Responses to the Complaint

Responding to the Complaint

• Options for defending against a complaint:

  • Contest the action: This involves formally challenging the plaintiff's claims.

    • Contest the facts of the case: Dispute the factual allegations made by the plaintiff. This often involves presenting evidence, witness testimony, and documents to show that the plaintiff's version of events is incorrect or incomplete.

    • Challenge the action on a legal basis: Argue that even if the plaintiff's alleged facts are true, they do not establish a valid legal claim, or that the court lacks jurisdiction, or that the claim is barred by a defense (e.g., statute of limitations).

  • Negotiate a settlement: Attempt to resolve the dispute outside of court through compromise. This often involves discussions between parties or their attorneys to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, avoiding the time, expense, and uncertainty of litigation.

  • Do nothing (Not an option): Failing to respond to a complaint typically leads to a default judgment against the defendant, meaning the plaintiff automatically wins the case.

• Time Limits for Responding:

  • Strict deadlines are imposed by court rules (e.g., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or state equivalents) for filing an answer or other responsive pleading.

  • Missing a deadline can result in severe consequences, including default judgment.

• Stipulations enlarging time: These are agreements between the parties to extend the deadline for responding to a complaint.

  • Often between parties; no court involved: These agreements are usually entered into directly by the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant without needing court approval, provided they are reasonable and do not unduly delay the proceedings.

  • Open stipulation: An agreement to extend the time to respond for an indefinite but reasonable period, often used when parties are actively discussing settlement or need more time for investigation.

• Motions to enlarge time: These are formal requests made to the court to extend a deadline.

  • Requests from the court: A party must file a motion demonstrating "good cause" and often explaining why they need additional time (e.g., complex case, ongoing discovery, attorney unavailability). The court then decides whether to grant the extension.

Types of Answers

• General Denial

  • A type of answer in which all of the allegations of the complaint are explicitly denied. The defendant states that every factual claim made by the plaintiff is false.

  • Usage: Typically employed in cases where the defendant genuinely disputes all essential factual assertions made by the plaintiff.

  • Risk: A general denial can be problematic and lead to sanctions (e.g., under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11) if even one allegation is undeniably true, as it might demonstrate a lack of good faith or reasonable inquiry in responding.

  • Impact: Requires the plaintiff to present evidence and prove every single element of their complaint, as no factual assertions are conceded.

• Specific Denial

  • A type of answer in which the defendant precisely replies to each individual allegation or numbered paragraph of the complaint.

  • This allows for a granular response, indicating which specific parts of the plaintiff's narrative are disputed and which are accepted.

  • Admitting all or part of the allegation:

    • Example: “Defendant admits the accident occurred on January 15th, 2017, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s complaint”

    • Rationale: Defendants might admit certain facts that are true or easily verifiable to streamline litigation, focus on genuinely disputed issues, and enhance credibility. An admission removes the need for the plaintiff to prove that particular fact.

  • Denying all or part of the allegation:

    • Example: “Defendant denies all of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the plaintiff’s complaint”

    • Rationale: This is a direct factual challenge, asserting that the plaintiff's stated fact is untrue or did not occur as alleged.

  • Denying all or part of the allegation or paragraph on information and belief:

    • Example: “Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the plaintiff’s complaint”

    • Rationale: This response is used when the defendant does not have personal knowledge of the truth or falsity of an allegation but has conducted a reasonable inquiry and lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny it. Legally, a denial based on lack of information and belief operates as a denial.

• Crucial Rule: If an allegation in the plaintiff's complaint is not specifically denied, it is deemed admitted! This is a fundamental principle of pleading, meaning any undenied fact is treated as proven for the purpose of the litigation, shifting the burden off the plaintiff to prove it.

• Qualified Denial

  • A type of answer that denies all of the allegations of the complaint except for those that are specifically admitted.

  • Usage: This is a hybrid approach, akin to a general denial but with clear, specified exceptions. It can be more efficient than individual specific denials if a large majority of the plaintiff's allegations are false, but a few are undeniably true.

  • Requirement: The answer must explicitly and clearly identify which allegations are being admitted to avoid any ambiguity or accidental deeming of other facts as admitted.

• Affirmative Defense

  • A fact or circumstance that, if proven by the defendant, defeats the plaintiff’s claim, even if the plaintiff is able to prove every contention alleged in their complaint.

  • Nature: Affirmative defenses introduce new facts outside the scope of the plaintiff's initial allegations that serve to excuse the defendant's conduct, negate liability, or bar the action.

  • Burden of Proof: Unlike denials, which challenge the plaintiff's burden of proof, the defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving an affirmative defense.

  • Importance: Failure to timely plead an affirmative defense in the answer generally results in its waiver, meaning the defendant cannot raise it later in the litigation.

Affirmative Defenses: FRCP 8(c)(1)

• Accord & Satisfaction (Contract): A defense where parties to a contract agree to accept a different performance than originally stipulated to satisfy the initial contractual obligation.

• Arbitration & Award (Contract): Occurs when a dispute has already been resolved through arbitration, and an award has been issued, barring re-litigation of the same issues.

• Assumption of the Risk (Negligence): A defense arguing that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in a dangerous activity or situation, thus relieving the defendant of liability.

• Contributory Negligence (Negligence): In some jurisdictions, if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injury in any way, they may be completely barred from recovering damages.

• Comparative Negligence (Negligence): A defense that reduces the plaintiff's recovery proportionally to their own percentage of fault in causing the injury. (e.g., Pure comparative negligence allows recovery even if the plaintiff is 99% at fault, while modified comparative negligence typically bars recovery if the plaintiff's fault exceeds 50% or 51%).

• Duress (Contract): A defense claiming that a contract was entered into under unlawful pressure or coercion, rendering it unenforceable.

• Estoppel (Contract): Prevents a party from asserting a claim or right that contradicts its previous statements or actions, where another party has relied on those statements or actions to its detriment.

• Failure of Consideration (Contract): A defense asserting that the promised exchange for a contract was never delivered or performed, thus invalidating the contract.

• Fraud (Contract): A defense arguing that the contract was induced by a material misrepresentation of fact made with the intent to deceive, causing the innocent party to enter into the agreement.

• Illegality (Contract): A defense asserting that the contract is unenforceable because its purpose or subject matter is illegal or violates public policy.

• Injury by Fellow Servant (Negligence): An antiquated defense (largely abolished by workers' compensation laws) that prevented an employee from suing an employer for injuries caused by a co-worker's negligence.

• Laches (Contract): An equitable defense asserting that a party has unreasonably delayed in asserting a right or claim, causing prejudice to the opposing party, thereby barring relief.

• License (Property/Contract): A defense claiming that the defendant had legal permission (a license) to perform the action alleged to be wrongful (e.g., trespassing).

• Payment (Contract): A defense asserting that an outstanding debt or obligation, which is the subject of the lawsuit, has already been fulfilled through payment.

• Release (Contract): A defense based on a prior agreement where the plaintiff legally waived their right to pursue a claim against the defendant.

• Res Judicata (All Cases): Prevents re-litigation of a claim or issue that has already been finally decided on its merits by a competent court.

• Statute of Frauds (Contract): Requires certain types of contracts (e.g., contracts for the sale of land, contracts that cannot be performed within one year) to be in writing to be enforceable.

• Statute of Limitations/Response (All Cases): A time limit within which a lawsuit must be filed after a cause of action arises. If the suit is filed after this period, it is barred.

• Lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction (All Cases): Jurisdictional defenses asserting that the court lacks the authority to hear the type of case (subject matter) or to exercise power over the specific parties involved (personal).

• Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (All Cases): A defense (often raised via motion) arguing that, even if all the factual allegations in the complaint are true, they do not establish a legally recognized claim for relief.

• Improper Venue, Insufficiency of Service of Process (All Cases): Procedural defenses challenging the geographic appropriateness of the court (venue) or that the plaintiff failed to properly notify the defendant of the lawsuit (service of process).

• Defendant reserves the right to add additional defenses as Discovery progresses (MSP) (All Cases): A precautionary statement often included to allow for the possibility of discovering new defenses during the discovery phase of litigation.

• Others over whom the defendant had no control proximately caused the injuries and damages alleged (MSP) (All Cases): A defense shifting blame, arguing that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was the action of a third party, not the defendant.

• Plaintiff has failed to join necessary parties (MSP) (All Cases): A defense asserting that the lawsuit cannot proceed fairly or effectively without the inclusion of other parties who have a significant interest in the outcome.

• True Affirmative Defenses must be plead in an Answer, or they are generally deemed waived!

Drafting the Answer

• Elements of an Answer

  • Caption

  • Body

    • Specific, general, or qualified denial

    • Don’t forget (in between complaint sections/cause of action)

      • “Defendant adopts and realleges the defenses raised in Paragraps 1-_ of its answer as though fully rewritten herein”

    • And at the end of your answer (C.Y.A. Statement)

      • Further answering, Defendant denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint not herein specifically admitted to be true

  • Prayer

  • Signature

  • Verification

    • For certain claims. Verifying information is true

    • Not in Federal OR all state courts

• Service and Filing

  • Filed electronically. State so in Certificate of Service

  • Not filed electronically:

    • A copy of the answer is served on the plaintiff’s attorney

    • A copy of the answer is served on the attorney for any other codefendant who has previously responded to the complaint

  • Amending

    • Once within 2 days after it is served

      • After 21 days, you need leave of Court to amend

Counterclaims, Cross-claims and Third Party Complaints

• **
  Counterclaim

  **: A claim asserted by a defendant against a plaintiff in the same lawsuit. It allows the defendant to seek relief from the plaintiff, rather than simply defending against the plaintiff's claims.

  • Compulsory counterclaims ($FRCP \ 13(a)$):

    • Arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim.

    • Must be asserted in the current action, otherwise they are generally waived.

    • The court automatically has subject-matter jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims.

  • Permissive counterclaims ($FRCP \ 13(b)$):

    • Do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim.

    • May be asserted in the current action, but are not required to be; they can be filed in a separate lawsuit.

    • Require an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction if they do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the original claim.

• **
  Cross-claim

  **: A claim asserted by one party against a co-party (e.g., a defendant against another defendant, or a plaintiff against another plaintiff) in the same lawsuit. It must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or a counterclaim.

  • Indemnification: A common basis for a cross-claim where one co-party seeks to be reimbursed for any liability it incurs due to the actions of another co-party.

  • Contribution: A common basis for a cross-claim where one co-party seeks to share the liability with another co-party, typically in tort cases when multiple parties are responsible for the plaintiff's injury.

  • Governed by $FRCP \ 13(g)$.

• **
  Third-party Complaint (Impleader)

  **: A complaint filed by a defendant (now called the third-party plaintiff) against a new party (the third-party defendant) who is not yet part of the lawsuit. The third-party plaintiff alleges that the third-party defendant is liable to them for some or all of the plaintiff's original claim.

  • Purpose: to ensure that all related claims and potentially liable parties are resolved in a single action, often for claims of indemnification or contribution.

  • Governed by $FRCP \ 14$ (Third-Party Practice).

  • Requires leave of court if filed more than 14 days after serving the original answer.

• Reply:

  • The plaintiff's response to allegations contained in the defendant's answer.

  • A reply is mandatory only when the answer contains a counterclaim, to which the plaintiff must respond by admitting, denying, or stating a lack of knowledge for each allegation.

  • May or may not be necessary: If the answer only contains denials or affirmative defenses and no counterclaim, a reply is generally not permitted or required unless ordered by the court.

• Answer:

  • Refers to the formal pleading filed in response to counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party complaints.

  • These responses mirror the original answer to a complaint, requiring the responding party to admit, deny, or state a lack of knowledge for each allegation.

  • Typically, a 21-day period is allowed for filing this response, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.

• Amending:

  • Any pleading (complaint, answer, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party complaint, or reply) can be amended.

  • Under $FRCP \ 15(a)$, a party may amend its pleading "as a matter of course" (without needing court permission or agreement from other parties) once within 21 days after serving it, or if a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under $FRCP \ 12(b), (e), \text{ or } (f)$, whichever is earlier.

  • After this initial period, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. Leave is generally granted freely "when justice so requires."

  • Amendments are often sought to add new claims, defenses, or parties, or to correct factual errors discovered during litigation.

Legal Challenges to the Complaint

• Technical Legal Challenges: These are procedural or substantive challenges raised by the defendant before or alongside their official answer, aiming to dispose of the case or clarify the pleadings.

  • Motion

    • Motion to Dismiss (Governed by $FRCP extbf{12}(b)$)
      : A request to the court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or because of other fundamental defects. Common grounds include:

      • Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction ($FRCP extbf{12}(b)(1)$ )
        : The court lacks the authority to hear the type of case.

      • Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ($FRCP extbf{12}(b)(2)$)
        : The court lacks authority over the specific parties.

      • Improper Venue ($FRCP extbf{12}(b)(3)$)
        : The geographic location of the court is incorrect.

      • Insufficient Process ($FRCP extbf{12}(b)(4)$)
        : Defect in the summons.

      • Insufficient Service of Process ($FRCP extbf{12}(b)(5)$)
        : The method of delivering the summons and complaint was flawed.

      • Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted ($FRCP extbf{12}(b)(6)$)
        : Even if all facts in the complaint are true, they do not establish a legally recognized claim.

      • Failure to Join a Required Party ($FRCP extbf{12}(b)(7)$)
        : An indispensable party is missing from the lawsuit.

    • Motion for a More Definite Statement ($FRCP extbf{12}(e)$)
      : If a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably prepare a response, they may move for a more definite statement, asking the court to order the opposing party to clarify their allegations.

  • Answer: While the primary responsive pleading to the complaint's merits, it can also contain defenses (like affirmative defenses) that challenge the plaintiff's right to relief.

  • Demurrer: In some state court systems (and historically at common law), a demurrer serves a similar function to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It essentially argues that, even assuming the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint, they are legally insufficient to impose liability on the defendant.

• Failure to answer may result in judgment by default: If a defendant fails to respond to a complaint within the legally prescribed time, the court may enter a default against that defendant.

• Judgment by Default: This is a formal court order entered against a defendant who has failed to defend against a claim, resulting in the plaintiff winning the case without a trial on the merits.

  • Affidavit: The plaintiff must typically submit an affidavit (a sworn statement) to the court, affirming that the defendant was properly served with the complaint and has failed to respond within the statutory timeframe.

  • Entry of Default: This is typically a ministerial act performed by the court clerk, formally noting the defendant's failure to appear or respond.

  • Default Judgment: After the entry of default, the plaintiff must usually apply to the court for a default judgment. The court will then review the plaintiff's claims and determine if a judgment should be entered and, if so, the appropriate relief (e.g., damages). In some cases, a default judgment can be entered by the clerk if the claim is for a sum certain (a fixed amount) and the defendant has not appeared.

• Setting aside Default: A defendant who has had a default or default judgment entered against them may ask the court to set it aside. This is typically governed by rules such as $FRCP extbf{55}(c)$ (setting aside an entry of default) or $FRCP extbf{60}(b)$ (setting aside a default judgment) and requires the defendant to show:

  • Good Cause: For setting aside an entry of default, the defendant must demonstrate a legitimate reason for their failure to respond (e.g., excusable neglect, mistake).

  • Meritorious Defense: The defendant must present a plausible defense to the plaintiff's claims, showing that there is a real controversy to be litigated.

  • No Prejudice to the Plaintiff: The court will consider whether setting aside the default would unfairly harm the plaintiff.