CLAIM OUTLINE RULE 8
RULE 8(a) Jurisdiction:
Claims for Relief.
A pleading, which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain:
RULE 8(a)
(1) A short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it.
RULE 8(a)
(2) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Courts are demanding a more stringent standard to get rid of these cases at an early stage. Supreme Court says however, that it is not the purpose of the Rule 8(a)(2)
HOW MUCH DO WE NEED UNDER 8(a)(2)
You need to have a claim, which means:
Elements of the substantive law.
a. The rule only requires that it give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is (of what is being alleged) and the grounds upon which it rests. (SOREMA)
Pleading does not accord with the specificity in a COA.With some referencing facts to place them on notice and claim relief (SOREMA):
a. What the plaintiffs claim is and
a. The grounds upon which it rests.
You need some language connecting the facts to the substantive law. “As a result”
b. Do not require a statement of all the facts either.
c. Does not mean you will be successful on your claim either.
d. Do not have to state all the facts.
e. Tension in the rule between stating a claim and the entitlement to relief – How much do I have to do? Thus: always state all the elements, and have some factual basis for them.
But not speak of the elements with specificity; merely reference the substantive law.
f. Thin line however!!!
8(a)(2) basic requirements does not require heightened pleading to weed out losers (Leatherman). Only rule 9(b) requires that.
AKOS SWIERKIEWICZ V SOREMA (2002)
Facts:
Question:
Held:
When considering the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to substantive law, the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support claims.
Why?
It seems incongruous to plead more facts than may ultimately be needed to succeed on the merits if direct evidence of discrimination is discovered.
Requiring a heightened pleading standard would ultimately conflict with Rule 8(a)(2).
b. The rule only requires that it give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.
c. This liberal pleading requirement then rests upon the liberal Discovery rules and summary judgment (Rule 56) motions to define disputed facts and issues and dispose of unmeritorious cases.
d. Except Rule 9(b) particularity pleading requirements for fraud and mistake
LEATHERMAN V TARRANT COUNTY NARCOTICS INTELLIGENCE AND CO-ORDINATION UNIT (1993)
Facts:
Question:
Justify the rule in the District court. Rule 11 heightens the pleading standards of Rule 8(a).
Held:
When dealing with claims purportedly requiring more specific pleading (§1983), such claims cannot be reconciled with the liberal notice pleading set forth in RULE 8(a)(2).
Rationale:
1. The rule requires the complaint include only:
A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
That is, a claim of the above nature giving the defendant fair notice of
b. What the plaintiffs claim is and
c. The grounds upon which it rests.
2. Rule 9(b) does not apply in this case. Why? The rule does not state that greater particularity is required for the cause of action in this case.
The particularity requirement under the rule is applied in two situations only:
Fraud or mistake
3. Litigants rely on Summary Judgment and control of discovery to weed out unmeritorious claims.
COMPLAINT-RULE 8(a)(3) Linked to discovery
(3) A demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several types may be demanded.
Can make inconsistent claims under 8(a)(3). 8(e)(2)
8(a)(3) – Can state alternative but not inconsistent relief.
8(e)(2) – Can state alternative and inconsistent relief.
c. Broad pleading, focus them after discovery. Linked to Discovery.
RULE 9(b)
Generally 9 specifically disclaims the need to plead with specific facts, thereby reinforcing Rule 8(a). Most of the provisions of 9 should be covered by Rule 8(a).
However, in 9(b) you need to make specific factually laden claims for fraud or mistake.
Fraud is a unique type of injury requiring specific pleadings (state of mind issu
equirements of RULE 8(a), specifically when dealing with immunity. Concerned an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas where it was held that plaintiffs who brought a civil rights suit against local officers who searched their homes, failed to meet a heightened pleading standard under § 1983. The fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for dismissal. Cause of action of § 1983. No it does not. Whether a complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit must contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case under the employment discrimination complaint? Former employee brought suit against employer, asserting claims of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII, and under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Loretta A. Preska, J., granted employer’s motion to dismiss, on basis that employee’s complaint did not adequately allege a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas standard. Employee appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, 5 Fed.Appx. 63. Certiorari was granted. The United States Supreme Court, Justice Thomas, held that a complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas, but must contain only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, abrogating Tarshis v. Riese Organization Jackson v. Columbus and Austin v. Ford Models, Inc.. , 149 F.3d 148, 194 F.3d 737,, 211 F.3d 30,
Burden to plead 8(a)(1),
a. Test: Do not need state a COA. Merely put them on notice.
b. If they fail to place them on notice, 12(e).2. State the claim – RULE 8(a)(2):
ONLY SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (federal)
