







Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
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
1 / 13
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!








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
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o motion must be prepared and served separate from other motions (don’t consolidate) o must wait 21 days to see if withdrawn or appropriately corrected before filing with the court and seeking sanctions (4) sanction must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct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.
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:
9(b) is exclusive
(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)
§ 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?
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.
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