure requiring plaintiff to plead “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief * * *” defendant must receive adequate notice of plaintiff's claims sufficient to allow
response or defense. Weiszmann v. Kirkland and Ellis, D.Colo.1990, 732 F.Supp. 1540. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Principal purpose of pleading is to give defendant fair notice of transaction sued upon and nature of claim against
623
him. Washington v. Baenziger, N.D.Cal.1987, 673 F.Supp. 1478. Federal Civil Procedure
As long as defendants are on sufficient notice of nature of claim, plaintiff has satisfied federal pleading require672
ments. Cleland v. Stadt, N.D.Ill.1987, 670 F.Supp. 814. Federal Civil Procedure
Pleader is entitled to considerable latitude regarding mode of stating his claim for relief, provided pleading gives
reasonable notice of claim asserted. Feldman v. Jackson Memorial Hospital, S.D.Fla.1981, 509 F.Supp. 815, affirmed 752 F.2d 647, certiorari denied 105 S.Ct. 3504, 472 U.S. 1029, 87 L.Ed.2d 635. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state claim unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove
no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief; all that is required is short and plain statement of claim that will give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests.
Harbert v. Rapp, W.D.Okla.1976, 415 F.Supp. 83. Federal Civil Procedure
1773
Complaint, although prolix and containing unnecessary detail and evidentiary matter, was not subject to dismissal on
ground that it did not contain a short and plain statement of claim and that averments were not simple, concise and
direct, where it clearly apprised defendants of claims they were called upon to meet. Kamen Soap Products Co. v.
Struthers Wells Corp., S.D.N.Y.1958, 159 F.Supp. 706. Federal Civil Procedure
1771
In order to comply with provisions of this rule complaint to contain a short and plain statement of claims showing
that pleader is entitled to relief it is necessary only that complaint shall be sufficient so that defendant will have fair
notice of claim asserted and so that court may properly appraise validity of claim. U.S. v. Stull, D.C.Conn.1952, 105
F.Supp. 568, affirmed 200 F.2d 413. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Under the federal notice pleading rule, a complaint need only provide the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Castillo v. Norton, D.Ariz.2003, 219 F.R.D. 155. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Pleading under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should give opposing party fair notice of nature of claims and basis
or grounds for it, so that defendants will at least be notified as to which of their personal actions give rise to claim
671
upon which complaint is based. Eidson v. Arenas, M.D.Fla.1994, 155 F.R.D. 215. Federal Civil Procedure
Requisite short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief need not be factually detailed
but must give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests. Moten v. American
Linen Supply Co., D.Kan.1994, 155 F.R.D. 202. Federal Civil Procedure
671
While pleading rule does not require plaintiff to set forth detailed facts regarding his or her claims, complaint must
Page 182
give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests. Resolution Trust Corp. v.
Blasdell, D.Ariz.1993, 154 F.R.D. 675. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Requirement that pleadings contain a short and plain statement of claim is designed to provide notice to defendant,
so that proper defense may be prepared. Segarra v. Messina, N.D.N.Y.1994, 153 F.R.D. 22, on reconsideration 158
671
A complaint from which it cannot be discovered what claim is intended to be made is insufficient. Frank v. Mracek,
M.D.Ala.1973, 58 F.R.D. 365. Federal Civil Procedure
671
If defendants have notice of action which they are to defend, complaint is sufficient. Re v. Fullop, E.D.Ill.1958, 22
671
If pleading gives opposing party fair notice of nature of claim, basis upon which it is founded and general indication
of type of litigation involved, it is sufficient to comply with this rule. Gallimore v. Dye, E.D.Ill.1958, 21 F.R.D. 283.
630
These rules contemplate concise unequivocal statements by plaintiff and defendant which will apprise each as to the
exact nature of the claim to be asserted and the defense to be interposed. Automatic Washer Co. v. Easy Washing
Mach. Corp., N.D.N.Y.1949, 9 F.R.D. 335, 82 U.S.P.Q. 95. Federal Civil Procedure
631.1
184. ---- Element of claim, notice to opposing party, statement of entitlement
Assuming that notice of alleged defect was required element of claim for breach of warranty under Virginia's version of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), pursuant to federal pleading rules, co-administrators of deceased consumer's estate did not have to include in their complaint allegation that notice requirement was met to state claim for
breach of warranty against manufacturers and sellers of prescription wound healing ointment allegedly responsible
434
for consumer's death. Campbell v. Ethex Corp., W.D.Va.2006, 413 F.Supp.2d 738. Sales
185. ---- Miscellaneous actions notice sufficient, notice to opposing party, statement of entitlement
State prisoner's pro se § 1983 complaint, alleging that termination of his treatment for hepatitis C was endangering
his life and that he was still in need of treatment for the disease, gave prison officials fair notice of prisoner's claim
of substantial harm, supportive of claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of
Eighth Amendment. Erickson v. Pardus, U.S.2007, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081, on remand 238
Fed.Appx. 335, 2007 WL 1636290. Civil Rights
1395(7)
Pro se complaint brought by prospective client of state university law school's clinical program against director of
program which alleged that prospective client had criticized clinic's use of public funds in newspaper and then was
refused legal representation on the basis of that criticism in violation of the free speech and equal protection clauses
of the Constitution sufficiently gave notice to director of the nature and basis of the prospective client's claim.
Wishnatsky v. Rovner, C.A.8 (N.D.) 2006, 433 F.3d 608, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Civil Rights
1395(2)
Model whose likeness was used in connection with packaging and promotion of hair care product did not waive her
claim that the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA) protected her “identity,” as compared to her likeness fixed in
photographic form, by failing to mention word “identity” in her complaint, where complaint provided defendants
with adequate notice of model's claim by alleging unauthorized commercial use of her likeness under the IRPA;
although complaint did not explain legal theory that model relied upon, it was not required to do so under rule gov-
Page 183
erning federal notice pleading requirements. Toney v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2005, 406 F.3d 905, 74
U.S.P.Q.2d 1792, rehearing en banc denied. Torts
415
Defendants' repeated failure to challenge antitrust complaint as not including a short and plain statement of alternative claim, despite fact that alternative claim had been repeatedly argued by plaintiffs, established that complaint
sufficiently placed defendants on notice of claim and therefore complied with pleading requirement of federal rules.
Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., C.A.D.C.2004, 388 F.3d 337, 363 U.S.App.D.C. 333. Antitrust And
Trade Regulation
972(3)
African-American state police officer's complaint, in action alleging race discrimination under a cavalcade of constitutional and statutory provisions, met minimum pleading standards under rules of civil procedure, since complaint,
although not model of brevity or clarity, was sufficient to permit defendants to answer and prepare for trial, allowed
application of res judicata, and identified nature of case so that it could be assigned proper form of trial. Wynder v.
McMahon, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2004, 360 F.3d 73, on remand 2005 WL 2179069. Civil Rights
1395(8); Civil Rights
1532
Impoundment owner's allegations regarding companies' allegedly illegal underground mining in impoundment's
safety zone were sufficient to support owner's claim that companies were strictly liable for damage that mining
caused to impoundment; allegations suggested that by mining under impoundment in violation of state and federal
laws, companies engaged in activity very likely to cause great harm and that such harm would not likely be eliminated by an exercise of due care, fact that undermining might be unlawful suggested that undermining of an impoundment was not common, was not appropriate for the area, and was more harmful than valuable to the community, and allegations put companies on notice of owner's claim and the grounds upon which it rested. Pinnacle Min.
Co., LLC v. Bluestone Coal Corp., S.D.W.Va.2009, 624 F.Supp.2d 530. Mines And Minerals
121; Mines And
Minerals
125
Mother's §§ 1983 complaint adequately placed school resource officer (SRO) on notice of her claim that SRO's alleged molestation of her minor child violated her due process right to familial association, where complaint set out
factual basis for lawsuit and alleged that mother and child were injured in a number of ways, including through violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights. Doe v. Dickenson, D.Ariz.2009, 615 F.Supp.2d 1002. Civil Rights
1395(5)
Prepaid wireless telephone service provider adequately pled claims against reseller, its principal, and unnamed resellers for infringement of its trademarks and copyrights and other rights, even though complaint stated collective allegations against all defendants rather than separate allegations as to each individual defendant, where complaint contained detailed factual allegations of bulk resale scheme, including method, operation, and duration of scheme, detailed reseller's alleged misconduct and location from which it operated scheme, and raised reasonable expectation
that discovery would reveal more evidence of bulk resale scheme. TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. GSM Group, Inc.,
S.D.Fla.2008, 555 F.Supp.2d 1331. Copyrights And Intellectual Property
82; Trademarks
1583
Patent owner's factual allegations for claims of infringement, inducement, contributory infringement, or willful infringement of patents involving methods and apparatus for billing fees to, and enabling fees to be charged to, party
initiating electronic mail communication when party was not on authorization list, were sufficient to provide alleged
infringers with fair notice of claims and grounds upon which claims rested, since heightened factual pleading was
unnecessary for infringement claims, and complaint alleged that purported infringer made, used, offered to sell,
and/or sold products and/or services, including but not limited to email certification services, that included and/or
practiced one or more of inventions' claims, and that infringement occurred and continued to occur, infringer actively and knowingly induced and continued to actively and knowingly induce infringement of, and/or had contributed to and continued to contribute to acts of infringement of patents' claims. CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Goodmail
Systems, Inc., N.D.Ga.2007, 529 F.Supp.2d 1376. Patents
310.1(5)
Page 184
Wrongful death complaint gave defendant sufficient notice of time frame in question, even though amended complaint did not state dates on which decedent was released from jail or when he was killed, where date on which decedent was hit and killed by train was stated in plaintiff's original complaint, which was incorporated by reference
into amended complaint, and plaintiff clearly implied that decedent was released from jail only short time before he
851
was killed. Dickens v. District of Columbia, D.D.C.2007, 502 F.Supp.2d 90. Federal Civil Procedure
Allegations in complaint arising from loss of jewelry rented for music artist to wear during video production sufficiently provided record company notice of basis of claim against record company on theory of respondeat superior
to comply with notice-pleading civil rule; complaint alleged that artist was under contract with record company, that
artist and record company retained services of video production company which contracted for jewelry rental, and
that representatives of production company and record company were present at video shoot and participated in
189(1)
shooting. Isik Jewelry v. Mars Media, Inc., E.D.N.Y.2005, 418 F.Supp.2d 112. Principal And Agent
Counterclaim in which manager for insurance companies' automobile glass replacement programs alleged commercial bribery in violation of South Carolina statute provided sufficient notice of claim to competitor, as required by
pleading rule, when, in supplemental pleading filed after statute's effective date, manager alleged that competitor
continued to make push payments to insurance agents and persons working for and with insurance companies after
statute's effective date. Diamond Triumph Auto Glass, Inc. v. Safelite Glass Corp., M.D.Pa.2004, 344 F.Supp.2d
936. Bribery
6(1)
Corporations were provided sufficient notice of nature of claims against them, in lawsuit that alleged international
price-fixing conspiracy that extended to United States in violation of Sherman Act, on allegations that they were
American subsidiaries of European entities which were fined for their European involvement in conspiracy to inflate
prices of electrical carbon products. In re Elec. Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation, D.N.J.2004, 333 F.Supp.2d
303. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(4)
Complaint gave former chairman of board of directors of bank sufficient notice of allegations against him, and fully
satisfied requirements of rule governing pleading matters generally, in action by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as bank's receiver, to enforce temporary cease and desist order related to disputed assets, on allegations that
defendant continued to retain legal and beneficial interest in corporate assets nominally owed by his family mem508
bers. F.D.I.C. v. Lenz, D.Conn.2004, 323 F.Supp.2d 342. Banks And Banking
Complaint by parents and handicapped child gave municipality fair notice, under Swierkiewicz pleading standard, of
federal civil rights claim and grounds upon which it rested, on allegations that school officials excluded child from
playground privileges with intent to discriminate towards handicapped children. Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth,
D.Me.2004, 321 F.Supp.2d 119, subsequent determination 324 F.Supp.2d 95, appeal after remand from federal court
1395(2)
879 A.2d 21. Civil Rights
Complaint which alleged existence of conspiracy to commit certain wrongful acts between homeowners' mortgage
lender and their homeowners' insurer was sufficient to meet minimal standards of notice pleading, despite lender's
contention that complaint failed to identify individuals who made alleged conspiratorial agreement, place and time
that agreement was made, and factual basis for finding agreement to defraud between lender and insurer. Burrell v.
State Farm and Cas. Co., S.D.N.Y.2002, 226 F.Supp.2d 427. Conspiracy
18
Property owner's pro se complaint, which contained general allegations that city attorney and police chief did not
respond appropriately to her concerns about her neighbors, did not provide defendants with adequate notice of
claims asserted against them and did not allow district court or Court of Appeals to evaluate legal grounds for her
causes of action. Wilkins v. Thomas, C.A.10 (Colo.) 2004, 104 Fed.Appx. 140, 2004 WL 1157768, Unreported.
657.5(1)
Page 185
186. ---- Miscellaneous actions notice not sufficient, notice to opposing party, statement of entitlement
To extent that claim by Hispanic former Assistant Business Manager for nonprofit organization providing housing
and employment assistance that she was denied Housing Specialist position in retaliation for her administrative
complaints about loss of her former job was before district court, it had to be dismissed for failure to adequately give
notice to employer; while employee could not have alleged in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
charge that employer had retaliated against her for that very charge, complaint was devoid of any hint of retaliation
1516
claim. Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement, S.D.N.Y.2007, 501 F.Supp.2d 531. Civil Rights
Bankrupt mortgagor failed to include specific allegations pertaining to mortgage company, except for naming the
company in the caption under a list of defendants to whom claims allegedly applied, as required to provide company
notice of what the mortgagor's claim was and the grounds upon which it rested, thus subjecting claim to dismissal.
216
Augustin v. Danvers Bank, D.Mass.2007, 486 F.Supp.2d 99. Mortgages
Paragraph of complaint filed by environmental groups against National Park Service (NPS) alleging that NPS “prepared no analysis under NEPA” for construction of new parking lot in park did not give NPS adequate notice of
groups' claim that NPS violated NEPA by failing to provide reasoned explanation why project would not have significant effect on human environment and why project did not fall within exception to categorical exclusion (CE),
where focus of complaint dealt with adequacy of final environmental impact statement (FEIS) prepared in conjunction with comprehensive management plan for designated wild and scenic river in park, complaint made no separate
allegations regarding defect in CE, and prayer for relief did not specifically address separate violation for parking
lot. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, E.D.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1066, affirmed in part , reversed in part 348
F.3d 789, opinion clarified 366 F.3d 731, on remand 439 F.Supp.2d 1074. Environmental Law
673
District court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing arrestee's civil rights complaint against various state and
county officials, where conglomeration of allegations was so incomprehensible and vague as to fail to give fair notice as to what plaintiff's claim was and grounds upon which it rested, and plaintiff failed to amend his complaint
within twenty days that district court allowed. Moser v. Oklahoma, C.A.10 (Okla.) 2004, 118 Fed.Appx. 378, 2004
WL 2750331, Unreported. Civil Rights
1395(6); Federal Civil Procedure
1788.6
187. Preparation of responsive pleading, statement of entitlement
Requirement of short and plain statement of claim is designed to enable defendant to prepare responsive pleading.
631.1
Washington v. Baenziger, N.D.Cal.1987, 673 F.Supp. 1478. Federal Civil Procedure
This rule requiring a complaint to set forth a short and plain statement of the claim envisions the presentation of factual allegations of sufficient clarity and certainty to enable defendant to determine basis of plaintiff's claim and to
formulate a responsive pleading. Edwards v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., C.D.Cal.1968, 291 F.Supp. 199. Federal
Civil Procedure
633.1
Purpose of complaint is simply to give defendant notice of essence of plaintiff's claim with sufficient clarity to enable defendant to answer. Taylerson v. American Airlines, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1960, 183 F.Supp. 882. Federal Civil Procedure
672
Plaintiff should clearly and specifically state grounds upon which his various causes of action depend, since statement is necessary to present defendants with complaint to which they can readily prepare answer, and to facilitate
671
future proceedings in case. Eidson v. Arenas, M.D.Fla.1994, 155 F.R.D. 215. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 186
Allegations of complaint must be sufficiently clear and detailed to permit the defendants to file a responsive plead673
ing. Thomas v. Penn Supply & Metal Corp., E.D.Pa.1964, 35 F.R.D. 17. Federal Civil Procedure
A complaint which is simple, concise and direct, and contains short and plain statement of claim, is sufficient, except when it is so vague or ambiguous that party cannot reasonably be required to frame responsive pleading.
673
Trebuhs Realty Co. v. News Syndicate Co., S.D.N.Y.1951, 12 F.R.D. 110. Federal Civil Procedure
Under this rule and rule 12(e) of these rules, a complaint containing a short and plain statement of claim for relief
showing that pleader is entitled to relief, each averment of which is simple, concise and direct, is sufficient except
where complaint is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive plead673
ing. American Ship Bldg. Co. v. Kirk, W.D.Pa.1951, 11 F.R.D. 366. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint which was sufficient to enable defendants to know with what they were charged and to enable them to
admit or deny the charge and which adequately and concisely notified defendants of circumstances out of which
complaint arose sufficiently complied with this rule. Bowles v. Brookside Distilling Products Corp., M.D.Pa.1945, 4
671
Pleader must sufficiently inform adverse party of charge against him in such a manner as to enable him to prepare a
responsive pleading, and failure to so plead gives right to relief by way of a motion for more definite statement or
for bill of particulars. Makan Amusement Corp. v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Co., D.C.N.J.1944, 3 F.R.D.
429. See, also, Van Dyke v. Broadhurst, D.C.Pa.1939, 28 F.Supp. 737; Duel v. National Sur. Corp., D.C.Wis.1943,
4 F.R.D. 336; Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Carborundum Co., D.C.Del.1943, 3 F.R.D. 5; Best Foods
v. General Mills, D.C.Del.1943, 3 F.R.D. 275. Federal Civil Procedure
948; Pleading
315
Under this rule, complaint is required only to set forth in general way facts on which plaintiff bases his claim for
relief, with sufficient certainty to enable defendant to deny the allegation and, if it does, defendant is not entitled to a
945
bill of particulars. U.S. v. General Motors Corp., N.D.Ill.1942, 2 F.R.D. 346. Federal Civil Procedure
188. Pretrial order as substitute, statement of entitlement
A pretrial order is not a substitute for compliance with this rule requiring a short and plain statement of claim in
simple, concise and direct averments, and when a complaint is presented which offends this rule, District Court
should order the pleading recast in appropriate form, on pain of dismissal. Condol v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.,
C.A.D.C.1952, 199 F.2d 400, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 255. Federal Civil Procedure
673
189. Entire complaint considered as whole, statement of entitlement
It is each individual count in complaint which should be tested for simplicity and brevity under requirements of this
rule, and not the entire complaint as indiscriminate whole. Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., C.A.1 (Mass.)
631.1
While complaint was not simple, concise, and direct as required by this rule where the allegations read as a whole
were sufficient, plaintiff was entitled to have his day in court. Robinson v. Lull, N.D.Ill.1956, 145 F.Supp. 134.
671
A complaint must be considered in its entirety and not by separating and considering separately isolated words or
654.1
paragraphs. David v. Sinclair Refining Co, S.D.N.Y.1960, 25 F.R.D. 190. Federal Civil Procedure
190. Facts of particular case controlling, statement of entitlement
Page 187
What is a short and plain statement of claim within this rule requiring same depends upon the circumstances of the
case. Atwood v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1957, 243 F.2d 885, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 41, 355
U.S. 829, 2 L.Ed.2d 42. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Under this rule requiring that complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, each complaint must be evaluated individually and the question as to what constitutes a “short and
plain” statement must be determined by the type of case, the relief sought, and the situation of the parties. Schenley
Distillers, Inc. v. U.S., W.D.Pa.1957, 153 F.Supp. 898, affirmed 255 F.2d 334, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 57, 358
673
What constitutes a “short and plain statement” of plaintiff's claim within this rule providing that plaintiff shall make
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief must be determined by type of case,
the relief sought, situation of parties, and whether it is desirable in obtaining speedy justice that plaintiff state with
particularity his alleged claim. Fleming v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., W.D.Ark.1941, 39 F.Supp. 237. Federal Civil
Procedure
633.1
While a plaintiff is entitled to go beyond the notice pleading requirements and plead additional facts, if the plaintiff
chooses to provide additional facts, the plaintiff cannot prevent the defendant from suggesting those same facts
demonstrate the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Castillo v. Norton, D.Ariz.2003, 219 F.R.D. 155. Federal Civil Procedure
673
191. Length of complaint, statement of entitlement
Dismissal for failure to conform complaint to pleading rules was warranted when length and complexity of amended
pleadings filed by relator in qui tam action under False Claims Act (FCA), which contained 400 paragraphs covering
155 pages, followed by 99 attachments, rendered complaint unintelligible. U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin
Corp., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2003, 328 F.3d 374, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied , certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 450, 540
U.S. 968, 157 L.Ed.2d 313, rehearing denied 124 S.Ct. 975, 540 U.S. 1097, 157 L.Ed.2d 809. Federal Civil Procedure
1795
Fact that complaint used 12 pages to set out a claim that could have been stated in 6 pages did not justify dismissal
for violation of rule requiring short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader was entitled to relief.
Bennett v. Schmidt, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1998, 153 F.3d 516, on remand 2000 WL 1161073. Federal Civil Procedure
632
One-hundred-and-twenty-five page civil RICO complaint was egregious violation of procedural requirement that
complaint set forth a short and plain statement of claim. Hartz v. Friedman, C.A.7 (Ind.) 1990, 919 F.2d 469.
69
Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
While trial court had great leeway in determining whether party complied with this rule as a matter of law, verbose
and scandalous pleadings of over 4,000 pages violated such rule. Gordon v. Green, C.A.5 (Fla.) 1979, 602 F.2d 743.
632
Complaint based on Civil Rights Act, section 1981 et seq. of Title 42, extending over 55 pages, excluding prayer
and exhibits, did not comply with this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim. Agnew v. Moody, C.A.9
(Cal.) 1964, 330 F.2d 868, certiorari denied 85 S.Ct. 137, 379 U.S. 867, 13 L.Ed.2d 70. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Page 188
Provider of wireless telephone services did not violate federal procedure rule requirement that it provide short and
plain statement in complaint as to how municipality wrongfully delayed processing of application to construct three
antennas needed for signal transmission, in violation of Telecommunications Act, when provider submitted allegedly unnecessarily lengthy 68 page complaint describing “hoops, hurdles, and roadblocks” encountered by provider
in seeking approvals; while lengthy, overall effect of complaint was to give municipality adequate notice of claims.
Nextel of New York, Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon, S.D.N.Y.2005, 361 F.Supp.2d 336. Telecommunications
1055
Fact that complaint, in consolidated class action by investors against underwriters of securities offerings, contained
840 paragraphs spread over 326 pages did not warrant dismissal for failure to comply with requirement of short and
plain statement of claim; investors appropriately had chosen to join large number of claims against large number of
defendants, based on number of different theories and securities offerings, since those claims all arose out of same
underlying alleged accounting fraud, which itself was quite complex. In re Global Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y.2003, 313 F.Supp.2d 189. Federal Civil Procedure
1809
Although investors' and creditors' complaint against alleged Ponzi scheme promoters, bank that funded hotel projects in which they invested, bank's law firm, corporation formed to consolidate hotel management contracts, and its
shareholder and director contained 115 pages and set forth seven causes of action, it was not inordinately long in
view of complexity of schemes alleged and requirement that allegations of fraud be pleaded with particularity.
632
Burke v. Dowling, E.D.N.Y.1995, 944 F.Supp. 1036. Federal Civil Procedure
Seventy-four page complaint in securities litigation did not satisfy requirement of short and plain statement showing
pleader was entitled to relief, and irrelevant, redundant and immaterial would be stricken. In re Clearly Canadian
Securities Litigation, N.D.Cal.1995, 875 F.Supp. 1410. Federal Civil Procedure
60.51(1)
Averments in pleading should be plain to give adverse party fair notice of claims asserted, and they should be short
because unnecessary prolixity in pleading places unjustified burden on court and party who must respond to it because they are forced to select relevant material from a mass of verbiage. Moscowitz v. Brown, S.D.N.Y.1994, 850
671
Length is not by itself sufficient grounds for dismissal under rule requiring pleading to contain short and plain
statement of claim. Citicorp Intern. Trading Co., Inc. v. Western Oil & Refining Co., Inc., S.D.N.Y.1991, 771
1771
Plaintiff was ordered to amend complaint so as to comply substantially with requirements of Fed.Rules
Civ.Proc.Rule 8(a)(2), (e)(1), 28 U.S.C.A. that complaint contain short and plain statement of claim and that averments be simple, concise, and direct, in view of excessive length of the complaint, evidentiary statements in the
complaint, and failure to separate adequately the different claims for relief. Windsor v. A Federal Executive Agency,
M.D.Tenn.1983, 614 F.Supp. 1255, affirmed 767 F.2d 923. Federal Civil Procedure
651
Detailed 85-page complaint filed by private water utility and its sole stockholder adequately gave defendants fair
notice of plaintiffs' claim and grounds upon which it rested, and claims were set forth in sufficient detail for defendants to respond. Highfield Water Co. v. Public Service Commission, D.C.Md.1980, 488 F.Supp. 1176. Federal
Civil Procedure
633.1
Complaint which consisted of 125 pages and which was confusing and redundant violated this rule requiring a simple, concise and direct pleading and was subject to dismissal under rule. Boruski v. Stewart, S.D.N.Y.1974, 381
1771
Page 189
A judge need not go through 2000 pages of irrational prolix and redundant pleadings, containing matters foreign to
issue involved in proceeding for writ of habeas corpus, in order to determine grounds of petitioner's complaint.
665.1
Passic v. State, E.D.Mich.1951, 98 F.Supp. 1015. Habeas Corpus
A complaint which filled 29 typewritten pages exclusive of exhibits did not comply with this rule. Kithcart v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., W.D.Mo.1944, 62 F.Supp. 93, affirmed 150 F.2d 997, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct. 267, 326
U.S. 777, 90 L.Ed. 470, rehearing denied 66 S.Ct. 469, 326 U.S. 812, 90 L.Ed. 496, rehearing denied 66 S.Ct. 520,
327 U.S. 813, 90 L.Ed. 1038. Federal Civil Procedure
632
Prolix subdivision of complaint which covered 4 1/2 pages of legal cap was not a “simple, concise and direct” form
of pleading contemplated by this rule requiring conciseness and directness. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation v.
White Cap Co., D.C.Del.1942, 47 F.Supp. 451. Federal Civil Procedure
632
Former government employees' proposed amended complaint satisfied pleading requirement that complaint include
a short and plain statement of claim entitling pleader to relief, although amended complaint was 219 pages in contrast to original complaint length of 44 pages, in action against former employer, the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA), and others for allegedly obstructing efforts to obtain assistance of counsel, in violation of the Privacy Act and
their constitutional rights; length was reasonable, considering that employees added new claims, new plaintiffs, and
new defendants, and most paragraphs of amended complaint were simple, concise, and direct. M.K. v. Tenet,
D.D.C.2002, 216 F.R.D. 133. Federal Civil Procedure
851
Compliance with provisions of this rule requiring conciseness of complaint is not to be judged by the length of the
complaint; the test of compliance is whether the pleadings give a fair notice of claim asserted so as to enable adverse
party to answer and prepare for trial, to allow for application of doctrine of res judicata, and to show type of case
631.1
brought. Karlinsky v. New York Racing Ass'n, S.D.N.Y.1971, 52 F.R.D. 40. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint, in action for breach of contract, which, exclusive of exhibit, consisted of 40 legal size typewritten pages,
and involved repetitious verbiage, would be dismissed for violation of subdivisions (a, e) of this rule and, with leave
to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint. Carl Gutmann & Co. v. Rohrer Knitting Mills, E.D.Pa.1949, 9 F.R.D.
1790
Where complaint consisted of 32 legalsize typewritten pages and large part of complaint was made up of evidentiary
matter, complaint was in violation of subdivision (a) of this rule requiring pleading setting forth a claim for relief to
contain a short and plain statement of the claim, showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Burns v. Spiller,
D.C.D.C.1945, 4 F.R.D. 299, affirmed 161 F.2d 377, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 91, certiorari denied 68 S.Ct. 101, 332 U.S.
792, 92 L.Ed. 373. Federal Civil Procedure
651
A complaint, comprising 154 paragraphs, which was complex, prolix, contradictory, and replete with conclusions
entangled with allegations of fact, was required to be dismissed for violation of this rule requiring a pleading to be
simple, concise and direct. Makan Amusement Corp. v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Co., D.C.N.J.1944, 3
F.R.D. 429.
192. Complexity of action, statement of entitlement
Neither length of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) complaint nor its repeated allegations of deception dating back to early 1970's violated rules requiring pleading to contain short and plain statement of claim and requiring pleading averments to be concise and direct; plaintiffs' RICO claim was complex in
nature. Grove Holding Corp. v. First Wisconsin Nat. Bank of Sheboygan, E.D.Wis.1992, 803 F.Supp. 1486. Federal
Civil Procedure
Page 190
691
In case which involves difficult questions of fact and law, as well as public issues, it is absolutely necessary that it
commence with complaint which is in fact short, plain and concise statement of material facts. Karlinsky v. New
York Racing Ass'n, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1970, 310 F.Supp. 937. Federal Civil Procedure
630
An amended complaint constituted a violation of these rules where it was prolix and replete with vague, immaterial
and evidential allegations and required 39 paragraphs covering 16 legal size typewritten pages to state a comparatively simple cause of action. Carl Gutmann & Co. v. Rohrer Knitting Mills, E.D.Pa.1949, 86 F.Supp. 506. Federal
Civil Procedure
652
193. Characterization of claim, statement of entitlement
Woman's allegations that, when she was 17, her brother-in-law engaged in nonconsensual sexual relations with her
in his home in Nevada and at college stated battery claim under notice pleading rules, even though complaint characterized claim as one for “sexual molestation,” which was not recognized as separate tort in Nevada. Labram v.
Havel, C.A.4 (Md.) 1995, 43 F.3d 918. Assault And Battery
24(1); Rape
65
Failure of defendant counterclaimant to denote his claim as one of “slander of title” did not preclude his recovery on
674
such theory. Misco Leasing, Inc. v. Keller, C.A.10 (Okla.) 1974, 490 F.2d 545. Federal Civil Procedure
194. Labels, statement of entitlement
Fact that woman labeled her claim as one for “sexual molestation,” which was not recognized as separate tort in
Nevada, did not warrant dismissal of woman's claim that, when she was 17, her brother-in-law engaged in nonconsensual sexual relations with her in his home in Nevada, where complaint pleaded cause of action for battery and
where brother-in-law was aware throughout proceedings of legal and factual basis for action. Labram v. Havel,
C.A.4 (Md.) 1995, 43 F.3d 918. Federal Civil Procedure
1811
Label of action as stated in complaint is not controlling as to nature of action. Tyree v. Smith, E.D.Tenn.1968, 289
621
Legal labels are not required in pleadings. In re Hwang, Bkrtcy.C.D.Cal.1995, 189 B.R. 786. Federal Civil Procedure
621
195. Cause of action, statement of entitlement
Pleading that offers labels and conclusions or formulaic recitation of elements of cause of action will not do, nor
does complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
U.S.2009, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, on remand 574 F.3d 820. Federal Civil Procedure
673
A complaint is sufficient if it satisfies the federal rules, even though it would be subject to demurrer in a state court
for failure to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Thompson v. Allstate Ins. Co., C.A.5 (Ala.)
671
There was no justification in these rules for an order to a plaintiff to set forth his cause of action clearly in that the
only relevant requirement of this rule and rule 12 of these rules is that of stating a claim on which relief can be
granted and that there is no requirement that a plaintiff provide a bill of particulars. Michael v. Clark Equipment Co.,
C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1967, 380 F.2d 351. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 191
671
To state cause of action, complaint must show that plaintiff is entitled to judicial action in vindication of a right or in
remedying a wrong. Smith v. Dulles, C.A.D.C.1956, 236 F.2d 739, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 6, certiorari denied 77 S.Ct.
329, 352 U.S. 955, 1 L.Ed.2d 244. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Under these rules there is no pleading requirement of stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but only
that there be a short and plain statement of the claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief and the motion for
dismissal is for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dioguardi v. Durning, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1772
Requirement of a short and plain statement of claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, does not require a
statement of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Beascoechea v. Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.,
E.D.Pa.1980, 486 F.Supp. 169. See, also, Unibrand Tire & Product Co., Inc. v. Armstrong Rubber Co.,
D.C.N.Y.1977, 429 F.Supp. 470; Taylor v. Nichols, D.C.Kan.1976, 409 F.Supp. 927, affirmed 558 F.2d 561; Mull
v. Colt Co., D.C.N.Y.1962, 31 F.R.D. 154. Federal Civil Procedure
630
There is no requirement that complaint state facts sufficient to constitute cause of action. U. S. ex rel. Brzozowski v.
Randall, E.D.Pa.1968, 281 F.Supp. 306. Federal Civil Procedure
671
The cause of action theory of case doctrine has no application under these rules. Sopkin v. Missouri Nat. Life Ins.
Co., W.D.Mo.1963, 222 F.Supp. 984. Federal Civil Procedure
674
These rules require only that a “claim” and not a “cause of action” be stated. Rhodes v. Houston, D.C.Neb.1962, 202
F.Supp. 624, affirmed 309 F.2d 959, certiorari denied 83 S.Ct. 724, 372 U.S. 909, 9 L.Ed.2d 719, motion denied 258
F.Supp. 546, affirmed 418 F.2d 1309, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 1382, 397 U.S. 1049, 25 L.Ed.2d 662. Federal Civil
Procedure
673
Prayer for relief is no part of cause of action, and parties are entitled to such relief as pleadings make out. Johnson v.
Granquist, D.C.Or.1961, 191 F.Supp. 591. Federal Civil Procedure
2583.1;
252(1); Pleading
72
Judgment
Under this rule, a complaint need not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action but need only allege a claim
upon which the relief can be granted. Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., W.D.Pa.1951, 101 F.Supp. 549,
673
affirmed 193 F.2d 489. Federal Civil Procedure
Under this rule there is no pleading requirement of stating facts sufficient to constitute cause of action, but only that
there be short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Garcia v. Hilton Hotels Intern.,
D.C.Puerto Rico 1951, 97 F.Supp. 5. See, also Mil-Hall Textile Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1958, 160
F.Supp. 778; Brooks v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.N.Y.1950, 91 F.Supp. 101; Ivancik v. Wright Aeronautical Corp.,
D.C.N.J.1946, 68 F.Supp. 270; Moore v. Erie County Agr. Soc., D.C.N.Y.1951, 12 F.R.D. 6. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
Under subdivision (a) of this rule and rule 12(b)(6), which are determinative of the sufficiency of complaint under
the Clayton and Sherman Acts, § 1 to 7, 15 and 12 to 27 of Title 15, there is no requirement that the complaint state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Camrel Co. v. Skouras Theatres Corp., D.C.N.J.1944, 57 F.Supp. 811.
693; Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
The use of the words “claim” or “claim for relief” in place of the term “cause of action,” manifest intent to avoid the
Page 192
former concept of “cause of action” and to refer to the specified conduct of the defendant upon which plaintiff tries
to enforce his claim. White v. Holland Furnace Co., S.D.Ohio 1939, 31 F.Supp. 32. Federal Civil Procedure
673; Pleading
61
Federal rule requiring that pleading which sets forth claim for relief contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief imposes no requirement that pleading state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
673
action. Brown v. Peoples Sec. Ins., E.D.Pa.1994, 158 F.R.D. 350. Federal Civil Procedure
These rules have adopted “notice pleading”, and plaintiff is not required to set forth a cause of action and need only
set forth facts showing a “claim” justifying relief. Owens Generator Co. v. H. J. Heinz Co., N.D.Cal.1958, 23 F.R.D.
673
Intent and effect of this rule setting forth characteristics of good pleading is to permit a claim to be stated in general
terms and to discourage battles over mere form of statement, and this rule does away with the confusion resulting
from the use of “facts” and “cause of action,” and merely requires pleader to disclose adequate information as to
basis of his claim for relief. U.S. v. Iroquois Apartments, Inc., E.D.N.Y.1957, 21 F.R.D. 151. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Under subdivision (a) of these rules, essence of complaint is not the statement of a technical cause of action, but a
statement of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence, out of which plaintiff's right, and defendant's wrong, arose, and
such statement is good if it is one which states a cause of action, regardless of its technical, legal character. U.S. v.
Schefrin, D.C.N.J.1953, 14 F.R.D. 462. Pleading
38.5
A complaint must contain statement of claim in sufficiently clear terms to enable defendant to frame responsive
pleading, but need not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. U. S. Guarantee Co. v. Mountaineer Engineering Co., W.D.Pa.1952, 12 F.R.D. 520. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Under these rules, complaint in federal District Court action need not state cause of action, but need only contain
sufficient allegation to show claim on which relief may ultimately be obtained under evidence adduced on trial.
673
Johnson v. Fredrick, D.C.Neb.1949, 9 F.R.D. 616. Federal Civil Procedure
Under these rules, complaint need only state a simple claim upon which relief may ultimately be granted and statement of a cause of action in complaint is not required. Smith v. Cushman Motor Works, D.C.Neb.1948, 8 F.R.D.
673
Under subdivision (a) of this rule there is no pleading requirement of stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action, but only that there be a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and
an amended complaint consisting of 24 typewritten pages did not comply with this rule. Klages v. Cohen,
E.D.N.Y.1945, 5 F.R.D. 32. Federal Civil Procedure
851
196. Elements of claim, statement of entitlement
In order to make short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, as required in complaint, plaintiff must simply allege all elements of right to recover against defendant. Todd v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., W.D.La.1996, 924 F.Supp. 59. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Plaintiff, in complaint, need not set out in detail facts on which claim is based, but must allege sufficient facts to
outline the cause of action, and complaint must state either direct or inferential allegations concerning all of the material elements necessary for recovery under the relevant legal theory. Columbus, Cuneo, Cabrini Medical Center v.
Travelers Ins. Co., N.D.Ill.1989, 725 F.Supp. 396. Federal Civil Procedure
674
Page 193
Claim is not required to state all the elements of a particular cause of action, but defendant is to receive adequate
notice of the claim against him sufficient to permit him to prepare a defense or response. Runyan v. United Broth. of
Carpenters, D.C.Colo.1983, 566 F.Supp. 600. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Test for whether pleading is sufficient under these rules is whether pleading gives notice and states elements of
claim plainly and succinctly and not whether as an abstract matter it states conclusions or facts. Burkhart v. Allson
Realty Trust, N.D.Ill.1973, 363 F.Supp. 1286. Federal Civil Procedure
631.1
Complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and
plaintiff is required to set forth explicitly or by fair implication the essential elements of her claim. Berry v. Hamblin, M.D.Pa.1973, 356 F.Supp. 306. Federal Civil Procedure
673
This rule specifying the contents of claim for relief is not complied with by a mere notice of disaffection to the opposite party, but only practical way of making a “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” is by stating the prima
facie elements of the claim, as indicated by operative facts recited as the basis for the entitlement to relief. Daves v.
Hawaiian Dredging Co., D.C.Hawai'i 1953, 114 F.Supp. 643. Federal Civil Procedure
673
197. Legal theory, statement of entitlement
Purpose of “fact pleading” is to give defendant fair notice of claims against him without requiring plaintiff to have
every legal theory developed in detail before complaint is filed and parties have opportunity for discovery. Evans v.
McDonald's Corp., C.A.10 (Okla.) 1991, 936 F.2d 1087. Federal Civil Procedure
672
Federal pleading is by statement of claim, not by legal theories. Newman v. Silver, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1983, 713 F.2d 14.
674
Pleadings in antitrust case were sufficient though they did not state with particularity the exact proposed theory of
relief, but same was not to be taken as meaning that indefinite pleadings are recommended trial strategy. St. Bernard
General Hosp., Inc. v. Hospital Service Ass'n of New Orleans, Inc., C.A.5 (La.) 1983, 712 F.2d 978, certiorari de972(3)
nied 104 S.Ct. 2342, 466 U.S. 970, 80 L.Ed.2d 816. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
Under this rule, it is not necessary that plaintiff set forth legal theory on which he relies if he sets forth sufficient
factual allegations to state claim showing that he is entitled to any relief which court may grant. Rohler v. TRW,
Inc., C.A.7 (Ind.) 1978, 576 F.2d 1260. See, also, Hostrop v. Board of Jr. College Dist. No. 515, Cook and Will
Counties and State of Ill. C.A.Ill.1975, 523 F.2d 569, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1748, 425 U.S. 963, 48 L.Ed.2d 208;
Bramlet v. Wilson, C.A.Ark.1974, 495 F.2d 714; New Amsterdam Cos. Co. v. Waller, C.A.N.C.1963, 323 F.2d 20,
certiorari denied 84 S.Ct. 1124, 376 U.S. 963, 11 L.Ed.2d 981; McCoy v. Thorn, D.C.La.1978, 451 F.Supp. 351.
674
Under these rules, it is not office of a complaint to plead detailed facts or state particular theories for recovery, and it
is sufficient if complaint concisely states facts upon which relief can be granted upon any legally sustainable basis.
New Home Appliance Center, Inc. v. Thompson, C.A.10 (Colo.) 1957, 250 F.2d 881. Federal Civil Procedure
671
In suit based on alleged breach of duty of a liability insurer to compromise a claim, where the district court in dismissing the action, stated that if the cause of action existed for the plaintiff, it was not one upon which the suit was
Page 194
brought, dismissal was error, in view of these liberal rules, under which a complaint is not to be dismissed, because
the plaintiff has misconceived the proper legal theory of the claim. Dotschay for Use and Benefit of Alfonso v. National Mut. Ins. Co. of District of Columbia, C.A.5 (Fla.) 1957, 246 F.2d 221. Federal Civil Procedure
1797
A pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, but it is
not necessary to set out legal theory upon which claim is based. Siegelman v. Cunard White Star Limited, C.A.2
(N.Y.) 1955, 221 F.2d 189. See, also, Sherwin v. Oil City Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1955, 18 F.R.D. 188, affirmed 229
630
Notice required by rule requiring a pleading to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief does not extend to legal theories. Spacesaver Corp. v. Marvel Group, Inc.,
W.D.Wis.2009, 621 F.Supp.2d 659. Federal Civil Procedure
674
Under the federal liberal pleading standards, a court should consider theories supported by alleged facts even if they
are not explicitly pled as long as the defendants have notice of the issues in the case. Television Events & Marketing, Inc. v. AMCON Distributing, Co., D.Hawai'i 2006, 484 F.Supp.2d 1124. Federal Civil Procedure
674
As long as issue is pled, plaintiff does not have to state exact theory of relief in order to obtain remedy; however,
plaintiff may not wait until last minute to ascertain and refine his legal theories, especially if defendant will be
prejudiced. Al Makaaseb General Trading Co. v. U.S. Steel Intern., Inc., W.D.Pa.2006, 412 F.Supp.2d 485. Federal
Civil Procedure
674
General rule of pleading does not require plaintiffs to plead legal theory, facts or elements underlying their claim. In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y.2003, 241 F.Supp.2d 281. Federal Civil Procedure
673;
674
Complaint must, at minimum, set forth facts upon which cause of action is based, give notice to defendant of claim
being asserted, and summarize facts essential to support claim, but it is not necessary that plaintiff identify specific
legal theory underlying complaint. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection v. Concept
Sciences, Inc., E.D.Pa.2002, 232 F.Supp.2d 454. Federal Civil Procedure
674
“Theory of pleadings doctrine,” under which complaint must proceed upon some definite theory and plaintiff must
succeed on that theory or not succeed at all, has been all but abolished under federal rules; rather, legal theory is not
necessary if plaintiff sets forth sufficient factual allegations to state claim showing that he is entitled to relief under
some cognizable legal theory. Guarino v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., D.Mass.1995, 915 F.Supp. 435. Federal Civil
Procedure
674
Fact that plaintiff pleads improper legal theory in complaint does not preclude recovery under proper theory and
selection of improper remedy in demand is not fatal if claim indicates that pleader is entitled to some other relief;
sufficiency of pleading is tested by statement of claim, and demand for judgment is not considered part of claim.
680
Dimuccio v. D'Ambra, M.D.Fla.1991, 779 F.Supp. 1318. Federal Civil Procedure
Whether the pleading need present a complete formal cause of action or not, it must contain either direct allegations
on every material point necessary to sustain a recovery on any legal theory, even though it may not be the theory
suggested or intended by the pleader, or contain allegations from which an inference fairly may be drawn that evidence on these material points will be introduced at trial. City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co.,
S.D.Fla.1980, 488 F.Supp. 1258. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Page 195
Under federal notice pleading, it is unnecessary to set out the legal theory on which the claim is based. Speed Auto
Sales, Inc. v. American Motors Corp., E.D.N.Y.1979, 477 F.Supp. 1193. Federal Civil Procedure
674
Fact that plaintiff misconceived the legal theory of its case did not preclude it from obtaining relief under another
legal theory. Janke Const. Co., Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co., W.D.Wis.1974, 386 F.Supp. 687, affirmed 527 F.2d
674
Precise theory on which claim for relief is based need not appear in the complaint; complaint is sufficient if any
674
claim for relief is stated. U. S. v. Van Raalte Co., S.D.N.Y.1971, 328 F.Supp. 827. Federal Civil Procedure
Failure to characterize claim as in contract or tort is not such vagueness or ambiguity that defendant cannot frame
responsive pleading in ordinary case. Sopkin v. Missouri Nat. Life Ins. Co., W.D.Mo.1963, 222 F.Supp. 984.
674
Under these rules, a litigant is not bound by the selection of a particular theory for relief. Lance, Inc. v. Ginsburg,
E.D.Pa.1962, 210 F.Supp. 272, 135 U.S.P.Q. 359. Federal Civil Procedure
881
All that is required of a plaintiff is that he place defendant on notice as to the nature of his claims and he need not
specify his theory of recovery or set forth in detail the facts upon which such theory rests. Asphaltic Enterprises, Inc.
v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., E.D.Pa.1966, 39 F.R.D. 574. Federal Civil Procedure
673; Federal Civil
Procedure
674
This rule requires only that complaint set forth grounds upon which various claims for relief depend so that the issues are clear and the defendant enabled to prepare his answer, and the theory of the pleading is not required.
674
Curacao Trading Co. v. William Stake & Co., S.D.N.Y.1941, 2 F.R.D. 308. Federal Civil Procedure
198. Type of litigation involved, statement of entitlement
Under these rules pleadings are little more than general indication of type of litigation involved. Dearman v.
Woodson, C.A.10 (Kan.) 1970, 429 F.2d 1288. Federal Civil Procedure
623
Under this rule the function of the “complaint” is to afford fair notice to the adversary of the nature and basis of the
claim asserted and a general indication of the type of litigation involved. Continental Collieries v. Shober, C.C.A.3
(Pa.) 1942, 130 F.2d 631. Federal Civil Procedure
672
Breach of contract claim alone is not sufficient to put defendant on notice that negligence claim, arising out of that
contract, has also been alleged. Chalfin v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., E.D.Pa.1990, 745 F.Supp. 1117. Federal Civil
Procedure
709
The function of a complaint under these rules is to afford fair notice to adversary of the nature and basis of the claim
asserted and a general indication of the type of litigation involved. Shapiro v. Royal Indem. Co., W.D.Pa.1951, 100
F.Supp. 801. See, also, East Crossroads Center, Inc. v. Mellon-Stuart Co., D.C.Pa.1965, 245 F.Supp. 191; Hirshhorn
v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., D.C.Pa.1951, 101 F.Supp. 549, affirmed 193 F.2d 489; Welcher v. U.S.,
D.C.Ark.1953, 14 F.R.D. 235; Arthur A. Aranson, Inc. v. Ing-Rich Metal Products Co., D.C.Pa.1952, 12 F.R.D.
528; U.S. Guarantee Co. v. Mountaineer Engineering Co., D.C.Pa.1952, 12 F.R.D. 520; American Ship Bldg. Co. v.
Kirk, D.C.Pa.1951, 11 F.R.D. 366. Federal Civil Procedure
672
If complaint gives opposing party fair notice of claim, basis on which it is founded, and general indication of type of
litigation involved, it is sufficient to comply with these rules. Re v. Fullop, E.D.Ill.1958, 22 F.R.D. 52. Federal Civil
Procedure
Page 196
671
199. Law or legal basis, statement of entitlement
If allegation is made that policy sued on is legally one state's contract, party relying on provision of law of that state
need not expressly plead that law, particularly in case tried in courts of United States. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v.
Norris Grain Co., C.A.8 (Mo.) 1965, 343 F.2d 670. Federal Civil Procedure
621
Subd. (a)(2) of this rule is satisfied if the statement gives the defendant fair notice of the claim and the ground upon
which it rests and it is not necessary to plead under what particular law the recovery is sought. Williams v. U. S.,
C.A.10 (Okla.) 1959, 273 F.2d 469.
Complaint need not cite any law in order to pass muster under liberal notice pleading standards. Baker v. John
Morrell & Co., N.D.Iowa 2003, 266 F.Supp.2d 909, affirmed 382 F.3d 816, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied.
673
Complaint need not point to the appropriate law in order to raise claim for relief under federal pleading rule; rather,
complaint sufficiently raises claim so long as relief is possible under any set of facts that can be established consistent with the allegations. Zorn v. Helene Curtis, Inc., N.D.Ill.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1226. Federal Civil Procedure
673
200. Statutory provisions, statement of entitlement
RLUIPA claims need satisfy only the short and plain statement pleading standard, and thus, a complaint's failure to
cite RLUIPA does not preclude a prisoner from subsequently asserting a claim based on that statute. Alvarez v. Hill,
C.A.9 (Or.) 2008, 518 F.3d 1152, on remand 2010 WL 582217. Civil Rights
1397
Where complaint alleged that corporation had offered an interest in 11 oil and gas leases without having them registered under Indiana securities law, although registration was required, and alleged that individual defendant controlled corporate defendant, such allegations were sufficient to give individual defendant fair notice of claim against
him and ground upon which it rested; thus citation of specific provision of Indiana securities law under which defendant was allegedly liable as controlling person was unnecessary. Tremps v. Ascot Oils, Inc., C.A.7 (Ind.) 1977,
691
Former director at medical college was not foreclosed from seeking relief under New York's Whistleblower Law for
his failure to cite Law in his complaint against college and department chairman; director's factual allegations supported claim. Geldzahler v. New York Medical College, S.D.N.Y.2009, 663 F.Supp.2d 379. Colleges And Universities
8.1(3)
Government was not required to specifically plead particular statutory provisions underlying each count against tax4906
payer relating to unpaid income taxes. U.S. v. Jones, D.N.J.1995, 916 F.Supp. 383. Internal Revenue
Question, included in gas sellers' pretrial order, of whether buyer breached its duty, under Kansas statute, to perform
under gas purchase contract in good faith was not new claim or theory, so that buyer was not entitled to striking of
that question; inclusion of statute was nothing more than new label for claim which had always been part of action
and buyer made no showing of prejudice beyond its mere allegation. Rupe v. Triton Oil & Gas Corp., D.Kan.1992,
806 F.Supp. 1495.
Page 197
Where plaintiff's claim for relief rests entirely upon a statute, defendant is entitled, without being forced to go into
procedures beyond the claim for relief, to demand sufficient informative facts from the complaint to show that plaintiff, if his facts be true, is actually within the terms of the statute in making his claim. Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging
Co., D.C.Hawai'i 1953, 114 F.Supp. 643. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Notice pleading standard did not require that Indian tribe's complaint seeking declaratory judgment and injunction
against local government applying local zoning and land use law to Indian property be interpreted to state a claim
for relief under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA); language “or any other” laws in complaint, along with
statement of fact that tribe had commenced construction of Class II gambling facility on the property and accompanying citation to IGRA, were not sufficient notice, particularly procedural posture of case in which discovery had
been closed for more than one year. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma v. Town of Aurelius, N.Y., N.D.N.Y.2006,
233 F.R.D. 278. Declaratory Judgment
314
Complaint in civil rights action which alleges unlawful employment practice but which merely parrots language of
statute does not comply with requirement of this rule that complaint set forth a short and plain statement of claim.
691
Nishiyama v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., C.D.Cal.1970, 49 F.R.D. 288. Federal Civil Procedure
Allegation of defendant in trade-mark infringement and unfair competition counterclaims that plaintiff had “proceeded in contravention of good conscience, equity and the laws of the United States and the State of New York”
was too vague and indefinite, if essential to valid statement of defendant's cause of action, to permit plaintiff to file
responsive pleading, and defendant would be required to state specific statutes involved, if any. Dixie Mercerizing
Co. v. Triangle Thread Mills, S.D.N.Y.1955, 17 F.R.D. 8, 104 U.S.P.Q. 194. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
201. State law, statement of entitlement
Title VII plaintiff's additional allegation that his rights had been violated under “District of Columbia law” was insufficient to satisfy notice pleading requirements; complaint failed to reference specific law or statute, or even generally describe what law had been violated. Pyne v. District of Columbia, D.D.C.2002, 298 F.Supp.2d 7. Civil
Rights
1740
Allegations by assistant engineer on casino vessel that both federal general maritime law and state law prohibited
discharge from employment for refusing to violate federal law sufficiently alluded to state law, under federal pleading rule, to provide employer with fair notice of engineer's potential claim for wrongful discharge under state law.
Zbylut v. Harvey's Iowa Management Co. Inc., S.D.Iowa 2003, 250 F.Supp.2d 1104, affirmed 361 F.3d 1094. Labor
And Employment
858
202. Statistical categorization, statement of entitlement
A complaint should do something more than merely inform the clerk into what statistical category the case belongs.
671
Fennell v. Svenska Amerika Linien A/B, D.C.Mass.1958, 23 F.R.D. 116. Federal Civil Procedure
203. Lack of any allegations, statement of entitlement
Where nothing is alleged, plaintiff has not complied with this rule requiring him to show entitlement to relief, and
complaint must at minimum reveal basis upon which relief is sought. Friedman v. Younger, C.D.Cal.1968, 282
673
204. Class actions, statement of entitlement
Page 198
Investors sufficiently alleged decline in investment value due to materially false or misleading information in registration statement, as required to state Securities Act claim against mortgage company and company's officers, by
stating in class action complaint that they suffered economic loss in connection with purchase or sale of securities
and providing schedule that identified their securities' purchase and sale dates, together with exact prices. In re
Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, C.D.Cal.2008, 588 F.Supp.2d 1132. Securities Regulation
25.25
Class member's claim against class counsel, alleging that she was told by counsel that “she would be fully compensated for the losses that she incurred” and that she “has yet to receive appropriate compensation,” failed to comply
with notice pleading requirements, since member did not give counsel fair notice of what member's claim was and
ground upon which it rested, and it did not set forth short and plain statement of her claims or why she was entitled
to relief. Strozier v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, N.D.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 21640490, Unreported.
129(2)
Attorney And Client
205. Multiple defendants, statement of entitlement
Orthopedic surgeon, whose emergency and trauma call and consulting privileges were indefinitely suspended, and
who brought a host of claims against various parties involved in his medical peer review, could not engage in “group
pleading” by collectively referring to fifteen individual physicians and two physician groups as “Peer Review Defendants,” and claims suffering from that deficiency had to be repled to give each defendant fair notice of what
claims were and grounds upon which they rested. Pierson v. Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
M.D.Fla.2009, 619 F.Supp.2d 1260. Health
275
Complaint referring to two distinct corporations by single name was sufficient to satisfy general pleading requirements of rule requiring short and plain statement of claim for relief, where the corporations produced one corporate
representative in prior action to provide testimony regarding the actions of both corporations. Jordan v. Trans Union
LLC, N.D.Ga.2005, 377 F.Supp.2d 1307. Corporations And Business Organizations
2563
Plaintiffs sufficiently articulated their intent to pierce corporate veil in complaint alleging that insurance company,
its holding company, and affiliated company breached contract and acted in bad faith, where plaintiffs referred to
defendants collectively throughout complaint, alleging that all defendants undertook actions that harmed plaintiffs,
and plaintiffs submitted that all of their correspondence surrounding insurance claim and litigation were marked
with holding company's and insurance company's identifying marks. University Medical Associates of Medical University of S.C. v. UnumProvident Corp., D.S.C.2004, 335 F.Supp.2d 702. Corporations And Business Organizations
1085(10)
Allegation in civil rights complaint that all named police officers participated in group arrest of arrestee in which
excessive force was used alleged sufficient personal involvement by each officer and it was not necessary that arrestee plead specific role played by each officer in alleged brutality to survive motion to dismiss. Messina v.
Mazzeo, E.D.N.Y.1994, 854 F.Supp. 116. Civil Rights
1395(6)
Eighty page complaint was not defective for failure to contain short and plain statement of claims, where five plaintiffs were raising 13 separate claims against 15 separate defendants. Morgan v. Kobrin Securities, Inc., N.D.Ill.1986,
649 F.Supp. 1023, on reconsideration. Federal Civil Procedure
632
When there are allegations of fraudulent scheme with multiple defendants, complaint must inform each defendant of
specific fraudulent acts which constitute basis of action against each of the particular defendants. Bruss Co. v. Allnet
Communication Services, Inc., N.D.Ill.1985, 606 F.Supp. 401. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Complaint by tobacco manufacturers, which were not signatories to master settlement agreement resolving suits
Page 199
seeking reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in treating tobacco-related conditions, bringing suit against
attorneys general of 31 states to challenge statutes requiring them to make payments into escrow to create fund for
satisfaction of judgments that might be entered against them in future, satisfied pleading requirements for stating
cause of action, even though specific claims were not set forth as to each defendant; general allegations were sufficient, given almost identical text of all statutes. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, S.D.N.Y.2003,
2003 WL 22232974, Unreported, vacated in part on reconsideration 2004 WL 1594869, entered 2004 WL 2480433,
208
affirmed 425 F.3d 158, certiorari denied 127 S.Ct. 379, 549 U.S. 951, 166 L.Ed.2d 267. States
206. Multiple causes of action, statement of entitlement
Claim of judgment creditor of escrow agent to recover funds that agent paid to mortgage lender, which related to
portion of rental fee which escrow agent paid for use of lender's office that did not constitute alleged improper kickback, was sufficiently separate from creditor's claim to portion of rental fee that was alleged kickback to permit district court to enter final judgment upon latter claim only; even if claims overlapped to some extent, theories supporting claims were different. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Dearborn Title Corp., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1997, 118 F.3d 1157, on
660.20
remand 22 F.Supp.2d 820. Federal Courts
Complaint that was 86 pages long and contained 33 causes of action against 21 defendants could be dismissed for
failure to contain short and plain statement. Washington v. Baenziger, N.D.Cal.1987, 656 F.Supp. 1176. Federal
Civil Procedure
632
Where 31-page complaint contained, as far as could be determined, only one count and where it was possible only to
guess or surmise what plaintiffs' claim actually were, the complaint was subject to dismissal for its total failure to
conform to the requirement that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. Foreman v. General Motors Corp., E.D.Mich.1979, 473 F.Supp. 166. Federal Civil Procedure
1741
207. General terms, statement of entitlement
Complaint need only set out generalized statement of facts which will give fair notice of action and claimant need
not plead facts in detail. Husbands v. Com. of Pa., E.D.Pa.1973, 359 F.Supp. 925. See, also, Collins v. Rukin,
D.C.Mass.1972, 342 F.Supp. 1282. Federal Civil Procedure
671
This rule pertaining to claims for relief contemplates presentation of circumstances, occurrences and events in support of claim, though it permits such circumstances to be stated with great generality. Frank v. Mracek,
M.D.Ala.1973, 58 F.R.D. 365. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Claim is not required to be stated within framework of cause of action, but may be stated in general terms. Stanley v.
Harper Buffing Mach. Co., D.C.Conn.1961, 28 F.R.D. 579, 132 U.S.P.Q. 123. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Subdivision (a)(2) of this rule requires that the averments be in general terms. Shafir v. Wabash R. Co.,
W.D.Mo.1947, 7 F.R.D. 467. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
A complaint seeking recovery of damages for alleged combination in restraint of trade should state in general terms
the nature of agreement or combination and what was done that injured plaintiffs. Emich Motor Corp. v. General
Motors Corp., N.D.Ill.1942, 2 F.R.D. 552. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
208. Summary of case, statement of entitlement
Page 200
The function of pleadings under these rules is to give fair notice of claim asserted, so as to enable adverse party to
answer and prepare for trial, and a generalized summary of the case affords fair notice, and that is all that is required. Mueller v. Rayon Consultants, Inc, S.D.N.Y.1959, 170 F.Supp. 555, appeal denied 271 F.2d 591. See, also,
Trebuhs Realty Co. v. News Syndicate Co., D.C.N.Y.1951, 12 F.R.D. 110; Shepherd v. Popular Publications,
D.C.N.Y.1950, 10 F.R.D. 389; U.S. v. Kornfeld, D.C.Pa.1950, 9 F.R.D. 675. Federal Civil Procedure
623;
630
Subdivision (a) of this rule relating to claims for relief merely requires that a complaint indicate generally the type of
litigation that is involved, and a generalized summary of the case that affords fair notice is sufficient. Sunbeam
Corp. v. Payless Drug Stores, N.D.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 31, 97 U.S.P.Q. 373. Federal Civil Procedure
673
The modern philosophy concerning pleadings is that they do little more than indicate generally the type of litigation
that is involved, and a generalized summary of the case that affords fair notice is all that is required. Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Timetrust, Inc., N.D.Cal.1939, 28 F.Supp. 34. Federal Civil Procedure
672; Federal
Civil Procedure
623
209. Details of claim, statement of entitlement--Generally
Requirement that pleading contain a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief does
not require detailed factual allegations, but demands more than unadorned “the defendant unlawfully harmed me”
accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S.2009, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, on remand 574 F.3d 820. Federal Civil
Procedure
673
Neither notice pleading requirements nor standards which govern dismissals for failure to state claim upon which
relief can be granted require claimant to set out in detail facts upon which he bases his claim, but pretrial proceedings such as summary judgment and motion for more definite statement are appropriate devices to narrow issues and
disclose boundaries of claim and defense. Williams v. United Credit Plan of Chalmette, Inc., C.A.5 (La.) 1976, 526
2462
Although these rules do not require pleader to set out in detail facts on which he bases his claim, when facts which
he alleges or assumes show that his claim is without merit, there is no need to go to trial. Hoshman v. Esso Standard
Oil Co., C.A.5 (La.) 1959, 263 F.2d 499, certiorari denied 80 S.Ct. 60, 361 U.S. 818, 4 L.Ed.2d 64. Federal Civil
Procedure
1772
While notice pleading requires that every complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, plaintiff is not required to plead every element of her prima facie case; instead, plaintiff need plead only the material points necessary to sustain recovery, such that the facts as alleged, in addition to
inferences drawn from those allegations, provide a basis for recovery. Lee v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp.
Authority, E.D.Pa.2005, 418 F.Supp.2d 675. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Short and plain statement of the claim need not be factually detailed, but it must give defendant fair notice of what
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests; while plaintiff is not required to state each element of claim
precisely, plaintiff must provide minimal factual allegations on those material elements that must be proved in order
for plaintiff to recover. Patrick v. City of Overland Park, Kan., D.Kan.1996, 937 F.Supp. 1491. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Federal rule requires short and plain statement of the claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief; details of both
fact and law come later in other documents. Erickson v. Hunter, M.D.Fla.1996, 932 F.Supp. 1380. Federal Civil
Procedure
673
Page 201
Complaint under rule setting forth general rules of pleading limns the claim; details of both fact and law come later,
in other documents. Milazzo v. O'Connell, N.D.Ill.1996, 925 F.Supp. 1331, affirmed 108 F.3d 129, rehearing and
673
suggestion for rehearing en banc denied. Federal Civil Procedure
While pleading must be sufficient to give defendant fair notice of what the claim is and grounds upon which it rests,
pleader is not required to set forth in detail the facts upon which claim is based. Harvey M. Jasper Retirement Trust
v. Ivax Corp., S.D.Fla.1995, 920 F.Supp. 1260. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Complaint must contain short and plain statement of plaintiff's claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, and
need not set out in detail the facts upon which plaintiff bases his claim. Burks v. City of Philadelphia, E.D.Pa.1995,
673
Under rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, statement need not
be factually detailed but it must give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it
673
rests. Davis v. Olin, D.Kan.1995, 886 F.Supp. 804. Federal Civil Procedure
Short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, as required by rule governing claim for
relief, need not be factually detailed, but it must give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds
upon which it rests. Gallardo v. Board of County Com'rs, Kearny County Kan., D.Kan.1994, 857 F.Supp. 783.
671
While pleading must be sufficient to give defendant fair notice of what claim is and grounds upon which it rests,
pleader is not required to set forth in detail facts upon which claim is based. City of Miami Firefighters' and Police
1771
Officers' Retirement Trust v. Invesco MIM, Inc., S.D.Fla.1992, 789 F.Supp. 392. Federal Civil Procedure
A complainant is not required to set forth in detail facts upon which a claim is based; rather, all that is required is “a
short and plain statement of the claim” sufficient to give defendant notice of the claim and grounds upon which it is
630
based. Breslin v. Vornado, Inc., E.D.Pa.1983, 559 F.Supp. 187. Federal Civil Procedure
These rules have adopted the practice of notice pleading, thereby making it unnecessary to plead detailed evidence.
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Huntington Towers, Ltd., E.D.N.Y.1977, 443 F.Supp. 316. Federal Civil Procedure
650.1
Under this rule, a complaint is sufficient if, within the framework of the complaint, evidence may be introduced
which will sustain a grant of relief to the plaintiff, but the pleading must state a cause of action in the sense that it
must show that pleader is entitled to relief, and it is not enough to indicate merely that plaintiff has a grievance, but
sufficient detail must be given so that defendant and the court can obtain a fair idea of what the plaintiff is complaining, and can see that there is some legal basis for recovery. Eli E. Albert, Inc. v. Dun & Brad-Street, S.D.N.Y.1950,
671
This rule pertaining to claims for relief requires pleader to disclose adequate information as basis of claim as distinguished from bare averment that he wants relief and is entitled to it. Frank v. Mracek, M.D.Ala.1973, 58 F.R.D. 365.
673
See, also, Shakespeare v. Wilson, D.C.Col.1966, 40 F.R.D. 500. Federal Civil Procedure
These rules do not require a claimant to set out in detail facts upon which he bases his claim. Owens Generator Co.
v. H. J. Heinz Co., N.D.Cal.1958, 23 F.R.D. 121. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
Under this rule it is not necessary to set out in detail facts upon which pleader bases his claim, but he is required to
Page 202
give only short and plain statement of claim that will give defendant fair notice of why plaintiff's claim is and
grounds upon which it rests; complaint need not set down in detail all particularities of plaintiff's claim against de630
fendant. In re Vermont Real Estate Inv. Trust, Bkrtcy.D.Vt.1982, 21 B.R. 744. Federal Civil Procedure
210. ---- Antitrust actions, details of claim, statement of entitlement
It is necessary in an anti-trust action for treble damages under § 15 of Title 15, to set out in reasonable detail the acts
complained of, not the circumstances from which plaintiff draws its conclusions that violations of acts of Congress
have occurred and that plaintiff has been damaged. Walter Reade's Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's Inc., S.D.N.Y.1957, 20
F.R.D. 579. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
211. ---- Civil rights actions, details of claim, statement of entitlement
Plaintiffs alleging municipal liability under § 1983 may not be held to heightened pleading standard. Atchinson v.
District of Columbia, C.A.D.C.1996, 73 F.3d 418, 315 U.S.App.D.C. 318. Civil Rights
1394
Section 1983 plaintiff seeking to impose municipal liability must satisfy only the usual requirements of notice pleading by providing a short and plain statement of his claim that will give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim
is and of grounds on which it rests; there is no requirement that plaintiff detail the facts underlying his claims.
1394
Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, C.A.4 (Va.) 1994, 15 F.3d 333. Civil Rights
Nurses' amended §§ 1983 complaint against district attorney, assistant district attorney, district attorney's office, and
county gave notice of claims and sets forth sufficient detailed allegations to describe bases for their claims, as required to plead violations of nurses' First, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; there was no confusion as
to specific events that allegedly gave rise to nurses' claims, including nurses' resignation from skilled nursing facility, subsequent retaliatory conduct by operators of facility, alleged agreement between operators and district attorneys to maliciously prosecute nurses, and district attorneys' alleged misconduct during their investigation of nurses.
1395(5)
Anilao v. Spota, E.D.N.Y.2011, 2011 WL 1226966. Civil Rights
Poor articulation of § 1983 claim, and fact that complaint read like vague political harangue with no specific factual
allegations supporting its claims, did not compel dismissal for failure to state claim, since rules required only “short
and plain statement” of claim and supporting grounds. Batista Rivera v. Gonzalez, D.Puerto Rico 2004, 338
1395(1)
Generally, complaint need not detail facts sufficient to state cause of action but must contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment; however, federal courts hold
complaints alleging violations of specific constitutional rights, and civil rights especially, to a standard of greater
particularity and precision. Ruppert v. Lehigh County., E.D.Pa.1980, 496 F.Supp. 954. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
In pleading civil rights claim, plain statement of claim must contain specific factual allegations in support of plain633.1
tiff's right to recovery. Schweiker v. Gordon, E.D.Pa.1977, 442 F.Supp. 1134. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint that set forth time and place of offending conduct, identified responsible officers, and alleged that defendants' actions deprived arrestees of their rights “to be secure in their persons and home, to be free from excessive use
of force, to due process, and not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment” met heightened pleading requirements in § 1983 action against individual officers for excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. Briley
v. City of Trenton, D.N.J.1995, 164 F.R.D. 26. Civil Rights
1395(6)
Page 203
212. ---- Contract actions, details of claim, statement of entitlement
Although allegations in initial complaint filed by independent contractor against mayor and city commissioners was
inadequate to state claims for deprivation of liberty interest, contractor was not required to give detailed recital of
facts on which claim was based and would be permitted to pursue claim. Blackwell v. Mayor and Com'rs of Delmar,
D.Md.1993, 841 F.Supp. 151. Municipal Corporations
254
While buyer was not required to plead any specificity of detail, he was required to plead at least in general terms the
amount and extent of damage it asserted it was entitled to because of manufacturer's asserted violations of its guarantee contained in contracts. Turkish State Rys. Administration v. Vulcan Iron Works, M.D.Pa.1955, 136 F.Supp.
622, appeal dismissed 230 F.2d 108. Federal Civil Procedure
1016
213. ---- Negligence actions, details of claim, statement of entitlement
Under this rule detailed pleadings are not required in order to state a cause of action for negligence, and it is sufficient as against a motion to dismiss, to allege that defendant acted negligently and, as a result, plaintiff was injured.
631.1; Federal
Augusta Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., C.A.5 (Ga.) 1948, 170 F.2d 199. Federal Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure
1802
Under the notice pleading standard, a plaintiff is not required to allege the applicable standard of care in negligence
1513(1)
complaint. Smith v. Carnival Corp., S.D.Fla.2008, 584 F.Supp.2d 1343. Negligence
214. ---- Real property actions, details of claim, statement of entitlement
Property owners failed to plead with sufficient detail their claims that city's code enforcement actions amounted to
unconstitutional takings, even though owners listed addresses of properties that were subjected to allegedly unlawful
practices, where owners provided only legal conclusions regarding how city's actions affected their property, and did
not specify what rights were violated. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Scott, S.D.Fla.2011, 2011 WL 772879. Eminent
Domain
293(1)
Mortgagors' failure to cite any specific provision of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) that was violated by lender or mortgage insurer was grounds for dismissal of the claim. Isagawa v. Homestreet Bank, D.Hawai'i
2011, 769 F.Supp.2d 1225. Consumer Credit
66
County failed to include short and plain statement of claim showing that it was entitled to relief in its complaint
against United States seeking to establish its interest in certain rights-of-way; without relevant details regarding
creation, use and extent of right-of-way as to each road segment, United States was disadvantaged in evaluating
claim and determining its defenses. Washington County v. U.S., D.Utah 1995, 903 F.Supp. 40. Quieting Title
35(1)
215. ---- Special Acts of Congress, details of claim, statement of entitlement
Where proceeding was brought under a special act of Congress passed for purpose of enabling plaintiff to litigate
with government claims arising out of numerous transactions extending over a considerable time, legislation was
remedial in that it gave plaintiff a cause of action against government and right to prosecute it irrespective of any
venue statute or statute of limitation, other than one set out in special act, and complaint which was clear and not
confusing would not be dismissed because it was long and in some regards unnecessarily detailed. Spriggs v. Seaton, C.A.10 (Wyo.) 1959, 271 F.2d 583. Federal Civil Procedure
1795; Limitation Of Actions
11(1);
125(5); United States
132; United States
133; United States
140
United States
Page 204
216. Evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement--Generally
Federal rules do not require plaintiff to allege sufficient facts to establish right to judgment, but rather, rules generally require only nonlegalistic, nonjargonistic statement of what claim is. Trevino v. Union Pacific R. Co., C.A.7
(Ill.) 1990, 916 F.2d 1230. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Under these rules detailed evidence need not be set forth in the complaint. Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. U. S., C.A.10
(Wyo.) 1975, 515 F.2d 926. See, also, Fannie v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., Derry Division D.C.Pa.1977, 445 F.Supp.
65; Jenkins v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Del.1973, 354 F.Supp. 1040. Federal Civil Procedure
650.1
Plaintiff is not required to plead his evidence. Dunn v. J. P. Stevens & Co., C.A.2 (Conn.) 1951, 192 F.2d 854. See,
also, Iravoni Mottaghi v. Barkey Importing Co., D.C.N.Y.1955, 134 F.Supp. 719, affirmed in part and reversed in
part on other grounds 244 F.2d 238, certiorari denied 77 S.Ct. 1402, 354 U.S. 939, 1 L.Ed.2d 1538; U.S. by Clark v.
International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 683, D.C.Ohio 1967, 270 F.Supp. 233; Schlick v. Penn-Dixie Cement Corp., C.A.N.Y.1974, 507 F.2d 374, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 1976, 421 U.S. 976, 44 L.Ed.2d 467. Federal
Civil Procedure
650.1
Subdivision (a)(2) of this rule providing that complaint shall contain a short and plain statement of claim showing
that pleader is entitled to relief was intended to obviate technicalities of pleading and particularly long and verbose
allegations of evidentiary facts. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co. v. Krug, App.D.C.1948, 168 F.2d 557, 83
U.S.App.D.C. 162. Federal Civil Procedure
631.1
Long and prolix complaints which included statements of evidence and repeated time and again necessary allegations did not conform with this rule requiring a short and simple statement of plaintiff's claim. Cool v. International
Shoe Co., C.C.A.8 (Mo.) 1944, 142 F.2d 318. See, also, Mills v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of
Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of U.S. & Canada, D.C.Mo.1948, 8 F.R.D. 300. Federal Civil Procedure
631.1
Plaintiff is not required to plead detailed evidentiary matters. Washington v. Baenziger, N.D.Cal.1987, 673 F.Supp.
650.1
To state a claim on which relief may be granted it is not necessary to plead evidence or the facts on which the claims
are based. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. WAPCO Constructors, Inc., M.D.La.1981, 520 F.Supp. 186. Federal Civil Procedure
650.1
Plaintiff need not plead evidentiary facts; instead, a complaint is sufficient if it will give the defendant fair notice of
what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Mathes v. Nugent, N.D.Ill.1976, 411 F.Supp. 968.
See, also, Paul M. Harrod Co. v. A.B. Dick Co., D.C.Ohio 1962, 204 F.Supp. 580; U.S. v. Dempster Bros., Inc.,
D.C.Tenn.1962, 202 F.Supp. 798. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Under this rule, plaintiff is not required, on a motion for a more definite statement, to set out in detail evidence that
952.1;
it expects to present at trial. U.S. v. Schuchhardt, N.D.Ind.1943, 48 F.Supp. 876. Federal Civil Procedure
367(6); Pleading
367(2)
Pleading
In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, in light of the federal notice pleading rule, the court's role is necessarily
a limited one, confined to evaluating not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Castillo v. Norton, D.Ariz.2003, 219 F.R.D. 155. Federal Civil Procedure
1771
Page 205
Evidentiary pleadings are improper. National Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., E.D.Wis.1979,
650.1
That fact allegations of complaint were evidentiary was not fatal. Barnes v. A. Sind & Associates, D.C.Md.1963, 32
650.1
Pleader is only required to disclose adequate information as basis of claim for relief and not his evidence. Greater
Valley Terminal Corp. v. Peltz St. Terminals, Inc., E.D.Pa.1957, 21 F.R.D. 167. Federal Civil Procedure
650.1
Under these rules a party should not be compelled to plead evidence or allege what would amount to a bill of particulars, and proof should not be made part of the complaint under guise of a motion for a more definite statement.
633.1; Federal Civil
Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Atol, D.C.Minn.1952, 12 F.R.D. 173. Federal Civil Procedure
Procedure
943
217. ---- Exhibits and attachments, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
District court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that complaints, which, including attachments, exceeded 70
pages in length, were confusing and conclusory and not in compliance with rule requiring “short and plain” statement of claim. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1985, 758 F.2d 409, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 571, 474
643.1
Complaint consisting of 63 pages, with nine pages of attachments, violated this rule requiring that complaint be
short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction rests and contain short and plain statement
showing right to relief. Ausherman v. Stump, C.A.10 (Kan.) 1981, 643 F.2d 715, 209 U.S.P.Q. 984. Federal Civil
Procedure
630
Complaint by alleged author and composer of certain songs against certain defendant song publishing companies
having the several registrations for copyrights of the various songs and other defendants, referring generally to exhibits which were not connected to specific allegations of complaint was insufficient for failure to comply with this
rule requiring that complaint set forth a clear and concise statement of claims. Vance v. American Soc. of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), C.A.8 (Mo.) 1959, 271 F.2d 204, 123 U.S.P.Q. 296, certiorari denied 80 S.Ct.
373, 361 U.S. 933, 4 L.Ed.2d 355. Federal Civil Procedure
691
Even though complaint in proceeding for injunction was argumentative, prolix, redundant and verbose, and had attached to it and labeled as exhibits lengthy letters and affidavits containing evidentiary matter including purported
statements made by some defendants, and therefore was at variance with both letter and spirit of this rule, and defendants' motion to strike should have been granted promptly, complaint was not so badly drawn that defendants
were prevented from making their defense and therefore after a judgment had been rendered for plaintiffs error
would be treated as harmless. McCoy v. Providence Journal Co., C.A.1 (R.I.) 1951, 190 F.2d 760, certiorari denied
894
72 S.Ct. 200, 342 U.S. 894, 96 L.Ed. 669. Federal Courts
In fulfilling his obligation to make short and plain statement of claim, plaintiff had no affirmative duty under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to attach exhibit to complaint. U.S. ex rel. Chabot v. MLU Services, Inc., M.D.Fla.2008,
544 F.Supp.2d 1326. Federal Civil Procedure
673
A counterclaim was in violation of this rule requiring that a claim for relief shall contain a short and plain statement
of the claim, showing that pleader is entitled to relief, where, omitting exhibits thereto, it contained 31 pages of
typewritten matter and, with exhibits, 45 pages, and was argumentative, verbose, prolix, and contained much eviden-
tiary matter. Chambers v. Cameron, N.D.Ill.1939, 29 F.Supp. 742. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 206
782.1
It is immaterial whether complaint states conclusions or facts or has relevant exhibits attached so long as fair notice
is given and statement of claim is short and plain. Lucas v. Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., N.D.Ill.1974, 62 F.R.D.
630
Copies of agreements and letters should not be made a part of complaint; a simple statement of substance of letters
being sufficient. Shultz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., W.D.N.Y.1939, 1 F.R.D. 53. Federal Civil Procedure
629
218. ---- Antitrust actions, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
In actions by cattlemen, ranchers and feeders against retail food chains, wholesale grocer, retail chains' national
trade association and beef industry price reporting publication involving alleged violations of federal antitrust laws,
district court did not abuse its discretion in striking evidentiary details concerning alleged retail price-fixing conspiracy from complaint even if such allegations were relevant to claims of price fixing at wholesale level. In re Beef
Industry Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 248, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1979, 600 F.2d 1148, rehearing denied 616 F.2d
569, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 280, 449 U.S. 905, 66 L.Ed.2d 137, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 281, 449 U.S. 905,
66 L.Ed.2d 137, on remand 542 F.Supp. 1122. Federal Civil Procedure
1124
219. ---- Contract actions, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
In action based on contract, plaintiffs need not plead all their evidence, and under these rules need not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but need only make a short and plain statement of claim showing that they
332(1); Federal Civil Proceare entitled to relief. Asher v. Ruppa, C.A.7 (Wis.) 1949, 173 F.2d 10. Contracts
dure
699
220. ---- Employment actions, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
In action against railroad and labor unions for wrongful discharge of dining car waiter, complaint which filled 12
pages of printed appendix and contained 45 numbered paragraphs, reciting evidential matter, was dismissible for
failure to comply with this rule requiring a short and plain statement of claim in simple, concise and direct averments. Condol v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., C.A.D.C.1952, 199 F.2d 400, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 255. Federal Civil Procedure
1793.1
221. ---- Fraud actions, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
Inference that discovery would reveal evidence of false claims was unwarranted and implausible, and thus relator
did not state viable False Claims Act (FCA) claim on qui tam allegations that government contractor may have
charged government directly for use of intellectual property that government already had right to use free of charge,
where relator otherwise had not identified any particular false claims or their attendant circumstances and obvious
alternative explanation from allegations was that contractor had withheld disclosure of new inventions so it could
continue to use them as trade secrets, which might have been breach of contract, but was not fraudulent claim.
Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., C.A.9 (Ariz.) 2011, 637 F.3d 1047. United States
122
Though plaintiff alleging fraud must plead facts giving rise to inference thereof with sufficient particularity, plaintiff
is not required to recite evidence or plead detailed evidentiary matter. Somerville v. Major Exploration, Inc.,
S.D.N.Y.1983, 576 F.Supp. 902. Federal Civil Procedure
650.1
Page 207
These rules do not prohibit pleading of legal conclusions as long as fair notice of nature of claim involved is given to
the parties; except in situations involving fraud, mistake, or a condition of minds, it is not necessary to plead specific
evidentiary facts in the complaint. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, E.D.Wis.1980, 498 F.Supp. 1339. Federal Civil Procedure
643.1
222. ---- Negligence actions, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
Although allegations in automobile owner's complaint, against railroad for damages sustained in collision described
in detail the dangerous nature of crossing at which train struck automobile, and charged that railroad had had notice
of nature of crossing and that railroad had been guilty of willful or wanton conduct exhibiting a conscious disregard
for human life and safety were sufficient under this rule, concerning contents of claims for relief, court would not
strike evidentiary material alleging that railroad had notice of many prior collisions, that blinker light had been discontinued and customarily a flagman had been used thereafter, and that warning as to crossing, consisting of resolution of State House of Representatives had been transmitted to railroad, where railroad was not prejudiced by presence of such matter. Wyatt v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.Del.1957, 154 F.Supp. 143. Federal Civil Procedure
1124
A complaint covering nine pages, though claim asserted therein could and should have been stated in not over three
pages, stating many background facts not essential to statement of claim, and containing eight subparagraphs stating
what plaintiff denominated facts and circumstances disclosing defendant's reckless negligence amounting in legal
effect and consequences to wilful, wanton or malicious acts or omissions, was fatally defective as not complying
with this rule. Harzfeld's, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., W.D.Mo.1953, 114 F.Supp. 480. Federal Civil Procedure
709
223. ---- Prisoners' actions, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
Complaint which contained an extended, detailed, evidentiary review of apparently everything that each of the plaintiffs had experienced since being penal inmates of state penitentiary where they were incarcerated openly and flagrantly violated this rule in that it was not a short and plain statement of the case. U. S. ex rel. Holland v. Maroney,
632
224. ---- Stocks and securities actions, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
In securities fraud action, it is not necessary for plaintiff to allege evidentiary details that will be used to support
claim of fraud at a later date in order to withstand motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with specificity.
636
Banowitz v. State Exchange Bank, N.D.Ill.1985, 600 F.Supp. 1466. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint in which fifth cause of action although apparently limited to a cause of action for a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, §§ 78a to 78jj of Title 15, contained allegations that were argumentative and evi641
dentiary in nature was defective. Baird v. Dassau, S.D.N.Y.1940, 1 F.R.D. 275. Federal Civil Procedure
225. ---- Miscellaneous actions, evidentiary matters, statement of entitlement
Where plaintiff's legal theories were alleged in twenty-seven pages of her complaint, relief she demanded was specified in last nine pages and intervening 150 pages contained hundreds of hearsay conversations, letters plaintiff had
written, plaintiff's conclusions, self-serving statements, statements made by someone not a defendant and other such
matters, dismissal of complaint on ground that plaintiff did not state her cause of action concisely, plainly, simply,
shortly, and directly was not an abuse of discretion. Carrigan v. California State Legislature, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1959, 263
Page 208
1771
Complaint violated requirement of this rule that complaint be a short and plain statement of the claim, where the
complaint was an extended embroidery of what, if true, would be mere evidence, recited in perplexing and dis630
jointed detail. Adair v. Schneider, S.D.N.Y.1968, 293 F.Supp. 393. Federal Civil Procedure
226. Facts, statement of entitlement--Generally
While, for most types of cases, the Federal Rules eliminated the cumbersome requirement that a claimant set out in
detail the facts upon which he bases his claim, the general rule governing pleadings still requires a showing, rather
than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief; without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see
how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only fair notice of the nature of the claim, but also
grounds on which the claim rests. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, U.S.2007, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 550 U.S. 544, 167
L.Ed.2d 929. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Factual pleading is required only insofar as it is necessary to place defendant on notice as to type of claim alleged
and grounds upon which it rests, thereby enabling defendant to prepare responsive pleading. Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, C.A.10 (Utah) 1980, 630 F.2d 1383. Federal Civil Procedure
674
This rule dealing with general rules of pleading adequately sets forth characteristics of good pleading, does away
with confusion resulting from use of “facts” and “cause of action”, and requires pleader to disclose adequate information as basis of his claim for relief as distinguished from bare averments that he wants relief and is entitled to it.
630
Nagler v. Admiral Corporation, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1957, 248 F.2d 319. Federal Civil Procedure
Pleader need not allege extensive details of facts. Lane Bryant, Inc., v. Maternity Lane, Limited, of Cal., C.A.9
(Cal.) 1949, 173 F.2d 559, 81 U.S.P.Q. 1. See, also, Continental Collieries v. Shober, C.C.A.Pa.1942, 130 F.2d 631;
Tahir Erk v. Glenn L. Martin Co., C.C.A.Md.1941, 116 F.2d 865; Metzger v. Breeze Corporations, D.C.N.J.1941,
37 F.Supp. 693; Cox v. Kroger Co., D.C.Ill.1949, 9 F.R.D. 78; Mills v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices
of Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of U.S. & Canada, D.C.Mo.1948, 8 F.R.D. 300; Metropolis Bending Co. v.
Brandwen, D.C.Pa.1948, 8 F.R.D. 296; Walling v. Todd, D.C.Pa.1942, 2 F.R.D. 522; Martz v. Abbott, D.C.Pa.1941,
2 F.R.D. 17; Strahle-Johnson Supply Co. v. John Douglas Co., D.C.Tenn.1940, 1 F.R.D. 279. Federal Civil Procedure
650.1
Under short and plain statement requirement a sufficient complaint contains enough to give a defendant fair notice
of the claims against him; specific facts are not necessary. Ibrahim v. Unisys Corp., D.D.C.2008, 582 F.Supp.2d 41.
673
Although federal complaints are notice pleadings and require only the stating of the bare minimum facts necessary
to put the defendant on notice of the claim so that he can file an answer, a complaint must at least include the operative facts upon which a plaintiff bases his claim. Adams v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections, N.D.Ill.2007, 485
673
Defendants failed to point to new factual matters or controlling law which District Court overlooked in denying underlying motion to dismiss, as would support defendants' motion for reconsideration; District Court determined that
pleadings were sufficient based upon factual assertions contained in complaint, and, contrary to defendants' assertion, did not base that determination on mere legal conclusion. Global View Ltd. Venture Capital v. Great Cent. Basin Exploration, L.L.C., S.D.N.Y.2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 482. Federal Civil Procedure
928
While it is correct that a plaintiff must plead more than naked legal conclusions, neither is it true that notice pleading
Page 209
procedural rule requires specific fact pleading except in cases of fraud or mistake; rather, a court may dismiss a
complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with
673; Federal Civil
the allegations. Gray v. Maryland, D.Md.2002, 228 F.Supp.2d 628. Federal Civil Procedure
Procedure
1773
Complaint by nonsmoker who allegedly developed cancer from exposure to second-hand smoke insufficiently
pleaded manufacturing defect claim against cigarette manufacturer under federal rule, where complaint made only
bald statement that manufacturer had placed into stream of commerce cigarettes that contained a manufacturing flaw
and offered no specific facts to support claim. Shaw v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.Md.1997, 973
F.Supp. 539. Products Liability
316; Products Liability
263
Rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief relieves plaintiff from
pleading technicalities and from alleging detailed facts that establish her right to judgment, but it still requires minimal factual allegations on those material elements that must be proved to recover. Davis v. Olin, D.Kan.1995, 886
673
To state a claim on which relief can be granted plaintiff need not set forth all facts on which the claim is based but,
rather, a short and plain statement on the claim is sufficient if it gives defendant fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds on which it rests. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. WAPCO Constructors, Inc., M.D.La.1981, 520 F.Supp. 186. Federal
Civil Procedure
630
Failure to adequately set forth facts which would indicate that claimant is entitled to relief is not ordinarily sufficient
to establish that plaintiff himself acted in bad faith, so as to warrant award for attorneys' fees, and mere failure of
party to present sufficient evidence to support his claim will not itself warrant determination of frivolity. Driscoll v.
Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., N.D.Ill.1980, 500 F.Supp. 174. Federal Civil Procedure
2737.3
Under federal system of notice pleading, complaint need not allege all the facts to show liability, but it must allege
all the theories to show liability. Muth v. Dechert, Price and Rhoads, E.D.Pa.1975, 391 F.Supp. 935. Federal Civil
Procedure
674
Fact pleading is not required in federal courts. B & B Inv. Club v. Kleinert's Inc., E.D.Pa.1975, 391 F.Supp. 720.
See, also, Hunter v. International Systems & Controls Corp., D.C.Mo.1972, 56 F.R.D. 617. Federal Civil Procedure
650.1
Rule that relieves plaintiff from pleading technicalities and from alleging detailed facts that establish her right to
judgment still requires minimal factual allegations on those material elements that must be proved to recover. Moten
v. American Linen Supply Co., D.Kan.1994, 155 F.R.D. 202. Federal Civil Procedure
671
Pleading that contains merely bare allegations of liability, without pleading facts giving rise to this liability, does not
adequately provide opposing party with notice of claim asserted; even notice pleading allowed by federal rules requires pleading to include operative facts upon which pleader bases his claim. Askanase v. Fatjo, S.D.Tex.1993, 148
630
Composer's claim for conspiracy against publishing company would be dismissed pursuant to rule requiring complaint to contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, even though composer
stated claim for conspiracy, where composer failed to support claim with any facts. Kelly v. L.L. Cool J.,
S.D.N.Y.1992, 145 F.R.D. 32, affirmed 23 F.3d 398, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 365, 513 U.S. 950, 130 L.Ed.2d
1791
Page 210
A complaint is sufficient to state a claim if there are sufficient facts to indicate that the plaintiff had a claim. G. C.
S., Inc. v. Davis W. Murray Co., W.D.Pa.1968, 45 F.R.D. 8. Federal Civil Procedure
673
If basic nature of plaintiff's claim is revealed in his complaint, he need not set forth facts on which it rests in detail,
nor, so long as complaint is not so vague or ambiguous that defendant cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, may defendant, by preliminary pleading, compel plaintiff to restate his claim with the exactness
and precision which may suit the convenience or taste of defendant. McBeath v. Pierce, D.C.Neb.1952, 13 F.R.D.
941
227. ---- Ultimate facts, statement of entitlement
Sufficient ultimate facts must be alleged to enable trial judge to determine whether, if allegations are true, a claim
has been stated upon which relief can be granted, and neither trial judge nor Court of Appeals can test pleading
which merely copies some of the words of a statute, a violation of which is the alleged basis of the complaint. Crest
Auto Supplies, Inc. v. Ero Mfg. Co., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1966, 360 F.2d 896. Federal Civil Procedure
671
In action by Louisiana strawberry growers' association for treble damages for violation of chapter of Title 15, complaint charging an agreement or combination among retail chain grocers to control prices in interstate commerce in
Louisiana strawberries, and thus eliminate competition in interstate commerce, was not so deficient in allegations of
“ultimate facts” as to justify dismissal without leave to amend on ground that “conclusions of law” only were
pleaded. Louisiana Farmers' Protective Union v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. of America, C.C.A.8 (Ark.) 1942,
131 F.2d 419. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(6)
The office of a “pleading” is to state ultimate facts and not evidence of such facts, and this is as true of supplementary as regular pleadings. Southern Pac. Co. v. Conway, C.C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1940, 115 F.2d 746. See, also, Bowles v.
Ormesher Bros., D.C.Neb.1946, 65 F.Supp. 791; U.S. v. Wagner Milk Products, D.C.Ill.1945, 61 F.Supp. 635;
Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., D.C.Pa.1944, 54 F.Supp. 588; Pliner v. Nesvig, D.C.Wis.1942, 42
F.Supp. 297; C. F. Simonin's Sons v. American Can Co., D.C.Pa.1939, 30 F.Supp. 901; Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij, D.C.N.Y.1946, 7 F.R.D. 63, appeal dismissed 161 F.2d 733,
certiorari denied 68 S.Ct. 84, 332 U.S. 771, 92 L.Ed. 356, rehearing denied 68 S.Ct. 152, 332 U.S. 820, 92 L.Ed.
397; Porter v. Shoemaker, D.C.Pa.1947, 6 F.R.D. 438; Bowles v. Karp, D.C.Ky.1944, 3 F.R.D. 327; Sinaiko Bros.
Coal & Oil Co. v. Ethyl Gasoline Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1942, 2 F.R.D. 305; Shultz v. Manufacturers & Traders
Trust Co., D.C.N.Y.1939, 1 F.R.D. 53. Pleading
1; Pleading
274
This rule specifying contents of a claim for relief relieves the pleader from distinguishing in advance between evidentiary and ultimate facts, but still requires, in a practical and sensible way, that pleader set out sufficient factual
matter to outline the elements of his cause of action or claim, proof of which is essential to his recovery. Daves v.
Hawaiian Dredging Co., D.C.Hawai'i 1953, 114 F.Supp. 643. Federal Civil Procedure
673
In action to enjoin alleged unauthorized operation as a common carrier by air under former § 647(a) of Title 49,
whether defendant was a common carrier was an ultimate fact which might be alleged directly and simply in the
complaint and which could be proved by evidence of defendant's conduct just as any other ultimate fact. Flying Tiger Line v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., S.D.Cal.1947, 75 F.Supp. 188. Federal Civil Procedure
643.1;
81.1
Aviation
The “complaint” is a statement of plaintiff's claim and the grounds thereof, and is not a detailed pleading of the ultimate facts on which he will rely for its maintenance. McBeath v. Pierce, D.C.Neb.1952, 13 F.R.D. 143. Federal
Civil Procedure
672
Page 211
The omission from this rule of the requirement, contained in [former] Equity rule 25, that pleader shall state the ultimate facts upon which he relies for relief eliminates necessity of alleging details but does not dispense with the
necessity of averring facts essential to the statement of a cause of action. Porter v. Shoemaker, M.D.Pa.1947, 6
650.1
Under subdivision (a) of this rule providing that complaint shall consist, among other things, of a short and plain
statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, it is only necessary for pleader to make it appear that he
is entitled to relief which may be done, even though he does not technically state a cause of action and even though
complaint may be filled with conclusions and even might omit ultimate facts. Ferrara v. Interstate Transit Lines,
W.D.Mo.1945, 5 F.R.D. 54. Federal Civil Procedure
673
These new rules do not abrogate the requirement as expressed in former equity rules that the pleader shall make a
short and simple statement of the ultimate facts on which plaintiff asks relief, omitting any mere statement of evi650.1
dence. Walling v. Alabama Pipe Co., W.D.Mo.1942, 3 F.R.D. 159. Federal Civil Procedure
In action for injuries sustained in an explosion in defendant's gasoline station, allegation that defendant negligently
employed an incompetent and unqualified person pleaded an “ultimate fact”, and plaintiff would not be required to
detail evidence by which he would prove such alleged fact. Lasicki v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., M.D.Pa.1940, 1
F.R.D. 384. See, also, Piorkowski v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 1 F.R.D. 386. Federal Civil Procedure
1006
228. Conclusory statements, statement of entitlement--Generally
Though Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that complaint describe alleged wrongdoing with any particularity,
plaintiff who did plead particulars showing that he had no claim pleaded himself out of court, and was not saved by
having pleaded a legal conclusion that, if consistent with the facts, would establish his right to relief. Thomas v. Farley, C.A.7 (Ind.) 1994, 31 F.3d 557. Federal Civil Procedure
673
On motion to dismiss, facts well pleaded are taken as correct, but allegations of conclusions or of opinions are not
sufficient when no facts are alleged by way of the statement of the claim. Coopersmith v. Supreme Court, State of
Colo., C.A.10 (Colo.) 1972, 465 F.2d 993. Federal Civil Procedure
1835
General conclusionary allegations unsupported by facts are insufficient to constitute a cause of action. Jewell v. City
of Covington, Ga., C.A.5 (Ga.) 1970, 425 F.2d 459, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 195, 400 U.S. 929, 27 L.Ed.2d 189.
See, also, Brosten v. Scheeler, D.C.Ill.1973, 360 F.Supp. 608, affirmed 495 F.2d 1375; Bean v. Darr, D.C.N.C.1973,
354 F.Supp. 1157; International Harvester Co. v. Kansas City C.A.Kan.1962, 308 F.2d 35, certiorari denied 83 S.Ct.
503, 371, U.S. 948, 9 L.Ed.2d 498; Halliburton Co. v. Norton Drilling Co., C.A.La.1962, 302 F.2d 431, adhered to
on rehearing 313, F.2d 380, certiorari denied 83 S.Ct. 1870, 374 U.S. 829, 10 L.Ed.2d 1052; Advance Labor Services, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., D.C.Ill.1973, 353 F.Supp. 666. Federal Civil Procedure
642
The minimum under subdivision (a)(2) of this rule providing that complaint shall contain a short and plain statement
of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, is that adversary party must be sufficiently advised to prepare his
defense, and a claim cannot be stated in form of a legal conclusion without more. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co. v.
Krug, App.D.C.1948, 168 F.2d 557, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 162. Federal Civil Procedure
642
Under federal pleading rule, plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Johnson &
Johnson v. Guidant Corp., S.D.N.Y.2007, 525 F.Supp.2d 336. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Page 212
Rule allowing liberal construction of pro se plaintiff's complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim can be based, and conclusory allegations without supporting
factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based. Wares v. VanBebber, D.Kan.2002,
231 F.Supp.2d 1120. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(1)
Under federal rules of civil procedure, no plaintiff is required to plead facts rather than conclusions, so long as those
conclusions provide defendant with at least minimal notice of the claim. Viero v. Bufano, N.D.Ill.1995, 901 F.Supp.
642
Under this rule pertaining to contents of complaint, reasonable use of conclusions is not improper if entire complaint
including such conclusions is sufficient to state claim upon which pleader is entitled to relief and at same time put
defendant on notice of precise nature of claim. East Crossroads Center, Inc. v. Mellon-Stuart Co., E.D.Pa.1965, 245
642
If conclusions of law contained in amended complaint were objectionable, they might be treated as surplusage.
Simmonds Aerocessories, Limited v. Elastic Stop Nut Corp. of America, D.C.N.J.1958, 158 F.Supp. 277, 116
U.S.P.Q. 91. Federal Civil Procedure
642
Subdivision (a)(2) of this rule requiring a short and plain statement of claim, showing that pleader is entitled to relief, requires more than a series of conclusions couched in broad, general terms alleging wrongdoing but entirely
lacking in any statement of fact on which the allegations are based. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
648
Pleadings should contain statements of fact and not conclusions of the pleader who should set forth ultimate facts
and not evidence. U.S. v. Johns-Manville, N.D.Ill.1941, 67 F.Supp. 291. See, also, Walling v. Wyandotte Furniture
Co., D.C.Mo.1946, 6 F.R.D. 295. Federal Civil Procedure
650.1
Conclusions of law cannot be substituted for statements of facts forming the basis of the cause of action. Bowles v.
Schultz, D.C.N.H.1944, 54 F.Supp. 708. See, also, Bowles v. Sebastopol Berry Growers Ass'n, D.C.Cal.1946, 5
2281; Trial
388(1)
Under this rule it suffices to plead conclusions whether of fact or law provided that the complaint is sufficiently
definite so as to give fair notice to the opposite party of the precise nature of the claim. Mails v. Kansas City Public
Service Co., W.D.Mo.1943, 51 F.Supp. 562. Federal Civil Procedure
642
Under this rule, a complaint, in order to set forth a cause of action, must contain sufficient facts to constitute a cause
of action and not mere conclusions of law. Zimmerman v. National Dairy Products Corporation, S.D.N.Y.1939, 30
642
Under these rules, the reasonable use of conclusions of fact is not improper, if entire complaint, including such conclusions, is sufficient to state a claim upon which pleader is entitled to relief and at the same time put defendant on
notice of the precise nature of the claim. Cox v. Kroger Co., E.D.Ill.1949, 9 F.R.D. 78. Federal Civil Procedure
642
A complaint setting forth a hazy mass of conclusions without any statements of facts on which relief is sought does
not comply with this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim. Toomey v. Wickwire Spencer Steel Co.,
S.D.N.Y.1942, 3 F.R.D. 243. Federal Civil Procedure
642
229. ---- Antitrust actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Page 213
In antitrust suit brought by cities against electric utility which filed a counterclaim alleging a conspiracy among
plaintiffs to violate federal and state antitrust laws and to interfere tortiously with defendant's relationship with other
municipalities, that portion of the counterclaim pertaining to the initiation of court and agency proceedings failed, on
its face, for two reasons: first, it was entirely conclusory and the remainder of the counterclaim did not contain any
less conclusory allegations with respect to such “proceedings”; second, this allegation included conduct immunized
by Noerr-Pennington and not excepted as a sham. City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co., S.D.Fla.1980,
488 F.Supp. 1258. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
A counterclaim which charged plaintiff with violations of §§ 1 to 7 and 12 et seq. of Title 15 in regard to lubricating
equipment with sufficient particularity to enable plaintiff to reply and which went more into detail than is required
by this rule was sufficient as against contention that defendant merely pleaded conclusion that the laws had been
violated. Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Staley, W.D.Pa.1941, 42 F.Supp. 140. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(1)
230. ---- Bankruptcy actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
A bankruptcy trustee's bill of complaint, alleging that bankrupt assigned all moneys due him on account with certain
firm to defendant corporation in consideration of its forbearance to enforce payment of bankrupt's notes in default
and acceptance of new notes; that sum paid to bankrupt's receiver by debtor was deposited with court clerk pending
determination of validity of assignment; and that transfer was voidable under Bankruptcy Act, § 107 of Title 11, for
stated reasons; and praying that transfer be adjudged preferential or fraudulent and money deposited ordered delivered to plaintiff, sufficiently complied with this rule and stated ultimate facts, not conclusions. Hummel v. Wells
Petroleum Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1940, 111 F.2d 883. Bankruptcy
2724
A complaint by trustees in bankruptcy of individual and corporate bankrupts to set aside transfers and payments as
fraudulent and preferential was not insufficient as based on conclusions rather than facts. Macleod v. Cohen-Erichs
Corp., S.D.N.Y.1939, 28 F.Supp. 103. Federal Civil Procedure
648
231. ---- Civil rights actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Conclusory allegations in black employees' complaint, that they were “denied promotions and treated differently
than similarly situated white employees solely because of race,” were insufficient to satisfy “notice” pleading standard, and to put employer on notice that employees were complaining of fact that white employees, rather than black
complainants, were hired for two supervisory positions pursuant to employer's allegedly discriminatory policy of
filling the positions by word of mouth without any formal posting; black employees were aware of these two hirings
before they filed their complaint and, by specifically citing these hirings, could have raised their right to relief above
level of speculation. Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., C.A.11 (Ala.) 2008, 516 F.3d 955. Civil Rights
1532
Puerto Rico municipal employees failed to adequately plead §§ 1983 claim against municipality and officials
through conclusory allegation that “[t]he conduct displayed by [d]efendants in harassing, persecuting, discriminating
and taking adverse employment actions against plaintiffs, was due to their political affiliation and total disregard of
the due process of law, a willful violation of the rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
Constitution of the United States.” Perez-Gonzalez v. Municipality of Añasco, D.Puerto Rico 2010, 769 F.Supp.2d
52. Civil Rights
1395(8)
Single, conclusory allegations of conspiracy advanced by personal representative of decedent's estate in civil rights
claims against attorney for estate claimant and District of Columbia superior court judge, which asserted that attorney and judge conspired in underlying estate action to deprive her of constitutional rights, without alleging facts in
Page 214
support of conspiracy, and which suggested that personal representative lacked direct knowledge of conspiracy,
were too vague to meet minimal pleading requirements and heightened pleading standard for governmental conspir18
acy claims. Burt v. Barry, D.D.C.1997, 962 F.Supp. 185, appeal dismissed 1997 WL 573477. Conspiracy
Plaintiff's civil rights claim against various government bodies, agencies and persons regarding child custody and
abuse proceedings would be dismissed, as plaintiff's complaint failed to set forth short and plain statement of claim
showing that he was entitled to relief; complaint was virtually incomprehensible document accompanied by numerous “exhibits,” and contained only conclusory, vague, and general factual allegations and thus provided court with
no adequate basis to discern nature of plaintiff's claims. Levine v. County of Westchester, S.D.N.Y.1993, 828
F.Supp. 238, affirmed 22 F.3d 1090. Federal Civil Procedure
1788.6
Conclusory allegation that city, state and federal officials subjected pro se plaintiff to constant surveillance after he
reported possible case of police corruption failed to state civil rights claim. Sadler v. Brown, S.D.N.Y.1992, 793
F.Supp. 87. Civil Rights
1395(5)
Complaint which alleged massive police surveillance, harassment of marches, and intimidation was too conclusory
to state a claim for relief. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Movement Inc. v. City of Chicago, N.D.Ill.1977, 435 F.Supp.
648
Where, other than allegation that plaintiff was coerced into coercing her husband to join in plaintiff's state action,
nothing more was disclosed than conclusory statement that conspiracy among defendants had deprived plaintiff of
her civil rights, requirement that plaintiff set forth “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” had not been complied with. Picking v. State Finance Corp., D.C.Md.1971, 332 F.Supp. 1399,
affirmed 450 F.2d 881, certiorari denied 92 S.Ct. 987, 405 U.S. 931, 30 L.Ed.2d 806. Federal Civil Procedure
698
Complaint failed to allege claim against city for racial discrimination in hiring of public safety officers where complaint failed to set forth fundamental facts reflecting pattern or practice of racial discrimination, and complaint contained only conclusory allegations of broad-based racial discrimination in city's employment practices. Nash v. City
of Oakwood, Ohio, S.D.Ohio 1981, 90 F.R.D. 633. Civil Rights
1532
232. ---- Condemnation proceedings, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Complaint by property owner, whose land was condemned for city urban renewal project, alleging that acts of city
officials were arbitrary and constituted a denial of due process and equal protection of law and a taking of property
without just compensation was insufficient to state a claim for relief as statements were mere conclusions. Car-Two,
Inc. v. City of Dayton, C.A.6 (Ohio) 1966, 357 F.2d 921. Federal Civil Procedure
643.1
233. ---- Conspiracy actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Allegations of simulcast service provider and its president and sole shareholder, that North Dakota Attorney General, director of racing, former United States Attorney, former racing commissioner and former employee conspired
and agreed that former United States Attorney would engage agents from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate former employee's false allegations, failed to allege specific facts to
suggest meeting of minds towards unconstitutional action, as required for §§ 1983 conspiracy claim. Bala v.
Stenehjem, D.N.D.2009, 671 F.Supp.2d 1067. Conspiracy
18
Conclusory allegations unsupported by allegations of overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy were insufficient to
648
constitute a basis for relief. Friedman v. Younger, C.D.Cal.1969, 46 F.R.D. 444. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 215
234. ---- Contract actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
In suit on implied contract for commissions based on reasonable value of services in sale of realty, where sale was
made directly by owner at price far below asking price at which plaintiff was offering property, plaintiff was required to do something more than plead by way of conclusion that he was the procuring cause of the sale. FoleyCarter Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., C.C.A.5 (Fla.) 1942, 128 F.2d 718. Federal Civil Procedure
644
235. ---- Contribution or indemnity actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Cross-claim stating only conclusion that if plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict against defendant, then defendant was
entitled to contribution and/or indemnity from remaining defendants and incorporating plaintiffs' allegations failed
to allege a viable cause of action in that it lacked “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief” but, under the circumstances, amendment would be permitted. Rainbow Trucking, Inc. v. Ennia
Ins. Co., E.D.Pa.1980, 88 F.R.D. 596. Federal Civil Procedure
847
236. ---- Labor actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Allegation of employee's complaint that union compelled railroad to deprive him of his seniority, that the action was
wrongful and constituted unlawful discrimination toward him and breached collective bargaining agreement and
violated federal and state constitutions were mere conclusions of law and were insufficient to state a claim for
breach of duty of fair representations. Slagley v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1968, 397 F.2d 546. Labor And
Employment
1219(8)
An allegation that employer's discharge of employee was wrongful and without good and sufficient cause or justification and in violation of employer's collective bargaining agreement with union was merely conclusion of pleader,
since allegation was not supported by statement of facts constituting alleged breach of agreement. Marranzano v.
Riggs Nat. Bank of Washington, D.C., C.A.D.C.1950, 184 F.2d 349, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 195. Pleading
8(7)
237. ---- Negligence actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
In action on official bond of medical superintendent of Idaho State School and Colony for superintendent's refusal to
diagnose inmate's spine injury, plaintiff was not required to use words “unfaithfully”, “wrongfully”, or “in bad faith”
to characterize superintendent's negligence, since use of such words would express a “conclusion”. Sims v. United
Pacific Ins. Co., D.C.Idaho 1943, 51 F.Supp. 433. Federal Civil Procedure
649
238. ---- Prisoners' actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Where complaint charging that plaintiff had been deprived of his right to worship, his right to visitation and his right
to use law books contained nothing to illustrate circumstances of alleged wrongs, plaintiff's claim was nothing more
than his conclusion, unsupported by any factual statement, and was not admitted by a motion to dismiss. Scott v.
Larson, E.D.Wis.1973, 58 F.R.D. 131. Federal Civil Procedure
1835
239. ---- Stocks and securities actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Securities law violation complaint alleging that defendants were “knowing participants” was, although conclusionary, adequate to satisfy allegation of active participation. Stern v. American Bankshares Corp., E.D.Wis.1977, 429
648
Page 216
Complaint encompassing 98 pages and 367 separate paragraphs violated rule requiring short and plain statement of
claim where it contained redundant, argumentative, and disjointed assertions that merely stated conclusions, unsupported by facts, necessary to prevail on securities claim that proprietary mutual fund bought stocks in order to enhance controlling brokerage firm's investment banking business. In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports
Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y.2003, 218 F.R.D. 76. Federal Civil Procedure
691
240. ---- Miscellaneous actions, conclusory statements, statement of entitlement
Complaint alleging defendant oil company's duty to carry on operations diligently and efficiently to extract and produce all minerals, oils, etc., available and detailing facts concerning wasteful method of operation employed and
how such inefficiency resulted in loss to plaintiff of royalties stated facts and not merely conclusions and was sufficient as against motion to dismiss to support a suit for negligence. Guth v. Texas Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1944, 145 F.2d
649
District court would strike paragraph in complaint of foreign buyers of vehicles, that “[E]ach defendant was and is
an agent of each of the remaining Defendants,” that “[e]ach defendant ratified and/or authorized the wrongful acts of
each of the other defendants,” and that in light of “a united of interests and ownership [among] the Defendants the
acts of one are for the benefit [of] and can be imputed as the acts of the others,” where boilerplate crossauthority/cross-agency/ratification allegations were legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. In re Toyota Motor
Corp., C.D.Cal.2011, 2011 WL 1485479. Federal Civil Procedure
1134
Plaintiff consumer, who had been diagnosed with medication-induced Steven-Johnson syndrome after taking multiple drugs, had to explain relationship of each manufacturer to each drug, roles that each manufacturer individually
played in design and manufacture of each drug, what formulation of each drug was claimed to be defective, and
what in fact was defective about each drug, to plead ultimate facts establishing elements of strict liability under Flor225; Products Liability
ida law. Gomez v. Pfizer, Inc., S.D.Fla.2009, 675 F.Supp.2d 1159. Products Liability
312
Intended purchaser's third-party complaint against real estate broker, which alleged that broker was liable for all of
vendor's claims against purchasers, was insufficient, standing alone, to satisfy the requirements of general pleading
rules; complaint articulated no specific claim or allegations against broker, but merely asserted a legal conclusion as
38(3)
to broker's liability. Shirk v. Garrow, D.D.C.2007, 505 F.Supp.2d 169. Brokers
Complaint alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Securities and Exchange Act,
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) did not contain required short and plain statement
showing that pleader was entitled to relief; allegations merely stated factual and legal conclusions necessary to prevail on merits and were not supported by facts. Lasky v. Shearson Lehman Bros. Inc., S.D.N.Y.1991, 139 F.R.D.
702.1
Allegation that by reason of various things which defendants caused to be done, as alleged, the property of corporation of which plaintiff was appointed received in proceedings supplementary to judgment was rendered worthless,
was a mere conclusion and was not subject to motion for more definite statement. Ehrman v. U.S., E.D.N.Y.1944, 4
985
241. Argumentative statements, statement of entitlement
Complaint charging that enumerated sections of United States Constitution amendments thereto and Treaty of Paris
of 1898 would be violated by enforcement, execution and operation of statute providing for holding of plebiscite on
Page 217
political status of Puerto Rico was prolix, argumentative, contained evidentiary matter, was long on conclusions of
law and short on allegations of fact and failed to comply with requirements of this rule. Barbosa v. Sanchez Vilella,
D.C.Puerto Rico 1967, 293 F.Supp. 831. Federal Civil Procedure
641;
651
Where averments of complaint were so argumentative and ambiguous that it was difficult to determine either the
nature of the claim stated or the nature of the relief sought, complaint would be dismissed for failure to contain a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader was entitled to relief. Stein v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, D.C.N.J.1950, 11 F.R.D. 153. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
Extensive and argumentative narration of plaintiff's version of the facts, together with interlarded commentary on
significance of these allegations, contained in proposed amended complaint violated rule requiring short and plain
statement of claim. Bernier v. Papagianopoulos, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22510375, Unreported. Federal Civil Procedure
851
242. Confusing allegations, statement of entitlement
Country club members' allegations against country club for violating Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
(FUFTA) did not meet requirement of short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief; allegations were verbose and confusing, members engaged in extended argument in complaint, and court could not decipher facts which
supported members allegations. Feldkamp v. Long Bay Partners, LLC, M.D.Fla.2011, 2011 WL 693576. Fraudulent
Conveyances
259(1)
If complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised, court may dismiss it. Burke v. Dowling, E.D.N.Y.1995, 944 F.Supp. 1036. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
Rules as to drawing complaint should be observed and unnecessary allegations which serve only to confuse should
be eliminated from an amended complaint. Kashins v. Keystone Lamp Mfg. Corp., S.D.N.Y.1955, 135 F.Supp. 681,
107 U.S.P.Q. 137. Federal Civil Procedure
839.1
Dismissal, with prejudice, of three complaints was required, and further leave to amend would be denied as futile,
where pleading was incomprehensible and failed to explain why plaintiff believed he was wronged or what he
wished the court to do; third amendment to complaint was no more concise or comprehensible than the previous
851;
complaints. Hassek v. Simmons, N.D.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 22416698, Unreported. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
243. History of grievances, statement of entitlement
In action by railway employees for an injunction, an accounting and a determination of their status, where origin and
history of plaintiffs' grievances were narrated in a prolix complaint which exceeded 17 pages in length, the complaint was contrary to spirit and requirement of this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim. Barnhart v.
Western Maryland Ry. Co., C.C.A.4 (Md.) 1942, 128 F.2d 709, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 75, 317 U.S. 671, 87
L.Ed. 538. Federal Civil Procedure
632
244. Rambling allegations, statement of entitlement
Two-hundred page civil rights complaint represented an egregious violation of pleading rule that complaint be a
“short and plain” statement of claim for relief, and would be dismissed with leave to amend, where much of com-
Page 218
plaint consisted of a rambling diatribe including historical narrative, legal argument, and excerpts from newspaper
articles, web sites and the Little Hoover Commission Report. Jacobson v. Schwarzenegger, C.D.Cal.2005, 226
F.R.D. 395. Civil Rights
1838
Mortgagor's pro se complaint against mortgagee, containing rambling assertions and random citations to statutes and
legal theories, failed to meet requirements of rule requiring plaintiff to set forth short and plain statement of claim
showing that he is entitled to relief, warranting dismissal of complaint, which alleged, inter alia, breach of contract
and fraud in connection with note and mortgage. Mousel v. Knutson Mortg. Corp., D.Minn.1993, 823 F.Supp. 658.
708
A complaint and amended complaint presenting a veritable entanglement of loose allegations generously embellished with verbosity was repugnant to good pleading and in defiance of this rule. Poindexter v. Board of Sup'rs,
Roanoke County, W.D.Va.1959, 177 F.Supp. 852. Federal Civil Procedure
673
Complaints which ramble, which needlessly speculate, accuse, and condemn, and which contain circuitous diatribes
far removed from the heart of the claim do not comport with goals of this rule prescribing short and plain statement
of grounds for jurisdiction and claim for relief. Prezzi v. Berzak, S.D.N.Y.1972, 57 F.R.D. 149. Federal Civil Procedure
630
245. Repetitious pleadings, statement of entitlement
Complaint alleging violation of civil rights was so verbose, confused and redundant in violation of subdivision (a) of
this rule requiring a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief so as to warrant its
dismissal. Corcoran v. Yorty, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1965, 347 F.2d 222, certiorari denied 86 S.Ct. 458, 382 U.S. 966, 15
L.Ed.2d 370, rehearing denied 86 S.Ct. 584, 382 U.S. 1002, 15 L.Ed.2d 492, motion denied 86 S.Ct. 1369, 384 U.S.
923, 16 L.Ed.2d 444, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 2089, 388 U.S. 925, 18 L.Ed.2d 1381. Federal Civil Procedure
1788.6
What verbosity and repetition appeared in the complaints did not, standing alone, justify dismissal of counts under
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, section 1961 et seq. of Title 18, under subd. (a)(2) of this rule
requiring that a pleading contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. In re Catanella and E.F. Hutton and Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, E.D.Pa.1984, 583 F.Supp. 1388. Federal
Civil Procedure
632
246. Unnecessary allegations, statement of entitlement
Defendant's answer, in action for a declaratory judgment construing certain contracts, was not so verbose and prolix
and did not state such evidentiary matter as would make it objectionable under this rule requiring short and concise
statement, even though there might have been intermingling with necessary averments, expressions and language
not strictly speaking necessary. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Ziegler, E.D.Pa.1941, 40 F.Supp. 416. Federal Civil
Procedure
632
247. Calling or production of witnesses, statement of entitlement
These rules do not authorize a plaintiff to file a complaint which does not state a case, and then call witnesses in a
fishing expedition with the hope that it may develop that a defendant has some liability. U.S. ex rel. Schiff v. Atlantic Basin Iron Works, E.D.N.Y.1943, 53 F.Supp. 268. Federal Civil Procedure
1314
248. Discovery, statement of entitlement
Page 219
Federal rules sanction “notice” pleading; complaint is designed to apprise defendant of incident out of which cause
of action arose and general nature of action and relevant facts may be determined by discovery with pleadings being
liberally construed so as to do substantial justice and facilitate proper decision on merits. Roberts v. Acres, C.A.7
(Ill.) 1974, 495 F.2d 57. See, also, Sawmill Products, Inc. v. Town of Cicero, Cook County, Ill., D.C.Ill.1979, 477
F.Supp. 636; Lewis v. U.S. slicing Mach. Co., D.C.Pa.1970, 311 F.Supp. 139. Federal Civil Procedure
623;
656
These rules have abrogated the function of the complaint to state fully and in detail the claims upon which plaintiff
will rely, and litigants have responsibility of limiting such claims by employing the discovery methods so amply
available. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scott, C.A.5 (La.) 1952, 198 F.2d 152. Federal Civil Procedure
1262.1
Generally, all that is required under these rules is that defendant be put on notice as to general nature of claim, but
facts and information must be sufficient to form basis of reasonably fruitful discovery proceedings. Bose Corp. v.
Consumers Union of U. S., Inc., D.C.Mass.1973, 57 F.R.D. 528. Federal Civil Procedure
673; Federal Civil
Procedure
679
A party is not required to set out in details facts on which his claims are based, and such details may be obtained
through use of discovery techniques authorized by rule 26 et seq. of these rules. Elwonger v. Career Academy, Inc.,
E.D.Wis.1972, 54 F.R.D. 514. Federal Civil Procedure
1262.1
Philosophy of these rules is to reduce to a minimum the factual allegations which need to be recited in a pleading,
leaving to the various forms of pre-trial procedure and discovery the function of ascertaining additional details.
630; Federal
Fennell v. Svenska Amerika Linien A/B, D.C.Mass.1958, 23 F.R.D. 116. Federal Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure
1922
Under these rules, the only real office which pleadings continue to serve is that of giving notice and the depositiondiscovery processes necessarily are invested with the essential function of formulating the issues and the burden of
advising the adverse party of the facts involved. McElroy v. United Air Lines, Inc., W.D.Mo.1957, 21 F.R.D. 100.
1262.1
In action for damages to cargo being hauled by plaintiff carrier of cargo in interstate commerce, as result of defendant's alleged negligent operation of defendant's automobile, defendant had recourse to discovery proceedings to
inform himself in more detail, and defendant's motion for more specific statement, directed to paragraph of complaint reciting that proximate cause of damage sustained by plaintiff was negligence of defendant in operation of
defendant's automobile at said time and place, would be overruled. Illinois-California Exp., Inc. v. Duffy, S.D.Iowa
1953, 15 F.R.D. 41. Federal Civil Procedure
1553
Where plaintiff's pleading contains only a short and plain statement of claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, discovery proceeding is method for defendant to obtain additional information necessary to prepare for trial.
1552
Interborough News Co. v. Curtis Pub. Co., S.D.N.Y.1953, 14 F.R.D. 408. Federal Civil Procedure
Defendant was not entitled to more definite statement as to injuries sued for, since federal rules require short, plain,
concise pleadings, appendix of forms does not suggest setting forth in detail the nature of such injuries and information as to exact nature and extent of injuries could be obtained under discovery procedure without burdening the
pleadings. Trotta v. City of Cleveland City Transit System, N.D.Ohio 1949, 9 F.R.D. 315. Federal Civil Procedure
1009
Page 220
Where defendant, under the rules of discovery, rules 26-37 could easily ascertain facts sought by his motion for bill
of particulars, plaintiff should not be burdened with necessity of giving to defendant its evidence in its complaint.
953
Walling v. Alabama Pipe Co., W.D.Mo.1942, 3 F.R.D. 159. Federal Civil Procedure
Parties desiring to narrow issues and prevent surprise at trial should not plead evidentiary facts, but should avail
themselves of appropriate rule or rules. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Carborundum Co.,
D.C.Del.1943, 3 F.R.D. 5. See, also, Smith v. Buckeye Incubator Co., D.C.Ohio 1940, 2 F.R.D. 134. Federal Civil
Procedure
650.1
Under these rules, petition may be at first skeletal in form, the details to be worked out and inserted as soon as information has been acquired through deposition. Encyclopaedia Britannica v. Niland, W.D.Mo.1941, 1 F.R.D. 645.
630
249. More definite statement, statement of entitlement
More definite statement was unwarranted in university's and individual researcher's action for correction of inventorship against French company, which was subsidiary that held intellectual property rights for its parent pharmaceuticals company; complaint gave company fair notice of claims against it and was not so vague or ambiguous so
that company was unable to respond. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund v. Ipsen Pharma, S.A.S.,
D.D.C.2011, 771 F.Supp.2d 32, entered 2011 WL 1100523. Federal Civil Procedure
971
Alleged conspirator in September 11 terrorist attacks was permitted to request more definite statement as to his alleged role in those attacks, since complaint only mentioned him once by name and otherwise just referred to coconspirators in making their claims, and, thus, allegations were too vague to permit an understanding of just what he
had been charged with, or what he was required to defend. Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. and Development Corp.,
D.D.C.2003, 274 F.Supp.2d 86. Federal Civil Procedure
972
More definite statement was needed in employment discrimination action to identify person referred to in complaint,
but who had not been joined as party, to fill in blanks of paragraph alleging discriminatory transfer of one employee,
to specify which of two related employers was being accused of misconduct, and to identity with greater specificity
who did what to whom. Babb v. Bridgestone/Firestone, M.D.Tenn.1993, 861 F.Supp. 50. Federal Civil Procedure
990
If a complaint is ambiguous or does not contain sufficient information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed,
proper procedure is not to dismiss for failure to state a claim but move for more definite statement. Frito-Lay, Inc. v.
WAPCO Constructors, Inc., M.D.La.1981, 520 F.Supp. 186. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
Complaint for contribution or indemnity was sufficient to satisfy requirement that there be a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, and motion to require plaintiff to make more definite statement as to certain particulars should be required, additional particulars should be required, they may be obtained
through use of discovery procedures. DeVore Brokerage Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., M.D.Tenn.1969, 308
943
Where all of information sought by defendant in motion for more definite statement could be, and most of it already
had been, obtained through discovery, motion for more definite statement must be denied. Fastener Corp. v. Spotnails, Inc., N.D.Ill.1968, 291 F.Supp. 974, 158 U.S.P.Q. 541. Federal Civil Procedure
953
Motion for more definite statement would be denied where paragraphs under attack were sufficiently clear in detail
Page 221
to permit defendants to file a responsive pleading thereto. Forline v. Helpers Local No. 42, E.D.Pa.1962, 211
948
Though third count of counterclaim did not comply with this rule, more definite statement of claim could not be
ordered after plaintiff had replied to counterclaim and made motion to dismiss third count thereof. Warner Co. v.
Brann & Stuart Co., E.D.Pa.1961, 198 F.Supp. 634. Federal Civil Procedure
956
Specificity in degree required to reception of testimony at trial is neither desirable nor required at the pleadings
stage, and, so long as defendant is reasonably informed of plaintiff's claim and can frame an adequate answer, complaint is sufficient against motion for more definite statement. U.S. v. American Linen Supply Co., N.D.Ill.1956,
948
Landowners alleging environmental contamination in action against owner of oil refinery met requirements for notice pleading and, thus, would not be required to make more definite statement, despite owner's claims that only
specified harm as to bayou, not landowners' property, that counts of complaint failed to spell out various elements of
legal theories alleged, that complaint was ambiguous in alleging ‘unauthorized‘ disposal in face of allegation of existence of permits to discharge, and despite owners’ argument as to whether alleged nuisance was “nuisance per se”
or “nuisance in fact”; landowners stated that bayou ran through their property, and that damage had been done as a
result of discharges into bayou to their property, governing rule did not require that each element of claims be set
forth, complaint alleged that discharges exceeded permitted levels, and nuisance claim was sufficient for owner to
answer and/or raise affirmative defenses in alternative. Guste v. Shell Oil Co., E.D.La.1995, 161 F.R.D. 329.
In wrongful death action, defendant's motion for a more definite statement, seeking to require plaintiffs to designate
by name and relationship the next of kin of the decedent, would be denied, since the details of plaintiffs' claim were
available to defendant through utilization of pretrial discovery techniques, and since the court, in a situation where
the claim contains a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, will not require plaintiffs
to make a more definite statement in their complaint. Wills v. McLean Trucking Co., E.D.Tenn.1977, 76 F.R.D. 32.
1018.1
Motion for more particular statement of claim contemplates major ambiguity or omission in complaint which renders it unanswerable and is not for purpose of preparing for trial or compelling pleading of definite evidentiary facts.
945;
United Ins. Co. of America v. B. W. Rudy, Inc., E.D.Pa.1967, 42 F.R.D. 398. Federal Civil Procedure
952.1
In action based upon loan agreement under which defendant's obligation to repay depended on result of litigation in
a state court, complaint, which contained no allegation concerning result of litigation in state court, was uncertain
and obscure, and defendant was entitled to a more definite statement. Cole v. Riss & Co., W.D.Mo.1954, 16 F.R.D.
981.1
Where complaint complied with this rule, a motion for a more definite statement calling for information and not for
clarification of doubtful or ambiguous averments would be denied. Millsap v. Lotz, W.D.Mo.1950, 10 F.R.D. 612.
950
Where complaint set out with sufficient detail the claim plaintiffs asserted against defendant so that defendant could
responsively plead to complaint, motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement or bill of particu948; Federal
lars, would be denied. Dubler v. Gilbert, S.D.N.Y.1950, 10 F.R.D. 530. Federal Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure
1772
The requirement of this rule that complaint should contain a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader
Page 222
is entitled to relief is sufficient except in cases where there are ambiguities or doubtful averments against which a
motion for a more definite statement may be lodged. Atkinson v. Thompson, W.D.Mo.1950, 10 F.R.D. 258. Federal
Civil Procedure
673
Under these rules, a complaint may withstand a motion to dismiss even though it alleges conclusions of fact, but
opposing party may file a motion for a more definite statement if pleading is so vague that he can not reasonably be
required to frame a responsive pleading. O'Donnell v. Breuninger, D.C.D.C.1949, 9 F.R.D. 245. Federal Civil Procedure
1771
A complaint which by simple, concise, and direct averments set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that pleader was entitled to relief was not subject to motion for more definite statement. Bowles v. Flotill Products, N.D.Cal.1945, 4 F.R.D. 499. Federal Civil Procedure
945; Pleading
367(2)
That a complaint meets the minimum requirements of this rule dealing with pleadings generally so as to save it from
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted will not necessarily render complaint invulnerable to an attempt to have the allegations thereof made more definite or to have them amplified by a
bill of particulars. Walling v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., E.D.S.C.1942, 2 F.R.D. 416. Federal Civil Procedure
950; Pleading
315
Defendant railroad employees were entitled to a more definite statement as to claims against them individually for
injuries allegedly caused by a chemical leak in train yard; petition did not contain allegations, even on information
and belief, that set forth sufficient information to outline the elements of plaintiffs' claim against railroad employees,
or to permit inferences to be drawn that the elements existed. Cager v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., E.D.La.2003, 2003
WL 30420, Unreported. Federal Civil Procedure
1013
250. Supplemental pleadings, statement of entitlement
Plaintiffs would be required to submit supplemental pleading clarifying facts alleged to have been negligently misrepresented by promises of subcontractor's chief executive officer to timely perform hotel construction work, inasmuch as negligent misrepresentation allegations, unlike fraud allegations, did not allege that defendant had no intention of performing work as promised, and pleading failed to state precisely what other fact was allegedly negligently
misrepresented. Hotel Constructors, Inc. v. Seagrave Corp., S.D.N.Y.1983, 574 F.Supp. 384. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
251. Amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement--Generally
Complaint which did not comply with requirements of this rule that pleadings shall contain short and plain statements of grounds on which relief is sought and be simple, concise and direct would be stricken on motion with leave
to plaintiffs to amend to conform to this rule. Underwood v. Maloney, E.D.Pa.1953, 14 F.R.D. 222. Federal Civil
Procedure
1145.1
Where it was impossible to ascertain whether plaintiff sought to recover on original agreement pleaded, under subsequent agreements alleged or upon all grounds alternatively, complaint was required to be amended to set forth a
short and plain statement of each claim for relief. Goshen Veneer Co. v. G. & A. Aircraft, E.D.Pa.1944, 3 F.R.D.
982
252. ---- Antitrust actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
While it was within court's jurisdiction to impose reasonable conditions on grant of leave to amend complaint, dis-
Page 223
trict court improperly conditioned leave to amend antitrust complaint upon plaintiffs' presentation of certificate of
factual support containing “sworn statements setting forth all facts presently known to them, if any, which support
their belief that they possess meritorious claims under the Sherman and Robinson-Patman Acts [sections 1 to 7 and
sections 13 to 13b and 21a of Title 15]”; proper procedure would have been to evaluate proposed amended complaint under governing standards of this rule. Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, C.A.10 (Utah)
839.1
Where paragraph of complaint in antitrust action for treble damages alleged, largely by way of conclusion, a violation of §§ 1 and 2 of Title 15, and did not alleged fact showing restraint was in restraint of interstate commerce, but
plaintiff had admissible evidence to support allegation, plaintiff would not be required to amend paragraph so as to
allege facts showing restraint to be a restraint of interstate commerce. Turner v. U. S. Gypsum Co., N.D.Ohio 1951,
11 F.R.D. 545.
253. ---- Bankruptcy actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
Judgment creditor, subsequent to expiration of time for filing objections to discharge, could amend allegedly defective allegations of complaint involving fraudulent misconduct with respect to debtor's bankruptcy proceedings to
state cause of action, even though failure to plead with particularity might have rendered original complaint subject
to dismissal, where judgment creditor's allegations in original complaint put debtor on notice of grounds for objection to discharge, complaint was sufficient to allow debtor to file responsive pleading, proceedings had yet to progress beyond discovery, which either party could use to narrow issues for trial, and thus debtor would not be unduly
842
prejudiced by amendment. In re Klein, Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.1983, 31 B.R. 947. Federal Civil Procedure
254. ---- Contract actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
In suit to enjoin defendant from interfering with plaintiff's performance of his contract with defendant for gravel
excavation and fill, complaint sufficiently stated claim upon which relief could be granted; but even if complaint had
not stated claim, it would have been error to dismiss it without granting leave to amend. Dowdy v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1959, 267 F.2d 827. See, also, Shows v. Harber, C.A.Ark.1978, 575 F.2d 1253. Federal
Civil Procedure
1838
Where bulk of money damages claimed for breaches of contracts was specifically set forth in relation to two of five
claims in complaint, and remainders, easily ascertainable by simple subtraction, were sufficiently related to preceding claims, court would require complaints to be amended only so as to confine allegations of claims re-alleged in
following claims to general allegations necessary to support separate claims. Compania De Las Fabricas De Papel
De San Rafael Y Anexas, S.A., v. Bagley & Sewall Co., N.D.N.Y.1950, 10 F.R.D. 140. Federal Civil Procedure
984
255. ---- Fraud actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
Where district court held oral argument on motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but court had great
difficulty in understanding plaintiff's factual allegations, particularly those factual allegations concerning involvement of Pennsylvania bank in any fraudulent conspiracy, complaint failed to plead fraud with sufficient specificity,
and, therefore, plaintiff was ordered to file amended complaint setting forth with particularity matters dealing with
alleged fraud, since facts were made considerably clearer in plaintiff's post-argument brief. National Egg Co. v.
Bank Leumi le-Israel B. M., N.D.Ga.1980, 504 F.Supp. 305. Federal Civil Procedure
839.1
In death action removed from state court to district court, where plaintiff used form of “complaint for negligence,”
set forth in appendix to these rules, defendant's motion to require plaintiff to amend his petition should be sustained
Page 224
as to portion asserting that certain allegations in petition should be stricken and overruled as to portion seeking more
definite statement of certain particulars, and plaintiff should replead. Beigel v. Baltimore & O.R.R., S.D.Ohio 1950,
1150
256. ---- Labor actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
Under notice system of pleading established by these rules, distinction between pleading facts and conclusions is no
longer significant, and only question is whether there is a short and plain statement of the claim, and where it could
not be ascertained from allegations of complaint whether action by union against employer was one solely to enforce
uniquely personal rights of employee, case would be remanded to afford union opportunity to amend complaint. Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers Intern. Union, AFL-CIO v. Delta Refining Co., C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1960, 277 F.2d 694.
671; Federal Courts
946
257. ---- Negligence actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
At time patient filed her medical malpractice complaint in diversity action, it was not clear that expert affidavit requirement under Georgia statute would apply in diversity action, and thus, if such requirement applied, patient was
entitled to leave to amend her complaint, rather than having complaint dismissed with prejudice for noncompliance
695
with Georgia statutory requirement. Brown v. Nichols, C.A.11 (Ga.) 1993, 8 F.3d 770. Pretrial Procedure
Where plaintiff's complaint in a diversity personal injury action did not set forth a short and plain statement of her
claim, plaintiff would be required to file an amended complaint containing a short and plain statement of her claim
showing that she was entitled to relief, within 30 days, or her complaint would be dismissed. Diana v. Canada Dry
Corp., W.D.Pa.1960, 189 F.Supp. 280. Federal Civil Procedure
1837.1
Where complaint in plaintiff's action for damages for death of his wife following an appendectomy aboard defendants' liner at sea succeeded only in obscuring issues, and promised unnecessary confusion at trial, complaint would
be dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff would be given 20 days to serve an amended complaint, simply and
concisely constructed, embodying a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claim as contemplated by this rule. Iafrate
v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, S.D.N.Y.1951, 12 F.R.D. 71. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
258. ---- Price control or stabilization actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
In action to enjoin defendants from violating Emergency Price Control Act, former § 901 et seq. of the Appendix to
Title 50, and to require defendants to file maximum prices for operating and maintenance services on road maintenance equipment leased or furnished, defendants were entitled to be informed as to times, places, occasions, and
parties with whom defendants allegedly dealt, and wherein price regulations were violated, and complainant would
be required to file an amended complaint. Bowles v. Ragner, W.D.Pa.1946, 5 F.R.D. 78. Federal Civil Procedure
839.1
259. ---- Unfair competition actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
In adversary proceeding commenced as class action for alleged violations of Pennsylvania unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law [ 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq.] and Bankr.Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 329, governing a debtor's
transactions with attorneys, committed in the course of offering financial counseling to consumers with financial
difficulties, leave was granted to amend complaint to clarify latent ambiguity as to whether defendants operated
separate financial counseling businesses and, hence, acted as individuals, or whether they operated a single financial
839.1
counseling business together. In re Stevenson, Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1985, 49 B.R. 914. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 225
260. ---- Miscellaneous actions, amendment of pleadings, statement of entitlement
Plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim that alleged supporting facts and allegations, added claims, and made numerous assertions and conclusions of law did not remedy deficiencies in complaint for purposes of federal civil rule requiring short and plain statement of claim; no request to amend was made
under federal civil rule, plaintiff had been warned about necessary pleading requirements in prior suit against same
defendants or their predecessors in interest, and plaintiff had been represented by counsel for two months, but had
not attempted to amend obviously defective complaint. Booker v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, M.D.N.C.2005, 375
1801
Following dismissal of number of claims for lack of merit, plaintiffs would be permitted to file amended complaint
as to remainder of claims in order to correct noncompliance with rule requiring every complaint filed in federal
court to contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief; it was impossible to discern how more than 100 general allegations could be structured to support required elements of each of 17 separate
claims alleged in vague, repetitive, and indistinct complaint. Houston v. Mile High Adventist Academy,
D.Colo.1994, 846 F.Supp. 1449, reconsideration denied 872 F.Supp. 829. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
Plaintiffs would be required to amend amended complaint within twenty days on ground that it failed to comply
with this rule requiring averments to be simple, concise, and direct, where amended complaint contained 26 pages
and 86 paragraphs, and there were paragraphs which were prolix, argumentative, and conclusionary, paragraphs
which pleaded evidence, and paragraphs which did not even allege facts. Benner v. Philadelphia Musical Soc., Local
77, of Am. Federation of Musicians, E.D.Pa.1963, 32 F.R.D. 197. Federal Civil Procedure
826
261. Repleading, statement of entitlement
Repleading, not dismissal, was appropriate remedy for failure of complaint alleging various breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties to specify which claims were against which defendant or group of defendants. In re Xerox Corp. Erisa
Litigation, D.Conn.2007, 483 F.Supp.2d 206. Labor And Employment
649
Plaintiff whose pro se complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with this rule providing for short and plain
statement of grounds for jurisdiction and claim for relief would be granted leave to replead in 30 days. Prezzi v.
Berzak, S.D.N.Y.1972, 57 F.R.D. 149. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
262. Striking of pleadings, statement of entitlement
Granting of motion to strike civil rights complaint on ground that it was neither short nor plain was within district
court's discretion where complaint contained 119 pages and 367 numbered paragraphs, and where district court did
not dismiss the case but gave plaintiff 21 days to amend the complaint. Ciralsky v. C.I.A., C.A.D.C.2004, 355 F.3d
661, 359 U.S.App.D.C. 366, on remand 689 F.Supp.2d 141. Civil Rights
1394
Complaint, which sought damages allegedly arising out of conspiracy by defendants to deprive plaintiff of rights,
privileges and immunities secured by federal and state Constitutions, but which occupied 16 printed pages of disconnected, incoherent and rambling statements, making it impossible for any party or court to understand alleged
claim or damage, should have been stricken for failure to comply with this rule governing claims for relief and conciseness and directness of pleading. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, C.A.8 (Minn.) 1968, 397 F.2d 124. Federal Civil
Procedure
632
Where plaintiff made at least partial compliance with trial court's prior order to file substitute complaint which
Page 226
clearly and concisely set forth the cause of action as evidenced by one of the counts of substitute complaint, failure
to comply with respect to other counts would justify granting of a motion to strike those particular counts, but would
not be valid reason for denying plaintiff benefit of the count which successfully met trial court's requirement.
1117
Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., C.A.1 (Mass.) 1956, 234 F.2d 170. Federal Civil Procedure
Matter which was irrelevant in a complaint based on any theory of action and particularly matter describing activities of a third party who was specifically excluded from complaint for jurisdictional reasons was subject to being
stricken out on proper motion. Topping v. Fry, C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1945, 147 F.2d 715. Federal Civil Procedure
1125.1
Where deficiency of pleading is that it contains too much detail, court should generally strike redundant or immaterial matter, rather than dismiss complaint. Giuliano v. Everything Yogurt, Inc., E.D.N.Y.1993, 819 F.Supp. 240.
1101
Although portions of plaintiff's complaint were largely irrelevant and in violation of requirement of “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” striking portions of complaint were unwarranted, where issues would be sufficiently narrowed after defendants filed their answer and in pretrial statement, and
requiring defendants to answer complaint in its present form would impose no great burden of pleading. Cronovich
v. Dunn, E.D.Mich.1983, 573 F.Supp. 1330. Federal Civil Procedure
1145.1
That part of defendants' motion which sought to strike various allegations of complaint for reasons wholly out of
tune with notice pleading concept underlying this rule was denied. West Zion Highlands v. City of Zion,
1145.1
Parties should strive to plead as directly as possible so as not to unduly burden both the court and the party who
must respond, and in cases where pleading grossly violates the spirit behind this rule requiring that each averment of
pleading shall be simple, concise and direct, it is proper for the court to strike the entire pleading. Liddell v. Board of
Ed. of City of St. Louis, Mo., E.D.Mo.1980, 508 F.Supp. 101, appeal dismissed 693 F.2d 721. Federal Civil Procedure
1138
Where complaint seeking declaration that restrictive zoning ordinances were unconstitutional was sufficient to apprise defendants of basis of claim for relief, it would not be stricken on grounds that it was redundant, immaterial
and impertinent. Rasmussen v. City of Lake Forest, Illinois, N.D.Ill.1975, 404 F.Supp. 148. Federal Civil Procedure
1138
Amended complaint which was not simple, concise, direct, short, and plain statement of claim but instead devoted
69 paragraphs and 39 pages to pleading single count and included exhibits that were designated by consecutive letters up to and including the letter “X” and that contained for the most part extraneous or at best evidentiary material
was subject to being stricken. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., N.D.Ill.1966, 261 F.Supp.
1124
Counterclaim, the thesis of which was that defendants had been and were being injured by plaintiffs' breach of release and covenant not to sue, would not be stricken on motion of plaintiffs, where it could not be said with certainty
that there was no state of actual facts that could entitle defendants to compensation for breach of covenant not to sue,
and scope of release was a matter for trial. Schine v. Schine, S.D.N.Y.1966, 254 F.Supp. 986, appeal dismissed 367
1122
“Bill of particulars” which set forth in accounting form substantially, but in more mathematical detail, what appeared in body of complaint in word form did not violate requirement of a short and plain statement nor was it re-
Page 227
dundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, but provided a full understanding of the complaint, and, therefore,
would not be stricken. Bloombury Woolen Co. v. Moosehead Woolen Mills, D.C.Me.1953, 109 F.Supp. 804.
1127;
1138
Where under any possible circumstance evidence of facts pleaded in the allegations sought to be stricken out as irrelevant and redundant under this rule has any bearing on subject matter of the litigation, motion to strike out will be
1138
denied. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Ziegler, E.D.Pa.1941, 40 F.Supp. 416. Federal Civil Procedure
Where a complaint contained statements relating not only to causes of action which the District Court had dismissed, but also matters which were irrelevant, argumentative, and conclusions of law, the court granted that part of
defendant's motion seeking to strike out certain matter from the complaint in accordance with requests contained in
notice of motion. Engler v. General Electric Co., S.D.N.Y.1939, 32 F.Supp. 913. Federal Civil Procedure
1105.1
Tax protestor documentation that taxpayer filed in answer to government's complaint seeking to reduce tax assessments to judgment would be stricken as gross violation of civil rule requiring short, plain statement of defenses and
admission or denial of averments of complaint. U.S. v. Kennedy, D.N.D.2005, 233 F.R.D. 530. Federal Civil Procedure
1132
District court has authority to strike a pleading which does not comply with notice pleading requirements of federal
rule, although exercise of that power should be reserved for cases in which the pleading is so confused, ambiguous,
vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised. Nagel v. Pocono Medical Center,
M.D.Pa.1996, 168 F.R.D. 22. Federal Civil Procedure
1129.1
Bare “catch-all” assertion in complaint alleging securities violations that defendant violated “the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” failed to conform with this rule requiring “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and was properly stricken. Castro v. Paine, Webber, Jackson and Curtis,
Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 1983, 99 F.R.D. 655. Federal Civil Procedure
632
Complaints in which the essentials specified by rule relating to claims for relief can be discerned with reasonable
clarity and without excessive difficulty should not be stricken merely for inconsequential verbosity which readily
can be corrected on a motion to strike without excessive effort or delay. Silver v. Queen's Hospital, D.C.Hawai'i
1971, 53 F.R.D. 223. Federal Civil Procedure
1138
Ordinarily, only those portions of a pleading which are objectionable should be stricken, and not entire pleading, but
entire pleading may be stricken where it is all immaterial, redundant, or in gross violation of these rules. Temperato
v. Rainbolt, E.D.Ill.1958, 22 F.R.D. 57. Federal Civil Procedure
1105.1;
1138
Where complaint for alleged violation of Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, § 13a of Title 15, contained
much evidentiary matter and was not short, plain statement of claim required by subdivision (a)(2) of this rule, and
each averment was not simple, concise and direct as required by subdivision (e) of this rule, and complaint was not
one which contained isolated allegations which could be readily stricken without substantial effect on balance of
pleading, complaint would be stricken on motion in entirety with leave to file amended complaint within thirty days
without prejudice to application for extension. Hershel California Fruit Products Co. v. Hunt Foods, N.D.Cal.1954,
1145.1
In action by lessee of theatre against moving picture distributors to recover triple damages for alleged violations of
Page 228
the anti-trust laws, §§ 1 to 7, 12 to 27 of Title 15, by allegedly discriminating against lessee in distribution of firstrun pictures, complaint alleging all of the alleged wrongdoings of the motion picture industry in the United States
for the last 30 years would be stricken on ground that it failed to comply with requirements of subdivisions (a)(2),
(e)(1), of this rule, requiring short and plain statement of claim and concise and direct pleading. New Dyckman
Theatre Corp. v. Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corp., S.D.N.Y.1954, 16 F.R.D. 203. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(6)
These rules do not contemplate correction of inartistic pleadings by motion to strike, in absence of some prejudice to
the moving party. Forstmann Woolen Co. v. Murray Sices Corp., S.D.N.Y.1950, 10 F.R.D. 367, 86 U.S.P.Q. 209.
1107
In action for personal and property injury arising out of defendant's alleged negligence, specified allegations in
complaint would be stricken out as having no place in the pleadings, as violating subdivision (a) of this rule, and as
1107
being possibly prejudicial. Howitt v. St. John, N.D.Ohio 1949, 9 F.R.D. 608. Federal Civil Procedure
Where plaintiff, in action based on allegations of conspiracy and fraud regarding corporate stock, mentioned some
persons, companies, conclusions and facts which were merely descriptive and not strictly relevant, but they did not
seem to be prejudicial, complaint would not be ordered revised on defendants' motions. Steckel v. Beeghly,
N.D.Ohio 1948, 8 F.R.D. 116. Federal Civil Procedure
652
Where plaintiffs had alleged in complaint more details than were required by rule 8 of these rules, but none of allegations were prejudicial, and striking out allegations in response to defendant's motion would merely cause delay
and filing of an amended complaint, motion to strike would be denied. Tolle v. Pennsylvania R. Co., S.D.Ohio 1947,
1107
In action for copyright infringement by causing musical composition “Marie” to be performed in restaurant from
records on coin operated juke box, historical and somewhat argumentative allegations which were not harmful to
defendant restaurant owner were not subject to motion to strike from complaint where complaint as a whole met
requirements of subdivision (a) of this rule. Irving Berlin, Inc., v. Anziano, S.D.N.Y.1944, 4 F.R.D. 33. Copyrights
And Intellectual Property
82
Although complaint for injunction against defendants allegedly engaged in conspiracy in restraint of trade contained
some apparently immaterial allegations, defendants were not entitled to have portions thereof stricken as redundant,
immaterial and impertinent, where nothing in complaint was impertinent or scandalous, unnecessary facts set out
were material to case and inclusion thereof was not harmful. U.S. v. Johns-Manville, N.D.Ill.1941, 1 F.R.D. 548.
972(6)
A motion to strike a certain paragraph of an amended complaint was granted with respect to clause “and defendant's
attorney knowing the plaintiff had made the invention a long time before” on ground that it stated a conclusion.
1121
Gilbert v. General Motors Corporation, W.D.N.Y.1940, 1 F.R.D. 101. Federal Civil Procedure
263. Dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement--Generally
Even though a complaint in an action for personal injuries was not a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claim,
each averment of which was simple, concise and direct, as called for by this rule complaint would not be dismissed
for failure of compliance with this rule, any surplusage or inartistry, being subject to appropriate corrective motions
in district court. Sherman v. Air Reduction Sales Co., C.A.6 (Ohio) 1958, 251 F.2d 543, 84 Ohio Law Abs. 604, 11
O.O.2d 394. Federal Civil Procedure
1802
Page 229
Under provisions of this rule that pleading shall set forth a short, plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, and that each averment in pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct, complaint is not
subject to dismissal unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff cannot possibly be entitled to relief under any set of
facts which could be proved in support of allegations, and even then, a court ordinarily should not dismiss complaint
except after affording every opportunity to plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. John Walker
& Sons v. Tampa Cigar Co., C.A.5 (Fla.) 1952, 197 F.2d 72, 93 U.S.P.Q. 392. Federal Civil Procedure
1773;
1838
If plaintiff pleads particulars, and they show he has no claim, then he has pleaded himself out of court and, thus,
where specific facts alleged in complaint demonstrate that there is no valid claim, dismissal is appropriate. Freeman
v. Fairman, N.D.Ill.1996, 916 F.Supp. 786. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
When reviewing motion to dismiss, court's inquiry is limited to whether plaintiffs' allegations constitute short and
plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Colleton Regional Hosp. v. MRS Medical Review
Systems, Inc., D.S.C.1994, 866 F.Supp. 891. Federal Civil Procedure
1771
Though it was not inappropriate for court to dismiss complaint as being violative of this rule requiring pleader to set
forth a short and plain statement of claim showing that he is entitled to relief, where extensive time and effort had
been expended by parties and court in regard to allegations made, allegations of complaint would be considered in
order to put an end to further litigation in matter. Choate v. U. S., N.D.Okla.1976, 413 F.Supp. 475. Federal Civil
Procedure
1827.1
Failure to comply with requirement that pleading contain short and plain statement of grounds on which court's jurisdiction depends results in dismissal of complaint unless defect is corrected by amendment. Gordon v. National
Broadcasting Co., S.D.N.Y.1968, 287 F.Supp. 452. See, also, Weinfeld v. Buccaneer Broadcasting, Ltd.,
D.C.Mass.1980, 86 F.R.D. 546. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
While plaintiff is charged with duty of giving a short and plain statement of his claim and a demand for judgment for
relief to which he deems himself entitled, test of complaint upon a motion to dismiss lies in claim, not in demand, so
that only issue is whether claim stated would give plaintiff a right to any relief, rather than to particular relief de1772
manded. Falk v. Levine, D.C.Mass.1945, 60 F.Supp. 660. Federal Civil Procedure
Court is not permitted to impose sanction as drastic as judgment of dismissal to force legally artistic pleading, but
must look beyond mere mountain of words to meaning sought to be conveyed by pleader. Stanley v. Harper Buffing
Mach. Co., D.C.Conn.1961, 28 F.R.D. 579, 132 U.S.P.Q. 123. Federal Civil Procedure
1829
Where complaint set out with sufficient detail the claim plaintiffs asserted against defendant so that defendant could
responsively plead to complaint, motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement or bill of particu948; Federal
lars, would be denied. Dubler v. Gilbert, S.D.N.Y.1950, 10 F.R.D. 530. Federal Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure
1772
Complaint which contained evidentiary facts and also a paragraph which was inadequately linked to conspiracy alleged would be dismissed with leave to plaintiff to file amended complaint. Screen Writers' Guild v. Motion Picture
Ass'n of America, S.D.N.Y.1948, 8 F.R.D. 487. Federal Civil Procedure
1789
That statement in the complaint may not be fully clear or artistically drawn does not constitute a ground for dis1771
missal of complaint. Calabrese v. Chiumento, D.C.N.J.1944, 3 F.R.D. 435. Federal Civil Procedure
264. ---- Discretion of court, dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement
Page 230
Dismissal of action for failure to comply with requirement that pleadings contain a short and plain statement of
claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief rests within sound discretion of district court and ought not to be
granted by the Court of Appeals in the first instance. Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 417 F.2d
818
Notice pleading standard does not require employment discrimination plaintiff to plead a prima facie case. Marshall
v. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc., D.D.C.2008, 536 F.Supp.2d 59, reconsideration denied 598 F.Supp.2d 57.
1532
Civil Rights
District court has discretion to dismiss pleadings which do not contain a short and plain statement of pleader's claim.
Segarra v. Messina, N.D.N.Y.1994, 153 F.R.D. 22, on reconsideration 158 F.R.D. 230. Federal Civil Procedure
1772
265. ---- Vagueness, dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement
Mortgagors' vague allegations that lenders attempted to deprive mortgagors of their legal right to cancel the loan
was insufficient to plead a claim of unfair or deceptive acts or practices under Hawaii law. Labuanan v. U.S. Bank
Nat. Ass'n, D.Hawai'i 2011, 2011 WL 939039. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
358
District court would strike state prison officials' affirmative defense of release, in prisoner's §§ 1983 action alleging
that officials provided inadequate medical treatment for his chronic ear problems and were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs in violation of Eighth Amendment, where officials raised release defense for first time in
their motion for summary judgment. Jackson v. Carroll, D.Del.2009, 643 F.Supp.2d 602. Federal Civil Procedure
2554
School psychologist who alleged that her contract was not renewed because she voiced concerns about compliance
with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) satisfied the requirements for notice pleading, and her
complaint was not so vague or incomprehensible as to preclude school principals from framing an adequate response; psychologist was not required to allege specific IDEA violations to state a claim for relief, and to the extent
that further development of psychologist's allegations was required, such additional details were the appropriate sub147.51
ject of discovery. Houlihan v. Sussex Technical School Dist., D.Del.2006, 461 F.Supp.2d 252. Schools
Former employee asserting Title VII race and national origin discrimination action against former employer was not
required to identify the employees involved in the alleged discrimination, the dates of the alleged discrimination,
other circumstances surrounding the alleged discrimination, which of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges listed in the complaint formed the basis of employee's claims, or other facts, in order to survive employer's motion to dismiss for vagueness, under the federal notice pleading rule. Castillo v. Norton,
D.Ariz.2003, 219 F.R.D. 155. Civil Rights
1532
A motion to dismiss for vagueness of the complaint must be analyzed in light of the federal notice pleading rule,
which sets forth the procedural requirements for pleading a claim in federal court. Castillo v. Norton, D.Ariz.2003,
1772
266. ---- Amended complaints, dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement
Dismissal of amended complaint and action without prejudice in civil rights action on ground that the amended
complaint was still unnecessarily prolix, when plaintiff, after district court granted motion to strike complaint, which
contained 119 pages and 367 numbered paragraphs, filed amended complaint containing 61 pages and 105 para-
Page 231
graphs, was within district court's discretion, even though plaintiff had deleted 43-page statement of facts, and significant portion of remaining length was due to sheer number of claims asserted, where a significant portion of the
reduction in pages and paragraphs was accomplished by mere formatting changes, such as combining paragraphs
and eliminating blank space. Ciralsky v. C.I.A., C.A.D.C.2004, 355 F.3d 661, 359 U.S.App.D.C. 366, on remand
1837.1
District court's dismissal of borrower's amended lender liability action complaint for failure to comply with concise
pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not abuse of discretion, where court ordered borrowers to amend complaint in order to conform to concise pleading requirement, and indicated that number of defendants should be reduced, but borrowers filed 43-page, 358-paragraph amended complaint, adding two more defendants. Kuehl v. F.D.I.C., C.A.1 (N.H.) 1993, 8 F.3d 905, rehearing denied, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 1545, 511
1781
Where trial court required plaintiff to file amended petition avoiding prolixity and surplusage and stating precisely
the negligence relied on, but first and second amended petitions filed by plaintiff's administratrix were equally prolix
and indefinite and were also dismissed, and third amended petition was subject to the same infirmities and did not
conform to federal rule, dismissal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. Blake v. De Vilbiss Co., C.C.A.6
(Ohio) 1941, 118 F.2d 346. Federal Civil Procedure
1802
Complaint filed against two school districts by pro se litigant, which only stated that litigant claimed some sort of
discrimination because of the districts' alleged failure to employ him but did not indicate type of discrimination, did
not meet pleading requirements of rule of civil procedure requiring short and plain statement showing entitlement to
relief, and warranted that litigant file amended complaint containing more specific allegations that satisfied pleading
requirements or be subject to dismissal. Strine v. Marion Central School Dist., W.D.N.Y.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 75.
657.5(2)
Amended complaint in action by disbarred attorney against various defendants would be dismissed with prejudice,
in that its 98-page length and unduly involved nature failed to comport with this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim and simple, concise, and direct averments, even after original complaint had been dismissed without
prejudice for same reasons. Michaelis v. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n, D.C.Neb.1983, 566 F.Supp. 89, affirmed 717
632
That amended 30-page complaint was not a short and plain statement of the claim and was not simple, concise and
direct as required by this rule was not ground for dismissal of amended complaint. Fleischer v. A. A. P., Inc.,
1138
District court properly dismissed plaintiff's third amended complaint and properly denied his motion to file fourth
amended complaint, where his complaint was unintelligible and his claims indiscernible; in each of his complaints,
plaintiff asserted violations of several federal statutes and eleven constitutional amendments, without explaining
what conduct constituted violations, which defendants violated which statutes or amendments, or how alleged violations harmed him. Strunk v. U.S. House of Representatives, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2003, 68 Fed.Appx. 233, 2003 WL
21466749, Unreported. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
267. ---- Limitations, dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement
Even under lower standard of notice pleading required by Federal Civil Rule 8(a), plaintiffs' allegations that majority of acts which were basis for their suit occurred more than two years prior to its filing and that plaintiffs did not
become aware of facts until date within two years of filing of complaint were insufficient to avoid motion to dismiss
based on expiration of the statute of limitations. LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority, C.A.6 (Ohio)
1995, 55 F.3d 1097, rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied. Federal Civil Procedure
1754
Page 232
268. ---- Multiple counts, dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement
Where it appeared that at least one of the counts of plaintiff's substitute complaint did not violate this rule requiring
simplicity and brevity, granting of defendant's motion to dismiss substitute complaint could not be justified by any
reference to said rule which at most could only justify the court in striking those particular counts which proved offensive to the rule. Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., C.A.1 (Mass.) 1956, 234 F.2d 170. Federal Civil Procedure
1771
Page 233
Antitrust count of complaint was not sufficiently pled, where plaintiff attempted to allege violations of two separate
sections of Sherman Act in one count; those sections proscribed very different conduct, and combination of references to both rendered that count confusing. Pierson v. Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, Inc., M.D.Fla.2009,
619 F.Supp.2d 1260. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Complaint alleging violation of numerous provisions in the federal securities laws arising from mismanagement of
and misrepresentations about securities investments made by plaintiffs would not be dismissed under this rule which
requires that pleadings be “short” and “plain,” and that each averment be “simple, concise and direct,” where plaintiffs alleged violations by four different defendants, each performing functions distinct in some measure from the
rest, and where each count asserted separate violation by a single defendant, in that verbosity and repetition which
appeared in complaint did not, standing alone, justify dismissal. Kaufman v. Magid, D.C.Mass.1982, 539 F.Supp.
1809
269. ---- Pro se complaints, dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement
Pro se action against 69 defendants was subject to dismissal for failure to comply with requirement that plaintiffs
provide “a short and plain statement of * * * [their] claim”; because violation was so egregious and because inclusion of at least some of defendants was frivolous, dismissal, rather than granting plaintiff's leave to amend, was appropriate. Anderson v. University of Maryland School of Law, D.Md.1989, 130 F.R.D. 616, affirmed 900 F.2d 249.
1772
Where pro se plaintiff was given four opportunities to state his claims in manner acceptable under these rules, but
complaint nevertheless set forth unintelligible claims against various political subdivisions and their agents with no
plain and simple statements giving those charged an opportunity to investigate and frame replies, and the complaints
pled nothing which could be characterized as having an arguable substance in law or in fact, the complaints were
subject to sua sponte dismissal. King v. Fayette County, W.D.Pa.1981, 92 F.R.D. 457. Federal Civil Procedure
1824
Dismissal was warranted on grounds that pro se complaint was incomprehensible, where complaint did not provide
short and plain statement of claims sufficient to give defendants reasonable notice of basis of claims, and plaintiff
was given leave to amend and successive pleading remained unintelligible. Williamson v. Owners Resort & Exchange, C.A.10 (Utah) 2004, 90 Fed.Appx. 342, 2004 WL 370977, Unreported. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(1)
270. ---- Prejudicial dismissal, dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement
Ordinarily, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with this rule requiring that claim for relief contain short and plain statement of the claim should be with leave to amend; but if plaintiff has persisted in violating
this rule, district court is justified in dismissing complaint with prejudice. Michaelis v. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n,
C.A.8 (Neb.) 1983, 717 F.2d 437. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
Failure, in an initial complaint, to set forth claim by means of short and plain statement is not a ground for dismissal
of an action with prejudice, since there are procedures available for correcting a vague or prolix complaint. DeWitt
v. Pail, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 366 F.2d 682. Federal Civil Procedure
1827.1
Page 234
Order on court's own motion dismissing complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with rule 8 requiring a short
and plain statement of claim, operated as an adjudication upon the merits. Atwood v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.,
C.A.5 (Tex.) 1957, 243 F.2d 885, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 41, 355 U.S. 829, 2 L.Ed.2d 42. Federal Civil Procedure
1837.1
Green Party candidate's amended pro se complaint against city board of elections failed to comply with “short and
plain statement” rule, warranting dismissal with prejudice; complaint was hopelessly intelligible, making vague and
incoherent references to La Cosa Nostra and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracies having nothing to do with original complaint, which had alleged that board denied him access as write-in candidate in primary for United States Senator. Iwachiw v. NYC Bd. of Elections, E.D.N.Y.2003, 273 F.Supp.2d 224,
1837.1
affirmed 126 Fed.Appx. 27, 2005 WL 615936. Attorney And Client
Failure to comply with requirements of Rule 8 to include short and plain statement of claim showing entitlement to
relief in complaint may justify dismissal, albeit usually without prejudice. Industrial Specialty Chemicals, Inc. v.
Cummins Engine Co., Inc., N.D.Ill.1995, 902 F.Supp. 805. Federal Civil Procedure
1837.1
271. ---- Miscellaneous dismissals of complaint, dismissal of complaint, statement of entitlement
A complaint which undertook to describe several episodes and, though characterizing defendants' alleged conduct as
wrongful, unlawful, and malicious, did not sufficiently disclose the conduct to enable a court to judge whether or not
it was tortious was properly dismissed under subdivision (a) of this rule on ground that it contained neither a short
and plain statement or any statement which showed that plaintiff was entitled to relief. Burns v. Spiller,
App.D.C.1947, 161 F.2d 377, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 91, certiorari denied 68 S.Ct. 101, 332 U.S. 792, 92 L.Ed. 373.
1811
Civil rights complaint would be dismissed in its entirety, but without prejudice to plaintiffs' ability to file amended
pleading, where complaint did not contain short and plain statement of plaintiffs' cause of action, but was rather a
fact-laden, 36-page narrative which described in unnecessary, burdensome, and often improper argumentative detail
every instance of alleged racial discrimination perpetrated by defendants. Burks v. City of Philadelphia,
E.D.Pa.1995, 904 F.Supp. 421. Civil Rights
1838
Counterclaims asserted by pro se defendants would not be dismissed for violations of rule requiring pleadings to
contain short and plain statement of claim, although many of the allegations contained in 220 paragraphs alleging 13
causes of action were repetitive, pleading was not model of clarity, and at least some of the later claims repeated
allegations of earlier claims which had been found not to provide basis for relief. Citicorp Intern. Trading Co., Inc.
v. Western Oil & Refining Co., Inc., S.D.N.Y.1991, 771 F.Supp. 600. Federal Civil Procedure
1781
Plaintiff's complaint violated requirements of rule governing pleading and was dismissed without prejudice where
complaint gave no indication of laws allegedly violated by defendant or source of court's jurisdiction over suit, and
did not provide adequate description of particular acts by defendant which led to suit or explanation of how acts
1781
were illegal. Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, N.D.N.Y.1995, 162 F.R.D. 15. Federal Civil Procedure
Sixty-three page complaint which extended over 452 paragraphs was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failing to
comply with requirement that complaint contained short and plain statement of claim. Lonesome v. Lebedeff,
E.D.N.Y.1992, 141 F.R.D. 397. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
Dismissal of former husband's complaint against former wife and her divorce counsel was not abuse of discretion;
Page 235
complaint was incomprehensible and failed to succinctly set forth factual basis for claims or legal cause of action on
which claims were based. Eisenstein v. Ebsworth, C.A.3 (N.J.) 2005, 148 Fed.Appx. 75, 2005 WL 1634356, Unre1781
ported. Federal Civil Procedure
Interests of justice were best served by dismissing complaint with leave to replead when complaint, which was 113
pages and 179 numbered paragraphs in length, exclusive of exhibits and separate subparagraphs, failed to comply
both with rule requiring complaint to contain short and plain statement of claim showing pleader's entitlement to
relief and rule requiring circumstances of fraud to be pleaded with particularity, inasmuch as it would be enormously
wasteful of judicial resources upon which other litigants had equal call for court to sort through complaint's allegations and address each, as it would have done had plaintiffs filed well-organized complaint of reasonable length.
VTech Holdings Ltd. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21756623, Unreported. Federal
Civil Procedure
1838
272. Estoppel, statement of entitlement
Hospital which, in its answer to complaint alleging that patient was injured by hospital's employees or agents, denied that it rendered any care which had any connection with the injuries and further denied that it was reckless or
negligent, was not estopped from claiming that any persons who were present at time of the operation were not its
agents, even though hospital did not specify that individual in charge of operation was not an employee of the hospi814
tal. Yarnell v. Roberts, E.D.Pa.1975, 66 F.R.D. 417. Health
273. Counterclaims, statement of entitlement
In action by subcontractor's employees against gas corporation for injuries resulting from gas explosion, wherein
corporation, by counterclaim against contractor's and subcontractor's compensation and liability carrier and by thirdparty complaint against contractor and subcontractor, sought indemnity on ground that corporation's liability was
created by primary negligence of third-party defendants, counterclaim and third-party complaint were not insufficient even though they denied corporation's responsibility for employee's injuries. United Gas Corp. v. Guillory,
C.A.5 (La.) 1953, 206 F.2d 49, rehearing denied 207 F.2d 308. Federal Civil Procedure
782.1
Alleged infringer's conclusory averments of counterclaim, that patents related to fire sprinkler systems were invalid
or unenforceable for failure to comply with conditions of patentability under four broad statutory provisions, failed
to satisfy plausibility standard applicable to pleading counterclaims, where counterclaim contained mere legal conclusion, no supporting facts, and was supported only by citation to broad statutory provisions “without limitation.”
310.7(5)
Tyco Fire Products LP v. Victaulic Co., E.D.Pa.2011, 2011 WL 1399847. Patents
Under the liberal notice pleading standard, a counterclaim plaintiff is required to submit a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests. Metropolitan Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boston Regional Physical Therapy, Inc., D.Mass.2008, 538 F.Supp.2d 338. Federal Civil Procedure
782.1
Reinsurer's allegations in counterclaim that employees, officers, agents, and principals of manager of program of
taxicab and limousine insurance took part in a large number of wrongful or negligent activities which increased reinsurer's exposure to risk and reduced premium payments it received were sufficient to meet counterclaim pleading
requirement of plain statement of claim. Frontier Management Co., Inc. v. Balboa Ins. Co., D.Mass.1986, 658
632
Even if landlord's counterclaim contained a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which court's jurisdiction
depends, counterclaim in action in which former tenant sought injunctive relief and damages for alleged violations
Page 236
of the federal civil rights and fair housing laws and of Ohio law failed to state claim upon which relief could be
granted, in that defamation claims which arose from tenant's accusations contained in her complaint before human
relations council and the federal district court were absolutely privileged and malicious prosecution claim was pre1395(3)
mature. Rupe v. Fourman, S.D.Ohio 1981, 532 F.Supp. 344. Civil Rights
Equitable “counterclaim” filed by defendants against plaintiff, alleging essentials of compromise of civil action
commenced against defendants for alleged wrongful discharge, libel and slander, i.e., an agreement to terminate, by
mutual concessions, a claim which was unliquidated, containing offer, acceptance and consideration, and alleging
that compromise was entered into by plaintiff's then attorney of record who had plaintiff's express authority to settle
case, and seeking specific performance of settlement agreement which plaintiff refused to consummate, stated claim
upon which relief could be granted. Read v. Baker, D.C.Del.1977, 438 F.Supp. 732. Federal Civil Procedure
782.1
Executrix' counterclaim, in suit by United States for estate taxes, alleging that the United States wrongfully and improperly neglected to release its lien for estate taxes whereby sale of property was lost sounded in tort and sought
recovery on cause independent of sovereign's action to recover taxes, and law of recoupment was thus inapplicable
130(8);
and counterclaim was impermissible. U. S. v. Russell, D.C.Kan.1969, 309 F.Supp. 617. United States
130(9)
United States
274. Scope of review, statement of entitlement
Where there is no issue of fact, the question of whether a complaint states a cause of action is one of law for the
1772
court. Dewell v. Lawson, C.A.10 (Okla.) 1974, 489 F.2d 877. Federal Civil Procedure
275. Agency relationship, statement of entitlement
Allegations that wholly-owned subsidiary of broker-dealer firm, which subsidiary was general partner of firm's
hedge fund limited partnership, delegated to firm's general securities representative the right to act for it in trading
the assets of the hedge fund, that representative accepted such undertaking, and that subsidiary had ultimate responsibility for management of hedge fund, were sufficient to state a claim that representative was agent of subsidiary, as
basis for subsidiary's liability for representative's alleged market manipulation securities fraud scheme, relating to
representative's alleged use of confidential non-public information regarding prospective private investment in public equity (PIPE) offering to make short sales of issuer's stock, which short sales were covered with stock purchased
in the PIPE offering. CompuDyne Corp. v. Shane, S.D.N.Y.2006, 453 F.Supp.2d 807. Securities Regulation
60.40
276. Agricultural marketing actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint seeking injunction to compel compliance with milk handling order by paying indebtedness due for producer-settlement fund was sufficient, though not setting forth in details the audit of defendant's records with itemiza4.5(6)
tion of errors in defendant's returns. U.S. v. Wagner Milk Products, N.D.Ill.1945, 61 F.Supp. 635. Food
277. Airline transportation actions, statement of entitlement
Under liberal rules for pleading, complaint alleging that defendant corporation's conduct in denying plaintiffs permission to travel as passengers on its airplane was violative of Civil Aeronautics Act, former § 401 et seq. of Title
49, as willful, malicious, motivated by prejudice against three of four plaintiffs because of their race and color, and
subjecting plaintiffs to unjust discrimination, and constituted breaches of defendant's duty as common carrier and
contract for transportation of plaintiffs, may be construed as claiming a right under said Act, though complaint
Page 237
would state claim for relief under common law, if all references to said Act were deleted. Fitzgerald v. Pan Am
World Airways, S.D.N.Y.1955, 132 F.Supp. 798, reversed on other grounds 229 F.2d 499. Federal Civil Procedure
654.1; Aviation
101
278. Antitrust actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
No heightened pleading standard applies in antitrust actions, since civil procedure rules do not require it. Twombly
v. Bell Atlantic Corp., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2005, 425 F.3d 99, certiorari granted 126 S.Ct. 2965, 548 U.S. 903, 165
L.Ed.2d 949, reversed 127 S.Ct. 1955, 550 U.S. 544, 167 L.Ed.2d 929. Monopolies
28(6.2)
There is no heightened pleading requirement in antitrust cases; short of the extremes of “bare bones” and implausible pleadings, an antitrust complaint need only contain the short and plain statement of the claim. New York Medscan LLC v. New York University School of Medicine, S.D.N.Y.2006, 430 F.Supp.2d 140. Antitrust And Trade
Regulation
972(3)
Although the notice-pleading standard applies in antitrust cases, to survive motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must nonetheless allege sufficient facts to support the elements of prohibition against contract, combination, or conspiracy in
restraint of trade or commerce. eMag Solutions, LLC v. Toda Kogyo Corp., N.D.Cal.2006, 426 F.Supp.2d 1050.
972(3)
No heightened pleading requirements apply in antitrust cases; all that is required is a short and plain which gives
notice to the opposing party that the pleader is entitled to relief. Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.,
D.Conn.2003, 253 F.Supp.2d 262. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
As a general rule, antitrust allegations are liberally construed. Broyles v. Wilson, M.D.La.1993, 812 F.Supp. 651,
972(3)
affirmed 3 F.3d 439. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
Antitrust allegations are governed by “short and plain statement” requirement, rather than more stringent pleading
requirements applicable to allegations of fraud. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom Entertainment Services, S.D.N.Y.1990, 746 F.Supp. 320, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1683. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(1)
A complaint need only give notice to the opposing party by a short, plain statement for relief; such rule applies in
antitrust cases. Speed Auto Sales, Inc. v. American Motors Corp., E.D.N.Y.1979, 477 F.Supp. 1193. Federal Civil
Procedure
673
Complaint, which alleged that the cause of action arose under the antitrust laws of the United States was insufficient
to give notice of the basis of the claim. Northland Equities, Inc. v. Gateway Center Corp., E.D.Pa.1977, 441 F.Supp.
693
The liberal rule in construction of pleadings should not be applied in antitrust actions where all of the essential ultimate facts must be plainly detailed. Alexander v. Texas Co., W.D.La.1957, 149 F.Supp. 37. Antitrust And Trade
Regulation
972(1); Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Despite liberality and flexibility of subdivision (a) of this rule requiring only a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, proper pleading in private anti-trust suit requires statement of facts,
upon which cause of action is founded considerably more extensive than that required in a simple negligence or contract action. Dublin Distributors, Inc. v. Edward & John Burke, Limited, S.D.N.Y.1952, 109 F.Supp. 125. Federal
Civil Procedure
693
Page 238
This rule providing that a complaint shall contain a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief does not require setting out in detail the acts complained of, nor the circumstances from which pleader
draws his conclusion that §§ 1 to 15 of Title 15 have been violated. Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Staley, W.D.Pa.1941,
972(3)
Although the liberal rules of notice pleading are as applicable to antitrust cases as to any other civil action, party
asserting an antitrust claim is not privileged to plead mere allegations that the other party has violated the antitrust
laws. Precision Universal Joint Corp. v. Republic Parts, Inc., N.D.Ill.1978, 83 F.R.D. 14. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
In potentially complicated litigation, and particularly in cases involving violations of the antitrust laws, a claimant
should go beyond the “short” requirement of this rule calling for a short and plain statement of a claim, if that is
necessary to set forth a “plain” or understandable claim. Essex Intern., Inc. v. Industra Products, Inc., N.D.Ind.1974,
64 F.R.D. 361, 182 U.S.P.Q. 56. Federal Civil Procedure
630
Antitrust action complaint must state claim for relief with clarity but need not set forth detailed history of relation or
include details of evidentiary nature, conclusory allegations, or analogous references. Fulton Co. v. Beaird-Poulan,
Inc., N.D.Miss.1972, 54 F.R.D. 604. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Federal rules do not differentiate antitrust actions from other types of civil proceedings and require only notice
pleading, and treble damages complaint replete with evidentiary and argumentative material performs no proper
function. Pacific Seafarers, Inc. v. Pacific Far East Line, D.C.D.C.1969, 48 F.R.D. 347. Federal Civil Procedure
693
Issues in an anti-trust action may be economic as well as legal, but counsel for defendants are entitled to a short and
plain statement of claim in order to answer and prepare to meet the issues presented. Walter Reade's Theatres, Inc. v.
Loew's Inc., S.D.N.Y.1957, 20 F.R.D. 579. Federal Civil Procedure
630
In action to recover triple damages for violation of anti-trust laws, §§ 1 to 7, 12 to 27 of Title 15, complaint need not
allege a great deal of history of past decades. New Dyckman Theatre Corp. v. Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corp.,
S.D.N.Y.1954, 16 F.R.D. 203. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
To state a cause of action under the anti-trust laws, § 1 et seq. of Title 15, specific facts must be stated showing that
statutes have been contravened and that as a consequence injury has resulted to party complaining. Reliable Mach.
Works v. Furtex Mach. Corp. of America, S.D.N.Y.1951, 11 F.R.D. 525. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
279. ---- Copying of criminal indictment, antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
The copying in civil action for damages for an alleged combination in restraint of trade of the indictment in a criminal case against defendants did not constitute a compliance with this rule requiring that complaint contain a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. Emich Motor Corp. v. General Motors
Corp., N.D.Ill.1942, 2 F.R.D. 552. Federal Civil Procedure
693
280. ---- Agreement between conspirators, antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
Suppliers of fine tableware, bringing Sherman Act restraint of trade claims against two department store chains and
competitors, alleging conspiracies to fix prices and boycott suppliers' products, were not required to supplement
general allegations that conspirators held conversations in furtherance of those objectives with details as to individu-
Page 239
als present at particular meetings, dates, and the like; requiring further disclosure would improperly convert case
from one governed by general pleading rule to case governed by rule requiring allegations of fraud to be pled with
particularity. In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation, N.D.Cal.2005, 363 F.Supp.2d 1203. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Third amended complaint included sufficient notice of actions that particular corporations were alleged to have
taken in furtherance of price-fixing conspiracy in violation of Sherman Act, on allegations, inter alia, that defendants
participated in over 140 meetings and conversations in Europe, Mexico and Canada to discuss and fix the prices of
electrical carbon products sold in the United States and elsewhere, defendants agreed during those meetings and
conversations to charge prices at certain levels, they discussed and exchanged price quotations of customers, and
they sold electrical carbon products at the agreed upon prices. In re Elec. Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation,
D.N.J.2004, 333 F.Supp.2d 303. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(4)
In action to enjoin activities of conspiracy in restraint of trade, complaint charging agreements between defendants
of a nature condemned by anti-trust acts with sufficient particularity to enable defendants to answer, was sufficient,
without setting forth circumstances from which conclusions in complaint were drawn. U.S. v. Johns-Manville,
N.D.Ill.1941, 1 F.R.D. 548. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(4)
281. ---- Causation, antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
Decline of 22% in share value, by comparing stock's value on first day of class period with value on date of first
corrective disclosure, did not constitute “almost all” of value of stock of defendant credit ratings organization, and
thus more detailed showing of loss causation was not required on federal securities fraud claim. In re Moody's Corp.
Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y.2009, 612 F.Supp.2d 397. Securities Regulation
60.47
Credit ratings industry did not suffer market-wide downturn, and thus more detailed showing of loss causation was
not required on federal securities fraud claim, where stock prices for competitors of defendant credit ratings organization did not drop commensurate to that of defendant; although parent company of competitor suffered share price
decline, parent's stock price could have fallen for number of reasons wholly unrelated to any problems in ratings
industry. In re Moody's Corp. Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y.2009, 612 F.Supp.2d 397. Securities Regulation
60.47
Minority stockholders' allegations that as result of misrepresentations and omissions of corporation and officers and
directors related to interested transaction, and in reliance upon them, stockholders also forebore injunctive and other
remedies to either prohibit interested transaction or vitiate it, either through derivative action or by other state remedies available to them, that such relief would have both limited harm caused by freeze out as well as increased value
of corporation which would have, in turn, increased value of stockholders' shares, were insufficient to plead transaction causation, as required to state claim under §§ 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Cellular Technical Services Co., Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., D.Conn.2009, 609 F.Supp.2d 223. Securities Regulation
60.47
Allegation that defendant has violated antitrust laws to detriment of plaintiffs and public and that such violations
have proximately caused damage to plaintiffs met requirement of federal rules and sufficiently alleged cause of ac693
tion. Gretener, A. G. v. Dyson-Kissner Corp., S.D.N.Y.1969, 298 F.Supp. 350. Federal Civil Procedure
With respect to the loss causation element of a Section 10(b) claim, the plaintiff is held to the notice pleading standard of Rule 8, as refined in Twombly, and not the heightened pleading requirements for fraud claims. Dutton v.
Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., D.Del.2010, 270 F.R.D. 171. Securities Regulation
60.51(1)
282. ---- Damages, antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
Page 240
A co-operative oil company organized under Iowa law could not individually recover treble damages under § 15 of
Title 15 for injuries sustained because of higher rates required to be paid for gasoline as result of conspiracy by defendants to violate anti-trust laws, §§ 1 et seq. of Title 15, where complaint nowhere alleged the use of a particular
amount of gasoline in company's own business, nor any particular amount of damages sustained by it. Farmers Coop. Oil Co. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., C.C.A.8 (Iowa) 1942, 133 F.2d 101. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(5)
In an action brought under the antitrust laws, although plaintiffs need not particularize the damage suffered from
each particular act, nevertheless, defendants, in order to properly defend their actions, must know what specifically
illegal acts with which they are charged. Encore Stores, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores Co., S.D.Cal.1958, 164 F.Supp. 82.
972(5)
A counterclaim charging plaintiff with violations of §§ 1 to 7 and 12 et seq. of Title 15 was not insufficient because
no special damages were alleged, no such allegation being necessary. Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Staley, W.D.Pa.1941,
972(1)
283. ---- Geographic market, antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint under § 2 of the Sherman Act did not give adequate notice to defendants so as to state a claim against
them in accordance with Rule of Civil Procedure where it did not allege the product or geographic market. Boczar v.
Manatee Hospitals & Health Systems, Inc., M.D.Fla.1990, 731 F.Supp. 1042. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
284. ---- Horizontal conspiracy, antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
Pennsylvania's amended complaint, that alleged refusal of syrup manufacturer, bottlers, and their coconspirators to
sell to retailers or other resellers, which resold products to customers located outside territory, did not allege conduct
amounting to unlawful restraint of trade, price fixing agreement, or group boycott, did not adequately allege illegal
horizontal conspiracy, and did not adequately allege conduct exempt from protection of Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act; complaint did not allege any agreement or conspiracy attributable solely to competing bottlers without
manufacturer. Com. of Pa. ex rel. Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, Inc., C.A.3 (Pa.) 1988, 836 F.2d 173. Antitrust And
Trade Regulation
972(3)
Horizontal price-fixing conspiracy complaint was not subject to heightened pleading standard applicable to fraud
claims. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, E.D.Pa.2005, 401 F.Supp.2d 451. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(4)
Suppliers of fine tableware, alleging that two department store chains and certain of supplier's competitors engaged
in (1) vertical minimum resale price maintenance, (2) horizontal price fixing and (3) an exclusionary group boycott,
were alleging per se violations of Sherman Act, obviating necessity of further allegations of relevant markets and
harm to competition, required when rule of reason standard was applicable. In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation,
N.D.Cal.2005, 363 F.Supp.2d 1203. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
285. ---- Price fixing, antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations in antitrust complaint that drug manufacturer conspired with three defendant drug wholesalers to fix
price of insulin and that another drug manufacturer violated Robinson-Patman Act, sections 13 to 13b and 21a of
Title 15, by giving unlawful price discounts to hospitals on Tylenol II gave sufficient notice as to grounds underly-
Page 241
ing claims. Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, C.A.10 (Utah) 1980, 630 F.2d 1383. Antitrust And
Trade Regulation
972(4)
A complaint which alleged that plaintiff was in industrial goggles business using unpatented lenses in their manufacture and that defendants in violation of Sherman Act, §§ 1 to 7 of Title 15, conspired to restrain trade and create monopoly by price-fixing, that such business was in commerce and that conspiracy injured plaintiff in its business
stated claim upon which relief could be granted, notwithstanding immaterial allegations. Sager Glove Corp. v.
Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1945, 149 F.2d 1. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Antitrust plaintiffs' allegations gave sufficient notice of claim of unlawful price fixing in market for polyether polyol
products used in production of polyurethane; plaintiffs alleged that defendants agreed to fix prices of specifically
named products, that characteristics of market for such products facilitated anticompetitive collusion, that interrelated price increases and announcements regarding such products were made by defendants, and that defendants
participated in meetings and conversations in which they agreed to set prices and allocate customers. In re Urethane
Antitrust Litigation, D.Kan.2009, 663 F.Supp.2d 1067. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Notice pleading requirements of federal procedure rule were not satisfied, in antitrust action claiming that department store chains and fine tableware suppliers conspired to fix prices and exclude competition among suppliers, in
violation of Sherman Act, solely through reference to investigation of alleged price fixing and boycotts being conducted by Attorney General of New York. In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation, N.D.Cal.2005, 363 F.Supp.2d 1203.
972(4)
Third amended complaint sufficiently linked particular corporations to alleged international price-fixing conspiracy
in violation of Sherman Act, on allegations that defendants were subsidiaries, or otherwise part of family, of other
corporations who had pleaded guilty in criminal investigation for their involvement in alleged conspiracy to inflate
prices of electrical carbon products. In re Elec. Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation, D.N.J.2004, 333 F.Supp.2d
303. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(4)
In an action alleging price fixing by dairies in the sale of milk to schools, amended complaint describing which dairies were involved in each conspiracy, which school districts were target of each conspiracy, when each conspiracy
began and ended, geographic boundaries of each conspiracy and overt acts by dairies that tended to prove conspiracy theory, satisfied notice pleading requirements. State of Ohio ex rel. Fisher v. Louis Trauth Dairy, Inc., S.D.Ohio
1994, 856 F.Supp. 1229. Federal Civil Procedure
691
Complaint brought by Attorney General of the State of New York on behalf of various state agencies and on behalf
of People of State alleging that wholesalers of milk engaged in a horizontal and vertical conspiracy to fix the price
of milk would be dismissed as to 49 individual defendants with leave to replead where complaint pleaded general
nature of the alleged conspiracy, but did not include a statement of pleader's entitlement to relief against any given
individual defendant. State of N.Y. v. Dairylea Co-op. Inc., D.C.N.Y.1983, 570 F.Supp. 1213. Federal Civil Procedure
1838
286. ---- Multiple defendants, antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint charging a conspiracy under Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts, §§ 1 to 7 and 12 to 27 of Title 15,
stated but one claim, although there were several defendants. Steiner v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corp., C.A.9 (Cal.)
1955, 220 F.2d 105. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Third amended complaint included sufficient notice of participants in alleged price-fixing conspiracy in violation of
Sherman Act, by stating that conspiracy's participants included defendants, and “various individuals, partnerships,
corporations and associations other than the Defendants named in this Complaint.” In re Elec. Carbon Products An-
titrust Litigation, D.N.J.2004, 333 F.Supp.2d 303. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
Page 242
972(3)
287. ---- Miscellaneous antitrust actions, statement of entitlement
Participant in cellular telephone market adequately stated on its claim of attempted monopolization under Sherman
Act that competitor engaged in predatory or anticompetitive conduct on allegations that competitor possessed near
monopoly in code division multiple access (CDMA) chipset market and it was exploiting that monopoly to obtain
new monopoly in universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) chipset market by, among other things,
charging more and higher fees to those who did not use competitor's UMTS chipsets and demanding royalties on
parts of UMTS chipsets for which it did not own patents. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., C.A.3 (N.J.) 2007,
501 F.3d 297, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1129. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Consumers stated Sherman Act antitrust claim against incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), in complaint that
asserted conspiracy both to prevent competitive entry into local telephone and Internet service markets, in contravention of purposes of Telecommunications Act, and to avoid competing with each other in their respective markets,
by alleging that ILECs had not attempted to compete meaningfully in other ILECs' territories surrounding their own
despite having acknowledged inherent profitability of doing so, and that ILECs had interfered with competing local
exchange carriers' (CLECs') customer relationships by, e.g., denying access to essential network equipment.
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2005, 425 F.3d 99, certiorari granted 126 S.Ct. 2965, 548 U.S. 903,
165 L.Ed.2d 949, reversed 127 S.Ct. 1955, 550 U.S. 544, 167 L.Ed.2d 929. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
605
Plaintiffs did not properly plead a claim for unilateral acts in restraint of trade under Oklahoma law; complaint
claimed monopolization and denial of access to an essential facility, and there was no citation to statutory prohibition of unilateral acts in restraint of trade. Green Country Food Market, Inc. v. Bottling Group, LLC, C.A.10 (Okla.)
2004, 371 F.3d 1275. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
In civil action for damages under anti-trust law by owner of quarry, based on theory that defendants dominated production of crushed stone in certain counties and thereby reduced value of owner's land, complaint additionally alleging that effect of defendants' conspiracy and acts was a reduction of competition in interstate distribution of crushed
limestone, was sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Sandidge v. Rogers, C.A.7 (Ind.) 1958,
256 F.2d 269. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
Media research company's complaint, which alleged that defendant competitor had a monopoly of the television
industry and the power to control price and output and specifically alleged that defendant had attempted to sustain
its monopoly position by acquiring other competitors, was sufficient to state claim for monopolization under
Sherman Act; complaint contained enough facts that competitor could properly identify the two elements required to
state a claim for monopolization and sufficiently put competitor on notice as to the antitrust cause of action.
ErinMedia, LLC v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., M.D.Fla.2005, 401 F.Supp.2d 1262. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
On their motion to dismiss claims in landowner's action against them for conspiracy to keep landowner from mining
lignite from its property in violation of Sherman Antitrust Act, mining company and electric utilities were not entitled to heightened pleading standard akin to that in civil rights cases. TCA Bldg. Co. v. Northwestern Resources Co.,
S.D.Tex.1994, 861 F.Supp. 1366. Federal Civil Procedure
1784
Complaint of automotive oil filter distributor for treble damages and other relief arising out of alleged violations of
sections 1-7 and 12-27 of Title 15 and following the acquisition of stock of plaintiff's former supplier by larger
automotive part manufacturer was not subject to dismissal as violative of this rule requiring a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Kirihara v. Bendix Corp., D.C.Hawai'i 1969, 306 F.Supp. 72.
Page 243
972(6)
Complaint alleging that defendants, exhibitors of motion pictures, in violation of the Clayton and Sherman Acts, §§
1 to 7 and 14 of Title 15, and in furtherance of an unlawful conspiracy to restrain trade, to establish and maintain a
monopoly and to lessen competition in the industry, entered into certain agreements and committed certain offenses
unlawful under said sections, to the consequent injury of the business and property of plaintiff, was sufficient.
698; Antitrust
Camrel Co. v. Skouras Theatres Corp., D.C.N.J.1944, 57 F.Supp. 811. Federal Civil Procedure
And Trade Regulation
972(3)
In anti-trust action, complaint was sufficient under this rule providing that a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment for the relief he seeks is sufficient.
Philadelphia Dressed Beef Co. v. Wilson & Co., E.D.Pa.1956, 19 F.R.D. 198. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
In action to recover treble damages for and enjoin alleged violations of Sherman Act §§ 1 to 7 of Title 15 by local
unlawful combinations pursuant to nationwide conspiracy enjoined by district court decree, complaint quoting testimony and reciting in detail evidence, fact findings and conclusions of law in case wherein such decree was entered,
arguing interpretation and legal effects thereof at great length, pleading reasons for information or dissolution of
various corporations, and containing declamatory subheadings, violated this rule requiring simple and concise
statements of claims. Skouras Theatres Corp. v. Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corp., S.D.N.Y.1953, 19 F.R.D. 151. Federal
Civil Procedure
632
Complaint by which plaintiff sought to charge defendant insurance company with being member of conspiracy with
other insurance carriers to refuse insurance to plaintiff in violation of anti-trust laws which did not state facts on
which charge was based or terms of conspiracy, members thereof, if known, methods adopted to effectuate ends of
conspiracy, or statement of particular provisions of anti-trust laws which were allegedly violated to plaintiff's detriment, was insufficient to assert claim under anti-trust laws. Bader v. Zurich Gen. Acc. & Liability Ins. Co.,
S.D.N.Y.1952, 12 F.R.D. 437. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(4)
Complaint by operators of theaters against publishers of newspapers which stated in essence that publishers had
conspired, in violation of § 1 et seq. of Title 15 to deny plaintiffs, as theater operators, advantages accorded to others
who produce plays of scale of rates which becomes lower as volume of amusement advertising increases, and which
sought to restrain such conduct, gave publishers fair notice of nature and basis of claim asserted and general indication of type of litigation involved and was sufficient. Trebuhs Realty Co. v. News Syndicate Co., S.D.N.Y.1951, 12
F.R.D. 110. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
972(3)
288. Banking actions, statement of entitlement
Recovery trust for bankruptcy debtor failed to allege tying with sufficient specificity to state a claim for violation of
the BHCAA against agent banks without affiliated investment banks, where trust did not allege that those banks
specifically tied any credit, property, or service to any other credit, property, or service involving debtor; rather, trust
made only generic allegations that those banks were involved in co-borrowing facility pursuant to which credit
and/or services were provided to debtor on condition that debtor obtain some additional credit and/or service from
affiliated investment banks. Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Bank of America, N.A., S.D.N.Y.2009, 646 F.Supp.2d 489.
523
Banks And Banking
Resolution Trust Corporation's (RTC) complaint against former director of savings and loan association satisfied
pleading requirements, though it did not specify any negligent or wrongful acts committed specifically by him,
where complaint set out legal theories, specified years each defendant worked at savings and loan, indicated general
nature of alleged wrongs or negligent acts committed by defendants, and listed specific loans that defendants alleg-
Page 244
edly made wrongfully or negligently. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Thomas, D.Kan.1993, 837 F.Supp. 354. Building
And Loan Associations
23(8)
Complaint alleging violations of the Regulations of the Superintendent of the Banks of State of California, and the
Regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States of America; and similar statutes, laws and regulations issued by the banking authorities of the Bahamas, Switzerland and Canada, violated provision of this rule
requiring short and plain statement of claim and dismissal for failure to comply without leave to amend was appro630; Federal Civil Propriate. Wenzoski v. Citicorp, N.D.Cal.1979, 480 F.Supp. 1056. Federal Civil Procedure
cedure
1788
Resolution Trust Corporation's (RTC) complaint in action against directors of savings and loan association, by reserving right to identify examples of unsafe and unsound transactions other than those listed in complaint, did not
give directors fair notice of claim and grounds upon which it rested, requiring more definite statement. Resolution
Trust Corp. v. Blasdell, D.Ariz.1993, 154 F.R.D. 675. Federal Civil Procedure
977
289. Bankruptcy actions, statement of entitlement
An allegation of petition for discharge or temporary release from custody under order of commitment for contempt
in failing to obey turnover order in bankruptcy proceeding that petitioners “are presently unable to comply with the
turnover order,” was insufficient to show petitioners' right to such relief, but, even if it were sufficient, District Court
did not err in striking and dismissing petition, where it also alleged that “petitioners are unable, upon advice of
counsel, to offer the necessary evidence in support of it.” In re Roxy Liquor Corp., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1939, 107 F.2d
533. Bankruptcy
2134
Complaint filed by bankruptcy trustee for church and investors in Ponzi scheme maintained by church against
church's bank alleged facts that put bank on fair notice of trustee's and investors' claims for aiding and abetting
crimes and torts, assisting breach of fiduciary duties, breaching duty to warn and control, and negligence, as required
under rules of civil procedure; complaint alleged acts, practices, and policies that bank committed and put bank on
notice of causes of action that trustee and investors asserted against it. O'Halloran v. First Union Nat. Bank of FL.,
M.D.Fla.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 1296, vacated 350 F.3d 1197. Banks And Banking
226
Allegations in Chapter 7 trustee's complaint against debtor's former officers and directors were sufficient to satisfy
Federal Civil Rule requiring complaint to contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled
to relief, and appeared to state cause of action against officers and directors under Florida law, where complaint alleged that officers and directors negotiated, recommended, and authorized acquisition of two thrift institutions for
purpose of entrenchment and as deterrence to future hostile takeovers, in conscious disregard of debtor's best interests, resulting in substantial financial damage to debtor. In re Southeast Banking Corp., S.D.Fla.1994, 855 F.Supp.
353, affirmed 69 F.3d 1539. Banks And Banking
55(4)
Where creditors' involuntary petition in bankruptcy did not allege the persons to whom alleged fraudulent transfer
was made or date on which it was made, with result that alleged bankrupt was not sufficiently informed as to charge
he would be required to meet, the petition was insufficient and was required to be dismissed. In re Adams,
M.D.Pa.1944, 53 F.Supp. 982. Bankruptcy
2290.1
Under these rules, a creditors' petition alleging that debtor corporation was insolvent and that while insolvent and
within four months of filing of petition debtor had permitted the establishment of statutory liens against its property
and made transfers of property to certain creditors of the same class as petitioners with intent to prefer such creditors
over petitioners, satisfactorily made out, on its face, the creditors' claim for relief through involuntary bankruptcy.
2290.1
Tatum v. Acadian Production Corp. of Louisiana, E.D.La.1940, 35 F.Supp. 40. Bankruptcy
Page 245
Allegations in preference complaint filed by unsecured creditors' committee, which identified challenged transfer by
date, amount and number of payment, clearly provided fair notice of committee's claim, and was sufficient to satisfy
“notice pleading” standard of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In re The IT Group, Inc., Bkrtcy.D.Del.2004, 313
B.R. 370. Bankruptcy
2724
Preference complaint filed by trust established under debtor-manufacturers' confirmed Chapter 11 plan against
warehouseman satisfied applicable pleading requirements; Exhibit A, a vendor report, identified warehouseman as
the relevant creditor and showed the dates and amounts of each debt incurred by debtors, together with the date,
amount, check number, and clear date for each related payment made to warehouseman. In re Hayes Lemmerz Intern., Inc., Bkrtcy.D.Del.2004, 313 B.R. 189. Bankruptcy
2724
Preference complaint sufficiently complied with “notice” pleading requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notwithstanding complainant's inconsequential factual errors in characterizing, as cash exchange, what had
been a barter transaction between debtor and transferee, and in misstating amount of preferential transfer. TWA Inc.
Post Confirmation Estate v. Golf Channel, Bkrtcy.D.Del.2004, 305 B.R. 745. Bankruptcy
2724
Letter sent by creditor to judge objecting to dischargeability of her debt sufficiently laid out her objection to be
deemed a “complaint”; letter and document apprised court of general nature and extent of potential claim, and contained a reference to bankruptcy case to which adversary proceeding related. In re Rand, Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1992, 144
B.R. 253. Bankruptcy
3399
Fact that complaint, which alleged violations of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
[73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq.] and Bankr.Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 329, governing a debtor's transactions with attorneys, in the
course of offering financial counseling to consumers with financial difficulties, lacked specific factual references to
defendant or his activities was not fatal, since complaint gave defendant fair notice of claims against him and
grounds upon which they rested. In re Stevenson, Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1985, 49 B.R. 914. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
358
Complaint provided sufficient notice of debtor in possession's intention to avoid transfer of property to creditor under section 544 of Title 11 vesting trustee with rights of an ideal creditor, without knowledge or notice, and creditor
was in no way prejudiced by debtor's reference to the avoidance of a lien as opposed to the avoidance of an assign2586.1
ment. In re Brent Explorations, Inc., Bkrtcy.D.Colo.1983, 31 B.R. 745. Bankruptcy
Where in earlier petition which was incorporated in later petition by reference, bankrupt railroad alleged its investment in a certain company, the company's method of operation, the reinvestment of its profits, its policy not to pay
dividends and the bankrupt railroad's consequent inability to profit from its investment, such assertions, coupled
with the bankrupt railroad's petition to require the company to purchase the railroad's stock or to convert it into a
debt instrument or into preferred stock on which dividends would be paid, more than satisfied the pleading require633.1
ments of this rule. Matter of Reading Co., E.D.Pa.1980, 2 B.R. 719. Federal Civil Procedure
290. Bivens action, statement of entitlement
In Bivens action against FBI agent by citizen whose conviction for assault with intent to rape and possession of firearm during crime of violence was overturned based on agent's false testimony and failure to disclose potential exculpatory evidence, complaint satisfied requirement in rule of civil procedure of short and plain statement of claim
giving fair notice of claim and grounds upon which it rested; complaint alleged agent withheld exculpatory evidence
from citizen and prosecutors, supplied prosecution with false forensic evidence, and provided false testimony at
trial, and that false evidence and testimony related to agent's testing, findings, and conclusions concerning hair and
50.20
fiber evidence. Bragdon v. Malone, D.D.C.2006, 425 F.Supp.2d 1. United States
Page 246
There is heightened pleading requirement associated with filing of Bivens action for money damages against federal
employees in their individual capacities for constitutional violations. Dorman v. Simpson, N.D.Ga.1995, 893
425
Damage actions under Bivens are subject to heightened standard of pleading, and more than conclusory allegations
of evidence of unconstitutional intent is required. Shannon v. General Elec. Co., N.D.N.Y.1993, 812 F.Supp. 308.
50.20
United States
Former employee who alleged that, following his submission of report which was “very critical” of health and safety
conditions at government-owned laboratory developing nuclear-powered military craft and nuclear weaponry, private employer operating laboratory “commenced deliberate campaign to harass, humiliate, and discredit” him failed
to state cognizable Bivens claim; employee's complaint did not indicate what constitutional rights violated, and did
not allege violations by any individual. Shannon v. General Elec. Co., N.D.N.Y.1993, 812 F.Supp. 308. United
States
50.20
291. Breach of fiduciary duty actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
Complaint to recover from engineering corporation damages for corporation's willful, reckless or negligent performance of its duties under a contract stated a cause of action for breach of duty. City of Daytona Beach v. Gannett
Fleming Corddry & Carpenter, Inc., C.A.5 (Fla.) 1958, 253 F.2d 771. Negligence
1513(2); Negligence
1524(5)
Transportation services company adequately pleaded that its employees owed it fiduciary duty, for purposes of its
claim against competitors for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under District of Columbia law, when it
alleged that employees were hired as senior operations personnel, that employees' duties included inherent requirement to refrain from actively and directly competing with company with respect to a business opportunity, and that
employees were hired to use their best efforts on its behalf for full duration of their employment. National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Veolia Transp. Services, Inc., D.D.C.2009, 592 F.Supp.2d 86. Fraud
44
In order to state a claim against a mutual fund's investment adviser or manager under Investment Company Act
(ICA) for a breach of its fiduciary duty, plaintiff need only set forth a short and plain statement that gives fair notice
of the claim of breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation or other material payments made
by the fund or its shareholders; plaintiff need not plead in a high degree of factual detail any of the Gartenberg factors, but complaint is not sufficient if it rests solely on general and conclusory legal assertions that the fees charged
were excessive. Forsythe v. Sun Life Financial, Inc., D.Mass.2006, 417 F.Supp.2d 100. Securities Regulation
219.1
Investors sufficiently alleged breach of fiduciary duty against investment adviser under Oklahoma law, on allegations that investors reposed complete confidence in adviser to handle their investment accounts, which gave rise to a
fiduciary duty, adviser knew or should have known that investors lacked sufficient investment experience to make
informed decisions about purchase and sale of securities, and adviser failed to properly explain to investors how to
read and interpret account statements and failed to disclose actual risk of transactions. Lillard v. Stockton,
N.D.Okla.2003, 267 F.Supp.2d 1081. Fraud
7; Fraud
16
Claim was stated against director of failed bank by complaint which named each director individually and stated his
role and time of service at bank and alleged that each director had duty to address and improve bank's loan portfolio
and that imprudent loans resulted from director's breach of his duty; separate allegations did not have to be pled
against each defendant as complaint alleged that defendants were individually liable for acts of board of directors
and officers as whole and individually responsible for loan losses. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Paul, D.Utah 1990,
735 F.Supp. 375. Banks And Banking
Page 247
82(6)
Investors' allegations that fiduciary relationship existed between brokers and investors and allegations of specific
acts supporting claim of breach of duty satisfied pleading requirement of “a short and plain statement.” In re Gas
Reclamation, Inc. Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y.1987, 659 F.Supp. 493. Federal Civil Procedure
632
Counterclaim specifying acts and omissions allegedly comprising breaches of fiduciary duty on part of union pension plan trustees, time during which a particular individual was a trustee, and the legal bases for the claims, gave
the individual trustee fair notice of claims against him and the grounds upon which they rested and he was not entitled to more definite statement. McDougall v. Donovan, N.D.Ill.1982, 552 F.Supp. 1206. Federal Civil Procedure
971
Claims brought by litigation trust created by Chapter 11 debtor-corporation's plan of reorganization against debtor's
directors and officers, alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by deepening debtor's insolvency to
enhance their personal wealth and by causing debtor to enter into certain transactions on unfavorable terms, were not
premised on fraud and contained no allegations that amounted to fraudulent conduct on defendants' part, and so the
claims did not have to be pled with particularity, but only had to comply with the notice pleading standard. Rahl v.
Bande, S.D.N.Y.2005, 328 B.R. 387. Bankruptcy
2162
292. ---- Attorney-client relationship, breach of fiduciary duty actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations that defendants had acted as plaintiff's attorneys and that they, in bad faith, and to further their own interests at plaintiff's expense advised plaintiff to terminate his relationship with his employer and intentionally did not
act in plaintiff's best interests were sufficient to state a claim. Fielding v. Brebbia, C.A.D.C.1968, 399 F.2d 1003,
130 U.S.App.D.C. 270. Attorney And Client
129(2)
293. Civil rights actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
A civil rights plaintiff is not required to meet heightened pleading rule in order to survive a motion to dismiss in the
face of a qualified immunity defense, however, in order to survive a motion to dismiss under the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic, a conclusory allegation concerning some elements of a plaintiff's claims might need to be
fleshed out by a plaintiff's response to a defendant's motion for a more definite statement; in addition, even though a
complaint survives a motion to dismiss, a district court, while mindful of the need to vindicate the purpose of the
qualified immunity defense by dismissing non-meritorious claims against public officials at an early stage of litigation, may nonetheless consider exercising its discretion to permit some limited and tightly controlled reciprocal discovery so that a defendant may probe for amplification of a plaintiff's claims and a plaintiff may probe such matters
as a defendant's knowledge of relevant facts and personal involvement in challenged conduct. Iqbal v. Hasty, C.A.2
(N.Y.) 2007, 490 F.3d 143, certiorari granted 128 S.Ct. 2931, 554 U.S. 902, 171 L.Ed.2d 863, reversed and remanded 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, on remand 574 F.3d 820, certiorari granted , cause remanded 129 S.Ct.
2430, 174 L.Ed.2d 226, certiorari granted , cause remanded 129 S.Ct. 2431. Civil Rights
1398
Where a § 1983 claim is asserted against a municipality, only the liberal pleading standards under the notice pleading rule, rather than the heightened pleading standards, apply. Swann v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., C.A.11
(Ala.) 2004, 388 F.3d 834. Civil Rights
1394
Heightened pleading standard does not apply in federal civil rights actions except where either federal statute or
specific civil procedure rule requires that result; in all other cases, court on motion to dismiss for failure to state
claim applies general notice pleading requirements, including requirement for only general averment of state of
mind; overruling Judge v. City of Lowell, 160 F.3d 67, Boston & Me. Corp. v. Town of Hampton, 987 F.2d 855,
Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth Coll., 889 F.2d 13, Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, Data Re-
Page 248
search Corp. v. Rey Hernandez, 261 F.Supp.2d 61, and Lorenzo v. Gallant, 2002 WL 31833751. Educadores Puertorriquenos en Accion v. Hernandez, C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 2004, 367 F.3d 61. Civil Rights
1394
In effort to eliminate nonmeritorious claims on pleadings and to protect public officials from protracted litigation
involving specious claims, application of Rule 8, setting forth requirements to state claim for relief, to application of
§ 1983 cases has been tightened; typically, Rule is more rigidly applied to allegations of conspiracy and absolute
immunity, and to claims pled against local government that challenged conduct constitutes its official policy or custom. Arnold v. Board of Educ. of Escambia County Ala., C.A.11 (Ala.) 1989, 880 F.2d 305, on remand 754 F.Supp.
853. Civil Rights
1394
There is no heightened pleading standard in civil rights cases. Calderon-Garnier v. Sanchez-Ramos, D.Puerto Rico
2006, 439 F.Supp.2d 229, affirmed 506 F.3d 22. Civil Rights
1394
Heightened pleading standard may only be applied by courts in federal civil rights cases where either a federal statute or procedural rule dictate its application; courts adjudicating motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are to
apply the general notice pleading requirements of a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. Nunez Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced, D.Puerto Rico 2005, 389 F.Supp.2d 214. Civil Rights
1394
Despite notice pleading standard, civil rights complaint must still allege facts. Houghton v. Cardone,
W.D.N.Y.2003, 295 F.Supp.2d 268. Civil Rights
1394
Pleadings in § 1983 civil rights suits must set forth more particularized allegations than those normally required by
liberal pleading rules in federal civil cases. Thomas v. New York City, E.D.N.Y.1993, 814 F.Supp. 1139. Civil
Rights
1394
Actions under section 1981 of Title 42 are governed by pleading requirements of this rule governing claims for relief. Jones v. Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal Dist. No. 1, D.C.Colo.1982, 537 F.Supp. 966. Civil Rights
1394
In action for damages against public officials under Civil Rights Act, section 1981 et seq. of Title 42, plaintiff must
allege highly specific facts to defeat motion to dismiss. Friedman v. Younger, C.D.Cal.1969, 46 F.R.D. 444. Federal
Civil Procedure
1788.6
294. ---- Prima facie case, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of
discrimination under McDonnell Douglas framework, but instead, must contain only a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; abrogating Tarshis v. Riese Organization, 211 F.3d 30,
Jackson v. Columbus, 194 F.3d 737, and Austin v. Ford Models, Inc., 149 F.3d 148. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.,
U.S.2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 182 A.L.R. Fed. 725, 152 L.Ed.2d 1. Civil Rights
1532
A complaint alleging retaliation or sex discrimination under Title VII need not satisfy the requirements for establishing a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Williams v. New York
City Housing Authority, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2006, 458 F.3d 67, on remand 2008 WL 2695139. Civil Rights
1532
Employment discrimination complaint need not include specific facts establishing prima facie case of discrimination, but rather must contain only short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief.
Page 249
Leibowitz v. Cornell University, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2006, 445 F.3d 586, on remand 2007 WL 3019223. Civil Rights
1532
Notice pleading requirement does not require §§ 1981 plaintiff to plead a prima facie case of discrimination; it simply requires short and plain statement of claim that will give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and
1395(1)
grounds upon which it rests. Newman v. Borders, Inc., D.D.C.2008, 530 F.Supp.2d 346. Civil Rights
Plaintiff is not required to plead facts establishing prima facie case in order to state claim for employment discrimination; rather, plaintiff need only allege a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief which must simply give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and grounds upon which it rests.
1532
Peres v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., E.D.N.Y.2006, 426 F.Supp.2d 15. Civil Rights
Plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims in the Fourth Circuit must plead facts sufficient to support each element of
a prima facie case. Cockerham ex rel. Cockerham v. Stokes County Bd. of Educ., M.D.N.C.2004, 302 F.Supp.2d
490. Civil Rights
1394
Complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of
discrimination under McDonnell Douglas framework, but instead must contain only a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; Brusseau v. Iona College, S.D.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1933733,
1532
Unreported, reconsideration denied 2002 WL 31014841. Civil Rights
295. ---- Arrest and detention, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations by pro se pretrial detainees that they were punished prior to being sentenced by being placed in restrictive confinement, that they were subjected to lengthy stays in isolation with prisoners who had disciplinary problems
or who were in protective custody, and that they were subjected to additional hardships that were not shared by the
general prison population, stated § 1983 claim against prison warden for violation of detainees' substantive due
process rights; allegations were sufficiently factual to raise detainees' right to relief above a speculative level.
Stevenson v. Carroll, C.A.3 (Del.) 2007, 495 F.3d 62, certiorari denied 128 S.Ct. 1223, 552 U.S. 1180, 170 L.Ed.2d
60. Civil Rights
1395(6)
Non-indictable arrestees' allegations that counties, county jails, and jail wardens maintained municipal policy or
custom of detaining persons without promptly verifying if proper warrants for arrest existed, and that defendants
failed to train, discipline, or control its personnel, were factually sufficient to state claim for wrongful arrest pursuant to §§ 1983. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, D.N.J.2009, 595 F.Supp.2d 492,
amended 657 F.Supp.2d 504, reversed 621 F.3d 296, certiorari granted 131 S.Ct. 1816, 179 L.Ed.2d 772. Civil
Rights
1395(6)
Allegations of arrestee, the pastor of a church, that police detectives, while acting under color of law and inspired by
malice, but without probable cause, arrested him for administering corporal punishment to the children of a parishioner because they did not share or approve of his religious beliefs approving corporal punishment as an appropriate
manner in which to discipline children, that a prosecution followed, and that arrestee prevailed with respect to all
charges, stated a § 1983 claim against detectives; while decidedly concise, complaint nevertheless gave fair notice of
what the claim was and the grounds upon which it rested. Oliver v. Alba, D.Conn.2007, 500 F.Supp.2d 72. Civil
Rights
1395(6)
Arrestee asserted § 1983 claims against county, its district attorney, sheriff, and sheriff officers with sufficient specificity to satisfy notice-pleading requirements; although it was somewhat difficult to discern which of arrestee's constitutional rights were violated, who violated them, or when they were violated from the pleadings, it was possible to
discern the gist of some of his claims, e.g., that officers jointly used excessive force, and that he was falsely arrested
Page 250
and maliciously prosecuted by district attorney. Houghton v. Cardone, W.D.N.Y.2003, 295 F.Supp.2d 268. Civil
Rights
1395(6)
Alien's claims against county police department, in conjunction with § 1983 action that alien filed against village
and various county departments and officers who allegedly violated his civil rights through his arrest and detention,
failed to allege sufficient personal involvement of county police department to comply with rule requiring short and
plain statement showing that pleader was entitled to relief; because complaint against county police department did
not allege any facts against the department, it was unclear what, if any, claims were alleged. Carbajal v. County of
Nassau, E.D.N.Y.2003, 271 F.Supp.2d 415. Civil Rights
1395(6)
Arrestee's complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to undermine police defendants' assertion of unambiguous probable cause, and complaint thus stated claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution under New York law
and § 1983; complaint alleged that on each of four arrest occasions arrests were grounded entirely upon accusations
of fellow tenants in his apartment building, made under circumstances calling into question credibility of accusers.
1395(6); False Imprisonment
Bullard v. City of New York, S.D.N.Y.2003, 240 F.Supp.2d 292. Civil Rights
20(1); Malicious Prosecution
49
296. ---- Condemnation proceedings, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint by property owners under section 1985(2) of Title 42 that defendants were engaged in conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights by attempting to take or deprive them of their property was not sufficiently
specific with respect to conduct of any of the defendants, and only overt acts alleged were condemnation and destruction of building and failure to notify property owner wife of condemnation proceedings; therefore, complaint
was deficient in failing to comply with general requirement that complaint contain direct, simple and concise statement that demonstrates pleader is entitled to relief. Toteff v. Village of Oxford, E.D.Mich.1983, 562 F.Supp. 989.
18
Conspiracy
297. ---- Demonstrations and parades, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint which alleged that deficient supervisory practices of certain state officials resulted in harm to participants
in anti-Klan rally who were attacked by members of Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party did not describe any
misconduct on part of persons named as the supervisors' subordinates, and thus, did not adequately notify the state
officials of how their supervisory practices harmed anyone. Waller v. Butkovich, M.D.N.C.1984, 584 F.Supp. 909.
18
Conspiracy
Complaint which alleged that plaintiffs had applied for a parade permit pursuant to municipal code which required
permit to be issued by department of streets and sanitation if certain conditions were met, which alleged that the
department had twice denied applications for parade permits, and which alleged that the ordinance itself was unconstitutional stated a claim for denial of constitutional rights against city upon which monetary relief could be granted.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Movement Inc. v. City of Chicago, N.D.Ill.1977, 435 F.Supp. 1289. Municipal Corporations
742(4)
298. ---- Due process, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Former maintenance and domestic employees of Puerto Rico governor's mansion stated that governor, governor's
wife, administrator, and mansion chief of staff were aware of their political affiliation at time that they were terminated, as required to state claim of political discrimination under First Amendment, on allegations that defendants
were actively seeking knowledge of their political affiliation from plaintiffs, that information was potentially accessible to defendants from sources other than plaintiffs, and administrator made disparaging remarks about previous
administration. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuño-Burset, C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 2011, 640 F.3d 1. Constitutional Law
1475(10); Territories
Page 251
23
Civil rights complaint met requirement that pleading contain short, plain statement showing entitlement to relief;
complaint, which claimed loss of certain property right in father's estate of which children were deprived due to alleged conspiracy between attorneys and judge in violation of due process, set forth allegations that could establish
1395(1)
basis of federal civil rights claim. Kimes v. Stone, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1996, 84 F.3d 1121. Civil Rights
Discharged county employee's statement in his complaint, in his §§ 1983 action against county officials, that officials' actions constituted wrongful and retaliatory discharge of employee in violation of his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to free exercise of political patronage, political association, and freedom of speech, was insufficient to put officials on notice that dismissal was due process violation; statement simply put officials on notice that
employee alleged that they violated his First Amendment rights and that First Amendment applied to state action via
1395(8)
Fourteenth Amendment. Francis v. Marshall, E.D.Ky.2010, 684 F.Supp.2d 897. Civil Rights
Disabled college students' amended § 1983 complaint failed to sufficiently plead claim that requirements of Ohio
administrative “college training” rule violated due process; rather than giving fair notice of due process claim, complaint made bare assertion that rule was “arbitrary,” and it was not enough that students elaborated on substance of
claim in footnote of their response to motion to dismiss. Jackie S. v. Connelly, S.D.Ohio 2006, 442 F.Supp.2d 503.
1395(2)
Civil Rights
Complaint of parents who chose to educate their children at home, did not give notice to defendant school officials
that parents alleged violation of state-created due process right, entitlement to neutral decision maker, or improper
requirement of instruction only from certified teachers; thus, latter claims were required to be dismissed, as no
proper amendment had been presented to court. Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel, E.D.Mich.1989, 722 F.Supp. 1442. Federal
Civil Procedure
1788.6
Defense contractor, which alleged, inter alia, that it was denied its right to due process by reason of procedure employed during a hearing before wage appeals board, cited facts sufficient to satisfy this rule, in that the allegations
came within section 1346(a)(2) of this title providing that district court shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent
with court of claims, of any civil action or claim against United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount founded
either upon Constitution or any act of Congress. Framlau Corp. v. Dembling, E.D.Pa.1973, 360 F.Supp. 806. Federal
Courts
32
Complaint which alleged, essentially, that state officials participated in conspiracy whereby under color of state law
plaintiff was unlawfully seized and detained, stated cause of action for denial of liberty without due process. Morgan
v. Null, S.D.N.Y.1954, 120 F.Supp. 803. Conspiracy
18
299. ---- Employment, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Former maintenance and domestic employees of Puerto Rico governor's mansion stated that governor had knowledge of their political affiliation and that their political affiliation motivated his participation in their terminations, as
required to state claim of political discrimination under First Amendment, on allegations, among other things, that
governor approved or disapproved of all personnel decisions at mansion, governor personally participated in questioning plaintiffs to learn their political affiliation, and governor stated that those who “did not vote for him” would
be terminated. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuño-Burset, C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 2011, 640 F.3d 1. Constitutional Law
23
Complaint by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that an employee was discharged
in retaliation for his reporting of activity that he reasonably believed violated Title VII to the employer's director of
human resources, did not provide sufficient notice to employer of its Title VII retaliation claim, under notice plead-
Page 252
ing standard; complaint failed to provide some specific description of the conduct in the workplace that employee
1532
reported. E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2007, 496 F.3d 773. Civil Rights
Conclusory allegations in black employees' complaint, that they were “denied promotions and treated differently
than similarly situated white employees solely because of race,” were insufficient to satisfy “notice” pleading standard, and to put employer on notice that employees were complaining of fact that white employees, rather than black
complainants, were hired for two supervisory positions pursuant to employer's allegedly discriminatory policy of
filling the positions by word of mouth without any formal posting; black employees were aware of these two hirings
before they filed their complaint and, by specifically citing these hirings, could have raised their right to relief above
level of speculation. Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., C.A.11 (Ala.) 2008, 516 F.3d 955. Civil Rights
1532
Employee's claim, that employer's policy of not allowing non-supervisory personnel to apply for supervisory positions constituted age discrimination under disparate impact theory, did not fall within rule's liberal pleading standard, such that it could be advanced based on earlier general allegation of discrimination; employee had responsibility of specifically identifying conduct challenged in his complaint in order to put employer on notice of specific
charges levied against it, but failed to identify promotion policy as action challenged. Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co., C.A.8
(Iowa) 1995, 72 F.3d 648, rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied. Civil Rights
1532
Filing of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “charge of discrimination,” in which plaintiff laid out factual
basis for claim of discrimination in considerable detail, in conjunction with filing of right-to-sue letter, adequately
complied with “short and plain statement” requirement of this rule, and satisfied requirement of section 2000e-5 of
Title 42 that a lawsuit be brought within 90 days from issuance of right-to-sue letter. Judkins v. Beech Aircraft
Corp., C.A.11 (Ala.) 1984, 745 F.2d 1330. Civil Rights
1530
Allegations of amended complaint were specific enough to give restaurant corporation and owner fair notice of District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA) claims being asserted by three of five restaurant employees;
amended complaint alleged that two of them were terminated due to their religious observance of Ramadan and
Christmas Eve, respectively, during their tenure as employees at restaurant and that third was fired for speaking
Spanish, and defendants could be reasonably expected to know approximately when those employees were termi1740
nated. Arencibia v. 2401 Restaurant Corp., D.D.C.2010, 699 F.Supp.2d 318. Civil Rights
To survive motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination or retaliation
under Title VII is not required to plead facts sufficient to establish prima facie case; rather, ordinary rules for assessing sufficiency of complaint under notice pleading standard set forth in federal procedural rule pertaining to general
1532
rules of pleading applies. Krasner v. HSH Nordbank AG, S.D.N.Y.2010, 680 F.Supp.2d 502. Civil Rights
Employment discrimination complaints do not require greater particularity and, like most other civil complaints,
need only comply with notice pleading rule's simplified pleading requirements. Meadows v. Planet Aid, Inc.,
E.D.N.Y.2009, 676 F.Supp.2d 83. Civil Rights
1532
Complaint alleging that employee was subjected to a hostile work environment, not promoted, and otherwise harassed due to his country of national origin, race, and/or religion, in violation of Title VII, satisfied short and plain
1532
statement requirement. Ibrahim v. Unisys Corp., D.D.C.2008, 582 F.Supp.2d 41. Civil Rights
Allegations that fire captain repeatedly made racist jokes and threats, that firefighter felt fearful as result, and that
firefighter complained about conduct to no avail were sufficient to plead claim for hostile work environment in violation of Title VII; although complaint did not use term “hostile work environment,” it cited statutory basis for re1532
covery. Streater v. City of Camden Fire Dept., D.N.J.2008, 567 F.Supp.2d 667. Civil Rights
Page 253
Notice-pleading standard embodied in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs complaints that assert Title VII
employment-discrimination claims. Howard v. Gutierrez, D.D.C.2007, 474 F.Supp.2d 41, reconsideration denied
1532
Dismissal of former school district employee's pro se discrimination complaint against state-wide educators' union
and its local affiliate, as well as affiliate's president and employees of union and affiliate, was unwarranted, given
long-established preference for deciding cases on merits, even though complaint was neither short nor plain and
contained other deficiencies rendering court's task more difficult. Malcolm v. Honeoye Falls-Lima Educ. Ass'n,
W.D.N.Y.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 100. Labor And Employment
1985
Diabetic employee's complaint, which gave no indication as to his entitlement to unpaid leave due to a “serious
health condition” which was denied by his employer nor to employer's alleged interference and or retaliation based
on having availed himself of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) benefits, failed to meet a minimum notice
requirement by putting employer in a position to defend itself from the claims. Diaz Rivera v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Puerto Rico, Inc., D.Puerto Rico 2009, 626 F.Supp.2d 244. Labor And Employment
388
While employees are not required to plead even prima facie case of discrimination under New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination (NJLAD), they still must meet standard of notice-pleading rule. Figueroa v. City of Camden,
D.N.J.2008, 580 F.Supp.2d 390. Civil Rights
1740
Imposing heightened pleading standard in employment discrimination cases conflicts with notice pleading rule providing that complaint must include only short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief;
thus, complaint in employment discrimination case must simply give employer fair notice of what employee's claim
is and grounds upon which it rests. Ware v. Nicklin Associates, Inc., D.D.C.2008, 580 F.Supp.2d 158. Civil Rights
1532
Because racial discrimination is claim for which relief can be granted, statement in Title VII case averring “I was
terminated because of my race” is sufficient to satisfy notice pleading rule. Emiabata v. Marten Transport, Ltd.,
W.D.Wis.2007, 574 F.Supp.2d 912. Civil Rights
1532
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) allegations that employer retaliated against female employee, in violation of Title VII, by preventing her from accomplishing her job and discharging her because she
complained to manager about sexual harassment, provided short and plain statement of the claim showing that
EEOC was entitled to relief, as required by rule governing pleadings. E.E.O.C. v. Thomas Dodge Corp. of N.Y.,
1532
Federal Rules do not contain a heightened pleading standard for employment discrimination suits; instead, complaint
need only contain a short and plain statement of claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Watson v.
American Red Cross Blood Services, W.D.N.Y.2007, 468 F.Supp.2d 484. Civil Rights
1532
Allegations of former county police officer, that city had policy of indifference toward claims of retaliation for exercise of First Amendment protected speech, satisfied minimum pleading requirements and thus were sufficient to
sustain § 1983 claim of municipal liability for supervisors' failure to properly investigate claims that he was subjected to adverse employment action in retaliation for his criticism of department. Wallace v. Suffolk County Police
Dept., E.D.N.Y.2005, 396 F.Supp.2d 251. Civil Rights
1395(8)
Former Director of Pennsylvania Bureau of Blindness & Visual Services sufficiently pled, under liberal pleading
standard, a “stigma-plus” claim under § 1983 by alleging that following her termination, numerous members of
Page 254
blind community protested and that Department of Labor and Industry along with Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR), issued statements in response to uproar, including one saying that her termination was justified by compelling, performance-based reasons involving behavior unacceptable from employee in a policymaking position.
Boone v. Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, M.D.Pa.2005, 373 F.Supp.2d 484. Civil Rights
1395(8)
Under notice pleading standard, employee's retaliation complaint sufficiently alleged that he “caused” coworker to
file wage and hour claim with Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) where it expressly stated that he “encouraged” coworker to file BOLI claim. Onken v. W.L. May Co., D.Or.2004, 300 F.Supp.2d 1066. Labor And Employment
858
Under general notice pleading standard, single incident alleged in § 1983 complaint, especially if it involved only
actors below the policy-making level, does not suffice to show a municipal policy, as required to impose liability on
1394
municipality. Dean v. New York City Transit Authority, E.D.N.Y.2004, 297 F.Supp.2d 549. Civil Rights
Allegations in complaint of female employee of city transit authority against supervisor were sufficient to put supervisor on notice of employee's gender discrimination claim, under § 1983. Dean v. New York City Transit Authority,
1395(8)
Terminated city employee's claim that city officials failed to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on continuing basis employee's supervisor to refrain from otherwise depriving employee of his constitutional and statutory
rights, privileges, and immunities was too vague to satisfy notice pleading requirements and give notice to officials
of cause of action asserted and their conduct that gave rise to it. Jessamy v. City of New Rochelle, New York,
S.D.N.Y.2003, 292 F.Supp.2d 498. Civil Rights
1395(8); Municipal Corporations
218(9)
African-American employees of state human services department stated claims of racial discrimination against each
of three senior officers of department, by alleging that they violated procedures by bringing friend into department,
promoting her over claimants, and retaliating when claimants filed discrimination claims with Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in each case identifying official involved. Bankhead v. Arkansas Dept. of Human
Services, E.D.Ark.2003, 264 F.Supp.2d 805, reversed 360 F.3d 839, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 57, 543 U.S. 818,
160 L.Ed.2d 26. Civil Rights
1135; States
53; Civil Rights
1249(1)
Employee's claim that supervisor retaliated against her when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him was
deficient insofar as it did not provide any indication of how or when the alleged retaliation occurred, and complaint
was also deficient with respect to retaliatory failure to promote allegation, which did not specify position to which
employee expected to be promoted. Kato v. Ishihara, S.D.N.Y.2002, 239 F.Supp.2d 359, affirmed 360 F.3d 106.
858; Civil Rights
1740
Labor And Employment
Male former employee's pro se complaint, which was a copy of his motion for reconsideration filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), was sufficient to inform Secretary of the Army of the claims alleged, and thus, would not be dismissed for failure to provide a short and plain statement of the claims and the
grounds on which they rested; Secretary was able to prepare a motion for summary judgment addressing the merits
of the claims and dismissal of the complaint would have delayed resolution of the matter. Washington v. White,
D.D.C.2002, 231 F.Supp.2d 71. Civil Rights
1532
Employee's allegations against employer pushed the limits of rule setting forth general rules of pleading, and came
close to boundaries of rule requiring attorneys to make reasonable inquiry into facts and law prior to filing complaint
with court, where employee alleged that corporation and her employer should be considered a single employer for
Title VII purposes, but admitted in complaint that she was unsure of the two entities' legal relationship, and failed to
set forth any fact indicating that the two entities had interrelated operations. Chisholm v. Foothill Capital Corp.,
N.D.Ill.1996, 940 F.Supp. 1273. Civil Rights
Page 255
2771(5)
State transportation authority employee's complaint, alleging that authority failed to follow its own guidelines when
conducting random drug test which led to his discharge, was too vague to allege race or gender discrimination in
violation of §§ 1981 or 1983, and it did not give proper notice to authority as to what acts might have been discriminatory, so as to enable authority to properly defend claims; complaint did not disclose what specific facts might be
basis for inference of §§ 1981 or 1983 violation, nor explain why any of these acts might be proof of discrimination.
1395(8)
Frederick v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, E.D.Pa.1995, 892 F.Supp. 122. Civil Rights
Former state employee's amended complaint that various state officials believed that she had spoken out improperly
and that they demoted and then discharged her in retaliation was sufficient to state civil rights claim. Werthman v.
Illinois Dept. of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, N.D.Ill.1993, 831 F.Supp. 625. Civil Rights
1740
In forma pauperis application stating that nature of action was “a suit for race and sex discrimination in employment” could not be construed as “complaint” for purposes of pleading rule and Title VII's requirement that action be
brought within 90 days of dismissal of charge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); statement
did not qualify as short and plain statement of claim showing that applicant was entitled to relief in that it contained
no information as to either race or sex of applicant or acts of employer purportedly amounting to discrimination.
1530; Civil Rights
Mumphrey v. James River Paper Co., Inc., W.D.Ark.1991, 777 F.Supp. 1458. Civil Rights
1532
Right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, together with application to proceed in forma pauperis, did not meet pleading
requirements of this rule, when filed with the district court, and thus did not stop the running of the 90-day limitation
period following receipt of the letter within which plaintiff had to file his civil action under Title VII, though application to proceed in forma pauperis indicated that nature of the action was race and national origin discrimination in
termination of employment, and the date of the alleged discriminatory act was stated, where there was no jurisdictional assertion or demand for judgment and no statement of facts showing plaintiff's entitlement to relief. Coulibaly
v. T.G.I. Friday's, Inc., S.D.Ind.1985, 623 F.Supp. 860. Civil Rights
1530
Allegation of employment discrimination plaintiff that director of occupational relations for community college discriminated against plaintiff because of race in making various job decisions satisfied liberal notice pleading standards, asserted claim against director, and supported a claim for punitive damages from the director. Zewde v. Elgin
Community College, N.D.Ill.1984, 601 F.Supp. 1237. Civil Rights
1395(8)
United States Supreme Court's decision holding that filing of complaint commences civil action even for purposes of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 2000e et seq. of Title 42, could be applied retroactively to preclude
plaintiff who filed right-to-sue letter and explanatory affidavit three and a half years before the decision from asserting that filing of those two documents commenced his case where it was not unforeseeable that the Supreme Court
would conclude that mere filing of right-to-sue letter would not commence a civil action under section 2000e et seq.
of Title 42 and where case law existing at time plaintiff filed his documents did not suggest that civil action could be
commenced solely by filing the right-to-sue letter. Birge v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., N.D.Ga.1984, 597 F.Supp. 448.
Complaint alleging that on or about certain date, plaintiff was terminated by defendant “on the basis of his age
which was 60” satisfied minimal standards of notice pleading. Oxman v. WLS-TV, N.D.Ill.1984, 595 F.Supp. 557.
1532
Civil Rights
Allegations that defendants engaged in course of conduct while plaintiff was in their employ that had the effect of
harassing him, that such conduct included assigning plaintiff to menial and demeaning tasks not required of similarly situated employees, and subjecting him to ethnic, racial and religious slurs, that conduct culminated in dis-
Page 256
missal of him, and that harassment and dismissal were based upon plaintiff's religion and national origin were sufficient to meet requirements of short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader was entitled to relief.
Obradovich v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, S.D.N.Y.1983, 569 F.Supp. 785. Federal Civil Procedure
632
Complaint which alleged that black employee was discriminatorily laid off because of his race, that he filed a charge
of employment discrimination, that the employer failed to recall him, and that he sought back pay to compensate
him for the allegedly discriminatory layoff was sufficient to put the employer on notice of the nature of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rested. Linder v. Litton Systems, Inc., Amecom Division, D.C.Md.1978,
673
Complaint of employee against California employer alleging racial discrimination should have alleged that an
unlawful employment practice charge had been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within
210 days after claimed unlawful employment practice occurred, that a reference to California procedure had been
made, and that the action had been filed with court within thirty days after notification by Commission that it was
unable to achieve voluntary compliance. Nishiyama v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., C.D.Cal.1970, 49 F.R.D. 288.
1532
Civil Rights
Former employee's allegations that he was wrongfully terminated without any legal right or justification failed to
give employer fair notice of employee's claim under Title VII, where complaint failed to incorporate any factual
allegations that would indicate how employee's race, gender, age, or national origin played role in decision to termi1532
nate employee. Valle v. Bally Total Fitness, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22244552, Unreported. Civil Rights
Detectives with a city police department failed to state a claim against the city regarding alleged discrimination
against black and Hispanic undercover officers in the failure to provide sufficient safety measures to undercover
officers, which allegedly affected minority members disproportionately; it was not reasonable to infer that sergeants
in charge intentionally placed fellow police officers in peril because the officers were Black or Hispanic. Tamayo v.
City of New York, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21448366, Unreported. Civil Rights
1532
300. ---- Age discrimination, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations that 79-year-old waitress suffered “continuous harassment” by restaurant's owner/general manager and
his subordinates and that defendants repeatedly made degrading comments to plaintiff, including, but not limited to,
“drop dead,” “retire early,” “take off all of that make-up,” and “take off your wig,” stated a valid cause of action
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for discrimination based on a hostile work environment,
even though the complaint did not explicitly allege discrimination based on a hostile work environment. Kassner v.
2nd Avenue Delicatessen Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2007, 496 F.3d 229. Civil Rights
1532
Former employees were not required to plead that age discrimination was the “but for” cause of their termination to
prevail on discrimination claims under New York's Executive Law, even though such a showing was required for a
prima facie case; establishing a prima facie case was an evidentiary standard and not a pleading requirement. Fagan
v. U.S. Carpet Installation, Inc., E.D.N.Y.2011, 770 F.Supp.2d 490. Civil Rights
1740
Plaintiff's allegations that he was 74 years old, that he was terminated because of his age, that he was told he was
“too old” to continue working and letting him go would make way for “younger blood,” and that he was replaced by
a younger employee provided defendants with fair notice of basis for his age discrimination claim. Banks v. Correctional Services Corp., E.D.N.Y.2007, 475 F.Supp.2d 189. Civil Rights
1740
Page 257
Older employee's proposed amended complaint adequately alleged pattern of discriminatory acts by coworkers that
her superiors failed to remedy, which if proved, could support finding of age-based hostile work environment under
ADEA and New York law; proposed amended complaint alleged that defendants' discriminatory actions were pervasive and continuous and were known in the workplace, that upon information and belief, defendants' conduct diminished plaintiff's credibility in the workplace which undermined plaintiff's authority over her subordinates and negatively impacted her ability to perform her managerial role, and that conduct described altered conditions of plaintiff's
employment. Bonano v. Southside United Housing Development Corp., E.D.N.Y.2005, 363 F.Supp.2d 559. Federal
Civil Procedure
851
Public employee was not precluded from bringing age discrimination claim against employer after erroneously
bringing action under Title VII, and not under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); it was apparent
from face of the complaint that employee had pled a viable cause of action under ADEA. Errichetti v. Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, D.Mass.2004, 300 F.Supp.2d 270. Civil Rights
1532
Employee, who was 61 years of age at time of his termination as a chief estimator for employer, a building contractor, sufficiently alleged prima facie case of age discrimination against employer under the ADEA; employee alleged
that employer intentionally terminated him 15 days after he returned to work following surgery, that he was replaced
by significantly younger employee, and that he was entitled to liquidated damages for his employer's willful viola1532
tions of the ADEA. Gottesman v. J.H. Batten, Inc., M.D.N.C.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 604. Civil Rights
Employee alleged sufficient facts to support claim of age discrimination under the ADEA to provide employer with
fair notice of his claims and grounds upon which they rested; employee alleged that he was 60 years old at time of
his termination by employer, that he was discharged because of age, and that employer's nepotism policies were
applied to him as a means of singling him out because of his age. Moskowitz v. Alliance Capital Management, Inc.,
S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22427845, Unreported. Civil Rights
1532
Pro se job applicant sufficiently alleged claims of race and age discrimination under Title VII and ADEA to furnish
university with notice of his discrimination claims; applicant was member of protected class under both statutes
based on his status as African-American over age of 40, and applicant alleged that he applied for open position at
university in response to advertisement, that university's selection committee knew of his race, age, and qualifications, and that university rejected his application and did not seek to interview him while it continued to seek others
with his qualifications. Johnson v. Trustees of Columbia University In City of New York, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL
2013371, Unreported, report and recommendation adopted 2003 WL 21433455. Civil Rights
1532
Terminated employee's age discrimination complaint sufficiently alleged that employer and related corporate entities
were single integrated enterprise, and thus stated claims against both employer and entities; complaint set out in detail allegations of interrelated operations, centralized control of labor relations, common management, and common
ownership or interest. Waring v. Carrier Corp., D.Conn.2002, 2002 WL 31106377, Unreported. Civil Rights
1532
301. ---- Disability discrimination, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations of prisoner's complaint, that prison officials prevented him from using community work centers, accessing satellite and regional prison facilities, working in prison kitchen, and attending school because he had Hepatitis
C, chronic back problems, and psychiatric conditions, sufficiently alleged that he was being denied benefits of services, programs, or activities for which public entity was responsible, or was otherwise discriminated against by
public entity, and that such discrimination was by reason of his disability, as required to state cause of action under
ADA's Title II, which prohibits discrimination in services, programs, or activities of public entity. Hale v. King,
C.A.5 (Miss.) 2011, 642 F.3d 492. Civil Rights
1098
Page 258
Allegations in employee's ADA complaint, that she suffered from end-stage renal disease and that it substantially
limited major life activities, were sufficient to meet notice pleading requirement with respect to disability; thus, employee was entitled to establish that her end-stage renal disease substantially limited her ability to care for herself.
1532
Fiscus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., C.A.3 (Pa.) 2004, 385 F.3d 378. Civil Rights
Shopping mall customer who suffered from severe brain damage, and whose physical disability required him to use
cane, demonstrated that he had standing to sue under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by alleging that he
encountered barriers at clothing store within shopping mall and that he was deterred from visiting clothing store
1331(6)
because of these barriers. O'Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, E.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 976. Civil Rights
Plaintiff who brought action for equitable relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against warehouse
owner to remove architectural barriers in warehouse parking lot failed to give adequate notice under notice pleading
rule of “route of travel” barrier claim which was not included among list of four barriers specifically included in
complaint by making general allegation of existence of architectural barriers in phrase “which include but are not
limited to.” Sharp v. Costco Wholesale Corp., D.Md.2008, 577 F.Supp.2d 767, affirmed 328 Fed.Appx. 272, 2009
WL 1845593. Civil Rights
1395(1)
County parks department employee and his guardian ad litem stated a municipal liability claim under § 1983 against
county by alleging that employee's co-workers discriminated against employee on basis of his disability and took
similar actions toward other disabled employees, that co-workers' actions toward employee were part of a pattern of
misconduct and harassment toward disabled individuals that was known by county, and that county failed to adequately train, supervise, and discipline co-workers in such a way that it amounted to a deliberate indifference to the
rights of county employees who worked for them. Costabile v. County of Westchester, New York, S.D.N.Y.2007,
1395(8)
Pro se plaintiffs' complaint alleging that State of Texas violated ADA by failing to assist them in New York foreclosure proceeding did not contain short and plain statement showing that plaintiffs were entitled to relief, as required
by federal rules; it was unclear on the face of the complaint what relation, if any, the State of Texas had with plaintiffs' foreclosure action that allegedly occurred in New York. Aquino v. Prudential Life and Cas. Ins. Co.,
E.D.N.Y.2005, 419 F.Supp.2d 259. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(2)
Employee's allegation that his morbid obesity played a “substantial” role in decision to terminate his employment
was consistent with requirement for establishing prima facie Rehabilitation Act case that termination was solely by
reason of disability; use of word “substantial,” though imprecise, did not foreclose possibility of proving that termination was solely on account of his disability, and construed liberally could refer to real, as distinguished from pretextual, reason for termination, or mean that reasons for termination were ultimately causally related to disability.
1221; Civil Rights
Alfano v. Bridgeport Airport Services, Inc., D.Conn.2005, 373 F.Supp.2d 1. Civil Rights
1532
Medicaid benefit recipients who sued Massachusetts Division of Medical Assistance (DMA), alleging that DMA
violated their rights by denying doctor-recommended breast reduction surgery, alleged sufficient facts to give DMA
fair notice of their claim under ADA provision prohibiting discrimination in public services, and the grounds upon
which it rested; complaint alleged that recipients were morbidly obese, that recipients were disabled persons or perceived to be disabled, and that DMA's policy or practice of denying medically necessary breast reduction surgery to
them because of their obesity constituted discrimination on the basis of disability. Mendez v. Brown, D.Mass.2004,
1395(1)
Dismissal at pleading stage of ADA claim based on unspecified “illness” without entertaining questions of proof
was appropriate; pleadings were so vague and employee's disability was so undefined that court was forced to assume what disability was alleged. Matheson v. Virgin Islands Community Bank, Corp., D.Virgin Islands 2003, 297
Page 259
1532
Former employee's allegations that he was qualified individual with disability within meaning of ADA were sufficiently broad to put employer on notice of his claim that he was regarded as having substantial impairment for purposes of rule requiring short and plain statement of claim, even though he only mentioned in complaint that he was
substantially limited in activity of lifting. Smith v. Quikrete Companies, Inc., W.D.Ky.2002, 204 F.Supp.2d 1003.
1532
Civil Rights
Student's complaint against college alleging disability discrimination under ADA and Rehabilitation Act failed to
give college fair notice of her claims as required by rule, absent any allegation as to exact nature of her disability,
how she was excluded from benefit of education based solely on her disability, and what accommodations she re1395(2)
quested from college. Bracey v. Buchanan, E.D.Va.1999, 55 F.Supp.2d 416. Civil Rights
Plaintiff's citation to incorrect regulation section in his complaint for violation of Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) did not alter clear, fair notice afforded by allegations in plaintiff's complaint, in light of plaintiff's clear allegations that certain of defendants' conduct constituted discrimination and denial of benefits of services, programs, or
activities based on plaintiff's relationship with individual with know disability. Niece v. Fitzner, E.D.Mich.1996,
922 F.Supp. 1208. Civil Rights
1395(7)
In action under ADA alleging that dentist engaged in pattern or practice of discrimination by refusing to treat persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), government's request for monetary damages for “other
persons aggrieved” provided dentist with fair notice of claim, even though allegedly aggrieved persons were not
1395(1)
identified. U.S. v. Morvant, E.D.La.1994, 843 F.Supp. 1092. Civil Rights
Employee's complaint failed to provide employer with sufficient notice of factual basis of her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims; employee did no more than formulaicly recite the definition of disability under the ADA, and elements of ADEA cause of action. Sprague v. Kasa
Indus. Controls, Inc., D.Kan.2008, 250 F.R.D. 630. Civil Rights
1532
Employee's allegations that employer's actions, including making repeated public and mean-spirited non-business
related medical inquiries, created a hostile working environment based on employee's disability did not give employer fair notice of a prohibited medical inquiries claim under the ADA and was not a short and plain statement of
such a claim. Grimsley v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., C.A.11 (Ga.) 2008, 284 Fed.Appx. 604, 2008 WL 2435581, Unre1532
ported. Civil Rights
Detectives with a city police department, who allegedly suffered “extreme respiratory discomfort ... resulting in
medical and respiratory problems” as a result of the non-enforcement of smoking regulations, failed to state a claim
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); they did not allege that they were substantially limited because of
this disability, or provide any facts that would permit such a conclusion, nor did they allege that the city discriminated on the basis of this disability. Tamayo v. City of New York, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21448366, Unreported.
1532
Civil Rights
Former employee adequately alleged that she was regarded as having an impairment that substantially limited one or
more of major life activities, and thus that she had a “disability” within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); employee alleged that despite being able to return to work and satisfactorily perform the duties of
her position, her supervisor told her to go on permanent disability. Harewood v. Beth Israel Medical Center,
1532
Former teacher stated claims against city board of education, city teachers' retirement system, and city for retaliation
Page 260
for her complaints of discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation
Act, New York law and city administrative code, despite defendants' claim that they had “not treated [the teacher]
any differently since she filed the charge of discrimination or commenced this action”; the teacher clearly alleged
the facts giving rise to her claims for retaliation and set forth 11 adverse actions allegedly committed by the defendants as a result of her complaints. Bloom v. New York City Bd. of Educ. Teachers' Retirement System of Cty of
New York, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 1740528, Unreported. Schools
147.12
Allegations by former employee that she made repeated requests to employer for a transfer to a non-physical clerical
position, that employer failed to offer her a position that met her physical restrictions, and that employer failed to
accommodate her disability was sufficient, under a “short and plain statement” pleading standard, to state a claim
against employer for violation of the ADA. Burch v. Beth Israel Medical Center, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 253177,
1532
Unreported. Civil Rights
Even if illegal alien were precluded from seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violation of ADA,
former employee was not required to plead that he was legally working in United States to state claim that former
employer's termination of employee, who suffered from kidney failure and required dialysis, violated ADA; nothing
in rules of civil procedure required heightened pleading standard for such claim. Lopez v. Superflex, Ltd.,
1532
302. ---- Education and schools, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations by plaintiffs seeking reimbursement of attorney fees incurred in administrative actions regarding students' special education eligibility and services were sufficient to satisfy notice pleading requirements, despite District's contention they had not alleged a predicate statutory violation under the IDEA; plaintiffs had provided District
with facts surrounding each payment at issue, amount requested, and the statute that allegedly provided relief, the
155.5(5)
IDEA. Bowman v. District of Columbia, D.D.C.2008, 562 F.Supp.2d 30. Schools
An amended complaint seeking injunction against alleged racial segregation in schools, which did not meet objections which resulted in dismissal of original complaint but contained confusing and foggy mixture of evidentiary
statements, arguments and conclusory matter, and did not lend itself to meaningful answers, and motion for preliminary injunctive relief based in part upon such complaint and supported by no affidavits except that of attorney which
did not show personal knowledge of facts, were insufficient, requiring denial of preliminary relief and dismissal
121; Injunction
144
without prejudice. Johnson v. Hunger, S.D.N.Y.1967, 266 F.Supp. 590. Injunction
303. ---- Perjury by federal officers, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint which did not mention by name State Bureau of Investigation officials, who presumably were included in
paragraph of complaint that accused all defendants alleged to be involved in alleged cover-up of alleged official
involvement in attack by members of Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party against participants in anti-Klan rally
of testifying falsely or incompletely concerning the attack or otherwise misrepresenting or withholding relevant evidence from one or more of seven agencies listed as having conducted investigations of the attack, was not sufficiently specific to give such defendants fair notice to which they were entitled. Waller v. Butkovich, M.D.N.C.1984,
633.1
304. ---- Prisoners and prisons, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Muslim Pakistani pretrial detainee's Bivens complaint against government officials failed to plead sufficient facts to
state claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination; complaint challenged neither constitutionality of detainee's
arrest nor his initial detention but rather policy of holding post-September 11th detainees once they were categorized
as of “high interest,” and complaint thus had to contain facts plausibly showing that officials purposefully adopted
Page 261
policy of so classifying detainees because of their race, religion, or national origin. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S.2009, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, on remand 574 F.3d 820. United States
50.20
Prison medical officials' alleged discontinuation of course of treatment for prisoner diagnosed with hepatitis C,
shortly after prisoner began the treatment when the treatment allegedly would take one year, which allegedly caused
continued damage to prisoner's liver, was sufficient to constitute “substantial harm” to prisoner, for purpose of prisoner's pro se § 1983 claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Erickson v. Pardus, U.S.2007, 127 S.Ct.
2197, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081, on remand 238 Fed.Appx. 335, 2007 WL 1636290. Prisons
17(2);
1546
Sentencing And Punishment
Prisoner's complaint in which he alleged that prison officials substantially burdened his religious exercise by denying him various accommodations established plausible entitlement to relief under RLUIPA, and thus satisfied the
short and plain statement pleading standard, even though complaint did not cite to RLUIPA; prisoner did reference
RLUIPA in subsequent motion and his opposition to summary judgment. Alvarez v. Hill, C.A.9 (Or.) 2008, 518
F.3d 1152, on remand 2010 WL 582217. Civil Rights
1397
Inmate's complaint in his § 1983 action against prison doctor, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs in violation of Eighth Amendment, satisfied pleading requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim
sufficient to notify defendant of allegations and enable him to file an answer; complaint alleged that inmate severely
injured his finger while in prison and failed to receive adequate, timely care because doctor did not want to interrupt
his holiday, and that such failure resulted in permanent disfigurement, loss of range of motion, and infliction of unnecessary pain. Edwards v. Snyder, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2007, 478 F.3d 827, on remand 2007 WL 1225349. Civil Rights
1395(7)
Inmate's allegations that he was fired from his position at prison sewing shop because he inquired about the availability of lay-in pay when corrections officer announced that the sewing shop would be closed stated § 1983 claim
for retaliation under federal notice pleading standards. McElroy v. Lopac, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2005, 403 F.3d 855. Civil
Rights
1395(7)
Prisoner whose complaint alleging equal protection and § 1981 civil rights claims against prison officials was deficient in specifying degree of officials' personal involvement was nevertheless entitled under Schultea two-step
pleading process to respond with greater specificity to officials' assertion of qualified immunity defense before complaint could be dismissed for failure to state claim. Todd v. Hawk, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1995, 72 F.3d 443. Civil Rights
1398
Where broad and conclusory statements in prison inmate's civil rights action complaint charging prison guard with
harassing inmate by threatening him, causing mental distress by assigning plaintiff to cell below the cell of a boisterous prisoner and taking away inmate's notes of testimony were not supported by specific factual allegations, complaint was properly dismissed. Esser v. Weller, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1972, 467 F.2d 949. Federal Civil Procedure
1788.10
State prisoner's allegation that private company that contracted with state prison for prisoners to perform tomato
picking on behalf of the company received an indirect financial benefit and competitive advantage from paying
lower wages was too vague and conclusory, as well as implausible, to satisfy short and plain statement requirement
for stating a claim that company violated the Rehabilitation Act. Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., D.Ariz.2010, 734
F.Supp.2d 938, subsequent determination 2011 WL 53063. Civil Rights
1395(7)
State prisoner's allegations in his §§ 1983 complaint that first correctional officer instigated his beating by second
officer by, without provocation, verbally harassing prisoner, calling him “smart ass,” cursing loudly at him, and preventing him from allowing his teacher to vouch for his absence from classroom, failed to plead sufficient facts to
Page 262
establish actual knowledge component of subjective prong of §§ 1983 Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim
1395(7)
against first officer. Bridgewater v. Taylor, S.D.N.Y.2010, 698 F.Supp.2d 351. Civil Rights
Inmate's pro se complaint against prison's medical provider for medical negligence and violations of the Eighth
Amendment was sufficient to put provider on notice that inmate was asserting claims against it alleging that for 19day period he was deprived of medication prescribed for his stomach ailments; although complaint did not explicitly
link provider with any alleged wrongful conduct and did not explicitly allege that provider was the employer of the
medical staff or that it was responsible for medical care at the prison during the 19-day period, complaint expressly
linked the alleged wrongful conduct with the medical staff, and provider was responsible for medical care at the
facility during that period. Jackson v. Correctional Corporation of America, D.D.C.2008, 564 F.Supp.2d 22. Civil
Rights
1395(7); Prisons
311
To the extent that inmate's allegations that District of Columbia violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exposing
him to cold temperatures and by failing to provide him diabetic meals purported to bring an Eighth Amendment
claim pertaining to medical or dental care, allegations did not give District adequate notice of claim; inmate did not
allege a need for medical or dental care, a request for medical or dental care, or defendants' refusal to provide medi1395(7)
cal or dental care. Banks v. District of Columbia, D.D.C.2008, 559 F.Supp.2d 63. Civil Rights
Prisoner's § 1983 complaint adequately stated a First Amendment retaliation claim where it alleged that he was assaulted and written up for assault on staff because he verbally complained to guard's superior, detailed the surrounding events, and provided the substance the verbal complaint as well as relevant dates, even though it did not provide
the name of the superior; the allegations showed that prisoner engaged in constitutionally protected speech and that
the speech was causally connected to the retaliatory acts, and thus provided fair notice of the claims. Varela v.
Demmon, S.D.N.Y.2007, 491 F.Supp.2d 442. Civil Rights
1395(7)
Attorney's pro se civil rights complaint challenging constitutionality of state's parole revocation procedures and his
removal from list maintained by state board of prison terms (BPT) from which attorneys were appointed to represent
parolees in parole revocation proceedings failed to make short and plain statement of his claim, and thus would be
dismissed, where complaint contained page after page of descriptive and often hyperbolic narrative, quotations from
articles, descriptions of interviews and legal argument, and lengthy digression on governor's purported relationship
with prison guard's union. Jacobson v. Schwarzenegger, C.D.Cal.2004, 357 F.Supp.2d 1198. Civil Rights
1395(1)
Allegations contained in § 1983 plaintiff's right of access claim, which asserted that police and prosecutorial defendants obstructed plaintiff's criminal investigation and withheld exculpatory evidence necessary for him to pursue his
constitutional claims, were deficient, since they did not plead a short and plain statement of the underlying claims
and did not establish that plaintiff had been denied adequate legal redress for any legitimate claim. Patterson v.
Burge, N.D.Ill.2004, 328 F.Supp.2d 878. Civil Rights
1395(5)
Inmate's pro se claim for retaliation against prison employees under § 1983 satisfied rule requiring a complaint to
contain a short and plain statement of the claim; inmate alleged several attacks and threats on his life as specific factual instances of retaliation against him because he had filed grievances, including attempted bodily injury and
1395(7)
threats on his life. Hernandez v. Goord, S.D.N.Y.2004, 312 F.Supp.2d 537. Civil Rights
State prison inmate's § 1983 complaint, alleging that a doctor prescribed a pain reliever and muscle relaxer and
physical therapy for his medical problems, but that a prison official canceled this treatment on ground the prison
could not afford the cost, was sufficient under notice pleading standards to state a claim for deliberate indifference to
the inmate's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Wilson v. Vannatta, N.D.Ind.2003, 291
1395(7)
Page 263
Court would deem inmate's pro se § 1983 complaint to be amended to include allegations that conditions under
which he was transported to hospital amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and that he was denied vitamin
treatment and necessary special diet pass, rather than dismissing those allegations, which were raised in opposition
to summary judgment, as beyond scope of lawsuit. Charles v. Kelly, D.D.C.1992, 790 F.Supp. 344, appeal dis841
missed. Federal Civil Procedure
Inmate's allegations that he was beaten by deputy sheriff failed to provide sufficient facts to support civil rights
claim against sheriff in his individual capacity. Martin v. O'Grady, N.D.Ill.1990, 738 F.Supp. 1191. Civil Rights
1395(6)
Amended complaint stated claim for relief on behalf of prisoners in New York state correctional facilities on theories that correction law setting standard for parole release decision-making was unconstitutional under due process
and equal protection clauses of U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14 and that members of parole board, as result of policy and
practice of discrimination, had unreasonably and unfairly discriminated among prisoners in granting and denial of
parole because of race and ethnic prejudices. Cicero v. Olgiati, S.D.N.Y.1976, 426 F.Supp. 1210, motion denied 426
F.Supp. 1213. Declaratory Judgment
315; Declaratory Judgment
319
Attorneys' civil rights complaint which alleged that prison practices requiring them to meet with their client in hot
interview room with glass partition between, to communicate by telephone and to be subject to continual surveillance by guard interfered with their right to practice their profession and which specifically enumerated events,
times and dates of alleged interferences and listed rights allegedly infringed was sufficient to give notice as to what
conduct of prison official allegedly violated their rights and to withstand motion to dismiss. Keker v. Procunier,
E.D.Cal.1975, 398 F.Supp. 756. Federal Civil Procedure
1788.10
Pro se amended complaint filed by prisoner under § 1983 was defective under pleading rule governing complaints
and would be dismissed with leave to amend, where complaint listed thirty individual defendants in its caption, but
only made averments concerning twenty-one of them, it contained numerous paragraphs that made no reference to
actions taken by any of the defendants, and plaintiff's paragraphs, or “Legal Points,” contained more than one factual
allegation. Washington v. Reilly, E.D.N.Y.2005, 226 F.R.D. 170, subsequent determination 2005 WL 2464694.
657.5(3); Federal Civil Procedure
1838
Allegations by youths in custody of California Youth Authority (CYA) that CYA employees interfered with legal
mail, supported claim that CYA denied youths access to the courts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, although youth failed to assert actual injury; allegations put CYA on notice of claims. Stevens v. Harper,
E.D.Cal.2002, 213 F.R.D. 358. Civil Rights
1395(1)
Complaint filed by inmates of state correctional system failed to allege cause of action against judge and others
based on defendants' allegedly discriminatory attitudes, in absence of allegation of an action or failure to act on part
of defendants resulting in injury to plaintiffs. Robinson v. Kitchin, E.D.Mo.1978, 78 F.R.D. 691. Federal Civil Procedure
691
State inmate's 50-page, handwritten complaint in pro se civil rights action would not be dismissed for failure to contain short and plain statement of claims, although complaint's lack of clarity and brevity would justify exercise of
District Court's discretion to require further amendment or to strike redundant or immaterial portions, where it provided defendants with adequate notice of claims showing that inmate was entitled to relief. Foreman v. Comm.
Goord, S.D.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 385114, Unreported. Federal Civil Procedure
657.5(3)
In pro se 1983 complaint, contention by prisoner injured during softball game as result of dangerous condition of
recreational area, that prison superintendent had personally visited recreational area and observed softball playing
conditions, adequately alleged superintendent's personal involvement in Eighth Amendment violation. Slacks v.
Grenier, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22232942, Unreported. Civil Rights
Page 264
1395(7)
305. ---- Search and seizure, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Plaintiff's allegations that he heard “telltale” clicking noises on his residential and mobile telephones, that an officer
sat outside his home during a Presidential visit, that he was subjected to searches every time he traveled, and that he
was placed on terrorist watch lists were sufficient to demonstrate a redressable concrete injury attributable to government officials, as required to confer standing in plaintiff's action against officials alleging governmental wiretapping and physical surveillance violated his constitutional rights. Tooley v. Napolitano, C.A.D.C.2009, 556 F.3d 836,
384 U.S.App.D.C. 393, rehearing en banc dismissed, rehearing granted , vacated, on rehearing 586 F.3d 1006, 388
U.S.App.D.C. 327. Constitutional Law
699
Allegations by property owner that building inspector and other city officials engaged in unreasonable search and
seizure, denied him notice and an opportunity to be heard, and attempted to take his property for private use when
they entered his land, demolished his dog house, and ripped up his flower bed only 27 days after giving him notice
to do so on his own stated § 1983 claim against city officials for violation of property owner's constitutional rights;
although complaint did not contain all of the facts that would be necessary to prevail, it adequately notified the offi1395(6)
cials of the principal events. Hoskins v. Poelstra, C.A.7 (Wis.) 2003, 320 F.3d 761. Civil Rights
Landowner from whose property marijuana was seized failed to comply with notice pleadings requirements in asserting §§ 1983 claim for equal protection violation against county, sheriff's office, and sheriff, based upon their
alleged conduct in subjecting him to “insidious discrimination” with reference to various county rules, codes, procedures, policies, ordinances, and regulations, warranting dismissal with leave to amend, given landowner's failure to
state specifically which “policies” were applied to him and how those policies were applied in discriminatory man1838
ner. Schmidt v. County of Nevada, E.D.Cal.2011, 2011 WL 1253850. Federal Civil Procedure
High school student's complaint, apparently asserting that because school employees were liable for violating student's rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures under both United States Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution, school district was equally liable for those violations, stated cause of action for unreasonable
search and seizure by district. Klump v. Nazareth Area School Dist., E.D.Pa.2006, 425 F.Supp.2d 622. Schools
169.5
Excessive force and illegal seizure allegations stated civil rights claim despite failure to specify Fourth Amendment
by name, where allegations provided sufficient notice of nature of claim and ground upon which it rested. Galindez
v. Miller, D.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 190. Civil Rights
1395(6)
Civil rights plaintiffs satisfied notice pleading requirement by alleging that state police officers, while acting under
color of state law, deprived them of Fourth Amendment right when officers unreasonably executed search warrant
by breaking down door, continuing to search after they realized they were in wrong unit, unnecessarily damaging
premises, and accusing plaintiffs of being drug dealers. Foreman v. Beckwith, D.Conn.2003, 260 F.Supp.2d 500.
1395(6)
Civil Rights
Allegations that county sheriff's deputy seized automobile from plaintiff without any court order, using his authority
as law enforcement officer, stated claim under § 1983 based on violation of Fourth Amendment, even though complaint did not mention Fourth Amendment by name. Williams v. Goldsmith, M.D.Ala.1995, 905 F.Supp. 996. Civil
Rights
1395(5)
306. ---- Sexual harassment and discrimination, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Page 265
Borrower's pro se complaint sufficiently presented plausible allegations of disparate treatment claim, under Fair
Housing Act (FHA), to give lenders fair notice of her discrimination claim based on lenders' denial of her home equity loan application, including that she was African-American woman who sought loan for property in predominantly African-American neighborhood, that she satisfied all of lenders' credit requirements and was conditionally
approved for loan that day, that lender denied loan later on same day based ostensibly on policy against loaning to
out-of-state applicants of which loan officer said he was previously unaware, that true reason for denial was borrower's race, sex, and racial makeup of neighborhood in which property was located, that similarly situated loan
applicants who were not in protected classes received loans and were treated more favorably throughout loan application process, and that lenders relied on policy as pretext for discrimination on ground that lenders did not offer her
counseling and guidance offered to other non-minority loan applicants after denying loans. Boykin v. KeyCorp,
C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2008, 521 F.3d 202. Civil Rights
1395(3)
Count alleging that female employees were subjected to sexual harassment in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981,
1983 was sufficiently specific to withstand motion to dismiss where count identified by name one employee who
allegedly submitted to her supervisor's advances and was promoted as result and added that her treatment became
less favorable when she began rejecting advances made by general foreman of transit authority and others, even
though complaint did not state names of supervisors. Frazier v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, C.A.3
(Pa.) 1986, 785 F.2d 65. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
Muslim firefighter's allegations that he was told he would have to chose his religion or his job were sufficient to
state a claim of discrimination under Title VII. Ali v. District of Columbia Government, D.D.C.2010, 697 F.Supp.2d
88. Civil Rights
1532
Student's complaint alleging § 1983 claim against community college in connection with alleged sexual harassment
by professor lacked sufficient detail to provide fair notice of basis of claim, requiring dismissal. Slater v. Marshall,
E.D.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 256. Civil Rights
1395(2)
For pleading purposes, employees' Title VII complaint adequately named and alleged specific conduct on part of
director of human resources, where first complaint did not satisfy applicable rule, but amended complaint raised
inference that director was responsible for personnel matters, including employee complaints regarding Title VII
violations, and employees alleged that director failed to investigate or act to terminate discriminatory and harassing
behavior despite numerous complaints from plaintiffs. Goodstein v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., D.Vt.1995, 889
F.Supp. 760, on reconsideration 167 F.R.D. 662. Civil Rights
1532
County employee's sex discrimination complaint against county and county sheriff satisfied requirement that claim
for relief contain short and plain statement of claim; complaint alleged that, in retaliation for filing discrimination
claim, county and county sheriff refused to consider her for thousands of jobs for which she was qualified, stated
when retaliation occurred and identified some of the officials who carried it out. Raiser v. O'Shaughnessy,
691
307. ---- Voting and elections, civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Georgia resident's allegations that the state rejected her voter registration form in violation of her rights under the
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which specifically protected her right to use the federal registration form
to notify the state of a change of her address, were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of notice pleading. Charles
H. Wesley Educ. Foundation, Inc. v. Cox, C.A.11 (Ga.) 2005, 408 F.3d 1349. Elections
112
Complaint brought against city officials charging them with conspiring to violate plaintiffs' civil rights by bringing
criminal charges against them in retaliation for their involvement in recall campaign was alleged with sufficient
18
specificity. Macko v. Byron, N.D.Ohio 1982, 555 F.Supp. 470. Conspiracy
Page 266
Complaints, denominated as seeking mandamus, alleging that it is illegal for anyone referring to himself as Negro,
black, or Ethiopian to hold office and that it is illegal for Europeans in Northwest Territory to pass laws for Asiatics
and illegal to allow housing authority to collect rent from certain persons, were incurably deficient. Ali v. State Police of Pennsylvania, E.D.Pa.1974, 378 F.Supp. 888. Federal Civil Procedure
691
District court's dismissal of pro se complaint of candidate seeking access as a write-in candidate to party primary,
against city and state boards of elections, for failure to comply with “short and plain statement” rule was not abuse
of discretion, even though candidate referenced numerous federal statutes, constitutional amendments, federal cases,
and state laws, where it was impossible to determine from complaints what harm he purported to have suffered,
what acts of which defendants allegedly caused that harm, and what federal rights were allegedly infringed by those
acts. Iwachiw v. New York City Bd. of Elections, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2005, 126 Fed.Appx. 27, 2005 WL 615936, Unre154(9.5)
ported. Elections
308. ---- Miscellaneous civil rights actions, statement of entitlement
Former maintenance and domestic employees of Puerto Rico governor's mansion stated that governor's wife had
knowledge of their political affiliation and that their political affiliation motivated her participation in their terminations, as required to state claim of political discrimination under First Amendment, on allegations, among other
things, that wife oversaw maintenance and domestic workers, she made disparaging remarks about prior administration and informed plaintiffs that “changes had come,” and she stated her intention to “clean up the kitchen.” OcasioHernandez v. Fortuño-Burset, C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 2011, 640 F.3d 1. Constitutional Law
23
Complaint asserting § 1983 claim against state attorney general had to satisfy only liberal notice pleading standard
set forth by rule, and was not subject to heightened pleading standard. Evancho v. Fisher, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2005, 423
F.3d 347. Civil Rights
1395(1)
Plaintiffs in order to state § 1983 Establishment Clause claim against school district arising from school board member's recitation of Christian prayer at high school graduation ceremony did not have to specifically plead existence
of unconstitutional policy or custom of district. Doe ex rel. Doe v. School Dist. of City of Norfolk, C.A.8 (Neb.)
2003, 340 F.3d 605, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Civil Rights
1395(2)
Complaint of civil rights plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis fell well short of requirements that pleading include short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depends and that pleading include
short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief; even liberally construed, plaintiff's complaint was incomprehensible. Carpenter v. Williams, C.A.10 (Colo.) 1996, 86 F.3d 1015, rehearing denied. Civil
Rights
1394
In action for damages for alleged indignities to which plaintiff alleged himself to have been subjected while plaintiff
was an inmate of a federal mental hospital while defendant was Attorney General of United States, complaint flagrantly violated rule that a pleading which sets forth claim for relief shall contain a short and plain statement of
claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, and requiring each averment of pleading to be simple, concise, and
direct. McCann v. Clark, C.A.D.C.1951, 191 F.2d 476, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 166, certiorari denied 72 S.Ct. 112, 342
U.S. 872, 96 L.Ed. 656. Federal Civil Procedure
691
Complaint in action brought by group of patients who had been civilly committed as sexually violent persons,
against various state officials, challenging legitimacy of various statutory provisions as well as numerous policies
and practices of the facilities at which they were confined, did not comply with rule requiring that a claim be a plain
and short statement showing that the pleader was entitled to relief; complaint was neither short nor plain, and it
Page 267
failed to give officials notice to which they were entitled, in that it contained both too much and too little information and much needless repetition and failed to identify the conduct that violated the patients' constitutional rights.
967
Walker v. Wisconsin State Legislative Council, W.D.Wis.2007, 536 F.Supp.2d 992. Constitutional Law
Pro se complaint brought by employee of Department of Defense Dependent Schools, Europe (DoDDS-E), which
challenged DoDDS-E's ongoing execution of a Priority Placement Program (PPP) and also alleged that employee's
supervisor engaged in discriminatory reporting practice against employee, failed to set forth actual claims alleged,
and the statutory basis for his claims or other authority upon which his claims were grounded, as required by rule
governing pleading. Green v. DOD Dependent Schools-Europe, D.D.C.2007, 514 F.Supp.2d 79. Civil Rights
1395(8)
Complaint in attorney's pro se civil rights action against several federal agencies, various states, cities, cities' agencies and officials, corporations, and others, alleging various constitutional violations arising out of purported conspiracy among defendants to place him under surveillance in order to harass and intimidate him in retaliation for his
role as counsel in certain legal proceedings, did not provide requisite short, clear statement of claim, where complaint was comprised of 58 single-spaced pages of allegations, in addition to multiple exhibits and 90 pages of attached “law,” it requested over 21 claims of relief under multiple provisions of the United States Constitution and
federal and state statutes against nearly 50 named defendants, and it was so ambiguous and unintelligible as to preclude any meaningful response by defendants. Jones v. National Communication and Surveillance Networks,
S.D.N.Y.2006, 409 F.Supp.2d 456, affirmed 266 Fed.Appx. 31, 2008 WL 482599. Conspiracy
18
Personal representative of estate of child who was killed by her adoptive parents satisfied notice pleading requirements as to waiver of immunity claim, in civil rights action against state adoption agency, although complaint did
not cite to any specific statutory waiver, where allegations that agency negligently operated and maintained public
facility and equipment, and that agency employees who handled investigation into allegations of criminal abuse of
adopted child were akin to law enforcement officers put agency on notice that personal representative was relying on
law enforcement exception and negligent maintenance and operation of a public facility exception to immunity under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. Johnson ex rel. Estate of Cano v. Holmes, D.N.M.2004, 377 F.Supp.2d 1069,
1398
affirmed 455 F.3d 1133. Civil Rights
Claims against Pennsylvania state officials of conspiracy to violate § 1983 did not have to be pled with particularity;
notice pleading was sufficient. Boone v. Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, M.D.Pa.2005, 373
F.Supp.2d 484. Conspiracy
18
Owners of school bus service business sufficiently alleged, under liberal notice pleading standards, claims for damages under § 1983 for violations of their federal constitutional rights against state trooper, who allegedly discriminated against them in violation of state and federal law by deliberately making it difficult for them to operate business because of their hiring of employees of Russian heritage; owners alleged that state trooper's actions were performed willfully and were motivated by his prejudice against Russian immigrants, that his conduct resulted in loss
of at least one bus contract with school district, and that they suffered economic and other damages and were denied
the Constitutional right to employ persons regardless of race or national origin. Lecrenski Bros. Inc. v. Johnson,
D.Mass.2004, 312 F.Supp.2d 117. Civil Rights
1395(5)
Allegations in vehicle owner's complaint relating to New York Article 78 proceeding, that he was disabled and prevented from traveling to medical appointments, family appointments, and political actions after city seized his vehicle, and that “organized crime” allegedly controlled state and local government, were confused, ambiguous, vague,
and otherwise unintelligible, and therefore, would be dismissed for failure to comply with rule requiring short and
plain statement in complaint showing owner was entitled to relief. Iwachiw v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, E.D.N.Y.2004, 299 F.Supp.2d 117, affirmed 396 F.3d 525. Federal Civil Procedure
1781
Page 268
Prisoner stated legally viable § 1983 claim against corrections officials for retaliating against him for his involvement in other lawsuits against prison employees; complaint chronicled a series of events, including prisoner's transfer and each defendant's involvement in that transfer, and alleged that prisoner had suffered from ongoing retaliation
for his participation in other civil suits, and although prisoner did not state specifically that the transfer was retaliatory, such claim could be inferred from the broad language of the complaint. Johnson v. Kingston, W.D.Wis.2003,
1395(7)
Even though former city employee's complaint against city officials did not state expressly that civil rights claims
were being brought against officials in their personal capacities, as well as their official capacities, complaint sufficiently alleged claims against officials in their personal capacity to provide officials with notice of such claims;
complaint named city and officials separately, and contained claim for special damages, i.e., punitive damages,
which could not be made against municipality. Jessamy v. City of New Rochelle, New York, S.D.N.Y.2003, 292
1395(8)
Use of string citations to preadmission screening and annual resident review (PASARR) regulations, read in context
in complaint by class of persons with mental retardation or developmental disabilities and subclass of Medicaid recipients, satisfied liberal pleading requirements, in § 1983 action alleging that state segregated plaintiffs from community; complaint also included specific factual allegations of Ohio officials' failure to comply with Medicaid law,
1395(1)
and citation to relevant statute. Martin v. Taft, S.D.Ohio 2002, 222 F.Supp.2d 940. Civil Rights
Allegations, in complaint under § 1983 relating to seizure of sexually explicit videotape by campus police, that person responsible for public projection of tape at issue gave it to campus police officer under threat of arrest and
criminal prosecution, and that she demanded return of tape within one day after incident, were sufficient to preserve
issue of voluntariness of surrender of tape for discovery under heightened pleading standard applicable in § 1983
actions against government officials in their individual capacities. Andre v. Castor, M.D.Fla.1997, 963 F.Supp.
1158, affirmed in part , reversed in part 144 F.3d 55. Civil Rights
1395(5)
Civil rights plaintiff was well within his rights to have waited until filing of his memorandum in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment before his counsel set out all legal theories on which he wished to proceed in
action. Humphrey v. Demitro, N.D.Ill.1996, 931 F.Supp. 571, reversed in part 148 F.3d 719, rehearing denied.
2535
Civil rights complaint against city satisfied notice pleading requirements, in that complaint stated that alleged unconstitutional actions were undertaken pursuant to city's official law and policy making roles and constituted municipal policy and action by city; thus, city's motion to dismiss § 1983 claim was due to be denied. Arrington v.
Dickerson, M.D.Ala.1995, 915 F.Supp. 1503. Civil Rights
1394
Allegation that city parking enforcement agency had engaged in extensive improprieties was sufficient in action
against city under § 1983, to meet requirement that claim be pleaded with enough particularity to give city fair notice of what the claim was and the grounds upon which it rested. C.A.U.T.I.O.N., Ltd. v. City of New York,
S.D.N.Y.1995, 898 F.Supp. 1065. Civil Rights
1395(5)
Plaintiffs in civil rights action under § 1983, asserting claims against employees of state entity in their individual
capacities, raising issue of qualified immunity, were subject to a heightened pleading standard. Ross v. State of Ala.,
M.D.Ala.1995, 893 F.Supp. 1545. Civil Rights
1394
Complaint which alleged that developer was discriminatorily prevented from developing its property by actions of
village officials and private consultants, in violation of U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14 and section 1983 of Title 42, was
sufficient to put defendants on notice of nature of developer's grievance and grounds upon which it rested, and thus,
complaint was not subject to dismissal for lack of specificity. Terrace Knolls, Inc. v. Dalton, Dalton, Little and
Newport, Inc., N.D.Ohio 1983, 571 F.Supp. 1086, affirmed 751 F.2d 387. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 269
633.1
Complaint, which contained nothing more than naked allegation that defendants were guilty of racial discrimination
in administering federal funds used to help run Philadelphia's police department, which for the most part made no
mention of racial discrimination in the pursuit of alleged improper practices, and which when discrimination was
alleged did not contain necessary factual averments, provided the defendants with no factual basis at all for charges
to which they were expected to respond, and thus fell far short of specific fact pleading standard imposed in civil
rights cases. U. S. v. City of Philadelphia, E.D.Pa.1979, 482 F.Supp. 1274, affirmed 644 F.2d 187. Federal Civil
Procedure
633.1
Civil rights complaint filed against city, its officers, agents and employees set forth sufficient facts to support its
general allegations of unconstitutional government interference with plaintiffs' lawful activities, and provided defendants sufficient notice of claim which they would be called upon to defend. American Civil Liberties Union v.
City of Chicago, N.D.Ill.1976, 431 F.Supp. 25. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
Fourteen-page complaint brought against United States District Judge under various provisions of Civil Rights Act
of 1871, section 1981 et seq. of Title 42, based on claim that defendant's order had resulted in wrongful removal of
plaintiff from a courtroom would be dismissed as being in violation of this rule requiring short and plain statement
of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief where complaint was so verbal, confused and redundant that its
true substance, if any, was well disguised. Lowery v. Hauk, C.D.Cal.1976, 422 F.Supp. 490. Federal Civil Procedure
1788.6
Allegations by former employee that employer created a hostile work environment consisting of race and national
origin-based discrimination, that employer discriminated against employee by subjecting him to discipline for infractions for which similarly-situated employees were not disciplined, that employer permitted subordinates and
peers to refuse to report to employee on basis of his race or national origin, and that employer imposed job performance standards on employee and other minority employees that were not imposed upon others satisfied notice pleading requirements and thus stated claim for race and national origin discrimination under Title VII. Castillo v. Norton, D.Ariz.2003, 219 F.R.D. 155. Civil Rights
1532
Federal pleading rule's notice pleading requirement did not require local transit authority employee bringing § 1983
First Amendment retaliation claim against her employer to plead any details about her prior sex discrimination lawsuit that was the basis of the retaliation claim, so long as she alleged that the suit was constitutionally protected.
Brown v. Chicago Transit Authority Pension Bd., C.A.7 (Ill.) 2004, 86 Fed.Appx. 196, 2004 WL 78041, Unre1395(8)
ported, on remand 2005 WL 6295798. Civil Rights
309. Common carrier actions, statement of entitlement
Where passenger sought to state her claim against common carrier by alleging a duty owed by the carrier to the passenger and a failure on the part of the carrier to perform that duty, it became incumbent upon the passenger to state
the duty or undertaking of the carrier with precision. Sparks v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co., E.D.Ill.1942, 42 F.Supp.
1019. Carriers
314
310. Conspiracy actions, statement of entitlement
Allegation by property owner that private citizen conspired with city officials in an attempt to acquire property
owner's land by using his contacts and influence with the city department of neighborhood services in order to acquire the properties he desired after the department made life miserable for the property owners stated claim against
18
private citizen for conspiracy. Hoskins v. Poelstra, C.A.7 (Wis.) 2003, 320 F.3d 761. Conspiracy
Page 270
Complaint, alleging that on or about a certain date three persons entered into conspiracy to violate former §§ 51 and
126 of Title 18, with intent to injure plaintiff by preventing United States Attorney from carrying through request for
investigation of malicious practice against plaintiff, and that two of the three persons made statement in writing to
the chief of Puget Sound Navy Yard, at which plaintiff worked, which was false and apparently placed plaintiff in
disrepute and subject to ridicule, failed to state a cause of action against the three persons for injuries sustained as
result of violation of said sections by such persons. Patten v. Dennis, C.C.A.9 (Wash.) 1943, 134 F.2d 137.
18
Conspiracy
Former home improvement store employee's complaint sufficiently alleged facts which supported her conspiracy to
retaliate claim, while providing fair notice of what claim was and grounds upon which it rested; complaint alleged
facts which, if true, suggested reasonable expectation of, and rendered plausible, the existence of agreement to retaliate against her for her assistance in coworker's employment discrimination and retaliation case, and although
complaint never used word “agreement,” facts employee alleged were sufficient to suggest presence of circumstantial evidence that such an agreement existed. Aque v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., N.D.Ga.2009, 629 F.Supp.2d 1336.
18
Conspiracy
Unaccredited law school's complaint did not contain “short and plain statement of the claim” showing that it was
entitled to relief from individual nonresident defendants who allegedly conspired with American Bar Association
(ABA) and other organizations to foreclose from legal education people in lower socio-economic classes by virtue
of ABA accreditation standards; on accreditation matters, individual defendants were not legally distinct from ABA
and could not have conspired with it, and neither complaint nor subsequent filings alleged that individual defendants, independent of their ABA ties, had anything to do with establishing, evaluating or enforcing accreditation
criteria of which school complained. Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n,
E.D.Pa.1994, 853 F.Supp. 843. Colleges And Universities
10
In context of conspiracy, rule requiring “short and plain statement” of claim is satisfied only if defendant is provided
with degree of particularity that animates the fair notice requirement of rule. Loftus v. Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transp. Authority, E.D.Pa.1994, 843 F.Supp. 981. Federal Civil Procedure
698
Complaint alleging conspiracy was not insufficient for failure to allege specific unlawful overt act, as allegation that
defendants had conspired to deprive plaintiff of his rights impliedly alleged that defendants had committed at least
one unlawful overt act. Runyan v. United Broth. of Carpenters, D.C.Colo.1983, 566 F.Supp. 600. Conspiracy
18
Complaint filed by members of union local alleging that former employer, former employer's parent corporation,
and successor employer conspired to deprive members of their rights was sufficient to state a civil conspiracy claim.
18
Rodriguez v. Bar-S Food Co., D.C.Colo.1982, 539 F.Supp. 710. Conspiracy
Complaint that alleged a physical beating of arrestee by two officers and that alleged that arrestee was injured as
result of breach of duty of four officers while he was under their control sufficiently alleged overt acts in furtherance
of the alleged conspiracy to deprive the arrestee of his civil rights. Magayanes v. City of Chicago, N.D.Ill.1980, 496
F.Supp. 812. Conspiracy
18
Complaint filed by religious organization alleging that it was subject of government-wide conspiracy to destroy a
religion sufficiently complied with this rule requiring pleading to contain short and plain statement of claim showing
that pleader is entitled to relief, but, even though complaint was sufficient, in view of fact that complaint permitted
neither defendants nor court to judge exactly what prior actions might have barred claim, religious organization
would be directed to make specific factual allegations once discovery progressed further. Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C., Inc. v. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, D.C.D.C.1978, 459 F.Supp. 748.
Page 271
633.1
Complaint, which was based on allegation of a conspiratorial objective to disbar plaintiff from practice before
United States Court of Military Appeals, which placed unjustifiable burden on defendants to determine nature of
claim against them and to speculate on what their defenses might be and which imposed similar burden on court to
sort out facts hidden in a mass of charges, arguments, generalizations and rumors violated this rule and required
conditional dismissal without prejudice. DeFina v. Latimer, E.D.N.Y.1977, 79 F.R.D. 5. Federal Civil Procedure
1827.1
Complaint, charging that defendants unlawfully conspired to monopolize theater business in designated city through
illegal system of release and clearance, sufficiently complied with the requirements of subdivisions (a)(2) and (e)(1)
of this rule and rule 10(b) of these rules requiring complaint to contain a short and plain statement of claim, that
every averment of pleading shall be simple and direct, and that each paragraph shall consist of a statement of a single set of circumstances, and was not defective because it failed to show a causal connection between wrongs
claimed and damages allegedly suffered. Rivoli Operating Corp. v. Loew's Inc., W.D.N.Y.1947, 7 F.R.D. 219.
693
Aircraft mechanic stated additional and independent acts in furtherance of conspiracy, for purpose of his civil conspiracy claim under South Carolina law, on allegations that aircraft engine manufacturer and employer conspired
and acted to harm mechanic in retaliation for his refusal to falsify maintenance records on military aircraft which
would have been in violation of his duty as mechanic, applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, and would have put men and women of United States Air Force and civilian citizens of United States in danger of injury or death. James v. Pratt and Whitney, C.A.4 (S.C.) 2005, 126 Fed.Appx. 607, 2005 WL 670623, Unre18
ported, on remand 2005 WL 3440868. Conspiracy
311. Commodities actions, statement of entitlement
In suit on complaint alleging that promulgation of rule by commodity exchange constituted bad faith in that governors who enacted rule did so in order to derive direct financial benefits and to advance their own individual and/or
corporate interests, it was not necessary to allege extent of each defendant's interest or nature thereof, nor identities
of individuals who plaintiff believed assisted the governors. Bishop v. Commodity Exchange, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1983,
564 F.Supp. 1557. Commodity Futures Trading Regulation
76
While the complaint, in action brought by silver trader which held a “short” position in silver futures and which lost
over $80 million as a result of price increases allegedly caused by the conspiracy of certain defendants to monopolize the silver market, met the requirements of this rule in setting forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader was entitled to relief, defendant brokers were not obliged to defend themselves if there was no
basis for the complaint against them; the proper method for dealing with such concerns of the brokers was to isolate
the threshold issues and pursue a discovery schedule directed towards developing those issues first for appropriate
disposition thereafter. Minpeco, S.A. v. ContiCommodity Services, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1982, 552 F.Supp. 327. Antitrust
And Trade Regulation
972(3)
312. Condemnation or forfeiture proceedings, statement of entitlement
Fourth Amendment component of currency owners' unconstitutional forfeiture claim gave Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and its agents sufficient notice of claims, and therefore satisfied federal pleading rule, where
owners alleged that agents entered without consent of owners and without lawful authority, and that seizure was
made in absence of warrant or consent of owners. Sarit v. Drug Enforcement Admin., D.R.I.1991, 759 F.Supp. 63.
691
Page 272
Petition to restrain city from taking over certain land was defective in failing to set forth a short and plain statement
of the claim showing plaintiffs were entitled to relief. Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, E.D.Mo.1955, 128 F.Supp.
637, affirmed 222 F.2d 428. Federal Civil Procedure
704
313. Consortium loss, statement of entitlement
Count claiming loss of society and companionship on behalf of spouses of patients who used intrauterine devices did
not allege any facts which would entitle spouses to relief from manufacturer's insurer, and, thus, did not satisfy liberal pleading policy of Federal Civil Rule 8(a)(2). Bast v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., E.D.Wis.1985, 616 F.Supp. 333.
229.2
Husband And Wife
314. Contract actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
In case of a claim upon a contract, requirement of this rule is satisfied by alleging the making of a contract, performance by plaintiff and breach by defendant. Kincaid v. City of Anchorage, D.C.Alaska 1951, 100 F.Supp. 325, 13
Alaska 449.
A count in contract or quasi contract is within these rules, and is subject to motion to strike for failure to comply
with provision of this rule requiring short and plain statement of the claim. Michelson v. Shell Union Oil Corp.,
1138
A complaint, which set forth a claim which was a composite of breach of contract, misrepresentation and deceit, and
negligence, should be recast to comply with subdivision (a) of this rule requiring a short and plain statement of the
claim. Capdevielle v. American Commercial Alcohol Corporation, S.D.N.Y.1940, 1 F.R.D. 365. Federal Civil Procedure
674
315. ---- Breach of contract, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Professional musician's allegations that his former business manager and the manager's firm breached their business
management contract with musician by permitting musician's former music manager and his company to divert musician's income into their accounts and by failing to advise musician of this fact, insufficiently pleaded a claim for
breach of contract; musician entirely failed to specify whether he was alleging a breach of explicit contractual provisions, and if so, what those provisions stated, and musician failed to attach a copy of the contract to the complaint.
333(2)
Malmsteen v. Berdon, LLP, S.D.N.Y.2007, 477 F.Supp.2d 655. Contracts
Complaint adequately pled claim for breach of sales commission agreement; complaint specified parties to agreement, its terms, and events constituting breach of those terms. Fisher v. Big Squeeze (N.Y.), Inc., E.D.N.Y.2004,
349 F.Supp.2d 483. Principal And Agent
89(5)
Acquisition services corporation that brought action against printing company alleged that there was non-circumvent
agreement between parties connected to purchase of equipment, that corporation provided services accorded to in
agreement, and that company circumvented agreement and thereafter failed to pay price agreed upon for corporation's services, as required to state breach of contract claim under Puerto Rico law. Web Service Group, Ltd. v. Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc., D.Puerto Rico 2004, 336 F.Supp.2d 179. Brokers
82(1)
Allegation by manufacturer and seller of medical supplies of its right, as successor corporation, to enforce noncompete agreement former employee signed with acquired company was sufficient to satisfy notice pleading requirements for breach of contract claim. Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. Coleman, S.D.Fla.2002, 232 F.Supp.2d 1329.
2565
Page 273
Under relaxed federal pleading requirements, each element of breach of contract claim need not be separately plead;
it is enough that complaint contains short and plain statement of claim sufficient to put defendant on notice of
grounds for which plaintiff seeks relief. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. v. Mark I Marketing Corp., S.D.N.Y.1995, 893
F.Supp. 285. Contracts
332(2)
To allege breach of contract claim under New York law, plaintiff need not plead each element individually, as long
as complaint contains short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Campo v. 1st Nationwide Bank, E.D.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 264. Federal Civil Procedure
699
Failure by seller of forklifts to specify in its breach of contract complaint against buyer's supplier who agree to purchase forklifts if buyer defaulted that consideration was given for supplier's guaranty did not require dismissal of
breach of contract complaint; as applied to claim for breach of contract, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not
require plaintiff to allege each element of contract formation, such as sufficient consideration. Orix Credit Alliance,
Inc. v. Taylor Mach. Works, Inc., N.D.Ill.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1271. Guaranty
85(1)
Elements of claim for breach of contract need not be separately pleaded under rule requiring pleading setting forth
claim for relief to include short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief; all that is necessary is concise and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Van Brunt v. Rauschenberg,
699
Bakery franchisees failed to plead breach of contract claims where no particular provision of any agreement was set
forth, franchisees failed to plead that they complied with alleged contracts, and that they performed their obligations
under alleged contracts. Zaro Licensing, Inc. v. Cinmar, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1991, 779 F.Supp. 276. Contracts
333(1); Contracts
335(2)
Pleading for breach of contract must, at minimum, allege terms of contract, each element of alleged breach, and resultant damages in plain and simple fashion. Zaro Licensing, Inc. v. Cinmar, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1991, 779 F.Supp. 276.
332(2)
Contracts
Plaintiff's claim alleging merely that acts of former employer constituted a breach of contract did not give fair notice
and was dismissed. Rawson v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.Colo.1982, 530 F.Supp. 776. Labor And Employment
858
In action for breach of contract, complaint alleging that defendant refused to pay price required by contract for
candy, without alleging that such refusal was a breach of contract, was insufficient to state claim on which relief
might be granted. Caribe Candy Co. v. Mackenzie Candy Co., N.D.Ohio 1948, 78 F.Supp. 1021. Federal Civil Procedure
699
Complaint alleging the traditional elements of breach of contract, namely, making of an agreement, due performance
by plaintiff, and a breach thereof by defendant to the damage of plaintiff, satisfied requirement that complaint contain a short and plain statement of claim showing that plaintiff was entitled to relief. Marquardt-Glenn Corp. v. Lumelite Corp., S.D.N.Y.1951, 11 F.R.D. 175. Federal Civil Procedure
699
Chapter 12 debtor failed to state a claim for breach of contract that was plausible on its face; although litigation in
both state court and the bankruptcy court had progressed for more than two years, debtor laid out just 20 facts common to all seven of his causes of action against creditor, debtor could not rely on the liberal notice pleading standard
to excuse both a lack of argument and a lack of facts in his brief to undergird his claim, debtor placed nothing before
the court, such as copies of contracts or agreements, that would have permitted it to determine what the parties'
Page 274
“Agreements” consisted of, much less what their terms might have been, debtor specified no term that creditor
breached, and the good faith and fair dealing element of the breach of contract claim was a legal conclusion couched
2162
as a factual allegation. In re Montagne, Bkrtcy.D.Vt.2010, 2010 WL 271347, Unreported. Bankruptcy
316. ---- Bad faith, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Where obligation imposed by lease did not bind lessee's assignee to do more than exercise good faith, and lessor
alleged that, in violation of lease assignee did not core drill, develop or mine the ore, or construct or operate a mill,
and that if assignee had mined and milled ore in accordance with contract it would have produced and marketed ore
having value sufficient to yield lessor $21,965.72 in lieu of royalties in addition to that which was actually received,
allegations were sufficient to encompass an averment of bad faith and stated a cause of action. Garbutt v. Blanding
Mines Co., C.C.A.10 (Utah) 1944, 141 F.2d 679. Federal Civil Procedure
691
Insureds' complaint against home insurer, which alleged that insurer, inter alia, intentionally delayed claim adjustment, failed to timely and reasonably pay coverage, propagated disinformation about policy rights and obligations,
treated insureds in a more obstructive manner after they retained a public adjuster, and invoked policy provisions in
an intimidating and harassing manner in order to coerce plaintiffs, gave insurer adequate notice of “bad faith” claim
3343;
under Florida law. Porcelli v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., Inc., M.D.Fla.2008, 635 F.Supp.2d 1312. Insurance
3379
Insurance
317. ---- Damages, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Where counterclaim sought damages from lessee, not as result of lessee's breach of promise to purchase aggregate
from lessors, but as foreseeable damages from lessee's breach of leases, failure of counterclaim to specifically allege
claim for lost profits from the sale of aggregate did not render the complaint insufficient for the purposes of notice
pleading. Campanella Corp. v. Lyndon Realty Trust, D.C.Mass.1985, 611 F.Supp. 864. Federal Civil Procedure
639
Where buyer was not in possession of sufficient information to state in original complaint whether claim for damages for alleged violation by manufacturer of guarantee contained in each of two contracts entered into between the
parties for locomotives was attributable entirely to one of the contracts or to be divided between them, he would be
required, after passage of more than a year, to allege specifically as to the amount of damage attributable to each or
both of the contracts. Turkish State Rys. Administration v. Vulcan Iron Works, M.D.Pa.1955, 136 F.Supp. 622, ap1016
peal dismissed 230 F.2d 108. Federal Civil Procedure
If plaintiff was relying on alleged agreement to pay plaintiff's costs plus a reasonable profit, set forth such costs and
profit, and alleged that such profit was reasonable, defendant could not compel further disclosure in complaint.
984
Goshen Veneer Co. v. G. & A. Aircraft, E.D.Pa.1944, 3 F.R.D. 344. Federal Civil Procedure
318. ---- Existence of contract, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Plaintiff's claims sufficiently alleged breach of contract, without directly alleging existence of contract, to state
cause of action under Delaware law, particularly where complaint was in compliance with liberal pleading practice
contemplated by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was modeled directly on form contained in appendix to those
337(2)
rules. Rollins Environmental Services (FS) Inc. v. Wright, D.Del.1990, 738 F.Supp. 150. Contracts
319. ---- Foreign law, contract actions, statement of entitlement
In suit by husband, individually and as administrator of wife's estate, against steamship company for injuries sus-
Page 275
tained on high seas by wife who was passenger on company's ship under contract of carriage providing that all questions arising on contract should be decided according to English law, pleading of foreign law was unnecessary.
166(4)
Siegelman v. Cunard White Star Limited, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1955, 221 F.2d 189. Shipping
320. ---- Obligations on contract, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Allegation that employer violated employee's contractual rights by denying her disability benefits failed to adequately state cause of action against employer where employee failed to allege what employer's contractual obligations were and how they were breached. Pritchett v. General Motors Corp., D.Md.1986, 650 F.Supp. 758. Labor
And Employment
680
321. ---- Persons bound by contract, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Where plaintiff's father conveyed mining properties to corporation and president thereof agreed to execute an
agreement to pay a specified sum to the father from the profits derived by the corporation from the sale of the property, in an action against the executor of the estate of the president after his death, complaint failed to state a cause
of action on the ground that the original contract disclosed on its face an intention that the president was not to become personally liable thereon. Knox v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, C.A.10 (Utah) 1952, 196 F.2d 112. Executors And
Administrators
443(5)
Allegations of breach of contract count of investors' complaint that in return for their investments in cable television
systems, which were owned and controlled by named defendants, it was represented to them that they received interests consisting of contracts which provided them with various rights and entitlements set forth in complaint, and
that due to fraudulent conduct set forth in complaint defendants had breached contract failed to satisfy requirement
of this rule that pleading set forth short and plain statement of claim showing entitlement to relief where it could not
be determined whether individual defendants or corporate defendants or both were parties to contract and investors
had not shown existence of any third-party contracts entered into by defendants for investors' benefit. Kirschner v.
Cable/Tel Corp., E.D.Pa.1983, 576 F.Supp. 234. Federal Civil Procedure
632
Complaint alleging that defendants owed plaintiff damages for goods sold and delivered was insufficient where no
indication was provided with respect to role of any individual defendant in alleged transaction, there was no mention
of written or oral terms of contractual arrangement, no notice was given to court of claims sought to be adjudicated,
and it was not established, for venue purposes, that cause of action arose within instant judicial district; therefore,
motion for more definite statement would be granted. Data General Corp. v. Computerized Industries, Inc.,
E.D.Pa.1983, 573 F.Supp. 115. Sales
353(1)
In action to recover on alleged agreement whereby defendants were to pay plaintiff 1/32 of monies realized by
defendants from oil produced from wells drilled with money invested by persons introduced to defendants by plaintiff, complaint was not objectionable, on ground that no cause of action was alleged against one of the two defendants because allegedly no agency between the two defendants was alleged, where the complaint in each count alleged a copartnership between the two defendants. Re v. Fullop, E.D.Ill.1958, 22 F.R.D. 52. Federal Civil Procedure
707
A complaint, containing two causes of action for breach of contract against two corporations, or in the alternative
against an individual if the corporations were not liable, and third cause of action directed solely against individual
defendant, was dismissed, where complaint contained immaterial and irrelevant matter, and was not short, plain
statement of claim required by subdivision (a) of this rule. Capdevielle v. American Commercial Alcohol Corporation, S.D.N.Y.1940, 1 F.R.D. 365. Federal Civil Procedure
1790
322. ---- Time of agreement, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Page 276
Buyer's pleadings in action against seller arising out of purchase of camera, although very general, were neither too
vague nor too ambiguous to enable defendant to frame responsive pleading such that more definite statement was
required; buyer was not required to plead with specificity particular dates of any agreement between parties, specific
make and model number of camera in question, maximum amount in damages and each element of damages sought,
or facts supporting various theories of recovery. Charles E. Beard, Inc. v. Cameronics Technology Corp.,
E.D.Tex.1988, 120 F.R.D. 40. Federal Civil Procedure
1014.1
323. ---- Arbitration, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Since a suit to enforce an arbitration award is in reality a suit seeking performance of a private contract all the elements of a contract action must be stated in the pleading. Local 1852 Waterfront Guard Ass'n of Port of Baltimore
I.W.A. v. Amstar Corp., D.C.Md.1973, 363 F.Supp. 1026, enforcement granted 508 F.2d 839, certiorari denied 95
S.Ct. 2398, 421 U.S. 1000, 44 L.Ed.2d 667. Alternative Dispute Resolution
400
324. ---- Assignment of contracts, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Where cause of action in action against city for breach of contract alleged the contract and its assignment to plaintiffs, and alleged performance by plaintiffs and breaches by defendant to damage of plaintiffs, cause of action as
alleged was sufficient to warrant admission of evidence to prove that assignment of contract to plaintiffs was made
with written consent of defendant, and statement of claim in such cause of action was not deficient for failure to
expressly allege compliance with contract provision requiring written consent to assignment of contract. Kincaid v.
City of Anchorage, D.C.Alaska 1951, 100 F.Supp. 325, 13 Alaska 449. Federal Civil Procedure
694
325. ---- Bidding, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint by high bidder for obsolete government ammunition for interference with prospective advantage by allegedly supplying false derogatory information to contracting officer, who awarded contract to a lower bidder, sufficiently disclosed adequate information as to basis of claim for relief. Pedersen v. U. S. of America, D.C.Guam 1961,
691
Complaint against United States Attorney and Custodian of the Procurement Division, alleging that plaintiff had
submitted highest bid in proper form for sale of musical instruments, and that competing bid submitted by telegram
was improperly recognized as valid, must be dismissed for failure to comply with this rule, where it contained no
statement upon which court's jurisdiction depended, nor demand for judgment. Gage v. U. S. Attorney,
M.D.Pa.1944, 3 F.R.D. 492. Federal Civil Procedure
1795
326. ---- Bills of lading, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint alleging that raw sugar belonging to shipper was loaded on ship in good condition and that, on discharge
some time later, sugar was in damaged condition, was sufficient to state cause of action against ship and shipowner;
and there was no requirement that complaint allege violation of bill of lading contract, that cargo was carried pursuant to charter party, or that action was for negligence. Amstar Corp. v. M/V Alexandros T., D.C.Md.1977, 431
F.Supp. 328, affirmed 664 F.2d 904. Shipping
132(2)
327. ---- Franchises, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Franchisee failed to adequately plead alter ego claim under Kansas law by naming corporation that wholly owned
franchisor as defendant. Pizza Management, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., D.Kan.1990, 737 F.Supp. 1154, entered. Federal
Civil Procedure
Page 277
636
Automobile dealer's complaint, in action against automobile sales corporation, seeking recovery for, inter alia, conduct of sales corporation's predecessor in allegedly cancelling franchise without just cause and coercing or attempting to coerce dealer to accept delivery of automobiles and parts in violation of Virginia statute, Code 1950, § 46534(1, 3), and refusing to repurchase parts and tools in violation of contract sufficiently alleged claim to permit
framing of responsive pleading. E. L. Bowen & Co. v. American Motors Sales Corp., Hudson Motor Division,
E.D.Va.1957, 153 F.Supp. 42. Federal Civil Procedure
699
328. ---- Implied contracts, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Where complaint used language indicating that action was one for breach of implied warranty, but brief and argument left no doubt of plaintiff's intention to plead action in tort, court would judge sufficiency of complaint as if it
were one sounding in tort. Vrooman v. Beech Aircraft Corp., C.A.10 (Kan.) 1950, 183 F.2d 479. Federal Civil Procedure
1829
Allegations that plaintiff's work, labor and services in arranging defendant's acquisition of interest in or control of
stated company had reasonable value of stated figure, wherefore plaintiff demanded judgment in that amount, satisfied notice pleading requirements of federal rules. Lee v. St. Joe Paper Co., S.D.N.Y.1961, 197 F.Supp. 229. Federal
Civil Procedure
699
A complaint alleging that defendant became indebted to plaintiff on an implied contract for the exclusive use of the
photograph and name of plaintiff's steer “Big Jim” in advertising of defendant's animal food and products was subject to dismissal for failure to allege fact supporting the conclusion of “implied contract” to pay. Washburn v.
Moorman Mfg. Co., S.D.Cal.1938, 25 F.Supp. 546. Federal Civil Procedure
646; Pleading
8(8); Contracts
333(1)
In action to recover on alleged agreement whereby defendants were to pay plaintiff 1/32 of monies realized by
defendants from oil produced from wells drilled with money invested by persons introduced to defendants by plaintiff, second count of complaint alleging plaintiff's claim in the form of a common count on an implied contract between plaintiff and defendants was sufficient to allege a cause of action. Re v. Fullop, E.D.Ill.1958, 22 F.R.D. 52.
707
329. ---- Joint ventures, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Third-party complaint filed against cattle manager by general partner of company engaged in cattle feeding operation fully complied with the requirements of this rule, since the third-party complaint gave the manager adequate
notice that the general partner was contending that a relationship of a contractual nature existed between the company and manager, and since the fact that the court eventually concluded that the relationship was a joint venture but
that the parties had not agreed on a division of losses in excess of $15 per head did not render the pleading inadequate or undermine the court's judgment. Bank of St. Louis v. Morrissey, C.A.8 (Mo.) 1979, 597 F.2d 1131. Federal
Civil Procedure
294
330. ---- Leases, contract actions, statement of entitlement
In action against oil company seeking enforcement of certain oil and gas leases or cancellation thereof, recovery of
approximately 1 1/2 million dollars accrued royalties and other related relief involving many and varied issues and
long and complicated leases, trial court erred in dismissing complaint with prejudice after pretrial conferences, for
alleged failure to comply with this rule requiring a short and plain statement of claim. Atwood v. Humble Oil & Re-
Page 278
fining Co., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1957, 243 F.2d 885, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 41, 355 U.S. 829, 2 L.Ed.2d 42. Federal
Civil Procedure
1799
Complaint which alleged that plaintiff, as lessee of federal coal lands, was within the “protected class” established
by Department of Interior regulations applicable to coal leases, and that its property right under its lease was threatened with invasion by proposed new leases by Secretary of Interior, without alleging either execution or content of
plaintiff's lease, was insufficient to state cause of action to enjoin Secretary from executing proposed new leases.
Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co. v. Krug, App.D.C.1948, 168 F.2d 557, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 162. Federal Civil Procedure
704
A petition alleging execution and breach of written lease, and seeking recovery of rent, was a sufficient statement of
claim to entitle plaintiff to recover at second trial after reviewing court had reversed judgment for plaintiff and remanded the cause on ground that lease had been orally modified. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Jones, C.C.A.10 (Okla.)
946
331. ---- Oral or written contracts, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint in action based upon oral representations and written communications was sufficient to state claim even
though complaint did not allege that contract or contracts which induced plaintiff to act and be injured thereby might
have been both oral and written. G. C. S., Inc. v. Davis W. Murray Co., W.D.Pa.1968, 45 F.R.D. 8. Federal Civil
Procedure
691
Complaint which was based on alleged breach of oral and written contract for bareboat charter party and which
sought damages for defendant's failure to pay rentals, pay for maritime insurance coverage, adequately maintain
rented vessel. and to redeliver rented vessel in same condition as when rented was sufficient to withstand motion to
make complaint more definite and certain. Marine Leasing Services, Inc. v. S. & W. Barge Lines, Inc.,
N.D.Miss.1967, 42 F.R.D. 659. Shipping
58(2)
332. ---- Recoupment, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Where declaration stated that earliest credits allowed by the United States to defendant in the course of dealing between the parties involving sale by War Department of surplus subsistence commodities arose in performance of a
contract executed on certain date and evidence showed a series of separate sales, there was no “fatal variance” between pleading and proof so as to require a finding for the defendants. Cabel v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1940, 113
888
333. ---- Rescission, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint by which sellers of thoroughbred brood mares sought rescission of written contract of sale on ground that
buyer had failed to live up to contemporaneous oral understanding that he would personally care for the mares, that
nothing would be done without one seller's consent, and that buyer would assume responsibility for death, disability,
or destruction of the mares or of third foal of each which according to written contract was to go to sellers, failed to
state claim showing that sellers were entitled to relief. Feinberg v. Leach, C.A.5 (Fla.) 1957, 243 F.2d 64. Federal
Civil Procedure
714
334. ---- Royalties, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint, which alleged that plaintiffs were trustees of union welfare fund, a charitable trust, that fund had been
created by contract to which defendant was party providing that defendant was to pay into fund sum of 40¢ per ton
Page 279
on all coal produced for sale and use, on and after specified date, was sufficient to state a cause of action to recover
so-called royalties claimed to be due on coal mined by defendant. Lewis v. Quality Coal Corp., C.A.7 (Ind.) 1957,
243 F.2d 769, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 149, 355 U.S. 882, 2 L.Ed.2d 113. Federal Civil Procedure
699
335. ---- Suit on judgment, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Where plaintiff recovered judgment in state court for breach of written contract to construct storm sewers and the
judgment had not been paid, complaint in suit on the judgment stated a cause of action. Francis O. Day Co. v.
Shapiro, C.A.D.C.1959, 267 F.2d 669, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 392. Federal Civil Procedure
691
336. ---- Warranty, contract actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint, which sought recovery for breach of implied warranty, was sufficient to put manufacturer and designer
of grain bin on notice that case would be tried on strict-liability theory, of which failure to warn was frequent element, and thus duty-to-warn issue was timely raised. Grover Hill Grain Co. v. Baughman-Oster, Inc., C.A.6 (Ohio)
691
Complaint which alleged that fumigator's employees made representations to plaintiff that it would not be necessary
to empty storage bins in order to perform fumigation and that chemicals would not harm flour in the bins was sufficient to give notice of the claim of breach of express warranty. Oak State Products, Inc. v. Ecolab, Inc.,
C.D.Ill.1991, 755 F.Supp. 235. Contracts
205.40
Complaint alleging breach of implied warranty by aircraft manufacturer with respect to airplane which crashed was
not insufficient under this rule for failure to allege that there was no substantial change in the airplane and its components between the date of delivery from the manufacturer to the airline and the date of the accident. Manos v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., N.D.Ill.1971, 324 F.Supp. 470. Federal Civil Procedure
691
In action for injuries arising out of explosion of gasoline tank on farm tractor against manufacturer based upon negligence and breach of implied warranty of fitness for purpose intended, complaint was sufficient to state a cause of
action. Fleming v. John Deere Plow Co. of Syracuse, W.D.Pa.1958, 158 F.Supp. 399. Federal Civil Procedure
709
In action for breach of contract and of warranty complaint satisfied requirements of particularity of rule 9 of these
rules and was sufficiently definite to enable defendant to frame an answer, and was good as against motion for a
more definite complaint. American Ship Bldg. Co. v. Kirk, W.D.Pa.1951, 11 F.R.D. 366. Federal Civil Procedure
979
337. ---- Miscellaneous contract actions, statement of entitlement
Amended complaint for damages allegedly sustained as result of being compelled to sell personal property and livestock at sacrifice because of defendant's threat to evict plaintiffs following decree of Virginia court granting present
defendant specific performance of contract for purchase of land failed to state cause of action. Christianson v.
Gaines, C.A.D.C.1949, 174 F.2d 534, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 15. Torts
2514
Where plaintiff based his cause of action on an agreement with defendant in accordance with defendant's “announcement”, and thereafter he denied the existence of the “announcement”, his pleading violated this rule providing that a pleading shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Pelelas v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1940, 113 F.2d 629, certiorari denied 61 S.Ct. 138, 311 U.S. 700, 85
L.Ed. 454. Federal Civil Procedure
699
Page 280
Non-possessory land claims brought by three tribal groups of Oneida Indian Nation against the State of New York,
which alleged that State inadequately compensated the groups for land transferred to State, would be treated as contract claim seeking to reform or revise a contract void for unconscionability, and therefore, claim conformed to
common law requirement that defendants' settled expectations not be disrupted; claim sought only retrospective relief in the form of damages, and was not based on groups' continuing possessory right to claimed land. Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New York, N.D.N.Y.2007, 500 F.Supp.2d 128, affirmed in part, reversed in part and
remanded 617 F.3d 114, petition for certiorari filed 2011 WL 1871013, petition for certiorari filed 2011 WL
1933740. Indians
155
Manager's complaint against author satisfied pleading rule in asserting claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment under New York law, given allegations that parties entered into oral management agreement under which manager was to provide such services as selling and promoting author's work and career, including efforts to procure production of her book as television series, that, pursuant to such agreement, manager, among
other efforts to promote author's career, introduced her to cable television network and played role in negotiating
exploitation of book as television series, and that author had failed to pay manager amounts due under agreement.
333(5); Implied And Constructive Contracts
Streit v. Bushnell, S.D.N.Y.2006, 424 F.Supp.2d 633. Contracts
81
Hospital pleaded with sufficient specificity its claim that it was third-party beneficiary of contract between healthcare network and health insurer, where complaint averred that insurer and network had contract and that contract
called for insurer to pay hospital for medical care rendered to persons insured by insurer. Temple University Hosp.,
Inc. v. Group Health, Inc., E.D.Pa.2005, 413 F.Supp.2d 420. Insurance
3571
For purposes of motion to dismiss alleging that issuer of guarantee policies for payment obligations of pooled student loan trusts was not third party beneficiary of underlying policies, which secured loan payment obligations,
complaint's allegations that guarantor was intended third party beneficiary of underlying policies and that language
of underlying policies demonstrated insurer's intent to benefit guarantor were sufficient to support guarantor's standing under Delaware law as third party beneficiary to contract and avoid dismissal of its suit against insurer. MBIA
Ins. Corp. v. Royal Indem. Co., D.Del.2003, 294 F.Supp.2d 606. Insurance
3436
Former vice principal of high school had to, in accordance with notice pleading requirements, include sufficient factual allegations in her complaint against school district and superintendent from which defendants could discern
source of employment contract that formed basis of breach of contract claim. Lee v. City of Hartford/Hartford Public Schools, D.Conn.2003, 289 F.Supp.2d 25, opinion adhered to on reconsideration. Schools
120
Loan broker's complaint alleging debtor's breach of agreement to pay finder's fee was sufficient to plead theory that
requisite loan proposal was obtained partly from new lender and partly from refinance by original lender.
Hindin/Owen/Engelke, Inc. v. GRM Industries, Inc., N.D.Ill.1994, 869 F.Supp. 539, reconsideration denied. Brokers
82(1)
Counterclaim alleging a contract breach of that contract, resulting damages and, inferentially, performance of counterclaimant's contractual duties satisfied requirements of this rule requiring only a short and plain statement of claim
showing that pleader is entitled to relief. Aamco Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Tayloe, E.D.Pa.1973, 368 F.Supp.
1283, 181 U.S.P.Q. 19. Federal Civil Procedure
782.1
338. Conversion actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
Under general federal law, United States Government's complaint for alleged conversion, against buyers of collateral used to secure Farmers' Home Administration loans, was sufficient to state claim for relief and thus to withstand
motion to dismiss. U.S. v. Kennedy, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1984, 738 F.2d 584. United States
Page 281
53(7)
Investor sufficiently alleged conversion claim under New York law where it alleged that it placed its money into
escrow pursuant to an agreement with defendants, and that, despite the lack of authority to use the money, defendants then used the escrow money for the closing of real estate transaction; investor was not required to comply with
the heightened pleading standard for fraud because its conversion claim was independent of its fraud claim.
636; Deposits
Amusement Industry, Inc. v. Stern, S.D.N.Y.2010, 693 F.Supp.2d 327. Federal Civil Procedure
And Escrows
15
Complaint alleging that, prior to death of plaintiff's mother, defendant, who was mother's spouse, unlawfully converted assets of the mother and assets that plaintiff held jointly with the mother and seeking equitable relief and punitive damages to compensate plaintiff for property allegedly converted, as well as accounting and imposition of
constructive trust on unspent balance of funds remaining in trust originally created by plaintiff to support mother
prior to her death, stated a cause of action. Bryden v. Davis, E.D.Mo.1981, 522 F.Supp. 1168. Conversion And Civil
Theft
161; Trusts
371(2)
A complaint, which alleged that certain oil belonging to plaintiff was converted and disposed of by defendants to
their own use, and which prayed for recovery of damages of $50,000, constituted a valid claim for relief for conversion of personalty under these rules, notwithstanding that plaintiff asserted no title to the land from which the oil
was removed and prayed no damages for trespass upon the land. Piersol v. Bendum Trees Oil Co., E.D.Ill.1941, 2
700; Conversion And Civil Theft
160; Conversion And Civil Theft
163
339. ---- Livestock, conversion actions, statement of entitlement
United States' identification in complaint of quantity, type, sex, breed, color, and age of each of livestock allegedly
auctioned in violation of United States' security interest in cattle under Farmers Home Administration loan was sufficiently specific to enable auction to defend conversion action, and Government was not required to conjure a name
for each Bossy, Bessie and Elsie in which it took a security interest. U.S. v. Equity Livestock Auction Market,
E.D.Wis.1983, 575 F.Supp. 1524. Secured Transactions
170
Complaint of government, which brought action for conversion as a holder of a security interest in 37 head of livestock sold by defendant in the course of its business as a livestock commission broker, was sufficiently specific,
especially when the attached exhibits were considered. U.S. v. Holmes & Robinson, D.C.Wis.1983, 575 F.Supp. 30.
633.1
340. ---- Stocks and securities, conversion actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint by seller of stock against purchaser of stock was not sufficient to state cause of action for conversion
arising out of purchaser's tender offer for purchase of stock. O'Connor v. GCA Corp., S.D.N.Y.1971, 332 F.Supp.
1246. Conversion And Civil Theft
158
341. Copyright actions, statement of entitlement
Software developers' allegations that former customers had continued to engage in copyright infringements after
developers discovered asserted acts of infringement falling outside three-year statute of limitations adequately alleged infringements occurring within limitations period, precluding dismissal of copyright infringement claim, even
though developers did not allege particular facts supporting allegations of continuing infringements. Two Palms
Software, Inc. v. Worldwide Freight Management, LLC, E.D.Mo.2011, 2011 WL 689648. Copyrights And Intellec-
tual Property
Page 282
80
Party asserting copyright infringement cause of action is not required to plead particular infringing acts with specificity. Craft & Associates, Inc. v. College America, Inc., D.S.D.2007, 477 F.Supp.2d 1053. Copyrights And Intellectual Property
82
Performer stated copyright infringement claim, on allegations that he was author of all works sought to be protected,
defendant promoter copied all or part of performer's performances, including key tricks, sketches, themes, stage
setup and design, build of cast, costumes, and other major elements of show, accused shows were strikingly similar
and in large part identical to performer's show, exuding same “look and feel” as performer's copyrighted material,
and promoter commercially utilized performer's promotional materials, including photographs, drawings, posters, tshirts, brochures, video recordings of performances. Kuklachev v. Gelfman, E.D.N.Y.2009, 600 F.Supp.2d 437.
82
Copyrights And Intellectual Property
Record companies' allegations that they were copyright owners or licensees of exclusive rights of certain musical
recordings, and that each of the recordings was the subject of a valid Certificate of Registration issued by the Register of Copyrights, and that each unidentified defendant, without the companies' permission or consent, had continuously used, and continued to use, an online media distribution system to download and/or distribute to the public
certain musical recordings, satisfied short and plain statement requirement for complaint; complaint also identified
each defendant by Internet Protocol (IP) address, and included a corresponding list of recordings allegedly infringed
by each defendant. Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, D.D.C.2008, 551 F.Supp.2d 1. Copyrights And Intellectual
Property
82
Complaint sufficiently pleaded which specific original works formed subject of copyright claim, and satisfied limited criteria of liberal pleading requirements rule for that element, by listing copyright registration numbers issued
by United States that corresponded to each of its copyrighted jewelry designs, annexing copies of United States Certificates of Copyright Registration, and stating that competitor infringed upon one or more of those copyrights.
Home & Nature Inc. v. Sherman Specialty Co., Inc., E.D.N.Y.2004, 322 F.Supp.2d 260. Copyrights And Intellectual
Property
82
Complaint alleging infringement of copyright in computer icon (.gif file) contained sufficient description of icon to
supply defendant with fair notice of claim; although no picture of icon was included and exact name of file given did
not appear on plaintiff's website, complaint accused defendant of using icon in particular version of its software.
Iconbazaar, L.L.C. v. America Online, Inc., M.D.N.C.2004, 308 F.Supp.2d 630, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293. Copyrights
And Intellectual Property
82
Complaint and exhibits revealing strong similarity between copyrighted marionette birds and allegedly infringing
marionette birds stated copyright infringement claim, although complaint did not specify which of alleged infringer's
marionettes may have been excepted from claim of infringement. Great American Fun Corp. v. Hosung New York
Trading Inc., S.D.N.Y.1996, 935 F.Supp. 488. Copyrights And Intellectual Property
82
Claimant alleging copyright claim must state (1) which specific original works are subject of claim, (2) that plaintiff
owns copyrights in issue, (3) that works in issue have been registered, and (4) by what acts and during what time
frame defendants have infringed copyright. Paragon Services, Inc. v. Hicks, E.D.Va.1994, 843 F.Supp. 1077.
82
Copyrights And Intellectual Property
Subdivision (a) of this rule requiring complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
pleader is entitled to relief is applicable to a copyright action. April Productions v. Strand Enterprises,
S.D.N.Y.1948, 79 F.Supp. 515, 77 U.S.P.Q. 155. Copyrights And Intellectual Property
82
Page 283
342. Credit actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
Proof of actual damages by reason of dishonor of letter of credit was not required, where it would not otherwise
have been required, merely because pleadings alleged damage by reason of dishonor. East Girard Sav. Ass'n v. Citizens Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Baytown, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1979, 593 F.2d 598. Banks And Banking
226
Mortgagors' laundry list of allegations were insufficient to state a claim, where it was not clear as to what cause of
action mortgagors were bringing. Labuanan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, D.Hawai'i 2011, 2011 WL 939039. Mortgages
216
Borrower failed to plead time and place of any alleged fraud perpetrated by lenders, and to specify what role each of
the lenders played in the alleged misconduct, as required to state a fraud claim against lenders; borrower's statements
that lenders perpetrated a fraudulent loan transaction, that borrower's actions were fraudulent and malicious, and that
borrowers partook in fraudulent concealment were legal conclusions entitled to no weight. Sakugawa v. Countrywide Bank F.S.B., D.Hawai'i 2011, 769 F.Supp.2d 1211. Federal Civil Procedure
636; Mortgages
216
Complaint against mortgagor and substitute trustees on applicable deed of trust failed to satisfy federal civil rule's
requirement of short and plain statement of claim, where complaint lacked any factual allegations supporting asserted federal and state causes of action and did not specify which provisions of multifaceted federal statutes were
violated by defendants, although complaint alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and several common law claims.
1801
Booker v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, M.D.N.C.2005, 375 F.Supp.2d 439. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint of used automobile buyer that seller, which allegedly offered oral credit terms, failed to disclose amount
of charge for credit life insurance, amount of finance charge, annual percentage rate of finance charge, or certain
other matters required by section 1638 of Title 15, and that seller retained a security interest without describing or
identifying security interest or property to which it related, stated cause of action under Truth in Lending Act, section 1601 et seq. of Title 15. Lucas v. Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., N.D.Ill.1974, 62 F.R.D. 399. Consumer Credit
66
District Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against furnishers of credit
information and collection agencies, arising from defendants' alleged misrepresentation of plaintiff as bad debtor,
where federal claims had been dismissed, and where plaintiff failed to provide short and plain statement of claim
showing that pleader was entitled to relief. O'Diah v. New York City, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21997748, Unre18
ported. Federal Courts
343. ---- Debt collection, credit actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations that original creditor did business as company which offered to act as consumer's agent in dealings with
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), that it assigned all of its assets to only remaining corporate entity, that licensed attorney who sent consumer collection letter was employed by entity, that engagement agreement was entered into
only by original creditor, that attorney represented creditor doing business as company and represented company,
and letter stated attorney “was asked” to collect debt were sufficient to state that entity was “debt collector” and attorney was employee of “debt collector,” as required under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Antkowiak
v. TaxMasters, E.D.Pa.2011, 2011 WL 941391. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
212
Action brought by consumer against law firm and attorney, alleging illegal debt collection practices, complied with
requirements under federal rules with respect to claims asserted under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),
Page 284
where complaint provided defendants with requisite fair notice of what claim was and grounds upon which it rested.
357
Neild v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., E.D.Va.2006, 453 F.Supp.2d 918. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
Uninsured patients' complaint set forth sufficient facts to state requisite “short and plain statement” of claim against
hospitals to whom they owed payment for medical services provided, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), where it alleged that hospitals conducted “unconscionable collection practices,” and that, through “unincorporated subdivision,” hospitals used “abusive, harassing tactics in collective outstanding bills.” Carlson v. Long
Island Jewish Medical Center, E.D.N.Y.2005, 378 F.Supp.2d 128. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
358
Allegations by pro se debtors that creditor was a debt collection entity, that creditor and others colluded and conspired to proceed to collect against debtors without validation of the debt through another entity, and that creditor's
agent made written debt collection demand upon debtors, properly alleged that creditor was a debt collector, as required to state claim against creditor under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Kerr v. Wanderer &
Wanderer, D.Nev.2002, 211 F.R.D. 625. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
358
344. ---- Fair Credit Reporting Act, credit actions, statement of entitlement
Consumers satisfied “short and plain statement” pleading requirement, in class action against insurer's affiliate alleging inadequate adverse-action notices under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), even though their complaint misidentified insurer as “subsidiary” of affiliate, and did not specifically name insurer; affiliate was insurer's attorneyin-fact that operated as management company for all of insurer's relevant insurance business, and knew from class
members' addresses that they were insureds of insurer, and thus was not prejudiced by mislabeling of legal relationship between affiliates. Ashby v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon, D.Or.2008, 565 F.Supp.2d 1188, subsequent determi4
nation 2008 WL 4165268. Credit Reporting Agencies
Consumer made short and plain statement showing that he was entitled to relief under Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), on claim that furnishers of information violated their duty to adequately investigate disputed information
once notified of dispute by credit reporting agency, where complaint provided chronology of correspondence between consumer and furnishers, and alleged that furnishers “failed to conduct a reasonable or timely reinvestigation
of the contested reportings.” Cisneros v. Trans Union, LLC, D.Hawai'i 2003, 293 F.Supp.2d 1167. Credit Reporting
Agencies
4
345. ---- Truth in Lending Act, credit actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations in TILA complaint that credit cardholders “paid currency conversion fees to one or more of the defendants named herein during the relevant period,” satisfied notice pleading standard, where currency conversion fees
were defined to include “a fee and/or surcharge levied upon cardholders for general purpose card foreign exchange
services, whether or not foreign currency is actually converted or exchanged.” In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, S.D.N.Y.2003, 265 F.Supp.2d 385. Consumer Credit
66
Debtors' claim that creditor-bank violated TILA by procuring insurance against debtors' default and charging debtors
for the insurance complied with rule governing claims for relief; debtors' sufficiently identified extra coverages that
creditor supposedly purchased in violation of TILA, including, coverage against expense incurred by creditor in
repossessing vehicles from defaulting debtors, and coverage indemnifying creditor in event that it was unable to
collect amounts due from debtor. Travis v. Boulevard Bank N.A., N.D.Ill.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1226. Consumer Credit
66
346. Defamation, libel or slander actions, statement of entitlement
Page 285
Complaint, alleging that defendant, in referring to plaintiff, had stated that plaintiff was a parasite and could not be
dealt with and that trying to deal with an organization such as plaintiff was like the United Nations trying to deal
with Communists in truce talks, stated cause of action for slander. Olan Mills, Inc., of Tenn. v. Enterprise Pub. Co.,
C.A.5 (La.) 1954, 210 F.2d 895. Libel And Slander
85
Complaint alleging that plaintiff was discharged from federal office as result of maliciously giving of false information concerning plaintiff to Federal Bureau of Investigation by defendant, was not defective for failure to plead false
and defamatory matter in haec verba since gist of action was the maliciously depriving plaintiff of a gainful position
in employ of Government. Foltz v. Moore, McCormack Lines, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1951, 189 F.2d 537, certiorari denied
85
72 S.Ct. 106, 342 U.S. 871, 96 L.Ed. 655. Libel And Slander
Plaintiff's pleadings in defamation action against language services company were governed by the rule governing
general pleadings, rather than rule requiring fraud claims to be pleaded with sufficient particularity, and thus, plaintiff provided sufficient notice to company, where his response to motion for judgment on pleadings provided details
which put company on notice of specific statements plaintiff contended were defamatory. Bishop v. Costa,
D.Me.2007, 495 F.Supp.2d 139. Federal Civil Procedure
85
To state a claim for defamation in federal court, a plaintiff need only provide a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Bernstein v. Seeman, S.D.N.Y.2009, 593 F.Supp.2d 630. Federal Civil
Procedure
80
Defamation claim asserted under New York law did not have to be pleaded with particularity, or allege the specific
80;
defamatory words. Pasqualini v. MortgageIT, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2007, 498 F.Supp.2d 659. Libel And Slander
85
Libel And Slander
Former officer of financial services company sufficiently pleaded defamation under federal rule setting forth pleading requirements in his counterclaim in company's action against former officer for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty; former officer set forth allegedly defamatory statements which former officers and company made to other
employees of company and to company accountant, and allegations gave company and current officers sufficient
notice and opportunity to defend themselves. Reserve Solutions Inc. v. Vernaglia, S.D.N.Y.2006, 438 F.Supp.2d
280. Libel And Slander
85
There was no heightened pleading requirement for state law defamation claims brought in federal court, even though
state law imposed heightened pleading standard. Bleau v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Ass'n,
D.Mass.2005, 371 F.Supp.2d 1. Libel And Slander
80
Allegation that defendant's agents defamed company by making false statements about company in industry publications and in e-mails was insufficiently specific to state claim for commercial disparagement under Wisconsin law;
complaint contained insufficient information for defendant to understand what company alleged it did and when.
BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., W.D.Wis.2004, 320 F.Supp.2d 804, 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1051.
139
Libel And Slander
Plaintiffs' allegation that police officer made “false statements about Plaintiffs committing the aforesaid criminal
offenses” at magisterial hearings gave sufficient notice of their state law defamation claim against officer to satisfy
federal pleading requirements. Roskos v. Sugarloaf Tp., M.D.Pa.2003, 295 F.Supp.2d 480. Libel And Slander
85
A slander claim may suffice to satisfy pleading requirements in federal diversity action if it sets forth the allegedly
slanderous statement and generally describes the manner and to whom it was uttered. Leavitt v. Cole, M.D.Fla.2003,
291 F.Supp.2d 1338. Libel And Slander
Page 286
80
In a diversity action, to state a claim for slander per quod or injurious falsehood under Florida law, a party need only
meet the liberal pleading requirements of federal procedural rule requiring short and plain statement of claim show80; Libel And
ing entitlement to relief. Leavitt v. Cole, M.D.Fla.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 1338. Libel And Slander
Slander
139
Complaint filed by operator of outpatient kidney dialysis centers against nephrologists gave nephrologists fair notice
of the defamation claims against them under Georgia law, as required under federal civil procedure rules; complaint
provided the statements allegedly made by nephrologists, alleged the statements were false, and explained that the
statements were published, and the element of maliciousness could be fairly gleaned from the complaint. Davita Inc.
v. Nephrology Associates, P.C., S.D.Ga.2003, 253 F.Supp.2d 1370. Libel And Slander
80
Strict pleading requirements for defamation at common law do not apply in federal court. Davidson v. Cao,
D.Mass.2002, 211 F.Supp.2d 264. Federal Courts
431
Federal pleading standards generally require a plaintiff pleading a state law defamation claim to recite the specific
words alleged to be defamatory; purpose of requiring in haec verba pleading is to enable defendant to responsively
85
plead. Goldstein v. Kinney Shoe Corp., N.D.Ill.1996, 931 F.Supp. 595. Libel And Slander
Wife alleging that she was libeled by article describing domestic dispute between her and her estranged husband
complied with notice requirements of Federal Civil Rule 8 where she attached copy of offending article to her complaint and stated that “the entire article as a whole is false.” Ritzmann v. Weekly World News, Inc., N.D.Tex.1985,
614 F.Supp. 1336. Libel And Slander
85
It is sufficient to plead a defamation claim that plaintiff has advanced colorable claims of having been identified and
described by the defamatory comment and the pleadings need be detailed only to the extent necessary to enable defendant to respond and to raise the defense of res judicata if appropriate and pleading of additional evidence is in
contravention of proper pleading procedure. Linker v. Custom-Bilt Machinery Inc., E.D.Pa.1984, 594 F.Supp. 894.
80
Libel And Slander
Where plaintiff in libel action against out-of-state newspaper alleged that article was defamatory in its entirety,
complaint satisfied notice requirements, and plaintiff was not required to plead, in haec verbis, defamatory language
in article alleged to be actionable. Stabler v. New York Times, Co., S.D.Tex.1983, 569 F.Supp. 1131. Libel And
Slander
85
Allegation that defendants on several occasions presented to various county officials a letter that contained statements about plaintiffs which were untrue, with photograph of plaintiffs' headquarters, failed to state claim where
plaintiffs had not substantially set forth words alleged to be defamatory and untrue nor any facts that would establish
85
publication. Walters v. Linhof, D.C.Colo.1983, 559 F.Supp. 1231. Libel And Slander
Allegations of libel and slander do not require special pleadings. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. WAPCO Constructors, Inc.,
M.D.La.1981, 520 F.Supp. 186. Federal Civil Procedure
706
Allegations of a federal court complaint alleging defamation must afford defendant sufficient notice of the communications complained of to enable him to defend himself. Liguori v. Alexander, S.D.N.Y.1980, 495 F.Supp. 641.
80
Libel And Slander
Failure of parties suing insured to specifically state that crux of their actions was libel, slander, defamation or viola-
Page 287
tion of privacy could not defeat duty of insurer under endorsement providing coverage for such actions, inasmuch as
the lawsuits had been filed in federal district court and this rule merely required “notice” pleading. Chicago Title &
Trust Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., N.D.Ill.1976, 424 F.Supp. 830, affirmed 571 F.2d 586. Insurance
2311;
2312; Insurance
2914
Insurance
In defamation action where it was alleged in complaint that plaintiff had been violently discharged and falsely and
slanderously accused of procuring for prostitution, complaint sufficiently stated claim upon which relief could be
granted, notwithstanding failure to state, in so many words, that there had been publication of alleged slanderous
84
utterances. Garcia v. Hilton Hotels Intern., D.C.Puerto Rico 1951, 97 F.Supp. 5. Libel And Slander
Complaint in action based on publication of newspaper articles concerning plaintiff should have stated facts only,
without argument, and demand for judgment for relief requested; each paragraph should have been numbered and
should have set forth one fact or set of circumstances to enable defendant publisher to admit or deny each fact or set
of circumstances separately; facts should have been so stated as to enable defendant to determine whether cause of
action was based on libel, invasion of privacy, or if based on some other tort, what that tort was; and article or articles and date or dates of publication for each should have been identified along with specific matter deemed damaging and special damages, if any, incurred. Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publication, Inc., E.D.Pa.1965, 39 F.R.D. 22.
691; Libel And
Slander
85
A complaint in action for libel alleging that defendant produced and exhibited an inferior moving picture falsely
representing that plaintiff, a well-known producer, was the producer thereof and that such false representation injured plaintiff's position as a producer in the professional and theater world was sufficient to state a cause of action
706
for libel. Carroll v. Paramount Pictures, S.D.N.Y.1942, 3 F.R.D. 95. Federal Civil Procedure
Distributor's complaint satisfied federal pleading requirement that plaintiff give defendant sufficient notice of claim
with respect to claim against cabinetry manufacturer's agent for disparagement and injurious falsehood under New
York law, even though complaint did not allege words actually spoken, when complaint asserted that agent indicated
to cabinetry dealer that distributor's principal was not trustworthy and manufacturer had no faith in distributor's
abilities to support its dealer, and also alleged that agent made similar statements to other dealers. AIM Intern. Trading, L.L.C. v. Valcucine S.p.A., S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21203503, Unreported. Libel And Slander
85
Allegations in defamation complaint, asserting claims under New York and Pennsylvania law arising from allegedly
false credit reporting information, failed to disclose sufficient information to permit defendants to understand basis
of plaintiff's complaints, and thus claims were required to be dismissed under procedural rule governing notice
pleading. O'Diah v. New York City, S.D.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1941179, Unreported, reconsideration denied 2002
WL 31246508, reconsideration denied 2003 WL 223418. Libel And Slander
80
347. Dredging actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations of complaint established jurisdiction under Federal Tort Claims Act, section 1346(b) and section 2671 et
seq. of this title, and constituted sufficient compliance with this rule in action against United States for damages for
injury to plaintiff's land by dredging operations. Anderson v. U. S., E.D.Pa.1963, 217 F.Supp. 814. United States
140
348. Education and students actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations that Missouri school districts violated students' constitutional rights by intentionally segregating students
on basis of race and maintaining school segregation in metropolitan area by participating in operation of state-
Page 288
mandated segregated school system before 1954, transferring students across district lines for purpose of segregation, engaging in discriminatory employment practices discouraging minority race residence and attendance within
various districts, obstructing school district boundary line changes which would have reduced racial segregation and
failing to fulfill constitutional duties to dismantle previous state dual system of schools and eliminate remaining vestiges of their previously discriminatory actions were sufficient to appraise Missouri school districts of nature of students' claims against them. School Dist. of Kansas City, Mo. v. State of Mo., W.D.Mo.1978, 460 F.Supp. 421, ap13(18.1)
peal dismissed 592 F.2d 493. Schools
349. Emotional distress, statement of entitlement
State-law-tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress brought in federal court alleging the principal
events giving rise to the suit and attaching them to a right of action cognizable under state law was sufficient to
plead a claim under federal law, requiring reinstatement of claim, notwithstanding that the complaint did not contain
all of the facts that would be necessary to prevail under Illinois law. Christensen v. County of Boone, IL, C.A.7 (Ill.)
2007, 483 F.3d 454, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Damages
149
Longshoreman who sued marine terminal's insurer, stemming from injuries suffered while loading container vessel
at port, properly stated claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, where complaint provided adequate
notice of nature of claim and grounds upon which it rested. Torres Vazquez v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., D.Puerto
Rico 2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 231. Damages
149
Absent any heightened pleading requirement for emotional distress claim, former employee's complaint describing
circumstances of his discharge and why he believed events gave rise to intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim was sufficient under federal rules of notice pleading. Rholdon v. Bio-Medical Applications of Louisiana, Inc.,
E.D.La.1994, 868 F.Supp. 179. Damages
149
350. Employment actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
Salesmen who sued employer to recover commissions for sales made prior to layoffs complied with rules of pleading in invoking both civil remedies provision and liquidated damages provision of Wage Payment and Collection
Law and were not barred from seeking attorney fees on theory that they were awarded common-law damages only.
2204
Barnhart v. Compugraphic Corp., C.A.3 (Pa.) 1991, 936 F.2d 131. Labor And Employment
In action by employees against railroad for violation of employment agreement, where plaintiffs were relying upon
custom and usage among railroads to establish amount of damages, an allegation of knowledge of the custom and
usage on part of defendant was not necessary. Burley v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1943, 140 F.2d 488,
certiorari granted 65 S.Ct. 45, 323 U.S. 690, 89 L.Ed. 558, affirmed 65 S.Ct. 1282, 325 U.S. 711, 89 L.Ed. 1886,
rehearing granted 66 S.Ct. 86, 326 U.S. 801, 90 L.Ed. 488, adhered to on rehearing 66 S.Ct. 721, 327 U.S. 661, 90
L.Ed. 928. Customs And Usages
18
Under notice pleading standard, employee's retaliation complaint sufficiently alleged that he “caused” coworker to
file wage and hour claim with Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) where it expressly stated that he “encouraged” coworker to file BOLI claim. Onken v. W.L. May Co., D.Or.2004, 300 F.Supp.2d 1066. Labor And Employment
858
Complaint which alleged that voyages during which seamen worked on vessel owner's cruise ships ended, that seamen were discharged, and that overtime pay to which seamen were entitled was withheld without sufficient cause
asserted claims for penalty wages under federal seaman's wages statute. Bolanos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd.,
S.D.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1465907, Unreported, affirmed 2004 WL 769766. Seamen
18
Page 289
351. ---- Fair Labor Standards Act actions, employment actions, statement of entitlement
In action under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 201 et seq. of Title 29, to recover overtime wages, pleader is not
required to do more than make a “short and plain statement” of facts upon which he relies to establish his claim that
he and his fellow employees were engaged in commerce or in production of goods for commerce within this chapter.
703
Clyde v. Broderick, C.C.A.10 (Colo.) 1944, 144 F.2d 348. Federal Civil Procedure
In action under Fair Labor Standards Act, § 201 et seq. of Title 29, for wages and overtime, a petition attempting to
show that employer, which was a subsidiary corporation operating in Florida, had been created by its New York
parent corporation immediately after the act went into effect to continue parent's business around Miami in selling
milk products shipped from New York and that employer was parent's agent in making deliveries, and alleging that
plaintiffs were engaged in interstate commerce in that they unloaded products from parent's New York trucks, in
Miami and delivered them to employer's customers, should not have been dismissed on employer's motion. De
Loach v. Crowley's, Inc., C.C.A.5 (Fla.) 1942, 128 F.2d 378. Federal Civil Procedure
1794
Complaint sufficiently pled an independent claim under the FLSA, where it cited to FLSA section that “an employee
must be paid overtime, equal to 1.5 times the employee's regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week”; complaint sufficiently gives fair notice to employer in light of lenient pleading standards of applicable federal civil rule. Takacs v. A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc., S.D.Cal.2006, 444 F.Supp.2d 1100. Labor And Employment
2380(3)
Complaint of Secretary of Labor to enjoin employers from alleged violations of § 201 et seq. of Title 29 sufficiently
complied with requirements of this rule for particularity and was sufficient to enable defendants to interpose a
proper answer which rendered it invulnerable to attack on motion for a more definite statement. Mitchell v. Independent Stave Co., W.D.Mo.1957, 159 F.Supp. 829. Federal Civil Procedure
994
Under minimum wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, §§ 206, 207 of Title 29, a cause of action accrues only to employees in commerce, or who are producing goods for commerce, and such an allegation is
essential to a statement of employee's claim for recovery of money allegedly due through failure of employer to pay
minimum wages or overtime pay. Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., D.C.Hawai'i 1953, 114 F.Supp. 643. Commerce
62.40; Commerce
62.44(1); Commerce
62.44(2); Labor And Employment
2380(3)
A complaint by the Wage and Hour Administrator, alleging that defendant was engaged in the purchase and distribution of groceries at wholesale in interstate commerce, and that it employed about 34 employees in such commerce, etc., and failed to pay minimum wages and keep records pursuant to § 201 et seq. of Title 29, was sufficient,
as against a motion to dismiss, to state a cause of action in a suit to enjoin defendant from violating it. Fleming v.
Wood-Fruitticher Grocery Co, N.D.Ala.1941, 37 F.Supp. 947. Federal Civil Procedure
703
In action under Fair Labor Standards Act, § 216(b) of Title 29, plaintiffs' inability to set out the exact hours and exact amounts in controversy was not fatal where such failure was due to plaintiff's lack of definite knowledge thereof
and defendant had complete records bearing on the matter. Winslow v. National Elec. Products Corp., W.D.Pa.1946,
703
Where complaint seeking to enjoin violation of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 201 et seq. of Title 29, contained a simple, direct statement of cause of action, defendants could not by motion for more definite statement require plaintiff to state the names and number of employees allegedly paid less than minimum wages, those not paid
overtime, or those for whom adequate records were not made and kept, the names and number of home workers and
the term and nature of their employment, dates on which and persons to whom goods produced in violation of § 201
et seq. of Title 29, were sold, shipped, delivered or offered for transportation in interstate commerce, or the manner
Page 290
of defendants' present violations of § 201 et seq. of Title 29. Walling v. Todd, M.D.Pa.1942, 2 F.R.D. 522. Federal
Civil Procedure
995
In action brought by employees under § 216 of Title 29, count of complaint which failed to show compliance with
paragraph of contract, which was a “condition precedent” to maintenance of cause of action set forth in the count,
was required to be dismissed. Keegan v. Jacob Ruppert, S.D.N.Y.1941, 2 F.R.D. 8. Labor And Employment
2380(1)
352. ---- Pensions and benefits, employment actions, statement of entitlement
Under notice pleading standards, foundry employees adequately pled claim for unpaid overtime under Wisconsin
law, where they cited only Administrative Code provision in support of that claim and did not plead statutory authority for private right of action for overtime pay against employer, but requested damages, costs and fees pursuant
to relevant chapter; even under state pleading standard, complaint was sufficient to put employer on notice that
claim was for unpaid overtime under that chapter, and that it was separate and distinct from claim for breach of contract. DeKeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc., E.D.Wis.2008, 589 F.Supp.2d 1026. Labor And Employment
2380(3)
Former employee's complaint which stated that the failure to pay him the accrued benefits of noncontributory profitsharing plan established by employer was wrongful conveyed fair notice of what former employee's claim was and
the ground upon which it rested, and was sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hatten v.
Worden, E.D.Pa.1965, 38 F.R.D. 496. Federal Civil Procedure
702.1
353. ---- Wrongful discharge, employment actions, statement of entitlement
In employee's action against employer for damages for wrongful discharge, complaint alleging that employee was
discharged without any prior notice and stating conclusion that discharge was wrongful and without good and sufficient cause and in violation of employer's collective bargaining agreement with union and not alleging facts showing
that employer's reason for discharge was not good and sufficient or that employee was entitled to notice was insufficient to state cause of action for breach of such agreement which prohibited discharge except for good and sufficient
cause and required two weeks' advance notice of discharge to employee having six months' service except in event
of discharge for wilful neglect of duty or gross misconduct. Marranzano v. Riggs Nat. Bank of Washington, D.C.,
C.A.D.C.1950, 184 F.2d 349, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 195. Labor And Employment
858
Separated federal employee's complaint seeking review of separation and denial of his appeals and claiming that
alleged reduction in force was mere device to oust him for other reasons stated a claim. Daub v. U. S.,
E.D.N.Y.1963, 223 F.Supp. 609. Officers And Public Employees
72.45(1)
354. Environmental actions, statement of entitlement
United States sufficiently pled claim for civil penalty under Clean Water Act (CWA) in its action against vessel's
owner, operator, and pilot, even though complaint did not indicate amount of penalty it sought, where complaint
alleged that vessel spilled fuel into bay after alliding with bridge, and CWA provided that penalties were to be de223
termined by court. U.S. v. M/V COSCO BUSAN, N.D.Cal.2008, 557 F.Supp.2d 1058. Environmental Law
Allegations in purchaser's CERCLA complaint were sufficient to state claim against vendor even though allegations
did not include assertion that response costs incurred were consistent with National Contingency Plan (NCP); purchaser alleged that vendor was liable for “the necessary response costs plaintiff has incurred as a result of the actual
release of hazardous substances” and that purchaser incurred response costs in form of “costs for testing the prop-
Page 291
erty, analysis, and installation of monitoring wells on the property.” Metal Processing Co., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co.,
E.D.Wis.1996, 926 F.Supp. 828. Environmental Law
673
355. ERISA actions, statement of entitlement
ERISA complaint could not be construed to have put employer on fair notice that employee was alleging violations
of ERISA sections requiring pension plan administrator to furnish plan participants with summary plan descriptions
(SPDs) within ninety days of becoming participant and to make copies of latest SPD, latest annual report, and specified other documents available for examination by any plan participant; complaint repeatedly referenced statutory
requirement, not found in either of subject sections, that request for benefits information be made in writing and
specifically alleged that employer had failed to provide information regarding employee's total benefits accrued and
vested, a subject not covered by either of those sections. Minadeo v. ICI Paints, C.A.6 (Ohio) 2005, 398 F.3d 751,
649
on remand 2006 WL 2040402. Labor And Employment
County employee's former husband's complaint based on denial of health insurance coverage adequately raised
claims under notification provisions of COBRA's amendments to the Public Health Service Act, which would be
applicable to government employee benefit plans, and thus district court should have addressed that theory of recovery rather than granting summary judgment based solely on fact that ERISA's notification provisions would not apply to government employee benefit plans; complaint repeatedly raised issue of whether county had complied with
“COBRA,” and referred to PHSA. Williams v. New Castle County, C.A.3 (Del.) 1992, 970 F.2d 1260. Federal Civil
Procedure
2497.1
Defendant's statement that documents referenced in ERISA complaint spoke for themselves, after it admitted or denied factual allegations presented in complaint, satisfied “short and plain” statement requirement for responding to a
pleading. Barnes v. AT & T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, N.D.Cal.2010, 718 F.Supp.2d 1167. Labor
And Employment
649
ERISA plan participants' prohibited transaction claims arising out of trustee's retention of float did not satisfy notice
pleading requirements; their only allegation in complaint was that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by “engaging in, and causing the Plan to engage in, prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA §§ 406,” and that conclusory statement did not identify any specific transactions or identify which fiduciary was supposedly responsible for
entering into transaction. Tibble v. Edison Intern., C.D.Cal.2009, 639 F.Supp.2d 1122. Labor And Employment
649
General notice pleading requirements, rather than heightened pleading standard for fraud claims, govern claims under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duties. Fici v. Lucent Technologies Inc., D.Mass.2008, 581 F.Supp.2d 143.
636; Labor And Employment
649
A disability benefit plan participant's complaint against her employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), challenging the denial of benefits under the plan, gave the employer fair notice of the claim, as
required by the rule of civil procedure setting forth the notice of pleading requirement; in the complaint, the participant stated that the defendant was her employer during the time period relevant to her ERISA claim, and the carrier
of the policy, and she stated with sufficient detail the factual basis for her ERISA claim. Gonzalez-Lopez v. CIGNA
Group Ins., D.Puerto Rico 2008, 609 F.Supp.2d 161. Labor And Employment
680
Unlike claims of fraud which require a heightened standard of pleading, claims brought under ERISA are subject
only to simplified notice pleading standard. In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, S.D.Ohio 2006, 424
F.Supp.2d 1002. Labor And Employment
634
Notice pleading did not require an averment that participant in employee welfare benefit plan exhausted administra-
Page 292
tive remedies before bringing suit; the participant only needed to give notice of the claim. Fernandez-Vargas v.
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.Puerto Rico 2005, 394 F.Supp.2d 407, reconsideration denied 2006 WL 3254463,
634
affirmed 522 F.3d 55. Labor And Employment
Plan participants sufficiently pleaded reliance upon fiduciaries' alleged misrepresentations of fact, and their concealment and omissions of fact, in lawsuit under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), on allegations
that “Plan, and the Participants acting on behalf of the Plan, relied upon, and are presumed to have relied upon, Defendants' representations and nondisclosures to their detriment.” In re AEP ERISA Litigation, S.D.Ohio 2004, 327
F.Supp.2d 812, motion to certify denied 2005 WL 6342716. Labor And Employment
649
Allegations that subsidiary's employees participated in parent corporation's retirement savings plan, employee stock
ownership plan (ESOP), or both and that company matching contributions were made in corporate stock satisfied
notice pleading requirements in employees' action alleging breach of fiduciary duties by corporation, its directors,
and certain officers. In re Xcel Energy, Inc., Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation, D.Minn.2004, 312
F.Supp.2d 1165. Labor And Employment
649
ERISA plan participants' allegations that officer of corporate employer exercised discretionary authority and discretionary control over administration and management of participants' retirement plan sufficiently asserted that officer
was ERISA fiduciary to satisfy notice pleading requirements, even though allegations did little more than track ERISA's definition of fiduciary. In re WorldCom, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2003, 263 F.Supp.2d 745. Labor And Employment
649
Employee's claim against health maintenance organization (HMO) did not contain short and plain statement of claim
showing entitlement to relief and thus did not state ERISA action; employee's state claim of negligence by HMO in
repeatedly transferring him to different hospitals was preempted by ERISA. Dearmas v. Av-Med, Inc.,
S.D.Fla.1993, 814 F.Supp. 1103. Health
607; States
18.51; Labor And Employment
680
Inclusion of averments relating to defendant claims administrator insurer's conflict of interest was appropriate, and
did not violate requirement for “short and plain statement of the claim,” in beneficiary's complaint under ERISA
alleging wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits, although complaint contained 41 pages and 97 numbered
paragraphs with numerous sub-parts, and many paragraphs in complaint contained multiple sentences with numerous allegations, including recitations of evidence, legal conclusions, and case citations; by pleading legal conclusions and introducing a plethora of facts in his complaint, beneficiary actually exceeded the minimal pleading standard required. Allen v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, N.D.Ga.2009, 267 F.R.D. 407. Labor And Employment
680
356. Fair Housing Act actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint against city sufficiently alleged Fair Housing Act cause of action by stating “[t]his is a case involving
discriminatory housing practices * * * [t]he above-named Defendants engaged in discrimination in violation of the
Federal Fair Housing Law, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn, C.A.5 (Tex.)
1996, 81 F.3d 521. Civil Rights
1395(3)
The controlling standard for survival of a motion to dismiss a suit alleging discrimination in violation of the Fair
Housing Act lies not in the McDonnell Douglas framework, but in the pleading rule which requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Sanchez v. Thompson, E.D.N.Y.2008, 252
F.R.D. 136. Civil Rights
1395(3)
Plaintiffs' complaint against landlord, which fully described the challenged rental pricing policy, which charged
groups larger than four tenants living in two- or three-bedroom apartments more money, how it affected them, and
Page 293
statutory basis for their claim, properly met requirements of rule of civil procedure governing claims for relief.
Meyer v. Bear Road Associates, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2005, 124 Fed.Appx. 686, 2005 WL 545437, Unreported. Civil
Rights
1395(3)
357. Family and Medical Leave Act, statement of entitlement
Allegations that employee was on medical leave of absence that was governed by the FMLA, and that employer
entered into agreement to grant her extended medical leave, but wrongfully terminated her while that leave was still
pending, were sufficient to put employer on notice of essence of claimed violation of the FMLA and satisfy notice
pleading requirements. Collins v. OSF Healthcare System, C.D.Ill.2003, 262 F.Supp.2d 959. Labor And Employment
388
357a. Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act actions, statement of entitlement
Borrower failed to allege specific provision of Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act's (HOEPA's) amendments to Truth in Lending Act (TILA) that was allegedly violated by mortgage refinancing lenders and their agents,
or what remedy borrower sought, and thus borrower failed to satisfy general pleading requirements to support
HOEPA claim. Dixon v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., S.D.Fla.2010, 710 F.Supp.2d 1325. Consumer Credit
66
358. Foreclosure, statement of entitlement
Complaint filed by United States in foreclosure action against agricultural borrowers was sufficiently detailed,
where complaint detailed promissory note and real estate mortgages executed by borrowers, copy of each document
was attached to complaint, complaint alleged that borrowers defaulted under terms of promissory note and real estate mortgages and set forth specific amounts due and owing, complaint explained that all administrative and servicing actions had been completed and borrowers had been provided required notices, and stated relief sought. U.S. v.
Hafner, D.N.D.2006, 421 F.Supp.2d 1220. United States
53(16)
359. Fraud actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
Claims of fraud or mistake, including False Claims Act (FCA) claims, must, in addition to pleading with particularity, also plead plausible allegations; that is, the pleading must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation
that discovery will reveal evidence of the misconduct alleged. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., C.A.9 (Ariz.) 2011, 637 F.3d 1047. Federal Civil Procedure
636; United States
122
Federal rule requiring that a fraud claim be pled with particularity must not be read to abrogate federal rule embodying the concept of “notice pleading,” and a court considering a motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity should always be careful to harmonize directives of that rule with the broader policy of notice pleading.
636
Friedlander v. Nims, C.A.11 (Ga.) 1985, 755 F.2d 810. Federal Civil Procedure
When fraud is alleged, it must be particularized, but it still must be as short, plain, simple, concise, and direct as is
reasonable under the circumstances. Carrigan v. California State Legislature, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1959, 263 F.2d 560, cer630; Federal Civil Procedure
tiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 901, 359 U.S. 980, 3 L.Ed.2d 929. Federal Civil Procedure
636
This rule and rule 9 of these rules not only require notice of activities complained of but also, where multiple defendants are alleged to have participated in fraud, reasonable notice on part each defendant is to have played in scheme.
625.1
Adair v. Hunt Intern. Resources Corp., N.D.Ill.1981, 526 F.Supp. 736. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 294
360. ---- Fraudulent conveyances, fraud actions, statement of entitlement
Mexican garment manufacturer that sued officers of import company, seeking to recover debt allegedly owed by
company, was required to plead facts in support of piercing corporate veil with heightened specificity under federal
rules governing fraud allegations, to extent that claims alleged fraudulent conveyance; liberal pleading standards
applied to allegations premised on harm other than fraud, and to components of fraud-based allegations based on
dominance and control. Sofi Classic S.A. de C.V. v. Hurowitz, S.D.N.Y.2006, 444 F.Supp.2d 231. Corporations
And Business Organizations
636; Corporations And Business Organizations
1085(5)
Because intent to defraud is not an element of fraudulent conveyance, such claims, as opposed to claims of actual
fraud, are not subject to heightened pleading requirements when brought in federal court; instead, pleading fraudulent conveyance requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
636; Fraudulent
Mills v. Everest Reinsurance Co., S.D.N.Y.2006, 410 F.Supp.2d 243. Federal Civil Procedure
Conveyances
263(1)
361. ---- Patents, fraud actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint which sought damages for fraud and deceit allegedly practiced by patent licensee and its assignee in depriving patentee of his patent and invention and of his right under exclusive license contract granted to the licensee,
stated cause of action for fraud and deceit. Kraus v. General Motors Corporation, S.D.N.Y.1939, 27 F.Supp. 537.
41
Fraud
362. ---- Stocks and securities, fraud actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint alleging that father had transferred securities to defendant-son in anticipation of liability on notes father
had endorsed for customers and that defendant had breached his fiduciary and confidential relationship to plaintiffson and by means of false and fraudulent representations induced plaintiff to settle his interest in trust res for a fraction of its actual worth, was sufficient to state a cause of action. Fuhrer v. Fuhrer, C.A.7 (Ind.) 1961, 292 F.2d 140.
41
Fraud
Claims alleging false registration or proxy statements under the Securities Act are subject to general pleading requirements if grounded in negligence, and subject to heightened pleading requirements if grounded in fraud. Police
and Fire Retirement System of City of Detroit v. SafeNet, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2009, 645 F.Supp.2d 210. Federal Civil
Procedure
25.25; Securities Regulation
25.65
Securities broker-dealers' complaint in securities fraud case against securities lenders did not violate rule requiring a
short and plain statement of claim, although, at 100 pages and 1,000 paragraphs, complaint was neither short nor
plain, where complaint complied with rule requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity and heightened pleading
standards applicable in securities fraud cases, it was well-written, well-organized, and effectively alerted lenders of
claims against them. Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, D.Minn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 1032. Federal Civil Procedure
60.51(1)
Stock purchasers stated a claim under the Securities Act section affording stock purchasers a cause of action for materially false representations in a registration statement, even though they purchased their shares after the initial public offering (IPO), and even though they alleged the purchased shares were traceable to the IPO in fairly conclusory
terms. Funke v. Life Financial Corp., S.D.N.Y.2002, 237 F.Supp.2d 458.
Page 295
Securities fraud complaint did not satisfy Civil Procedure Rule 8 requirement that complaint contain short and plain
statement of claim showing pleader is entitled to relief; complaint was 55 pages and 129 paragraphs long, and nonetheless failed to set forth who, what, when, why, and where in concise fashion. In re Buffets, Inc. Securities Litigation, D.Minn.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1293. Securities Regulation
60.53
Shareholder pleaded securities fraud claim with sufficient particularity, even though allegation of damages was allegedly not sufficiently specific; shareholder complied with Rule 8 requirement regarding short and plain statement
of claim, and Rule 9(b) imposing more detailed requirement in connection with fraud allegations, required specificity as to how scheme operated, when and where it occurred, and who participants were, rather than damages suf636
fered. Williams v. Sabin, N.D.Ill.1995, 884 F.Supp. 294. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint filed by limited partners against limited partnership, general partners and others to recover for alleged
federal securities laws violations failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity, because the complaint did not
adequately advise defendants of the time, place and nature of the fraud, failed to specifically identify documents or
statements containing allegedly fraudulent representations, and contained no specific allegations regarding the roles
of defendants in preparation and dissemination of fraudulent representations; accordingly, all of plaintiffs' claims
grounded in fraud would be dismissed with leave to amend. Hokama v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., C.D.Cal.1983, 566
636
Complaint against shareholder based on fraud in selling its nonvoting common stock was inadequate in that it failed
to give a short and simple description of the factual basis of the fraud claim, requiring plaintiff to file an amended
complaint but not requiring dismissal. Rosengarten v. Buckley, D.C.Md.1982, 565 F.Supp. 193. Federal Civil Procedure
1781
Shareholder's complaint which set forth subject matter of alleged corporate fraud and of proposed takeover of another company and asserted that fraud was perpetrated by misstatements and omissions made by corporation in public statements made regarding proposed takeover pleaded fraud with sufficient particularity to give corporation notice of claims against it. Jordan v. Global Natural Resources, Inc., S.D.Ohio 1983, 564 F.Supp. 59. Federal Civil
Procedure
636
Allegation that defendant participated in preparation of misleading offering circular, which failed to disclose that
proceeds of stock offering were assigned to bank pending full payment of its loan, was sufficiently clear to meet
requirement that a complaint contain a short plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief.
715
Jenkins v. Fidelity Bank, E.D.Pa.1973, 365 F.Supp. 1391. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint, which alleged that plaintiffs relied to their detriment on misstatements and omissions of material facts
collectively made by defendants in connection with sale of securities and which set forth misstatements and omissions with particularity along with dates and letters in which such mistakes and omissions were made, met notice
requirement of federal pleading, though none of misstatements and omissions were attributed to specific defendants.
691
Burkhart v. Allson Realty Trust, N.D.Ill.1973, 363 F.Supp. 1286. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint of trustee of bankrupt stockbroker containing assertions of negligence, fraud, conversion, and waste was
sufficient to state a cause of action for violation of antifraud provisions of federal securities laws as against claim of
defendant stockholders and managers of bankrupt that there were not many non-particularized allegations which
would serve to uphold violation of antifraud provisions of federal securities law and that there was an insufficient
allegation of facts amounting to scienter. Bush v. Masiello, S.D.N.Y.1972, 55 F.R.D. 72. Securities Regulation
60.51(2)
Where plaintiff, seeking recovery under Securities Act of 1933, and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, sections 77a
et seq. and 78a et seq. of Title 15, Florida statutes, F.S.A. § 517.301, and common-law fraud, set forth specific mis-
Page 296
representations which allegedly were made by defendant and on which plaintiff allegedly relied to his detriment, to
wit, that the value of his corporate stock was diluted, there was compliance with requirement that plaintiff set out a
short and plain statement of claim that he is entitled to relief. Ratner v. Scientific Resources Corp., S.D.Fla.1971, 53
F.R.D. 325, appeal dismissed 462 F.2d 616. Federal Civil Procedure
691
Plaintiff's allegation, in one 18-page count of second amended complaint, of claims for breach of contract, violations
of Wisconsin Securities Law, violations of Federal Securities Acts and regulations, misrepresentations, untrue
statements, schemes, plans, illegal acts and fraud, demonstrated a gross disregard of this rule requiring that pleading
contain a short and plain statement of grounds upon which court's jurisdiction depends, as well as a short and plain
statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, and requiring that each averment of pleading shall be
simple, concise and direct, and warranted dismissal of pleading. Kappus v. Western Hills Oil, Inc., E.D.Wis.1959,
24 F.R.D. 123. See, also, Nelson v. Quimby Island Reclamation Dist. Facilities Corp., N.D.Cal.1980, 491 F.Supp.
1789
In action for alleged conversion of capital stock, third-party defendant's counterclaim which alleged that defendants
had fraudulently caused shares of stock owned by the third-party defendant to be issued to themselves sufficiently
stated a claim for which relief could be granted, but failed to comply with rule 9 prescribing that in all averments of
fraud, circumstances constituting fraud shall be stated with particularity. Lynn v. Valentine, S.D.N.Y.1956, 19
636; Fraud
41
363. ---- Trademarks, fraud actions, statement of entitlement
First muffler installer did not state with sufficient specificity factual basis for its allegations of second muffler installer's fraudulent misrepresentation to Patent and Trademark Office, as required to state fraud claim requiring cancellation of trademark registered by second muffler installer, where petition lacked affirmative facts supporting first
installer's belief that second installer knew of third-party's right to use mark in commerce when second installer filed
mark, and first installer made only conclusory allegation as to second installer's knowledge of prior use of the mark.
King Automotive, Inc. v. Speedy Muffler King, Inc., Cust. & Pat.App.1981, 667 F.2d 1008, 212 U.S.P.Q. 801.
1388
Trademarks
364. ---- Miscellaneous fraud actions, statement of entitlement
Reasonable inference did not arise under “cat's paw” theory of liability on claim of retaliation under False Claims
Act (FCA) on knowledge by some officials of government contractor, who were in position to influence decisionmaker, that former employee relator, who was alleging that her position was eliminated in retaliation for her inquiries about alleged fraud against federal government, had made inquiries and requests about program in question, and
cryptic statement of relator's co-worker, that unspecified “people” had, for unknown reasons, “poisoned the water
[by turning decisionmaker against former employee],” “gotten to [decisionmaker],” and “placed a cloak of poison
over [relator's] office with [decisionmaker]”; without more, evidence adduced only established that such set of
events conceivably could have occurred. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., C.A.9 (Ariz.)
2011, 637 F.3d 1047. Labor And Employment
863(2)
Buyers of used car with rolled-back odometer adequately pled fraudulent concealment in action against owners of
wholesale auto auction; buyers described in detail transaction in which car passed through auction in their fraud
count, and alleged that owners knew that cars with rolled-back odometers were being sold at auction. Pelster v. Ray,
C.A.8 (Mo.) 1993, 987 F.2d 514. Fraud
43
Complaint against United States charging that unnamed defendants acting under authority of state law had entered
into contract equitably secured on part of plaintiff in payment for partial dentures, eyeglasses, laundry services, body
brace and orthopedic shoes, and adequate O.A.I. monthly benefits due plaintiff and that defendants defrauded plain-
Page 297
tiff of her right to partial dentures was ambiguous, uncertain and verbose and stated no claim upon which relief
632; Federal Civil
could be granted. Legg v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1965, 353 F.2d 534. Federal Civil Procedure
Procedure
636; United States
140
In action against former director by corporation for accounting, allegations that director took title in his own name to
properties purchased with corporation's funds, that he wrongfully appropriated such properties to his own use, and
had never accounted for proceeds, were sufficient to state a cause of action. Gulf Coast Western Oil Co. v. Trapp,
C.C.A.10 (Okla.) 1947, 165 F.2d 343. Corporations And Business Organizations
1923
False Claims Act (FCA) plaintiffs pled fraud by oil company with sufficient particularity; False Claims Act (FCA)
against an oil company alleged to have fraudulently guaranteed that government certifications for engineering
documents existed, as required for oil and gas production; the complaint provided specific descriptions of an alleged
chain of events leading to a project control supervisor's purported discovery of documentation deficiencies and his
supposed attempts to cure the issue, specifying dates that he allegedly acquired the knowledge, with whom he spoke,
what emails he received and what meetings he attended. Abbott v. BP Exploration and Production Inc.,
S.D.Tex.2011, 2011 WL 923504. Federal Civil Procedure
636
To extent prescription drug manufacturer's false advertising claims against competitor alleged fraud, they did so
with sufficient particularity; asserted misrepresentations were sufficiently particularized to facilitate competitor's
ability to respond and prepare defense. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Global Pharmaceuticals, D.Minn.2004, 298
F.Supp.2d 880, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1530. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
76
Temporary employment agency's complaint against purported employer sufficiently alleged that agents for employer
set up a shell corporation that was controlled by employer in such a way so as to commit injury-causing fraud
against agency, to provide employer with notice of agency's piercing-the-corporate veil claim, in accordance with
federal notice pleading standards. CBS Personnel Services, LLC v. Canadian American Transport, Inc., S.D.Ohio
2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 879. Corporations And Business Organizations
1085(10)
Allegation that corporation acted by and through individual defendants named in complaint in committing fraudulent and otherwise wrongful acts, coupled with specific acts of fraud and misconduct alleged throughout complaint,
was sufficient to inform individual defendants of their relationship to actions at issue in the case and the basis of
their alleged liability for tort claims alleged in complaint. Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc.,
N.D.Cal.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1303. Corporations And Business Organizations
2007(2)
Because plaintiff seeking to pierce corporate veil can prevail without proving fraud under New York's alter ego theory, plaintiff's allegations will not be held to particularity requirement of pleading under rule applicable to fraud
claims; instead, allegations properly are judged according to liberal “notice pleading” standard. Rolls-Royce Motor
Cars, Inc. v. Schudroff, S.D.N.Y.1996, 929 F.Supp. 117. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Allegations that business associate and corporations intentionally misrepresented and defrauded other business associate by making false and deceitful promises and representations, without including time, place, and content of false
representations, facts misrepresented, and nature of detrimental reliance, and without differentiating individual defendant from corporate defendants, were not sufficiently particular. Bower v. Weisman, S.D.N.Y.1986, 639 F.Supp.
636
Fraud complaint which set forth alleged oral and written misrepresentations met pleading requirements of subd.
(a)(2) of this rule and of rule 9(b) of these rules. Dahl v. English, N.D.Ill.1983, 578 F.Supp. 17. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Page 298
To meet requirements of rule 9 of these rules requiring that circumstances constituting fraud or mistake be stated
with particularity, complaint must afford defendants fair notice of nature of plaintiff's claim and grounds upon which
it was based and must be based upon reasonable belief that wrong has been committed, and plaintiff's complaint did
not simply assert fraudulent conduct, but reasonably detailed the factual bases for its various allegations, and was
sufficient in that it alleged that securities fraud was committed in connection with identified acts or omissions.
Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rules 8(a), 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A. Zuckerman v. Franz, S.D.Fla.1983, 573 F.Supp. 351. Federal
Civil Procedure
636
Complaint captioned “Allegations as to Contractual Rights, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Relationship,
Fraud, and Conspiracy,” unsupported by facts, did not state cause of action for fraud, conspiracy or breach of fiduciary relationship. Brown v. Cosby, E.D.Pa.1977, 433 F.Supp. 1331, 196 U.S.P.Q. 366. Federal Civil Procedure
626
Complaint naming several defendants and apparently based principally on claim of deceit allegedly resulting from
misrepresentations by one of the defendants, was defective for lack of allegation that plaintiff believed and relied on
representations, and for failure to set forth various claims in a clear statement and in separate counts. Pamela
Amusement Co. v. Scott Jewelry Co., D.C.Mass.1958, 22 F.R.D. 255. Federal Civil Procedure
627; Federal
Civil Procedure
691
Complaint alleging that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiffs to cancel order for machinery and to authorize
defendant to procure machinery for another, that such machinery was inadequate and required purchase of additional
machinery and delayed production and that defendant had accepted a secret commission from the seller of machinery procured by him stated a cause of action for fraud as against motion to dismiss. Sarnoff v. Ciaglia,
D.C.N.J.1947, 7 F.R.D. 31, reversed 165 F.2d 167. Federal Civil Procedure
1789
Plaintiff failed to state viable cause of action, pursuant to rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing
pleader's entitlement to relief, when complaint used words such as “fraud,” “breach of fiduciary duty,” “price fixing” “obstructing justice,” “misrepresenting material facts,” and “fraudulent judgment,” but did not provide any details, making it difficult to divine what plaintiff claimed had occurred and failing to give defendants requisite notice
of the wrongs of which they were accused. Genins v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., S.D.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 95783,
41; Fraud
43
Unreported. Fraud
365. Habeas corpus, statement of entitlement
Former arrestee's amended habeas petition which alleged that he believed he was being stalked, poisoned, and oppressed by the government, failed to articulate a comprehensive legal or factual basis for relief and failed to show or
allege that he was in custody, thus requiring dismissal under general rules of pleading; even though arrestee was in
custody at the time he filed his original petition for habeas corpus relief, he was no longer incarcerated and had not
shown that he continued to suffer significant restraints on his liberty. Banks v. Gonzales, D.D.C.2007, 496
F.Supp.2d 146. Habeas Corpus
253
366. Immigration and naturalization actions, statement of entitlement
Amended complaint alleging that defendant in his petition for naturalization knowingly made certain false and untrue allegations under oath, that defendant was member of, and gave complete obedience to commands of, organization which advocated or taught overthrow of government by force or violence, and that defendant was not person of
good moral character at time of his naturalization due to false statements made in proceedings leading to his naturalization, satisfied requirement that pleading in such action shall contain “short and plain statement of the claim”.
747
U.S. v. Matles-Friedman, E.D.N.Y.1953, 115 F.Supp. 261. Aliens, Immigration, And Citizenship
Page 299
367. Indemnity actions, statement of entitlement
Custodian of securities was not entitled to more definite statement of claim by trust company which contended that
trust company's rules imposed on custodian a duty to indemnify trust company, even though trust company failed to
allege that rules it cited were in force at time that claim for indemnity arose, where pleading was not so vague as to
force custodian to guess which trust company rules it was alleged to have broken. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Gofen & Glossberg, Inc., N.D.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 713. Federal Civil Procedure
981.1
Third-party complaint alleging that third-party defendant agreed to indemnify third-party plaintiff for any damages
or liability resulting from act or omission of third-party defendant relating to premises whereon plaintiff was injured,
and to share equally any loss or expense arising from joint or concurring negligence of third-party plaintiff and
third-party defendant, and that plaintiff's injuries were caused either in whole or in part by the negligence of the
third-party defendant on the premises, stated a cause of action. Cleary v. South Buffalo Ry. Co., W.D.N.Y.1954, 16
294
368. Indian actions, statement of entitlement
Indian tribes' allegations were sufficient to state a claim that Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) approval of mining project on federal land would violate their rights under Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); complaint
alleged that tribal members used the area covered by the project facilities for prayer, healing ceremonies, fasting,
vision quests, sacred sweats and other religious practices, that their exercise of religion would be substantially burdened by the project, that defendants did not have a compelling interest in imposing such burden and had not implemented the least restrictive alternative. South Fork Band v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, D.Nev.2009, 643 F.Supp.2d
1192, affirmed in part , reversed in part 588 F.3d 718. Civil Rights
1032
Factual allegations, in complaint seeking foreclosure of government's mortgage on leasehold on Indian reservation,
satisfied its obligation to make a short and plain statement of its claim, and thus set forth a valid claim for relief.
248
U.S. v. American Horse, D.N.D.2005, 352 F.Supp.2d 984. Indians
Complaint in which plaintiffs, allegedly representing class composed of Indian students expelled from Indian
schools, failed to name the allegedly expelled Indian students or to state damage each might have sustained by reason of his expulsion and which rather broadly asserted that each plaintiff had sustained more than $10,000 damages
by reason of alleged wrongful acts of named officials authorized to supervise Indian schools failed to satisfy this
rule requiring that complaint contain a short, plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief.
691
National Indian Youth Council v. Morton, W.D.Okla.1973, 363 F.Supp. 475. Federal Civil Procedure
369. Injunctive relief actions, statement of entitlement
In order to obtain permanent injunction or declaratory judgment, party must make his request for such relief in his
pleadings; request for temporary or preliminary relief, however, can be made in motion. Dillard v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1992, 961 F.2d 1148, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 1046, 506 U.S. 1079,
122 L.Ed.2d 355. Declaratory Judgment
312.1; Injunction
140
Fair notice of boater's injunction claim and grounds for it were not given by allegation in complaint that National
Park Service violated letter and spirit of deed of easements for Washington Harbour. Spiegel v. Babbit, D.D.C.1994,
855 F.Supp. 402, motion to vacate denied, affirmed in part and vacated in part 56 F.3d 1531, 312 U.S.App.D.C. 461,
certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 707, 516 U.S. 1046, 133 L.Ed.2d 662.
Despite liberal nature of modern federal pleading, plaintiff is required to include in his complaint a short and plain
Page 300
statement of his claim showing that he is entitled to injunctive relief for which he prays. Willett v. Wells,
E.D.Tenn.1977, 469 F.Supp. 748, affirmed 595 F.2d 1227. Federal Civil Procedure
630
370. Insurance actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint by former agent of insurance company for renewal insurance commissions allegedly due, stated a cause
of action against the company predicated on theory that agent was entitled to continue to receive his commissions,
even though he accepted employment with a competitor, since, by reason of company's assurances, it might be estopped to exercise its contractual right of election to cancel the payments. Pope v. National Old Line Ins. Co., C.A.5
(Tex.) 1956, 239 F.2d 590. Insurance
1652(8)
Insured's general statement in amended complaint of her intent to seek interest on late insurance payments from insurer, that was not quantified in her prayer for relief, required more specific statement, since insurer did not have
way to assess any possible damages. University Medical Associates of Medical University of S.C. v. UnumProvident Corp., D.S.C.2004, 335 F.Supp.2d 702. Federal Civil Procedure
999.1
Insured failed to satisfy pleading requirement of short and plain statement of claim showing entitlement to relief as
to its claims asserting unfair insurance claim settlement practices in violation of seven subsections of Massachusetts
statute; insured failed to allege facts or explain how insurer's actions violated each subsection. Alan Corp. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co., D.Mass.1993, 823 F.Supp. 33, affirmed 22 F.3d 339. Federal Civil Procedure
705
Allegation that insurers were in breach of their insurance contract with their subscribers because they refused to pay
long-term hospitalization for mental illness at member hospitals satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which
requires that pleadings set forth short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief, despite
insurer's allegation that plaintiffs failed to state how they were injured by alleged breach of contract, where proposed
amended facts gave rise to obvious inference that plaintiffs incurred significant expenses by resorting to nonmember
hospitals for treatment due to insurers' refusal to compensate plaintiffs for mental illness hospitalization in member
hospital. Zeigan v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York, S.D.N.Y.1985, 607 F.Supp. 1434. Federal
Civil Procedure
632
Complaint alleging that insurer acted in bad faith in settling hockey player's claim for career-ending disability benefits was sufficient under federal practice despite failure to allege any facts in support of claim. Kelly v. Stratton,
N.D.Ill.1982, 552 F.Supp. 641. Insurance
3379
Fact that insureds failed to allege that they owned stolen vehicle and/or that they held insurance interest therein did
not render their complaint against insurers fatally defective, even though better practice would be to include allegation of ownership and insured interest. Rainbow Trucking, Inc. v. Ennia Ins. Co., E.D.Pa.1980, 500 F.Supp. 96.
3571
Insurance
Allegations of milk company which asserted that Illinois Director of Insurance, acting under color of law, had levied
assessments without notice against members of defunct insurer for liquidation purposes and which sued for judgment declaring that director had no authority to levy or collect assessments raised serious and substantial constitutional questions and satisfied liberal pleading requirements of this rule. Joe Louis Milk Co. v. Hershey, N.D.Ill.1965,
243 F.Supp. 351. Federal Courts
244
In tort action by insured and driver of insured truck against insurer to recover damages for refusal of insurer, allegedly in bad faith, to settle injury action against insured and driver in amount within automobile liability policy limit,
with result that judgment much larger than policy limit was obtained against insured and driver, complaint sufficiently stated a claim on which relief could be granted. Wessing v. American Indem. Co. of Galveston, Tex.,
W.D.Mo.1955, 127 F.Supp. 775. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 301
705
Amended complaint, alleging that losses sustained by insured in defending lawsuit instituted against it by customer
who purchased petroleum products from insured and in paying judgment to customer were covered in policy, stated
claim upon which relief could be granted even though word “accident” was not employed. Brooks Oil Co. v. New
Amsterdam Cas. Co., N.D.Ohio 1962, 30 F.R.D. 356. Federal Civil Procedure
705
In action for double indemnity or accidental death benefits under life policies issued by defendant, complaint reciting that on specified date while policies were in full force and effect insured sustained gun shot in his head from
which he died, was sufficient as against motion to make petition more definite, which was made on ground that
statement was insufficient to show that in fact and in law death was effected directly by external, violent and accidental means. Leavitt v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, W.D.Mo.1951, 11 F.R.D. 519. Federal Civil Procedure
1001
371. Labor actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
Complaint, filed by Negro railway employees against their union, sufficiently alleged breach of union's statutory
duty to represent fairly and without hostile discrimination all of the employees in the union, and adequately set forth
the claim and gave the union fair notice of its basis. Conley v. Gibson, U.S.Tex.1957, 78 S.Ct. 99, 355 U.S. 41, 2
L.Ed.2d 80. Labor And Employment
1219(8)
Secretary of Labor was not barred from arguing that union failed to keep mailing list for newsletter current so as to
provide adequate election notice; Secretary was not required to plead that issue specifically in complaint, and reasonableness of union's efforts to maintain current addresses did not fall outside union members' original internal
protests. Reich v. District Lodge 720, Intern. Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, C.A.9 (Cal.)
1993, 11 F.3d 1496. Labor And Employment
1066(3)
African-American Senegalese Moslem New York public school teacher's amended complaint against union failed to
satisfy minimal pleading standards for Title VII case; complaint did not offer any allegations which, if credited,
would provide even minimal factual basis for teacher's conclusory assertion that union was acted in discriminatory
manner against him or was motivated by animus to his race, national origin or religion in declining to furnish him
with lawyer in connection with his post-dismissal state court action against Board of Education. Gueye and Family
v. United Federation of Teachers, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21783124, Unreported. Civil Rights
1532
372. ---- Collective bargaining, labor actions, statement of entitlement
A complaint, alleging that plaintiffs were members of certain union, that defendant and plaintiffs agreed at time defendant took over operations in yards in which plaintiffs were employed as switching crews that parties should be
governed by an agreement then in force between defendant and its employees, which had been negotiated by union
of which plaintiffs were members, and that defendant violated article of the agreement requiring that switch engines
should start from a certain place at a certain time, stated a prima facie cause of action. Burley v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry.
Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1943, 140 F.2d 488, certiorari granted 65 S.Ct. 45, 323 U.S. 690, 89 L.Ed. 558, affirmed 65 S.Ct.
1282, 325 U.S. 711, 89 L.Ed. 1886, rehearing granted 66 S.Ct. 86, 326 U.S. 801, 90 L.Ed. 488, adhered to on rehear702.1
ing 66 S.Ct. 721, 327 U.S. 661, 90 L.Ed. 928. Federal Civil Procedure
Allegations that employer terminated employee on basis of his disability, that collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) contained nondiscrimination clause, that instead of assisting employee in grieving breach of CBA, union
cooperated with employer at arbitration, and that union's representatives failed to assist employee because they were
biased against him as person with disability, were sufficient to put union on notice under pleading rule of employee's
claim under the ADA against it for breach of duty of fair representation. Greenier v. Pace, Local No. 1188,
D.Me.2002, 201 F.Supp.2d 172. Civil Rights
Page 302
1532
Allegation that union had induced employees of other employers to engage in a strike and concerted refusal in
course of their employment to use any goods or perform any services for object of forcing other employers to cease
using plaintiff's products and cease doing business with plaintiff was sufficient to set forth a claim. Genesco, Inc. v.
Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, S.D.N.Y.1964, 230 F.Supp. 923, affirmed 341 F.2d
691
Allegations that international and local labor unions, which had entered into collective bargaining contract with
plaintiff corporation, engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce, had conspired with another union to induce plaintiff's employees to refuse to perform services under collective bargaining agreement in violation thereof
with the object of forcing plaintiff to cease doing business with another corporation stated a claim for relief against a
conspiracy to induce and encourage a secondary boycott within prohibition of Labor Management Relations Act, §
187 of Title 29. Bethlehem Steel Co v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, CIO,
E.D.N.Y.1953, 115 F.Supp. 231. Labor And Employment
1326
Complaint indicating that action was brought by union for alleged violation of collective bargaining agreement between employer and labor organization representing employees in industry affecting commerce and that both employer and labor organization were within jurisdiction of court on its face met requirements of section 185 of Title
29 relating to suits by and against labor organizations and stated cause of action. Lodge 1916 v. General Elec. Co.,
X-Ray Dept., E.D.Wis.1970, 49 F.R.D. 72. Labor And Employment
1326
373. ---- Labor Management Relations Act actions, labor actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint by sub-contractor alleging that construction of building involved interstate commerce and that defendant
union and others, in pursuance of a conspiracy, willfully and unlawfully ordered union plumbers to strike, and were
maintaining a boycott against sub-contractor to his damage, stated cause of action under Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, § 187(a) of Title 29, for injunction and damages, as against motion to dismiss. Mills v. United
Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of U.S. & Canada, W.D.Mo.1948, 8
1796
374. ---- Portal-to-Portal Act actions, labor actions, statement of entitlement
In portal-to-portal suit, complaint which alleged that plaintiffs brought action individually and by and on behalf of
all employees similarly situated, and which thereafter referred to “employees of the defendant” but nowhere specifically referred to plaintiffs as among such “employees” and which contained no statement of the number of “employees” nor consent of any employee “similarly situated” to bringing of action, was indefinite under this rule and rule
995
12. Sinclair v. U.S. Gypsum Co., W.D.N.Y.1948, 75 F.Supp. 439. Federal Civil Procedure
375. ---- Strikes, labor actions, statement of entitlement
Employer's complaint against several individually named members of union for damages arising out of a “wildcat”
strike would not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action where it gave ample notice of a claim against the
individual defendants, as officers of the union, for breach of contract, and of a claim against them as individuals
conspiring to interfere with the employer's contract with the union. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Amalgamated
Ass'n of St. Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Emp. of America, Division 1063, W.D.Pa.1952, 105 F.Supp. 537. Labor And
Employment
1326; Labor And Employment
1985
376. Medicare or Medicaid actions, statement of entitlement
Page 303
Government's allegations against pathologist and medical laboratory, regarding agreement made with physician to
allow physician to fraudulently bill government for Medicare reimbursements based on work done by laboratory,
were sufficiently plausible and particular; government gave the date of the agreement, the parties to the agreement,
the substance of the agreement, the purpose of the agreement, and how the object of the agreement was executed.
636
U.S. ex rel. Freedman v. Suarez-Hoyos, M.D.Fla.2011, 2011 WL 972585. Federal Civil Procedure
Medicaid beneficiaries who were part of the aged, blind, and disabled (ABD) population failed to plead their claim
that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving the
QUEST Expanded Access (QExA) Program contracts on the ground that the capitation rates under the contracts
were not actuarially sound because they involved an unconstitutional tax on the federal government; although beneficiaries asserted that the CMS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving the QExA contracts, they did not provide any notice that they intended to premise that claim on the CMS's alleged failure to recognize that the QExA
Program's capitation rates were actuarially unsound or involved an unconstitutional tax. G. v. Hawaii, D.Hawai'i
2009, 676 F.Supp.2d 1006. Health
507
Hospital association's complaint challenging Massachusetts' Medicaid reimbursement plan could not be dismissed
for failure to comply with this rule, since, although complaint contained 70 paragraphs of factual allegations and
legal claims, it did give defendants fair notice of claims against them. Massachusetts Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Harris,
1795
Complaint in which medicare provider alleged that it had been denied due process in that it was not afforded an impartial tribunal to review determination by fiscal intermediary of reasonable cost of providing services complied
with this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Behlen
Community Hospital, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Nebraska, D.C.Neb.1976, 419 F.Supp. 683. Federal Civil Procedure
691
377. Nuisance actions, statement of entitlement
Allusion to Federal Constitution “in its entirety” in complaint against private corporations by private individuals
seeking damages for personal injuries, medical expenses, and damage to property allegedly resulting from defendants' polluting the air was not a plain statement of ground on which court's jurisdiction depended and was insuffi243
cient pleading. Tanner v. Armco Steel Corp., S.D.Tex.1972, 340 F.Supp. 532. Federal Courts
378. Offsets, statement of entitlement
Irrespective of whether a setoff claim is properly characterized as an affirmative defense, or a compulsory or permissive counterclaim, it must be set forth in the pleadings to provide a basis for relief. Arch Ins. Co. v. Precision
Stone, Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2009, 584 F.3d 33. Federal Civil Procedure
772.1
Where landowners in government's action to recover delinquent water payments alleged to be due under Indian irrigation project were held liable for water payments in sum of $1,361.30 but entitled to offset for damages for project's failure to deliver any water to their land in amount of $3,300 although no claim statement appeared either in
pleadings or pretrial order to show that landowners were claiming such damages and government was nowhere
given notice of such a claim or grounds upon which it rested, government was consequently deprived of opportunity
effectively to defend thereon and cause was remanded to permit further pleadings so as to properly frame issues and
allow orderly disposition of landowners' claims for damages. U. S. v. Hardy, C.A.10 (Utah) 1966, 368 F.2d 191.
937.1
Federal Courts
Page 304
379. Oil and gas actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations of complaint that gas and other products in which plaintiff owned a 1/32 interest were wasted, burned
and destroyed without alleging that defendant oil company was responsible for destruction of such property were
insufficient to state a cause of action for intentional destruction of property. Guth v. Texas Co., C.C.A.7 (Ill.) 1944,
707
380. Patent actions, statement of entitlement
Parties in patent infringement action had to demonstrate plausible entitlement to relief in all pleadings, including
claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, third party claims, and separate affirmative defenses, since affirmative defenses, like claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims, made claims to relief, such as for unenforceability of patent
based on affirmative defense of inequitable conduct before United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
310.1(1); Patents
310.7(4);
Anticancer Inc. v. Xenogen Corp., S.D.Cal.2007, 248 F.R.D. 278. Patents
310.7(5)
Patents
Patent owner was not required to allege specific facts establishing that competitors acted despite an objectively high
likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of owner's patents in order to state claim against competitors
for willful infringement of patents related to mobile telephones and mobile telephone handsets. Sony Corp. v. LG
Electronics U.S.A., Inc., C.D.Cal.2011, 768 F.Supp.2d 1058, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1379. Patents
227
Patent owner was not required to allege direct infringement of patents in suit by third party, that components present
in third party's allegedly infringing product were “material” and had ”no substantial noninfringing uses,” or that
competitors' contributory infringement was knowing and intentional, to state claim against competitors for contributory infringement of patents related to mobile telephones and mobile telephone handsets. Sony Corp. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., C.D.Cal.2011, 768 F.Supp.2d 1058, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1379. Patents
259(1)
Patentees' complaint against alleged infringer told alleged infringer which claims of the patents-in-suit were infringed and which particular products supposedly infringed the patents, as to satisfy notice pleading requirements
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by alleging alleged infringer sold eyeglasses designated as “AirMag,” which
had “magnetic frames and clip-on attachments” as claimed in patentees' patents, and that patentees owned two valid
patents and had not granted alleged infringer right to manufacture or sell the patent-infringing eyeglasses. Aspex
Eyewear, Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2008, 531 F.Supp.2d 620. Patents
310.1(5)
Although competitor's complaint did not identify the particular contracts with which patentee allegedly interfered,
through discovery and parties' supplemental responses, competitor identified these contracts, such that, in light of
the liberal notice pleading standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, patentee would not be prejudiced if
competitor's California common law claims for tortious interference with existing and prospective business relationships were permitted to remained. Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., C.D.Cal.2007, 519 F.Supp.2d 1028. Torts
255
Complaint sufficiently pleaded manner in which competitor allegedly infringed patents, and satisfied limited criteria
of liberal pleading requirements rule for that element, by stating that competitor infringed upon its patents by “importing, causing to be manufactured, selling and/or offering for sale unauthorized tattoo-like jewelry items.” Home
& Nature Inc. v. Sherman Specialty Co., Inc., E.D.N.Y.2004, 322 F.Supp.2d 260. Patents
310.1(5)
Complaint sufficiently pleaded name of each individual defendant, and satisfied limited criteria of liberal pleading
requirements rule for that element of patent infringement claim, by identifying individual defendant in complaint.
310.1(5)
Home & Nature Inc. v. Sherman Specialty Co., Inc., E.D.N.Y.2004, 322 F.Supp.2d 260. Patents
Page 305
Where complaint asked neither for money judgment nor equitable relief against partial assignor of patent royalty
rights, and plaintiffs failed to show that their long delay in tendering a proposed amendment had been due to oversight, inadvertence or excusable neglect, and amendment at late date, would have irreparably prejudiced rights of
defendants, action was dismissed as to assignor. Boris v. Moore, E.D.Wis.1957, 152 F.Supp. 595, 113 U.S.P.Q. 514,
1822.1
affirmed 253 F.2d 523, 117 U.S.P.Q. 66. Federal Civil Procedure
Under subdivision (a) of this rule, complaint alleging merely that plaintiff was owner of certain patent and that defendant's device infringed claims was sufficient. Drake v. Pycopé, Inc., N.D.Ohio 1951, 96 F.Supp. 331, 88
U.S.P.Q. 464. Patents
310.1(5)
In suit to obtain patent after adverse decision in interference proceedings, allegations containing statements such as
“The counts of said interference * * * embrace and encompass * * * etc. * * *” were improper because calling for a
construction of claims rather than for a responsive pleading. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Carborundum Co., D.C.Del.1943, 3 F.R.D. 5. Patents
114.10(1)
Even liberally construed, patent applicant's three-paragraph complaint against director of Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) was insufficient to state claim challenging his rejected claims, where the complaint merely stated the fact
that the PTO rejected his claims, and neither cited error in the PTO's rejection of his claims nor showed why his
claims should be allowed. Galbreath v. Dudas, C.A.Fed.2004, 117 Fed.Appx. 746, 2004 WL 2808319, Unreported.
113(6)
Patents
Complaint provided competitor with fair notice of infringement claims, relating to patent on system that enabled
transmission of channel logs, over non-dedicated telephone lines, chronicling television channels viewed by subscriber; even though complaint did not identify which of competitor's television monitoring devices infringed upon
the patent, complaint specifically stated that competitor “infringed, induced and/or contributed” to infringement of
patent by “importing, making, using and/or selling products which use and/or encompass store and forward technology with the use of a telephone line for data transmission in the television industries and continued to do so.” Asip v.
Nielsen Media Research, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 315269, Unreported. Patents
310.1(5)
381. Price control or stabilization actions, statement of entitlement
Where complaint for injunctive relief and treble damages for violations of price stabilization regulations sought relief only for violations which occurred during specific periods set forth in attached exhibit, denial of trial amendment to permit proof of all violations occurring one year prior to date suit was filed, was not error as to part of such
period as to which substantive right of government to relief had expired at time of trial, nor was denial an abuse of
discretion as to balance of period, not specified in complaint since defendant had right to know at all times precisely
for what he was being sued. U.S. v. Classified Parking System, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1954, 213 F.2d 631. Federal Civil Procedure
843
Price Administrator is at liberty to draw complaint for injunction and damages for violation of price regulations in
the words of Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 925(a, e) of the appendix to Title 50. Bowles v. Cabot,
C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1946, 153 F.2d 258. Federal Civil Procedure
704
A complaint by Price Administrator for injunction to restrain violations of maximum price regulations, which
charged that the 23 defendants all sold and delivered distilled spirits at overceiling prices and offered to do so, was
sufficient without specifying particular sales or acts on part of defendant moving for dismissal of complaint. Bowles
v. American Distilling Co., S.D.N.Y.1945, 62 F.Supp. 20, appeal dismissed 157 F.2d 1012. War And National
Emergency
1202
Page 306
Under this rule, complaint by Price Administrator seeking to enjoin a course of conduct in which defendant was
allegedly engaged, consisting of price violations, was not subject to objection on ground that complaint failed to
state details of specific violations. Brown v. W.T. Grant Co., S.D.N.Y.1943, 53 F.Supp. 182. Federal Civil Procedure
704
In Price Administrator's action to recover treble damages for overceiling sales of cheese, complaint, containing
short, plain statement of grounds on which court's jurisdiction depended, claims showing plaintiff entitled to relief,
and demand for judgment, was sufficient as complying with this rule without also alleging amounts of overcharges,
purchasers' names, or dates of sales. Bowles v. Cook Cheese Co., W.D.Wis.1944, 6 F.R.D. 442. Federal Civil Procedure
691; Pleading
63
Where complainant sought a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from doing or failing to do certain acts or
things which were provided for by the Emergency Price Control Act, former § 901 et seq. of the Appendix to Title
50, relief, if granted, must be granted because of specific acts and therefore specific acts must be alleged as basis on
704
which relief will be granted. Bowles v. Ragner, W.D.Pa.1946, 5 F.R.D. 78. Federal Civil Procedure
382. Prisons and prisoner actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
Inmate is not required to allege a chronology of events in order to state a claim of retaliation because such a requirement is contrary to the federal rule of notice pleading; instead, a plaintiff must allege only enough to put the
defendants on notice and enable them to respond. McElroy v. Lopac, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2005, 403 F.3d 855. Civil Rights
1395(7)
Complaint, by which prisoner apparently sought declaratory judgment, failed to comply with this rule requiring that
pleading which sets forth claim to relief shall contain short and plain statement of claim, showing that pleader is
entitled to relief, and requiring each averment of pleading to be simple, concise and direct. Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of
Parole, C.A.D.C.1952, 194 F.2d 882, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 199. Federal Civil Procedure
691
State prisoner's allegations that refusal to accommodate his religious diet was “caused by and in accordance with
rules and policies promulgated, maintained, implemented or otherwise given effect by” administrator for state division of adult institutions and former secretary of department of corrections failed to identify rule or policy or provide
notice of involvement in alleged statutory and constitutional violations, as required for religious practice claims under First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Goodvine v. Swiekatowski, W.D.Wis.2009, 594 F.Supp.2d 1049. Constitutional Law
967
Prison inmate was entitled to leave to amend his complaint that failed to state claim upon which relief could be
granted as against prison officials involved in conducting his disciplinary hearing for alleged marijuana use where
complaint merely stated the damages suffered as result of alleged due process violations. McCormack v. Cheers,
1838
383. ---- Exhaustion of administrative remedies, prisons and prisoner actions, statement of entitlement
To satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner must do more than
allege that he has exhausted his administrative remedies; to state a claim for relief, a prisoner must make a short and
plain statement of the claim and attach a copy of the applicable administrative dispositions to the complaint, or, in
the absence of written documentation, describe with specificity the administrative proceeding and its outcome.
320
Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, C.A.10 (Kan.) 2005, 413 F.3d 1225. Prisons
Page 307
384. ---- Medical treatment, prisons and prisoner actions, statement of entitlement
Federal prisoner adequately named Bureau of Prisons (BOP) as defendant in action for injunctive relief against
prison dentists in their official capacity without naming BOP separately, since prisoner alleged constitutional violations by BOP as well as individual defendants and court had obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally.
62; Injunction
Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, C.A.10 (Kan.) 2005, 413 F.3d 1225. Attorney And Client
114(3)
Complaint by administratrix of deceased jail prisoner alleging that physicians negligently caused wrongful death of
prisoner by failing properly to diagnose prisoner's peptic ulcer condition stated claim against physicians upon which
813
relief could be granted. Stamm v. Trigg, N.D.Ohio 1973, 368 F.Supp. 83. Health
In action on official bond of medical superintendent of Idaho State School and Colony, for superintendent's refusal
to diagnose inmate's spinal injury, where plaintiff alleged that superintendent refused to diagnose inmate's condition
discoverable on inmate's face, plaintiff was not required to plead that such neglect was “unfaithful”, “wrongful”, and
649
“in bad faith”. Sims v. United Pacific Ins. Co., D.C.Idaho 1943, 51 F.Supp. 433. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint in which convict alleged that, after having been shot in leg, he had asked defendant for pain shot, that
defendant had “cursed” him and said “he would give that damn shot when he got ready and not before” and that
defendant then turned convict in as a troublemaker resulting in his being locked in isolation for 14 days without any
medication or pain-relieving drugs was sufficient to state claim against defendant. Frank v. Mracek, M.D.Ala.1973,
691
Plaintiff's failure to delineate, clearly and succinctly, the exact reason or reasons she was suing each defendant, and
persistence in attempting to sue the Department of Corrections (DOC) after having been informed that the DOC was
protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity, warranted dismissal of plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to § 1983
alleging that she received inadequate medical care and that she was denied participation in the institutional grievance procedures. Romo v. Department of Corrections (Women's Facility), C.A.10 (Colo.) 2004, 85 Fed.Appx. 184,
2004 WL 49844, Unreported. Federal Civil Procedure
1788.10
385. Privacy actions, statement of entitlement
In action against moving picture company for violation of right of privacy, complaint alleging that company used
plaintiff's name for advertising purposes, and in advertising and articles identified character in moving picture as
portraying plaintiff, and that the articles and picture were scandalous and defamatory matter and made plaintiff an
object of contempt and ridicule, was sufficient under this rule. Moog v. Warner Bros. Pictures, S.D.N.Y.1939, 29
691
Debtor stated claim for invasion of privacy under Arkansas law by alleging that creditor intentionally and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with debtor's solitude, seclusion, and/or private concerns or affairs by
disclosing personal nonpublic information, and by alleging that creditor intentionally and/or negligently caused
harm to debtor's emotional well-being by engaging in such highly offensive conduct, thereby invading and intruding
341; Torts
351
upon debtor's right to privacy. In re Dunbar, Bkrtcy.E.D.Ark.2011, 446 B.R. 306. Torts
386. Punitive damage actions, statement of entitlement
Defendants did not have fair notice of plaintiff's intention to seek punitive damages, and thus, punitive damages
awarded in verdict would be set aside, where complaint did not contain prayer for punitive damages and did not allege that defendants acted willfully, maliciously, or with callous disregard for plaintiff's rights. Campbell v. Thorn-
ton, W.D.Mo.1986, 644 F.Supp. 103. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 308
2585
Fair notice was given defendants of a claim for punitive damages under Pennsylvania law in view of limitation of
punitive damages liability to outrageous conduct, coupled with complaint's recitation of chain of events leading to
plaintiff's injury; thus, complaint was legally feasible and would not be dismissed. DiTeodoro v. J.G. Durand Intern.,
679
It is not necessary for proof to be set forth in the complaint to entitle plaintiff to request punitive damages.
151
Leatherman v. Pollard Trucking Co., E.D.Okla.1978, 482 F.Supp. 351. Damages
387. Reputation actions, statement of entitlement
Where first count of complaint clearly and repeatedly alleged that defendant's sole motivation for allegedly harmful
acts against plaintiff was to cause injury and where there was not one word in the count alluding to any further motive on the part of defendant, the count did not fail to state a claim for prima facie tort by reason of omitting to allege
that defendant's motivation was limited to the desire to harm plaintiff. Sadowy v. Sony Corp. of America,
S.D.N.Y.1980, 496 F.Supp. 1071. Torts
168
Complaint against mercantile agency alleging willful, wanton and wrongful publication of report on plaintiff for
malicious purpose of destroying agency's reputation and preventing it from procuring credit upon easiest terms, was
sufficient to state a cause of action under this rule by which statements might be actionable without word of falsehood where maker acts solely out of malice. U.S. Aluminum Siding Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1958,
163 F.Supp. 906. Torts
351
388. RICO actions, statement of entitlement
Car buyer who claimed that she was forced to pay for excessive automobile insurance obtained for her by assignee
of installment contract inadequately identified racketeering enterprise by listing assignee and general and limited
partners as one enterprise and listing this group and car dealers which it maintained relationship and from which it
purchased retail installment contracts as second enterprise; allegations merely contained nebulous, open-ended description of alleged enterprise under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and failed to satisfy notice requirement for pleading. Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1995, 52 F.3d 640. Racketeer
Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
73
Complaint charging violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violated requirements that complaint contain short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief and that
each averment of pleading be simple, concise, and direct, in that 119-page, 385-paragraph complaint was confusing,
redundant, and seemingly interminable. Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 1994, 20 F.3d
691
Complaint naming federal agencies and employees as defendants, alleging violation of federal constitutional rights
and violations of RICO through continued, unwarranted investigation and harassment of organization, did not present short and plain statement of claims raised by organizations and their members as required by federal civil rule;
complaint included general allegations describing events that spanned approximately eight years, and it was not
clear how the general allegations could be structured to support the required elements of each of the six separate
claims for relief. National Commodity and Barter Ass'n, National Commodity Exchange v. Gibbs, C.A.10 (Colo.)
1989, 886 F.2d 1240, on remand 790 F.Supp. 233. Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
69
A Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) plaintiff normally need only satisfy the general no-
Page 309
tice pleading requirements. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2007, 530
F.Supp.2d 486, affirmed 328 Fed.Appx. 695, 2009 WL 1391807. Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
69
Home improvement company satisfied notice-pleading requirement for enterprise element of claim under Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against its former independent-contractor salesman and other
defendants; company alleged that a group of individuals and corporations existed for purpose of allowing its members to engage in sham construction projects which the group had no intention of completing and to conceal the
unlawful conversion of funds from company, and that each group member participated in conduct and control of
enterprise. SKS Constructors, Inc. v. Drinkwine, E.D.N.Y.2006, 458 F.Supp.2d 68. Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
73; Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
74
More liberal standard of federal rules requiring short and plain statement of claim applies in determining sufficiency
of conspiracy allegation for civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy claim
involving underlying acts of mail or wire fraud, rather than stricter standard for pleading fraud. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. CPT Medical Services, P.C., E.D.N.Y.2005, 375 F.Supp.2d 141. Conspiracy
18; Federal Civil
Procedure
70
Claims of mail and wire fraud which support an alleged Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) violation must satisfy heightened pleading requirements of federal procedure rules. Livingston v. Shore
Slurry Seal, Inc., D.N.J.2000, 98 F.Supp.2d 594. Federal Civil Procedure
636
Allegations of non-fraud based predicate acts under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
need only comply with rule requiring “short and plain statement” showing that pleader is entitled to relief, not rule
requiring particularity in pleading of fraud. Colony at Holbrook, Inc. v. Strata G.C., Inc., E.D.N.Y.1996, 928
F.Supp. 1224. Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
70
Complaint alleging violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), securities law and
various pendent state claims, would be dismissed for failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 8 requiring that
pleadings contain short and plain statement of claim and that averments be simple, concise and direct; despite warning issued in rejection of earlier complaints, claimants continued to advance irrelevant and redundant allegations and
consistently make repetitive legal conclusions unsupported by relevant facts, and to utilize sentences with passive
verbs and awkward sentence construction making it difficult to read and identify wrongs complained of, perpetrators
and victims. Arena Land & Inv. Co., Inc. v. Petty, D.Utah 1994, 906 F.Supp. 1470, affirmed 69 F.3d 547. Federal
Civil Procedure
1809
Complaint by video store franchisees, alleging violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO) and various state law claims, failed to comply with rule requiring complaint to be short statement of claim;
complaint contained 111 allegations with extensive subparagraphs spread over 46 pages and was organized in confusing, disjointed, and repetitive manner. Dudley Enterprises, Inc. v. Palmer Corp., N.D.Ill.1993, 822 F.Supp. 496.
69
To sufficiently plead Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy, plaintiff need only
provide some factual basis in accordance with rule requiring short and plain statement of grounds for relief, except
to extent that conspiracy claim relies on underlying allegations of mail fraud or wire fraud. Giuliano v. Everything
Yogurt, Inc., E.D.N.Y.1993, 819 F.Supp. 240. Conspiracy
18
Count of insurer's pleading incorporating allegations of its federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims and contending that insurer had right to indemnification by defendants for money
paid to insured pursuant to crime policy established insurer's standing to sue and was not vague catchall attempt to
Page 310
incorporate all conceivable causes of action, and, thus, defendants were not entitled to more definite statement.
Federal Ins. Co. v. Ayers, E.D.Pa.1990, 741 F.Supp. 1179, reconsideration denied 760 F.Supp. 1118. Federal Civil
Procedure
971
General references to individual defendants being members or associates of organized crime family were insufficient to attribute predicate act to any defendant not specifically named in connection with such act, for purposes of
civil RICO claim. U.S. v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra, E.D.N.Y.1988, 683 F.Supp. 1411,
70
affirmed 879 F.2d 20. Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations
Pro se Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) complaint was subject to dismissal without
prejudice for failure to comply with requirement of “short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's
jurisdiction depends”; it could not be determined from the 40 pages of allegations what in fact was being alleged.
Kleinschmidt v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., S.D.Fla.1992, 142 F.R.D. 502, affirmed 8 F.3d 35, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct.
2112, 511 U.S. 1112, 128 L.Ed.2d 672, rehearing denied 115 S.Ct. 14, 512 U.S. 1271, 129 L.Ed.2d 914. Federal
Civil Procedure
1837.1
389. Securities or stock actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
Noteholders' allegations that after occurrence of event of default, namely mortgage lending facility's insolvency
and/or other allegedly material breaches of agreements by facility, indenture trustee's duties expanded to include a
fiduciary duty to noteholders, as secured holders of facility's notes, and that indenture trustee breached its fiduciary
duty by failing to notify noteholders and shut down facility, as required by agreement, adequately pleaded existence
of fiduciary relationship between indenture trustee and noteholders, and breach of that fiduciary duty. BNP Paribas
Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of America, N.A., S.D.N.Y.2011, 2011 WL 1210208. Corporations And Business Organizations
2468
Investors' class action complaint in securities action provided sufficient notice to mortgage company's auditors of
claims against it, although complaint was not short plain statement as required under pleading rules; complexity of
factual allegations, length of class period, and large number of defendants made precision in complaint difficult. In
re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, C.D.Cal.2008, 588 F.Supp.2d 1132. Securities Regulation
60.51(1)
Allegations of control under SEA section establishing controlling persons liability for aiding and abetting in fraud
are not averments of fraud, and therefore need not be pleaded with particularity, but must be alleged in a short, plain
statement that gives the defendant fair notice of the claim that the defendant was a control person and the ground on
which plaintiff rests its assertion that a defendant was a control person is all that is required. Sawant v. Ramsey,
D.Conn.2008, 570 F.Supp.2d 336. Securities Regulation
60.51(1)
Shareholders' 65-page complaint in § 10(b) securities fraud action against three corporate officers, which contained
some overlapping and conclusory statements, did not violate “short and plain” statement requirement of rules of
civil procedure; complaint identified allegedly false statements, and length of complaint was not unreasonable given
numerous allegations. In re Metawave Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, W.D.Wash.2003, 298
F.Supp.2d 1056. Securities Regulation
60.51
Non-client investors who brought action against holding company, alleging securities fraud in connection with company's investment research reports, failed precisely to identify alleged misrepresentations and omissions within reports regarding company analysts' purported conflicts of interest, and thus failed to plead fraud with particularity, as
required to maintain claims under §§ 10(b) and Rule 10b-5; investors' complaint generally alleged that certain unspecified misrepresentations “concerned” various securities ratings that “in many cases” did not reflect analysts' true
opinions of companies at issue, and such generalized claims were scattered throughout 68-page complaint. In re
Page 311
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., S.D.N.Y.2003, 273 F.Supp.2d 351, reconsideration denied , affirmed 396 F.3d 161, cer60.53
tiorari denied 126 S.Ct. 421, 546 U.S. 935, 163 L.Ed.2d 321. Securities Regulation
Investors sufficiently alleged breach of fiduciary duty against investment adviser under Oklahoma law, on allegations that investors reposed complete confidence in adviser to handle their investment accounts, which gave rise to a
fiduciary duty, adviser knew or should have known that investors lacked sufficient investment experience to make
informed decisions about purchase and sale of securities, and adviser failed to properly explain to investors how to
read and interpret account statements and failed to disclose actual risk of transactions. Lillard v. Stockton,
N.D.Okla.2003, 267 F.Supp.2d 1081. Fraud
7; Fraud
16
Allegations that defendants held mortgages for loans in violation of terms of plaintiffs' agreements with another person failed to state claim against defendants; allegations did not make clear how liability could be imposed on defendants to require them to convey to third parties title to documents constituting mortgage loan transactions. Quat v.
Horowitz, E.D.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1296. Mortgages
211
Even though plaintiff's complaint for rescission of a sale of securities was bottomed on an alleged violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 78a et seq. of Title 15, plaintiffs could obtain judgment upon proof of a
violation of the Securities Act of 1933, section 77a et seq. of Title 15, where complaint directed against an investment transaction put defendants on notice that the transaction was allegedly in violation of federal securities law.
35.25
Lennerth v. Mendenhall, N.D.Ohio 1964, 234 F.Supp. 59. Securities Regulation
Chapter 11 trustee's allegations that, despite hiring of separate company as Qualified Independent Underwriter
(QIU), firm that served as lead underwriter for debtor-corporation's initial public offering (IPO) had control and influence over the pricing of the shares at the IPO, and that firm made material representations of fact regarding the
appropriate pricing for debtor's stock for purposes of its IPO, stated claim that firm caused the stock issued in the
2162
IPO to be underpriced. In re Quintus Corp., Bkrtcy.D.Del.2005, 332 B.R. 110. Bankruptcy
390. ---- Blue sky laws, securities or stock actions, statement of entitlement
Causes of action referring to state blue sky laws violated subd. (a) of this rule in their failure to identify the particular persons claiming protection of those laws. In re Lion Capital Group, Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1984, 44 B.R. 690. Federal
Civil Procedure
636
391. ---- Control person liability, securities or stock actions, statement of entitlement
Investors' allegations that asset management firm and its director failed to disclose investment advisor's lack of due
diligence concerning multi-billion dollar investment firm when soliciting investors sufficiently stated control person
liability claims against asset management firm and its director, based on loss of losses incurred through investment
in multi-billion dollar investment firm that was engaged in massive Ponzi scheme. In re J.P. Jeanneret Associates,
Inc., S.D.N.Y.2011, 769 F.Supp.2d 340. Securities Regulation
60.54
Shareholders stated claim for control person liability under Securities Exchange Act against corporation's chief executive officer (CEO) and chief financial officer (CFO) when, in addition to alleging primary securities fraud violations, shareholders alleged that CEO and CFO were both directly involved in corporation's day-to-day management,
were responsible for allegedly false statements made to public, and were culpable participants in alleged securities
fraud, with facts supporting inference that CEO and CFO not only exerted control over corporation but also participated in alleged improprieties with scienter. Hall v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., S.D.N.Y.2008, 580
F.Supp.2d 212. Securities Regulation
60.51(1)
Page 312
Allegations that corporate officers of subsidiary and corporate parent both controlled subsidiary's allegedly fraudulent financial reporting that was subsequently reported in financials of corporate parent were not necessarily contradictory at pleading stage, for purpose of investors control person liability claim; although party ultimately could not
be held liable under both fraud and control person provisions for same underlying conduct, it was unclear whether
corporate officers for subsidiary, or corporate parent and subsidiary, or both sets of parties, controlled reporting of
fraudulently misleading financial results. In re Alstom SA, S.D.N.Y.2006, 454 F.Supp.2d 187. Securities Regulation
60.53
Investors adequately alleged “controlling person” status to state a controlling person claim under the Securities Act
against senior officers and directors of the company; the operative element was control of the company's actions,
and the investors' general allegation of such control, coupled with a more specific identification of each defendant's
position, the scope of his authority and the fact that each signed a registration statement allegedly containing materially false representations was adequate to link each defendant to the wrongdoing for pleading purposes. Funke v.
Life Financial Corp., S.D.N.Y.2002, 237 F.Supp.2d 458. Securities Regulation
25.20(1)
392. ---- Proxy fights, securities or stock actions, statement of entitlement
Complaint charging basically that defendants conspired to injure plaintiff and defeat him in corporation proxy fight
was not “short and plain statement of claim” as required by subdivision (a) of this rule where complaint was so involved and discursive as to be confusing. International Products Corp. v. Koons, S.D.N.Y.1963, 33 F.R.D. 21.
18
Conspiracy
393. ---- Stockholder derivative actions, securities or stock actions, statement of entitlement
Stockholders' complaint containing charges that a corporate officer had diverted corporate assets to his own use to
an extent that exceeded sum of $1,000,000 was sufficient under this rule pertaining to setting forth of claims for
relief to permit the court to proceed to determine amount of damages after entry of a default. Pioche Mines Consol.,
Inc. v. Dolman, C.A.9 (Nev.) 1964, 333 F.2d 257, certiorari denied 85 S.Ct. 1081, 380 U.S. 956, 13 L.Ed.2d 972,
2411
certiorari denied 85 S.Ct. 1082, 380 U.S. 956, 13 L.Ed.2d 972. Federal Civil Procedure
Complaint, filed by minority shareholder against corporation and its current chairman and majority shareholder,
sufficiently alleged breach of defendants' obligation to make “periodic cash distributions to shareholders in proportion to their holdings” notwithstanding the fact that “distributions to shareholders would have been appropriate,” and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on defendants' overpaying of management instead of
distributing the money to shareholders, and adequately set forth the claims and gave corporation and chairman fair
notice of their bases, although complaint did not specifically allege that corporation had profits with which to pay
dividends, where existence of profits was a fair inference from allegation that corporation's “available funds have
been such that distributions to shareholders would have been appropriate.” Marcus v. Lincolnshire Management,
Inc., S.D.N.Y.2006, 409 F.Supp.2d 474. Corporations And Business Organizations
1577; Corporations And
Business Organizations
1937(2)
Shareholder's complaint against corporation gave it fair notice of breach of fiduciary duty claim against it and
grounds upon which the claim rested, and thus sufficiently stated claim for breach of fiduciary duty, where shareholder alleged in complaint that corporation through its agents breached statutory and common law duties to plaintiff in part defined by New Jersey statute; portion of statute quoted by shareholder in complaint set forth duties of
corporate directors; complaint then set forth several ways in which agents acted in bad faith in dealings with shareholder, and set forth facts supporting shareholder's allegation that corporation owed a duty to shareholder to act in
good faith and it breached that duty. Caplan v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., N.D.Ill.1995, 902 F.Supp. 170.
1577
Page 313
Fact that cause of action to recover purchase price paid for stock, and cause of action in nature of stockholder's derivative action, in stockholder's action against corporation and its majority stockholders, asserted inconsistent
claims, did not render complaint defective as a matter of pleading. Rademacher v. Russ, D.C.Minn.1955, 131
715
In removed stockholders' secondary action, allegations that certain matters set forth in complaint were unknown to
plaintiffs or known to defendants and could be ascertained by plaintiffs only in the action were immaterial and unnecessary and did not comply with requirement of short and plain statement of claim showing that pleader was enti115
tled to relief. Jablow v. Agnew, S.D.N.Y.1940, 30 F.Supp. 718. Removal Of Cases
In representative stockholder's action, complaint, which did not state that action was not collusive to confer jurisdiction, did not state plaintiff's efforts to secure desired action from managing directors, and did not state plaintiff's
ownership at time of transaction complained of, was insufficient. Toomey v. Wickwire Spencer Steel Co.,
S.D.N.Y.1942, 3 F.R.D. 243. Corporations And Business Organizations
2102
394. Tax actions, statement of entitlement
Where complaint failed to set out specifications of alleged actions Internal Revenue Service employees took in violation of taxpayer's rights, complaint failed to meet requirements of this rule requiring specificity. Hutchinson v. U.
S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1982, 677 F.2d 1322. Federal Civil Procedure
633.1
Taxpayer's allegations that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) failed to within 60 days after the making of an assessment give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof,
did not satisfy short and plain statement requirement, given that taxpayer failed to allege that an assessment was ever
4938
made. Guthery v. U.S., D.D.C.2008, 562 F.Supp.2d 136. Internal Revenue
Taxpayers' allegations in connection with their claims relating to imposition of tax liens or levies arising from tax
collection efforts by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) failed to satisfy notice pleading standards, where their allegations, which were merely conclusory legal conclusions and formulaic language from the Internal Revenue Code,
did not put the United States on notice as to which notices of tax liens or levies were at issue or the specific IRS
conduct pertaining to liens or levies that was unlawful, or whether some other action in pursuit of collection was at
4938
issue. Bryant v. U.S. Government, D.D.C.2007, 527 F.Supp.2d 137. Internal Revenue
Government's claim against taxpayer to recover tax assessment sufficiently apprised taxpayer of particular taxes that
it sought to recover, where government repeatedly stated that basis for its claim was taxpayer's unpaid income taxes
4906
for specified year. U.S. v. Jones, D.N.J.1995, 916 F.Supp. 383. Internal Revenue
Since Montana Indian tribes failed to set forth a short and plain statement of claim showing that pleaders were entitled to refunds of Montana new car tax or motor vehicle property taxes, general claims for refunds would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes v. State of Mont., D.C.Mont.1983, 568 F.Supp. 269.
2789; Taxation
3704
Taxation
Unsupported and conclusory statement that state tax statutes were unconstitutional and void did not state a claim
even under liberal pleading requirements. Hundert v. Bieszczat, N.D.Ill.1981, 526 F.Supp. 1051. Federal Civil Procedure
643.1
395. Terrorism, statement of entitlement
Page 314
Allegations that United States oil companies and individuals in the oil business provided financial assistance to terrorists in form of kickbacks to “front companies,” which were then forwarded to Saddam Hussein, in violation of
United Nations “Oil for Food” program, and later diverted to make reward payments to families of terrorists, and
that it was foreseeable that Hussein would use kickbacks to support terrorist attacks, were sufficient to support inference that companies and individuals knew money paid in kickbacks would be used to support terrorist activity in
Israel that targeted American nationals, as required to state claims under Antiterrorism Act (ATA), based on aiding
and abetting liability and primary liability, arising from terrorist attacks in Israel. Abecassis v. Wyatt, S.D.Tex.2011,
2011 WL 1227780. War And National Emergency
1132(1)
Liberal pleading standard of rule requiring only “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief” would be applied to Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) action for damages brought against Jordanian bank
by victims of terrorist acts, and, thus, victims were not required to plead specific facts from which its knowledge of
alleged wrongful acts could be inferred. Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, E.D.N.Y.2005, 384 F.Supp.2d 571. War And
National Emergency
1132(1)
396. Tort actions, statement of entitlement--Generally
General averment of negligence, stating simply and concisely facts of alleged negligent act, is sufficient to give opposing party ample and sufficient notice of type of claim presented and, if more information is desired, motion for
more definite statement is proper. Century “21” Shows v. Owens, C.A.8 (Iowa) 1968, 400 F.2d 603. Federal Civil
Procedure
1006
To avoid dismissal of negligence claim asserted under New Hampshire law, plaintiff must adequately allege ele1513(1)
ments of negligence claim. Gilbert v. Essex Group, Inc., D.N.H.1993, 930 F.Supp. 683. Negligence
Under these rules averment of negligence in general terms is sufficient. Granger v. Shouse, W.D.Mo.1950, 10
649
Under these rules, detailed pleading is seldom required and to state a cause of action for negligence it is only necessary to allege that defendant acted negligently and as a result plaintiff was injured. Watson v. World of Mirth
Shows, S.D.Ga.1944, 4 F.R.D. 31. See, also, Hardin v. Interstate Motor Freight System, D.C.Ohio 1939, 26 F.Supp.
709
397. ---- Causation, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Inability of plaintiff bank, which brought action for negligence against banks, carrier and airlines for loss of currency ordered by it, to pinpoint exact link in chain at which negligence occurred, by specifying particular breaches
of duty, did not render allegations of negligence insufficient. Banco Continental v. Curtiss Nat. Bank of Miami
Springs, C.A.5 (Fla.) 1969, 406 F.2d 510. Carriers
131
Under liberal rules of federal pleading a plaintiff, under a complaint containing allegations that due to concurrent
negligence of defendants plaintiff's decedent received injuries which resulted in his death, plaintiff could prove any
act of negligence of defendant driver of a United States truck and any theory of cause of death which was a proxi240(2)
mate result of the negligence. Falk v. U. S., C.A.6 (Ohio) 1967, 375 F.2d 561. Automobiles
Complaint alleging that landlord undertook to repair electric refrigerator and did so in a negligent and careless manner and that this was proximate cause of ultimate injuries and loss from fire started by defective condition of refrigerator not only stated cause of action on theory of common-law liability of landlord who undertakes to repair and
does so negligently, but also stated the ultimate facts and not mere conclusions. Beard v. General Real Estate Corp.,
C.A.10 (Okla.) 1956, 229 F.2d 260. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 315
649; Landlord And Tenant
169(3)
Complaint should at least indicate how the act or omission charged to defendant caused plaintiff's alleged injury or
damage. Condol v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., C.A.D.C.1952, 199 F.2d 400, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 255. Federal Civil Procedure
671
In action against power company for death of telephone lineman who was electrocuted when current from highly
charged conductor allegedly passed into ungrounded and uninsulated guy wire and then into telephone wire which
lineman's fellow servants dragged over guy wire, complaint alleging that company was negligent in maintaining
conductor and guy wire, and that death proximately resulted from joint and concurrent negligence of fellow servants
and company, was sufficient to state a cause of action against company. Hannah v. Gulf Power Co., C.C.A.5 (Fla.)
1942, 128 F.2d 930. Electricity
16(4)
In actions brought against manufacturer for injuries sustained when plaintiff who was operating sewing machine was
struck in eye by needle fragment, allegation that injury suffered was proximately caused by manufacturer's negligent
distribution of sewing machine was sufficient to put manufacturer on notice of claim which included violation of
duty to warn of known or reasonably discoverable danger. Brown v. Merrow Mach. Co., D.C.Conn.1976, 411
F.Supp. 1162. Products Liability
251
In action for injuries sustained when plaintiff while sitting on a tricycle, was struck by automobile, a general allegation that the accident was caused by defendants' negligent operation of an automobile was sufficient under this rule
695
and official forms. Martz v. Abbott, M.D.Pa.1941, 2 F.R.D. 17. Federal Civil Procedure
398. ---- Damages, tort actions, statement of entitlement
In personal injury action arising from automobile accident, fact that plaintiff did not specifically plead loss of earnings from date of accident to another designated date would not prevent him from recovering such loss under these
2583.1
rules. Byrd v. Connelly, N.D.Fla.1954, 117 F.Supp. 820. Federal Civil Procedure
In personal injury action, plaintiff's allegations as to the extent of physical and financial damage sustained by him
were sufficiently particular to enable defendant to frame its answer and to prepare for trial. Lasicki v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., M.D.Pa.1940, 1 F.R.D. 384. See, also, Piorkowski v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 1 F.R.D. 386. Federal
Civil Procedure
1009
399. ---- Freedom from contributory negligence, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Although a proper complaint based on negligence and filed in Illinois state courts must allege freedom from contributory negligence, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting as a diversity court,
would not dismiss negligence counts for failure to allege freedom from contributory negligence, where pleadings
fully complied with this rule requiring a short and plain statement of claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. Klondike Helicopters, Limited v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., N.D.Ill.1971, 334 F.Supp. 890. Federal Civil Procedure
1802
400. ---- Persons liable, tort actions, statement of entitlement
In action for injuries sustained by pedestrian who was struck by automobile, allegation that use of automobile by its
driver was with knowledge and consent of the owner was a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing that the
pleader was entitled to relief within requirement of this rule; other allegations being sufficient. D'Allessandro v.
Bechtol, C.C.A.5 (Fla.) 1939, 104 F.2d 845, certiorari denied 60 S.Ct. 295, 308 U.S. 619, 84 L.Ed. 517. Federal
Civil Procedure
Page 316
695
401. ---- Prior conduct, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Allegations of prior accidents are not allowed in the complaint, upon objection taken, because such allegations are
not essential element of plaintiff's cause of action. Knight v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., W.D.N.Y.1948, 8 F.R.D. 261.
402. ---- Res ipsa loquitur, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Where operatives of street car and truck prima facie so manipulated the vehicles as to bring them into collision with
consequent injuries to plaintiff street car passengers and plaintiffs were not and operatives were in position to know
what occasioned the collision and operatives were agents of their respective employers, it was permissible for plaintiffs to assert in injury action against the employers that they possessed knowledge as to the causes of the collision.
712
Mails v. Kansas City Public Service Co., W.D.Mo.1943, 51 F.Supp. 562. Federal Civil Procedure
403. ---- Statutes or ordinances, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Allegation of amended complaint that gasoline company had negligently permitted gasoline to escape into storm
drain passing plaintiff's feed mill was sufficient to permit introduction of fire safety ordinance in its support, and
plaintiff was not required to allege basis of claimed negligence of gasoline company with respect to such ordinance
8; Federal Civil
with greater particularity. Burriss v. Texaco, Inc., C.A.4 (S.C.) 1966, 361 F.2d 169. Explosives
Procedure
709
In automobile collision case, plaintiff, referring in pleadings to a “stop control sign,” was not required to set out that
sign referred to was of type described in statute and that it had been erected by proper authorities. Gallimore v. Dye,
E.D.Ill.1958, 21 F.R.D. 283. Federal Civil Procedure
695
404. ---- Gross negligence, tort actions, statement of entitlement
In guest's action under Florida law against owner of automobile for injuries sustained in automobile accident, a
complaint which alleged that driver of automobile, while traveling at speed of approximately 70 miles per hour, attempted to pass other automobiles on a curve and in so doing took over and usurped way of oncoming automobiles,
sufficiently alleged that driver was guilty of “gross negligence” or “willful and wanton misconduct,” so as to state
cause of action under Florida automobile guest statute. Hollander v. Davis, C.C.A.5 (Fla.) 1941, 120 F.2d 131.
238(7)
Automobiles
Gross and reckless negligence claims and alleged lemon law violations did not comply with notice pleading requirements, in action against automobile manufacturer arising from automobile accident; plaintiff failed to allege
where vehicle was purchased, which state's lemon law manufacturer had violated, which defendant was liable, or
where automobile accident occurred, but rather, defendant attached a recall notice for braking system defect to complaint. O'Diah v. New York City, S.D.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1941179, Unreported, reconsideration denied 2002 WL
31246508, reconsideration denied 2003 WL 223418. Antitrust And Trade Regulation
205
405. ---- Passive negligence, tort actions, statement of entitlement
If defendant, in negligence action, desired, in third-party complaint against another, to claim passive negligence, it
should have specifically stated in its pleadings the acts of omission or commission upon which it based its passive
294
negligence. Douglas v. Detroit Edison Co., E.D.Mich.1956, 145 F.Supp. 1. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 317
406. ---- Willfulness, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Under federal pleading rules, willful conduct is subject to liberal notice pleading standards, such that it must be alleged only generally, rather than with particularity required for allegations of fraud and mistake under fraud pleading
636
rule. Beekman v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., N.D.Iowa 2009, 635 F.Supp.2d 893. Federal Civil Procedure
Including of allegations of willfulness and negligence in same count or same paragraph of count in complaint for
injuries sustained in automobile collision occurring in Illinois was improper. Sherman v. Renth, E.D.Ill.1957, 22
627
Complaint, alleging that injury to plaintiff was caused by willful and wanton acts or omissions of defendant through
its agent, in that agent willfully and wantonly drove automobile on highway at excessive speed, knowing that its
brakes and lights were inadequate and windshield dirty, and willfully and wantonly failed to attempt to stop or avoid
striking plaintiff, was sufficient to charge willful and wanton misconduct. Cox v. Kroger Co., E.D.Ill.1949, 9 F.R.D.
695
407. ---- Third-party complaints, tort actions, statement of entitlement
In action for injuries to one working aboard ship owned by defendant corporation, which filed third party complaint
against plaintiff's employer, pleadings were sufficient as giving fair notice of claim asserted and indicating probable
existence of legal basis on which shipowner might be found liable to plaintiff and yet claim recovery over against
84(6)
employer. Lukasiewiez v. Moore-McCormack Lines, E.D.N.Y.1952, 104 F.Supp. 572. Shipping
408. ---- Explosives, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Statement of amended claim alleging that defendant was guilty of negligence in manufacturing and distributing a
dynamite cap in such a fashion that it was unable to withstand the crimping which defendant manufacturer knew it
would be subjected to and distributing a cap so constructed that it would explode upon being crimped, without warning, sufficiently set forth a specific act of negligence of defendant. Sierocinski v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.,
C.C.A.3 (Pa.) 1939, 103 F.2d 843. Explosives
8
Complaint in action based on alleged damages resulting when defendant blasted with dynamite near plaintiff's property alleging negligence of defendant in blasting operations and that defendant even though not negligent used such
a dangerous instrumentality that he is liable to plaintiff in absence of proof of negligence and also alleging that defendant's conduct constituted a nuisance was not subject to motion to dismiss as setting forth three separate causes of
621
action. Fairfax Inn v. Sunnyhill Min. Co., N.D.W.Va.1951, 97 F.Supp. 991. Pretrial Procedure
409. ---- Interference with contracts or commercial relationships, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Counterclaim which alleged that contract debt was owed by third party to defendants, that plaintiff had instructed
third party not to pay such debt, and that damages resulted therefrom was sufficient to constitute a short and plain
statement of claim showing that defendants were entitled to relief. Phillips & Benjamin Co. v. Ratner, C.A.2 (N.Y.)
782.1
For plaintiff shareholder of cigar manufacturing company to state claim for tortious interference with advantageous
business relationships under Florida law against defendant shareholders, based on defendant shareholders' alleged
creation of competing company and solicitation of business from manufacturer's customers, plaintiff shareholder
was required to allege only existence of business relationship, and was not required to allege specific property inter-
Page 318
est in property related to business relationship, i.e., private labels that company manufactured. Pujals ex rel. El Rey
De Los Habanos, Inc. v. Garcia, S.D.Fla.2011, 2011 WL 1134989. Torts
211
Allegations of distributor that cosmetic manufacturer and its president made certain false statements to other cosmetic companies about distributor's conduct and covertly undercut distributor's image and reputation with other
companies were sufficient, albeit barely, to provide fair notice to manufacturer and president as to the conduct upon
which distributor based its claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. PKG Group, LLC v.
Gamma Croma, S.p.A., S.D.N.Y.2006, 446 F.Supp.2d 249. Torts
255
Consultant gave adequate notice to manufacturer and its subsidiaries of its tortious interference with business and
contractual relations counterclaim under Georgia law without use of specific “buzz words” or legal terminology in
pleading, by alleging that it was damaged when defendants told current and prospective clients that consultant was
bound by non-competition covenant when none existed. The Bradbury Co., Inc. v. Teissier-duCros, D.Kan.2005,
387 F.Supp.2d 1167. Torts
255
Attorney sufficiently stated damages element under rule that governed pleading claims for relief, on his claim under
New York law that client's employer and supervisor tortiously interfered with his retainer agreement with client, on
allegation that he sustained damages and was deprived of his just and fair contingency fee. Marks v. Struble,
D.N.J.2004, 347 F.Supp.2d 136. Torts
255
A probable future business relationship from which there is a reasonable expectancy of financial benefit is enough to
survive the notice pleading standard in an interference with advantageous relations case in Massachusetts. Fafard
Real Estate & Development Corp. v. Metro-Boston Broadcasting, Inc., D.Mass.2004, 345 F.Supp.2d 147. Torts
255
Purchaser's complaint, which, in effect, alleged that defendant, who had assumed all of vendor's duties and obligations under contract for sale of real property, had conspired with vendor and others to cause himself to breach the
contract did not state a cause of action in tort; and such complaint was also infirm for failure to comply with subdivision (a)(2) of this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim. Nikora v. Mayer, D.C.Conn.1954, 122 F.Supp.
587. Conspiracy
698
Complaint by manufacturer, which had contracts with wholesale distributors and retailers for price maintenance,
charging that defendants induced some distributors and retailers to breach their contracts by sales to defendants who
sold at less than minimum prices, was sufficient to state cause of action against defendants for tort of inducing
breach of contract, notwithstanding alleged justification on ground of illegality of the price fixing contract. Sunbeam
Corp. v. Payless Drug Stores, N.D.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 31, 97 U.S.P.Q. 373. Torts
255
410. ---- Motor vehicle accidents, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Elements of motorcyclist's negligence and strict liability claims against motorcycle manufacturer based on allegedly
inadequate headlight supplied with motorcycle and alleged lack of leg protection devices were sufficiently alleged in
complaint to satisfy “notice pleadings” requirement of this rule. Taylor v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
M.D.Fla.1982, 555 F.Supp. 59. Products Liability
210
Complaint, which charged manufacturer of automobile with negligence in the design, manufacture, assembly and
inspection of the automobile, and which charged automobile dealer with negligence in failing to make a reasonable
inspection of automobile which would have disclosed defects of manufacture and design, was sufficient to state a
cause of action against manufacturer and dealer for injuries sustained by plaintiff, who was struck by the automo695
bile. Mull v. Colt Co., S.D.N.Y.1962, 31 F.R.D. 154. Federal Civil Procedure
Page 319
In automobile negligence action which was removed from state court, complaint disclosing that automobile containing plaintiff was proceeding in stated direction and was struck at designated intersection by tractor-trailer which was
driven in designated direction in careless, reckless and negligent manner as direct result of which plaintiff suffered
described injuries sufficiently complied with this rule requiring short and plain statement of claim showing that
pleader is entitled to relief. Bell v. Novick Transfer Co., D.C.Md.1955, 17 F.R.D. 279. Federal Civil Procedure
695
Where railroad's complaint alleged that truck company's agent “negligently drove a motor tractor and trailer into
collision with plaintiff's east bound passenger train,” truck company was not entitled to a more definite statement as
to matter in which railroad claimed that truck company was negligent. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Lattavo Bros.,
N.D.Ohio 1949, 9 F.R.D. 205. Federal Civil Procedure
975
Averment that defendant's bus driver carelessly and negligently allowed bus to ram an automobile immediately in
front of bus, crashing such automobile into back end of automobile in which plaintiff was riding, was sufficiently
definite and certain. Ferrara v. Interstate Transit Lines, W.D.Mo.1945, 5 F.R.D. 54. Federal Civil Procedure
695
411. ---- Malpractice, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Former co-owners of New York corporation asserted their professional malpractice claim against accountant and
accounting firm without differentiating action either with respect to impact of New York's applicable three-year
statute of limitations or with regard to what damages were substantially caused by what acts of negligence, and thus,
on motion to dismiss, co-owners failed to provide requisite short and plain statement that they were entitled to relief
as to that portion of malpractice claim that was predicated on negligence occurring within time period permitting
suit. Abramo v. Teal, Becker & Chiaramonte, CPA's, P.C., N.D.N.Y.2010, 713 F.Supp.2d 96, motion to certify ap10.1
peal denied 2011 WL 13745. Accountants
Client's complaint did not give attorney and law firm that had allegedly negligently represented it in a mortgage loan
closing requisite notice of grounds upon which client's claim for punitive damages rested, where complaint was void
of allegations regarding fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct. SouthStar Funding, L.L.C. v. Warren, Perry &
Anthony, P.L.L.C., E.D.N.C.2006, 445 F.Supp.2d 583. Attorney And Client
129(2)
Simply asserting that global accounting firm's American affiliate's actions constituted malpractice was not sufficient
to state claim under Illinois law for professional malpractice; allegations did not give rise to an inference that
American affiliate breached its duty or how any of its actions fell below the requisite standard of care nor did complaint link any of those alleged actions to audited Italian company's losses. In re Parmalat Securities Litigation,
S.D.N.Y.2005, 377 F.Supp.2d 390. Accountants
10.1
As required by notice pleading rule, complaint adequately informed doctor of transaction underlying complaint and
challenged conduct, providing fair notice that he could be called to defend against claims alleging malpractice, when
complaint alleged that purported patient was doctor's long-time patient, that doctor treated purported patient for injury to her foot, that doctor gave purported patient a shot of unknown substance and prescribed medication in course
of treating her, that purported patient consulted doctor on several occasions about foot injury, that purported patient
thereafter had to have her leg amputated, and that purported patient needed her medical records from doctor to determine whether mistreatment caused condition leading to amputation. Etienne v. Oyake, D.Virgin Islands 2004, 347
F.Supp.2d 215. Health
813
Investors sufficiently alleged negligence against investment adviser under Oklahoma law, on allegations that adviser
had duty to properly oversee investors' investments and to manage investors' accounts in manner consistent with
Page 320
investors' financial circumstance, adviser breached that duty by failing to properly direct investments of investors
and by making trades on investors' behalf that were unsuitable for and in total disregard of investors' investment
goals, and that investors suffered damages for which adviser was liable as direct and proximate result of breach of
28; Negligence
321
adviser's duty. Lillard v. Stockton, N.D.Okla.2003, 267 F.Supp.2d 1081. Brokers
Allegations in plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint brought against physician and hospital which stated that
plaintiff believed that defendants during course of surgery negligently caused paresis of plaintiff's left phrenic nerve,
thereby causing left lung to receive no oxygen, sufficiently stated claim that defendant hospital and its operating
room personnel were negligent; it sufficiently alleged ostensible agency of hospital's operating room personnel
without specifically identifying them or making them party defendants. Solich v. Wheeling, W.D.Pa.1982, 543
F.Supp. 576. Health
813
Complaint in diversity medical malpractice action was struck as violative of both the letter and spirit of notice pleading requirements; plaintiffs used 184 paragraphs and nearly 26 pages to state straightforward claim, often repeating
same language as in preceding paragraphs and changing only minor facts or single words, and manner in which
complaint was drafted impermissibly allowed plaintiffs to conduct early discovery by forcing defendants to provide
large amount of information in the pleading process. Nagel v. Pocono Medical Center, M.D.Pa.1996, 168 F.R.D. 22.
1140
Under liberal pleading requirements, committee established pursuant to Chapter 11 plan to oversee proceedings on
behalf of unsecured creditors adequately alleged damages element of professional negligence claim against debtor's
prepetition auditing firm under District of Columbia law when committee asserted that firm's breach of duty of care
proximately caused debtor's insolvency and bankruptcy and compensatory damages which were continuing, and also
specified that damages caused by firm's audit malpractice and debtor's ensuing insolvency and bankruptcy totaled
approximately $70,000,000. The Plan Committee v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, D.D.C.2005, 335 B.R. 234.
11
Accountants
412. ---- Occupational hazards, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Former employees' allegations that former employer repeatedly ignored citations for safety violations and knowingly exposed its employees to hazardous lead levels for an extended period of time gave former employer and others adequate notice of grounds for relief. Wade v. Johnson Controls, Inc., C.A.2 (Vt.) 1982, 693 F.2d 19. Federal
Civil Procedure
702.1
Complaint in employee's action against employer for damages as result of an occupational disease which alleged
relationship of employer and employee, exposure of employee to injury, negligence of employer and resulting injury
and consequent damages was sufficient as against motion to dismiss. Ivancik v. Wright Aeronautical Corp.,
1793.1
413. ---- Products liability, tort actions, statement of entitlement
Purchaser of automatic garage door opener pled and proved sufficient facts to put manufacturer and seller on notice
of her reliance on discovery rule in products liability action, and purchaser's claims under Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), filed approximately 13 months after her son's death when he was
pinned underneath door, were timely; neither purchaser nor her son discovered, or should have discovered, that
opener would not function properly until the day he was injured and died. Wellborn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., C.A.5
(Tex.) 1992, 970 F.2d 1420. Limitation Of Actions
193
Count in complaint which alleged that defendant tobacco company advertised by newspaper and television that its
cigarettes were harmless to respiratory system, that such representation was untrue and known to be untrue by de-
Page 321
fendant company at times made, that plaintiff's decedent purchased such cigarettes on many occasions in reliance
thereon, and that plaintiff's decedent was thereby deceived and was caused to suffer, by reason thereof, a cancer of
lung to develop, clearly set forth a cause of action in deceit, with reasonable conciseness. Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., C.A.1 (Mass.) 1956, 234 F.2d 170. Fraud
43
Baler distributor's third-party complaint against manufacturer stated an actionable products liability claim under
Puerto Rico law without alleging that the product in question failed to match the average quality of like products at
the time it was manufactured, why the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect
when used as intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or that the product's design proximately caused the injuries; the third-party complaint incorporated plaintiffs' allegations and placed manufacturer on notice of the claim.
310;
Salgado-Santiago v. American Baler Co., D.Puerto Rico 2005, 394 F.Supp.2d 394. Products Liability
260
Products Liability
Plaintiffs' complaint which sought damages for physical maladies plaintiffs purportedly suffered or would suffer as a
result of their exposures to urea-formaldehyde insulation installed in their residences did not fail to state a claim,
despite claimed failure to allege any presently detectable physical injury or malady from which they suffered. Pearl
v. Allied Corp., E.D.Pa.1983, 566 F.Supp. 400. Products Liability
214
414. ---- Miscellaneous tort actions, statement of entitlement
Children of former union leaders who were murdered in Colombia had adequately pled cause of action cognizable
under Alien Tort Statute (ATS); complaint identified each plaintiff as alien currently residing in either Canada or
Colombia and alleged intricate and vindictive plot, orchestrated by defendants, that ultimately led to assassinations
of children's fathers, which conduct, if true, established violation of international law sufficient for purposes of triggering ATS liability. Baloco ex rel. Tapia v. Drummond Co., Inc., C.A.11 (Ala.) 2011, 640 F.3d 1338. Aliens, Immigration, And Citizenship
766
Where individual defendants are accused in separate claims of the same complaint of having violated Section 10(b),
the provision that prohibits material misstatements or omissions in registration statements, and the provision that
prohibits material misrepresentations in prospectuses or other solicitation materials, the Securities Act claims do not
sound in fraud if ordinary negligence is expressly pled in connection with those claims. In re Suprema Specialties,
Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A.3 (N.J.) 2006, 438 F.3d 256. Securities Regulation
25.56
Complaint alleging that first or second airline contracted to assist blind, paraplegic plaintiff in obtaining safe carriage to certain destination, expressly or by implication, and undertook booking through connecting airline, and that
door of connecting airline's airplane flew open causing injury to plaintiff, stated a claim on which relief might be
314
granted. Hines v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., C.A.5 (Fla.) 1972, 461 F.2d 576. Carriers
Paying patron's complaint which charged swimming

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 - National Center for Missing and

Transcription

Similar documents

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist annotated bobblehead supplement

RAY BECKERMAN, P.C.

Feedback Brochure - Central Bayside Community Health Services

Divorce Packet (Self Help)

this document

Customer Complaints Procedure Mortgage Services

please click here

Konsument Europa - Konsumentverket

Preparing For Your Day in Court

Divorce Packet - Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court