Ethical Limitations, Representation, Sanctions, Fraud, Study notes of Commercial Law

Civil Procedure Outline for Law School. University of Florida Levin College of Law. Topics include: Ethical Limitations, Representation, Sanctions, Fraud, Affirmative Defense

Typology: Study notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 05/01/2012

kechristian
kechristian 🇺🇸

4.9

(12)

60 documents

1 / 13

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Civil Procedure – Civ Pro
us.docsity.com
3. Ethical Limitations
Rule 11: Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
applies to any papers filed with the court, not just the pleadings (though that’s where
it is most significant)
there is a little bit of tension because FRCP allows a lot of generality but 11 requires
more
this Rule is meant to insure honesty and integrity in pleading – how is this not
substantive?
o it only incidentally affects the litigants substantive rights
§ purpose is to deter baseless filings – streamline administration and
procedure of fed courts
o want to create incentives for parties and lawyers to be truthful – need to be
able to find the facts
11(a): Signature
must be signed – by attorney of record or if representing self, the party
11(b): Representations to the Court: by presenting – signing, filing, submitting, or advocating
– the signor certifies that to
the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances that:
(1) no improper purpose (ie: harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase cost
of litigation)
o this is the 1 of the 4 that is a subjective standard – “good faith” requirement
(2) warranted by existing law or are non-frivolous arguments for extending. modifying,
or reversing or establ. new
o Haddle v. Garrison: knew the law was against them – consistent with Rule 11
o if lawyers are unaware of the adverse law, will be a violation of 11(b)
(3) fact contentions have evidentiary support or, if specified, will likely have it after
further investigation/discovery
(4) denials are warranted on evidence or, if specified, are reasonably based on belief or
lack of information
Note: only person signing (usually attorney) can violate the Rule – though others can
be sanctioned
inquiry reasonable under the circumstances – court will look at many factors
o statute of limitations might affect – ie: if it is going to expire in a week
11(c): Sanctions
(1) after giving notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, if court determines 11(b)
has been violated, the court
may impose sanctions on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated rule or is
responsible for violation
o absent exceptional circumstances, law firm must be held jointly responsible
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd

Partial preview of the text

Download Ethical Limitations, Representation, Sanctions, Fraud and more Study notes Commercial Law in PDF only on Docsity!

3. Ethical Limitations Rule 11: Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions - applies to any papers filed with the court, not just the pleadings (though that’s where it is most significant) - there is a little bit of tension because FRCP allows a lot of generality but 11 requires more - this Rule is meant to insure honesty and integrity in pleading – how is this not substantive? o it only incidentally affects the litigants substantive rights § purpose is to deter baseless filings – streamline administration and procedure of fed courts o want to create incentives for parties and lawyers to be truthful – need to be able to find the facts 11(a): Signature - must be signed – by attorney of record or if representing self, the party 11(b): Representations to the Court: by presenting – signing, filing, submitting, or advocating

  • the signor certifies that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances that: (1) no improper purpose (ie: harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase cost of litigation) o this is the 1 of the 4 that is a subjective standard – “good faith” requirement (2) warranted by existing law or are non-frivolous arguments for extending. modifying, or reversing or establ. new o Haddle v. Garrison: knew the law was against them – consistent with Rule 11 o if lawyers are unaware of the adverse law, will be a violation of 11(b) (3) fact contentions have evidentiary support or, if specified, will likely have it after further investigation/discovery (4) denials are warranted on evidence or, if specified, are reasonably based on belief or lack of information
    • Note: only person signing (usually attorney) can violate the Rule – though others can be sanctioned
    • inquiry reasonable under the circumstances – court will look at many factors o statute of limitations might affect – ie: if it is going to expire in a week 11(c): Sanctions (1) after giving notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, if court determines 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose sanctions on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated rule or is responsible for violation o absent exceptional circumstances, law firm must be held jointly responsible

o what if client lies to you (as lawyer), you conduct reasonable investigation and story checks out? § you have not violated Rule 11 § while Client violated – cannot be sanctioned because 11(b) requires the signor to violate (2) “Safe Harbor Provision” o motion must be prepared and served separate from other motions (don’t consolidate) o must wait 21 days to see if withdrawn or appropriately corrected before filing with the court and seeking sanctions (4) sanction must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated o may include: nonmonetary directives (ie: take CLE), pay penalty to court, reasonable attorneys fees, and other expenses directly resulting from the violation 03/18/ (5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. o court must not impose a monetary sanction against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2) § client cannot be held responsible for lawyers failure to conduct a reasonable investigation Walker v. Norwest Corp. (1996) p.

  • Facts o Massey, Walker’s atty, filed complaint in SD DC for breach of fiduciary duty and other state actions § claimed diversity jurisdiction - Π and some of the Δs are citizens of different states § stated that many of the other defendants were residents of SD o Norwest wrote letter asking to dismiss/warning would seek sanctions – Massey did not § District Court: awarded sanctions against Massey
  • Analysis o Note: actions did not fully comply with the requirements of Rule 11 o minimal diversity is insufficient – must be complete § violation of 11(b)(2) o why did the court choose to impose sanctions? § Bridges : the mistake was made but recognized and admitted § Walker : even after being forewarned, plaintiff failed to correct ú at a minimum, plaintiff would have to allege complete diversity - failed to do so ú law does not require the plaintiff to have all information necessary to determine if there is complete diversity

personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct § court has inherent authority to sanction Pro Se Litigants: basically a sliding scale under Rule 11 (see case on discussion board) Misrepresentations During Oral Arguments:

  • Mattel : is this later advocating factual mistake in the complaint?
  • Court: there needs to be a very clear connection between the oral argument and the complaint o basically, need a direct repetition of the factual allegation or legal theory to fall under Rule 11(b) 4. Special Claims: Requiring and Forbidding Specificity in Pleading Rule 9(b) : Fraud or Mistake; Condition of Mind.
  • In alleging fraud or mistake, party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.
  • Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.
  • See Form 13 Stradford v. Zurich Insurance Co. (2002) p.
  • Facts o Stradford’s dental office was insured by Zurich effective Aug. 1999 – Aug. 2000 § Stradford failed to pay for a period – policy cancelled Oct. 1999 – Dec. 1999 § began paying: policy reinstated Dect 14, 1999, Stradford notified Jan. 9, 2000 o Jan. 17, 2000: Stradford filed claim alleging water damages while on vacation § originally $151,154 (Zurich paid); amended for $1,209,456 (suing for here) § also, he was not compliant with Zurich’s investigation which was required by contract o Zurich counterclaimed fraud § Stradford moved to dismiss on Rule 9(b)
  • Analysis o see p.369 – special rules in securities o supplement notes from case – what is required of specificity o Specificity : requires that the time, place and nature of the alleged misrepresentations be disclosed to the party accused of fraud § insufficient here that they alleged claim to be false – must say how

9(b) is exclusive

  • only those things stipulated require specificity – everything else requires only the general pleadings under 8
  • Twombly(?) : antitrust cases – increased specificity in these types of cases though the court says not so? Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (1995): special rules that apply to claims alleging fraud under fed security statutes
  • shall specify each statement alleged to be misleading, the reason(s) why, and, if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, must state with particularity all facts on which the belief is formed 03/19/ 5. Allocating the Elements Gomez v. Toledo (1980) p.
  • Facts o Gomez was employed as an agent with the Puerto Rico Police Dept. o Upon learning that two other officers had provided false information in a criminal proceeding he was discharged by Superintendent of Police Toledo. § as a result, Gomez was transferred to Police Academy – position of lesser significance. § Toledo ordered an investigation which proved the Pet’s claims as valid. o Gomez testified at trial to his assertions, thereafter Toledo had criminal charges brought against him § Gomez was acquitted and then sought reinstatement with the force with back pay o Toledo moved to dismiss complaint for failure to state cause of action § DC: granted motion – held that because Gomez did not allege bad faith in complaint § CoA: affirmed § Cert Granted: Reversed
  • Issue: When bringing action against public official whose position might entitle him to qualified immunity, is the plaintiff required to allege bad faith in order to state a claim for relied or must the defendant plead good faith as an affirmative defense?
  • Holding: Burden of pleading on the defendant. o qualified immunity is an affirmative defense: the burden of pleading rests with the defendant
  • Analysis o He moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim – proper procedural device? § pre-answer: 12(b) § concurrent with answer or after: Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings o Here: made motion because complaint did not allege bad faiths in the civil rights case

(1) Can B now move to dismiss for improper venue? No. o 12(g)(2) cannot make a second preanswer motion o 12(h)(1): the defense is waived when not waived (2) Can B now move to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party? Yes. o 12(g)(2): cannot be raised by way of a preanswer motion. o Can be raised in the answer; 12(h)(2) – this defense, along with failure to state a claim, are not waived (3) Can B now move, under Rule 12(e), for a more definite statement? -- (4) Can B include the defense of insufficiency of service of process in her answer? No. o 12(h)(1) – waived. (5) Can B include the defense of failure to join an indispensable party in her answer?

2. Answer a. Denials Rule 8(ab)(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. Rule (8)(b)(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. Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc. (1956) p. - Facts o Zielinski claims “a forklift owned, operated and controlled by the defendant, its agents, servants, and employees, was so negligent; and carelessly managed that it came into contact with the plaintiff cauing him to sustain injuries.” § the forklift said PPI on it, Sandy believed that he was an employee of PPI. o Philadelphia denied the paragraph generally. o Pre-Trial Conference: the division which Sandy worked for had been sold unbeknownst to her – actually was an employee of Carload Contractors o Jury Instructions: § It is admitted that PPI owned the forklift and employed Sandy. - Issue: Is a general denial valid when at least some of the allegations being denied have been admitted by both parties as true? - Holding: o PPI should have denied the agency relationship and should have admitted ownership and said did not know about the rest.

o Effect: would have let Zielinski amend complaint to sue Carload Contractors (too late now – SOL)

  • Analysis o why would they not have informed immediately? § ins. co. is the one really calling the shots – they insure both partied o Court does not say bad faith – just says that the denial was insufficient
  • Now Rule 15(c)(1): An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: (A) the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back; (B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out — or attempted to be set out — in the original pleading; or (C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment. (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. o so even though the SOL had run out, Zielinski would have likely been able to just amend complaint to substitute Carload had this rule been in effect at the time of the case Problem 5 – p.387: Suppose A, a jogger, is inured when B’s car swerves off the road and hits A. A sues B. After reviewing the text of Rule 11(b), decide how B should respond to the following allegations: (a) The complaint alleges that B has not had his car serviced for the past 2 years. Although this allegation is true, B knows that it will be impossible for A to prove. o B knows that it is true – has to admit it! (b) The complaint alleges that A was running north (the same direction B was driving). B does not doubt that this is true but did not actually see A running. o B admit that driving north, not idea where A was running. (c) Same as in (b), except that X, a friend of A, has told B that he was standing 20 feet away and saw A running north.

§ possible to reconcile on the basis that AP requires same set of facts that Πs trespass argument, therefore not relying on something completely different o this case could have only gone this way without discovery. § under 26(a) required to disclose anything that you intend to use to defend your case o FL Rule 1-130: Δ has to attach any documents intend to use in your answer (?) Hypo: Π sues Δ for running through red light, Δ denies generally. At trial, Δ wants to introduce evidence that he wasn’t there at all. Is this an affirmative defense?

  • No. To have an affirmative defense, need both confession and avoidance.
  • This does not mean that the Δ cannot get in trouble for making a specific enough denial. See Jones v. Clinton p.58 (has chapter on affirmative defenses)
  • first aff. def.: not actually an affirmative defense
  • did not allege injury cognizable at law: also not an affirmative defense
  • if there is any doubt, and even in cases where there is not so much, attorneys may plead as an affirmative defense to ensure that will not be waived o problem: court may require Δ to assume the burden of proof on these defenses **_3. Reply
  1. Amendments_** Rule 15: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings. (a) Amendments Before Trial. (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course: (A) before being served with a responsive pleading; or (B) within 20 days after serving the pleading if a responsive pleading is not allowed and the action is not yet on the trial calendar. (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. (3) Time to Respond. Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 10 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.

o If the defense of failure to state a claim is raised in a motion, and not in the answer, Π a. The Basic Problem: Prejudice Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp. (1977) p.

  • Facts o Beeck was injured on waterslide – sued Aquislide on theory of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty claiming they manufactured slide o Aquislide had 3 insurers on case – on their information originally admitted to manufacturing; upon a review by president realized that not theirs o District Court § Moved to Amend: granted § After granted, moved to separate trial on the issue of manufacture: granted – found not Δs § Trial: Δ moved for summary judgment - granted o On Appeal: Affirmed
  • Issue
  • Holding o Basic Standard: amendment should be granted freely if justice so requires. o To overcome this presumption, need evidence of bad faith, prejudice or undue delay.
  • Analysis o standard of review was very deferential o Here: § bad faith: Δ was acting on the information of 3 insurers when admitted to mfg. so no ú later found out that Δ had been subject to similar lawsuits based on counterfeit Aquaslide products ú would this change the inference that Δ was acting in good faith? possible. § prejudice: ú critical issue – in between time Δ had admitted mfg and now denying, SOL has run ú Court: might not be prevented from bringing suit against actual manufacturer because counterfeit implies that mfg. and maybe others were engaged in fraud - if this is the case, may toll the statute of limitations Jones v. Clinton : dropped defamation claim – WHY?! b. Statutes of Limitations and Relation Back 03/25/

needs to have found out about the error in suing the wrong defendant during the period of time in which the defendant could have properly been served with process (filing of complaint plus 120 days it takes for service of process to take place) o Makes clear that this is a service of process provision

  • If you want to change defendants, the one that you want to change to must have been aware in the time when suit would have been proper o by suing the wrong Δ, you are in effect serving process on the correct Δ when the correct Δ finds out