Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Dubicz v.

ComED District Court (Dismissed) Court of appeal (Reversed) Facts: Plaintiff filed for a pleading which was veuge and insufficient. It did not include times, dates, and people. The pleading was dismissed. The plaintiff were then joined by more parties and they filed an amendment pleading eight months later. The District court dismissed the amendment solely because of delay. Issue: Should an amendment pleading be allowed eight months after the original pleading? Rule: Delay, standing alone, may prove insufficient ground to warrant denial of leave to amend the complaint; rather the degree of prejudice to the opposing party is a significant factor in determining whether the lateness of the request ought to bar filing. Holding: Yes, Reversed. Reasoning: Delay by itself is normally an insufficient reason to deny motion for leave to amend. ComED argues that it was prejudiced by the delay because memories of witnesses have faded and documents have been lost during the past 8 months. The court notes that the statute of limitations has not passed yet thus an original complaint could be filed today and that the defense proposed by ComED would not be sufficient on an original complaint. Thus the prejudiced is not reasonable.

Tran v. Alphonse Hotel Corp. District Court (allowed amendment) Appeals Court (Reversed) Facts: plaintiff amended complaint to include RICO violation. The Defendant argues that the RICO cannot be filed because the statute of limitations has passed. The RICO complaint alleges bribes of union men so they dont look into FLSA. The original complaint was for violation of a Fair Labors Standards Act. Issue: Whether the original complaint gave the defendant fair notice of the newly alleged claims. Rule: an amendment relates back when the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. For a newly added action to relate back the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading. Holding: No, The new claim does not relate back to the original claim. Reasoning: The original complaint makes no reference to acts of bribery of union officials. If an amendment adds new claim that was not alleged in the original complaint, it does not relate back to the original claim. Patsys Brand, Inc. v. IOB Realty, Inc. Facts- Def lied again and again, attorney submitted sworn affidavit with more lies? Issue: should attorney be sanctioned for submitting another false affidavit without checking facts when he knows that D is a liar? Rule: Lawyer shall never offer evidence which he knows is false. Holding: yes, even though attorney acted in good faith, a reasonable person would know that client is a liar; firms need to be more ethical and not push young attorneys into defending bad clients.

In Re Pennie & Edmonds LLP Facts: Judge initiated a post trial sanction pleading. Issue: Whether when a trial judge initiates a post-trial Rule 11 sanction proceeding, the lawyers liability for the sanction requires a mental state of Bad Faith or only objective unreasonableness when the lawyer has not opportunity to withdraw or correct the challenged submission. Rule: Safe Harbor provision providing an opportunity to withdraw or correct a challenged submission. Holding: vacated the sanction. Reasoning: The safe harbor provision cannot be utilized because the trial is over thus they turn to see if the lawyer acted in bad faith.

Frantz v US Powerlifting Fed. Facts: Issue: Can you place sanctions when lawyer does not know legal basis for his claim? Rule: Rule 11 states that a signature verifies that the paper is well grounded in fact, not that all facts are contained in the paper. Holding: Yes the lawyer needs to do legal research. Reasoning: Rule 11 is not to lock the courthouse door to people who have some support for a complaint but need discovery to prove their case, yet the need for discovery does not excuse the filling of vacuous complaints.