RULE 8 – GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING
Under Rule 8(a) federal courts allow plaintiffs to plead very generally.
· 8(a)(1) – must provide short, plain statement of grounds upon which court’s jurisdiction rests
· 8(a)(2) – must provide short, plaint statement of claim showing why you are entitled to relief
8(a)(3) – must state a demand for judgment sought.
Under Rule 8, Alternative and Inconsistent Pleadings are allowed as long as there is evidentiary support for both claims. (Rule 8(e)(2))
McCormick v. Kopmann (pg 138-140)
Plaintiff’s husband was killed in car accident after his car was hit head on by another after drinking at D Hull’s bar.
Plaintiff pleaded two separate counts in complaint:
One count alleged that other driver negligently crossed center line and hit deceased’s car, so other driver was liable.
Other alleged that deceased had become intoxicated at local bar and had accident as a result of his intoxication, so bar owner was liable.
Under this Count’s theory, deceased would have been contributorily negligent, which is an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c)
Court said even though allegations are contradictory and inconsistent, they are allowed under Rule 8(e)(2), as both had evidentiary support and b/c P made the counts in good faith belief that either conclusion could be correct.
Policy Rationale for allowing inconsistent pleadings / Advantages for them:
Favors alternative pleading so that controversies may be settled and complete justice accomplished in a single action – avoid duplicate trials
If this right (to plead alternative allegations) is abused whereby the pleader knows the true facts (which pleading is true, and which is false), pleading in the alternative is not justified
Because plaintiff could have brought the competing pleadings in separate complaints, she is entitled to combine them into a single action, setting forth all her proof, and submit the entire case to the jury under the appropriate instructions
In this case, w/ the key witness deceased, pleading alternative sets of facts is often the only way to proceed
“Truth” cannot be known until the trier of facts decides the factual issues
If there is a risk of inconsistent results in separate suits, is there not also a risk of never discovering the actual truth — Litigation vs. “Truth”
By joining her case, plaintiff may set multiple defendants against one another, essentially assisting the plaintiff’s case
Fed. Rules of Civ. Pro generally do not require verification of factual allegations, but rather rely instead on the lawyer’s signature on a complaint to show that it is justified (there is an exception involving stockholders’ derivative acti
believe under wh/ you could win
Often used when you don’t know what happened, but you prefer one of the scenarios over the other and there is evidence for both
Says I firmly believe A is true, but recognizes that a jury could disagree and believe B is true, so could win on that theory (P wins either way).
P is saying that if the jury does not decide that one is true, then it could decide that the other is true
Neither side is binding, but the part you are pleading affirmatively may be used as evidence against you by the other party
Another option:
Used if P has no basis for choosing one over the other (dead, brain damage, or fact outside of P’s knowledge)
The risk is that the jury will not be able to decide which pleading to believe, in which case P will lose
Third Party Pleadings (almost always hypothetical pleadings)
Defendant says that if I am held liable, which I deny, then I will sue a 3rd party to reimburse me for my costs
From Hypo above: If I was drunk, and if I crossed the center line, then I am not liable b/c a 3rd party influenced my conduct
