• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Late, frivolous answer?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

AlexB18

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? US District


Just seeing some opinions on here... what are some options for the plaintiff if the defense filed a slightly late answer to a complaint -- and the answer to the complaint has "blanket" denials that include denials of undisputed facts and of other concrete facts such as the existence of established items? Also, the affirmative defenses are all or nearly all "bare bones," already denied by the court, and/or do not contain any factual basis? It looks like this pleading was put together in 20 minutes and it will just cause unnecessary delay/expense in getting the defendants to admit certain facts. Their stall tactics so far have been unbelievable! :mad:
 


AlexB18

Member
What is the name of the U.S. STATE you are in IF you want advice?

As stated, it's in US DISTRICT COURT. There's nothing special in the local procedures, so that's irrelevant. If it helps, it's in the 11th circuit and in FL - but again, that's irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

latigo

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? US District

Just seeing some opinions on here... what are some options for the plaintiff if the defense filed a slightly late answer to a complaint -- and the answer to the complaint has "blanket" denials that include denials of undisputed facts and of other concrete facts such as the existence of established items? Also, the affirmative defenses are all or nearly all "bare bones," already denied by the court, and/or do not contain any factual basis? It looks like this pleading was put together in 20 minutes and it will just cause unnecessary delay/expense in getting the defendants to admit certain facts. Their stall tactics so far have been unbelievable! :mad:

I suggest that you become more familiar with FRCP Rules 12 and 56.

Also, the adoption of Rule 8(B)(1)(A) - “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it” - dispensed with the need to plead ultimate facts.

Curiously, how were all of these "bare bones" affirmative defenses adjudicated prior to their being pleaded. In what manner were they presented to the court that you claim to have denied them?

You wouldn’t be guilty of adding a little bias garnishment to this scenario, would you.
 

AlexB18

Member
I suggest that you become more familiar with FRCP Rules 12 and 56.

Also, the adoption of Rule 8(B)(1)(A) - “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it” - dispensed with the need to plead ultimate facts.

Curiously, how were all of these "bare bones" affirmative defenses adjudicated prior to their being pleaded. In what manner were they presented to the court that you claim to have denied them?

You wouldn’t be guilty of adding a little bias garnishment to this scenario, would you.

Some of the defenses raised in this answer were denied in a Rule 12 motion to dismiss that was denied in its entirety. Some don't apply to a suit against an official capacity defendant. There's plenty of case law where such motions were struck as contrary to Rule 8.

Bias? No. They're bare bones by the purest definition of bare bones. It's a laundry list of affirmative defenses.

Also, Rule 8 (b)(2)... they need to answer to the substance of the allegations.

Affirmative defenses that are simply "bare [*308] bones conclusory allegations" do not meet this standard and must be stricken. Heller, 883 F.2d at 1295.

The defendant must provide enough facts so that, at a minimum, plaintiff is put on notice as to which of its actions are complained of. See Cohn v. Taco Bell Corp., 1995,U.S. Dist. at *16, No. 95 C 7152 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 1995) (Nordberg, J.). Thus, affirmative defenses 3-11 are inadequately pleaded under Rule 8(a), and are stricken.


For example, in their 20 or so defenses, most have just the name of the defense... ie "estoppel"

Rule 56 pertains to MSJ's which we've already filed and is pending.

All I asked was for what some options were... there's motions to strike, requests for answers/interrogatories, motions for sanctions/fees... in my opinion, they're violating Rule 11.
 
Last edited:

AlexB18

Member
Also, the adoption of Rule 8(B)(1)(A) - “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it” - dispensed with the need to plead ultimate facts.

QUOTE]

Caselaw over the past few years has it that a bare bones pleading is insufficient... regardless of what that old rule says. Research "bare bones" and "rule 8" or something along those lines.
 

latigo

Senior Member
Some of the defenses raised in this answer were denied in a Rule 12 motion to dismiss that was denied in its entirety. Some don't apply to a suit against an official capacity defendant. There's plenty of case law where such motions were struck as contrary to Rule 8.

Bias? No. They're bare bones by the purest definition of bare bones. It's a laundry list of affirmative defenses.

Also, Rule 8 (b)(2)... they need to answer to the substance of the allegations.

Affirmative defenses that are simply "bare [*308] bones conclusory allegations" do not meet this standard and must be stricken. Heller, 883 F.2d at 1295.

The defendant must provide enough facts so that, at a minimum, plaintiff is put on notice as to which of its actions are complained of. See Cohn v. Taco Bell Corp., 1995,U.S. Dist. at *16, No. 95 C 7152 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 1995) (Nordberg, J.). Thus, affirmative defenses 3-11 are inadequately pleaded under Rule 8(a), and are stricken.


For example, in their 20 or so defenses, most have just the name of the defense... ie "estoppel"

Rule 56 pertains to MSJ's which we've already filed and is pending.

All I asked was for what some options were... there's motions to strike, requests for answers/interrogatories, motions for sanctions/fees... in my opinion, they're violating Rule 11.

May I ask what your purpose is?

Do you have a specific question(s) or are you just going to continue fruitlessly grumbling about your opponent and instructing us on procedural rules?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top