CB 361-80 (Haddle) FR 7-8, 12 Chapter 6: Pleading - Pleadings – the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendant’s response to that complaint – constitute the first steps in helping a lawsuit go forward - A pleading is (as defined by Rule 7(a)), a term which includes the complaint, the answer, and some other initial papers in a lawsuit. - Rule 7 (b) distinguishes between “pleadings” and “motions,” motions meaning any request for a court order - Note that sometimes lawyers or judges will describe the pleading stage of a lawsuit to include both the papers formally defined as pleadings and various motions challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings A. The Story of Pleading 1. Of Stories and Jurisdiction a. The first pleading in a lawsuit – the complaint – lets the plaintiff explain his grievance and asks the court to grant some remedy b. Two stories, old English one and more modern American i. English: Smith, Plaintiff, is suing Defendant, Jones, for hurting his horse (in the possession of Jones, a nail got stuck in the horse’s foot) in that the horse was harmed. Damage claimed to be 100 shillings 1. There are a lot of notes related to the British proceedings ii. American: Plaintiff, Smith, is suing Defendant, Jones, for negligently hitting the plaintiff with her car. As a result of the accident, Smith suffered personal injury damages and was prevented from working at his place of business, and incurred expenses of close to $100,000. Jones is seeking $125,000 in damages for his injuries 1. First, the allegation establishes the court’s jurisdiction. Like the medieval courts, they have limited jurisdiction. 2. One basis for jurisdiction in federal court is diversity citizenship a. Note that state courts do not generally have a jurisdictional statement because they are courts of general jurisdiction, in that they can hear all cases 3. Modern courts seem much more concerned with the nature of injuries and the amount of damages claimed by the client. a. This focus on remedies is a hallmark of modern lawsuits. 4. Ingredients of a modern complaint are straightforward and dictated by Rule 8 (a). a. “A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and b. “a demand for judgment for the relief sought.” 2. Plaintiff’s Story, Defendant’s Story a. Keep in mind that the process of pleading involves competitive storytelling. Plaintiffs and defendants always have different stories. i. The most common defense is saying “I didn’t do it” or “that’s not what happened” which in the past was known as a traverse, but now a denial b. There are a number of more technical, legal responses however, and most have to do with the power of the court to hear the case, or the party commenced the lawsuit i. Rule 12 (b) lists such defenses and allows defendant to assert each in a motion 1. None require the defendant to say whether the allegations of the complaint are true 2. The specific motion of saying the plaintiff’s story is not true is known as a demurrer, saying even if all facts true, there is no legal remedy required What are the three elements required Rule 8 (a) - Short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless court already has jurisdiction, and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support o Jurisdiction in Point 5 - A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief o 20-21 - A demand for the relief sought (Prayer for relief) o 22-23 o At very end too? Why add more than needed in the complaint? Part has to do with the role of pleading as storytelling. A pleader with a good story wants to tell it, even if they don’t have to. Also, they want to frame the story, framing plaintiff in the best (and defendants in the worst) possible light In Haddle’s situation, Haddle was trying to cooperate with a government investigation of criminal activity but was fired for it. However, this claim was not necessarily illegal under GA law. Haddle’s lawyer ended up looking elsewhere for relief, using a Civil War statute which was enacted against those who wanted to intimidate former slaves from using the courts. Statute is: - “If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified. . . . the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.” o See in Point 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Note this is a type of he said, she said type of case, in which you present both sides and have the jury tell who’s more believable. For this particular case, the defendant Garrison was a convicted felon (of fraud), and that hurts her believability. In the case of the defendant’s lawyer, then take a look at the statute. Notes that GA has at-will employment, and someone can be fired at any time (I guess differentiating between the statute and employment law). Haddle v. Garrison (S.D. GA. 1996) Unpublished Opinion, Docket No. 96-00029-CV-1 Facts Haddle brings litigation for damages under Section 1985(2) of Title 42 of the US code and state law. Upon the court are the four defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12 (b)(6) of the FRCP. Haddle former employee of Healthmaster Home Health Care, Inc. He claims he was improperly discharged from his employment by Defendants in an attempt to deter his participation as a witness in a Federal criminal trial. Haddle was an at-will employee. And although the two employees which he worked with authorities over were fired (Garrison & Kelly), they conspired with G. Peter Molloy, Jr., one of the remaining officers of Healthmaster, to fire Haddle. Procedural Posture Case at its initial stages, in the District Court in GA. Southern District because that is nearest to where all the parties live. Has jurisdiction because it’s related to US Federal code Issue Under what circumstances can the court dismiss a complaint under 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim? Rule Rule 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to move to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Holding Under 12(b)(6), Haddle failed to state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore his claim under Section 1985(2) is dismissed with respect to the above – all state law claims are dismissed without prejudice Rationale Defendant alleges that the law affords plaintiff no relief (as a result assuming all allegations true). Haddle asserts he can maintain action under the retaliation code despite the fact that he was an at-will employee during his employment. Because plaintiff was at-will, he has no constitutionally protected interest in continued employment. As a result, this cannot constitute an actual injury, which is required under the statute. Notes: - Note this has nothing to do with the factual allegations, rather Huddle’s legal right to bring the claim and whether an injury had occurred. - Under 12(b)6) (demurrer) court assumes that all the factual allegations of the complaint are true. Therefore, it must not be a factual allegation, rather a legal allegation? Because that’s why they’re in court? To determine whether an injury occurred - District court order says Haddle conceded he was an at-will attorney, but this wasn’t in the complaint. Must have been due to conduct elsewhere (likely an oral hearing), where the conduct was brought - 4. Imagine if instead the defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that Haddle actually quit – in this scenario the district court would have handled it instead under 12(d) (Result of Presenting Matters Outside the Pleadings) , because (???) - In both state and federal courts, when a complaint fails to state a claim, the court will almost always allow the plaintiff “leave to amend"—meaning a chance to add allegations to the complaint that would render it valid. If the plaintiff seeks leave, and if the court denies it, an appellate court will likely reverse on the grounds that failure to grant leave to amend the complaint is an abuse of discretion. o In Haddle’s case, likely did not seek leave. If so, probably could have added allegations stating that his contract stated that he would not be fired for due cause. The 11th Circuit then brushed over the case, denying the appeal, because it follows the precedent in Morast. Haddle v. Garrison 525 U.S. 121 (1998) Facts Same facts as above. Procedural Posture Case was dismissed in the E.D. GA on procedural grounds under rule 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim. The court determined that since the statute 1985(2) required an injury and being an at will employee held that upon firing that did not constitute an injury, there was no claim for legal remedy. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Morast (1987) Issue Was petitioner injured in his person or property when respondents induced employer to terminate petitioner’s at-will employment as part of conspiracy? What are conditions necessary for dismissal under 12(b)(2)? Can petitioner state a claim for damages by alleging that conspiracy proscribed by statute induced his employer to terminate his at-will employment Rule In deciding that Haddle’s complaint did state a claim, SCOTUS also defines content of the substantive law involved. This is classic common law development: a statute The 12(b)(6) motion operates to define the boundaries of substantive law. Holding Such interference with at-will employment may give rise to a claim for damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat section 1980, 42. U.S.C. section 1985(2) Rationale Petitioner sued alleging that the defendant fired him to deter him from testifying in the upcoming criminal trial and in retaliation for attending the grand jury proceedings. As section 1985 demands, he alleged that he had been “injured in his person or property” by acts of respondents in violation of the statute and he was entitled to recover damages. Respondents moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Because petitioner conceded he was at will, on basis of Morast (11th circuit), which held that an at-will employee who is dismissed pursuant to a conspiracy proscribed by 1985(2) has no cause of action. Because Morast was at-will, he had no constitutionally protected interest in continued employment – therefore no injury. 9 Court disagrees with 11th Circuit, that petitioner must suffer injury to a “constitutionally protected property interest” to state claim for damages under 1985(2). Nothing in language or purposes of statute requires it. The terms “injured in his person or property” define the harm that the victim may suffer as a result of conspiracy. Thus, that employment at will is not property for purposes of due process, does not mean that being fired from at-will employment is not an injury. Notes Re 12(b)(6), it is unique for a few reasons: - Court ruling on this does not look at disputed facts - Looks at the idea, if this were true, how would the law respond?
