Civ Pro 2 Notes
More on Zielinkski v. Philadelphia
Piers, Inc.
The end result here is that
the court requires that there is a deemed
admission that PPI is the owner of the forklift, which means, essentially,
they’ll be subject to liability if it can be proved that they were negligent. The judge gives us several reasons for this:
(1) It was an ineffective denial under the Rules. A proper denial would have broken down the
component parts, which would have been a signal to the plaintiff that the plaintiff
sued the wrong party. The plaintiff
could have then amended his pleadings. (2)
The judge finds that there was no bad faith.
This is often a consideration when judges decide what to do on the
pleadings. What really underlies this
case is the party in interest here: the insurance company, which insures both PPI and CCI. As a practical matter, neither defendant will
pay the judgment. The insurance company will pay. So it doesn’t really matter who gets
sued! The liability will pass
through. But you can’t ignore all the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to get to that result: so the judge says that it’s an
ineffective denial. But we can see how this
fact colors the procedural ruling. It
seems like a harsh penalty, but in reality it may not be since the insurance
company pays either way!
Affirmative defenses – Layman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
The classic defense is the statute
of limitations. Affirmative defenses
must be set forth affirmatively! There’s
a big list in the rules. If you fail to
set out your defenses in your answer, you can have big problems!
Layman argues her case in the
Court of Appeals. She says that an
easement must be pleaded as an affirmative defense, but it turns out that it’s
not listed in the
What if easement evidence had
come out in the discovery phase? Then
there would have been no surprise.
Layman would have had notice and would have been able to properly proceed
to trial on the merits. The court says
that
Some states, like
Amendments
These relate both to amending
the complaint and amending the answer.
This is in Rule 15. There are
three ways to amend: one way for the plaintiff, one way for the defendant, and
one way the judge can help you out. You
may amend once “as a matter of course” before you get the answer. This is basically a plaintiff’s rule. The plaintiff files a complaint, and you can
amend it once before the answer comes back.
If there is no responsive pleading due (like an answer, because there’s
nothing that comes after it), you have 20 days to amend it. Typically, you also have 20 days to answer
the complaint, so it’s kind of a mirrored rule.
If you don’t qualify for one of these two windows, you must ask for the
leave of the court, which will be freely given as justice requires. But just what does justice require?
Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’
Dive Corp.
Beeck gets injured by a waterslide. Doh! He sues the manufacturer. He sues Aquaslide
on product liability claims. They bring
in the insurance companies. They all
check out the slides and they’re positive that Aquaslide
really made it. After the lawsuit is
filed, Aquaslide answers, and in the answer they
admit that they make the slide. On the
basis of the insurance companies telling Aquaslide
that it was their slide, they say in discovery that it really was their slide. The statute of limitations runs! Now the president of the company goes to look
at the slide, and lo and behold, it’s not an Aquaslide
after all! In his deposition, he says
so. After the statute of limitations has
run out, Aquaslide wants to amend their answer to
change their response as to whether it was really their slide. They’re obviously out of the 20 day window,
so they have to throw themselves on the mercy of the court! Why didn’t this happen in Zielinski? It turns out that the Rule didn’t exist
then! That would have been the
appropriate procedural remedy if it had existed at the time.
There’s a Supreme Court case on
this: Foman v. Davis gives us a test. Leave to amend will be freely given in the absence
of any reason that leave shouldn’t be granted.
Courts mustn’t allow delay, bad faith, or prejudice. Is there a good
reason for why you messed up in the first place? Will fixing it not hurt the other side too
much? They’ll always be hurt some
because your being better off always makes them at
least a little worse off. Let’s apply
the law. Aquaslide
is not said to have acted in bad faith because their answer and interrogatory
responses were based on the insurance company, and you’d think that their
investigation would be accurate! The court
says that “blame should be shared equally”…the plaintiff could have made this
discovery in the course of their own investigation…but then again, if the
insurance company couldn’t tell, how could the plaintiffs? Did the plaintiffs really do anything
wrong? There’s a good reason to grant
leave to amend, though.
The plaintiff says that there
is prejudice, though, because the statute of limitations has run! The plaintiff can’t turn around and sue the
true manufacturer for personal injury.
But the court says that the plaintiff might have causes of action that
can get around the statute of limitations, the court
says that the prejudice isn’t so great as the plaintiff says. There’s a later state court suit filed by the
plaintiffs against Aquaslide for misrepresentation in
their federal pleadings (lying in the federal lawsuit) because it was
discovered that the company knew there were counterfeit slides all over the country! It wasn’t a one time thing! That’s why the president went to go and look:
he knew ahead of time that it might not be their slide. Armed with that knowledge, the state courts
were much more generous with the plaintiffs.
Statute of limitations and relating back
Absent some absolute cutoff,
you can always beg the court to amend.
But if the statute of limitations has run, the cause of action is cut
off. Rule 15(c) talks to us about what
we can do with regard to amending our petitions and having those amendments
relate back to when we initially filed the complaint. This is a tool to get around limitations. If we can get our amendment to relate back,
then we’ve avoided the statute of limitations problem. It will relate back if it relates to the same
“conduct, transaction, or occurrence”.
This was an unclear, problematic amendment when it was adopted, but now
there is more clarity about when it applies.