Back to Basics: Careful Pleading Under CPLR Article 30
In his New York Practice column, Patrick M. Connors analyzes a recent decision from the First Department that highlights the importance of pleading affirmative defenses with some precision, and provides guidance to plaintiffs on how to combat a defendant's sloppy pleading.
May 15, 2015 at 03:08 PM
12 minute read
There are few subjects in civil procedure more basic than pleading, a topic covered in every first-year law school curriculum. An error in this realm can prove deadly, however, and render the most meritorious of claims and defenses irrelevant. Quite simply, if a pleading is defective, it may prevent the party from ultimately proving the strengths of her claims or defenses.
In our previous column appearing in this space on Jan. 20, titled “Courts Reconsider Rule Permitting Use of Affidavits on CPLR 3211(a)(7) Motion,” we stressed that the careful plaintiff's lawyer will always have some checklist at the ready to ensure that every complaint generated by her office contains all of the elements of any alleged cause of action. In our continued commitment to being fair and balanced, the primary focus in this column will be on the defendant's drafting of the answer so as to properly plead all relevant affirmative defenses.
Pleading Under the CPLR
New York's pleading rules were liberalized with the enactment of the CPLR in 1963. Over the last 50 years, the New York courts have consistently cooperated with the Legislature's design in CPLR Article 30 to eliminate rigidity in the field and to measure the validity of a pleading solely by whether it states a cause of action or defense. See Siegel, New York Practice §208 (5th ed. West 2011). CPLR 3013 sets the tone by pronouncing that “[s]tatements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions [or] occurrences…intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense.”
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Winston & Strawn partners Amanda Groves and Shawn R. Obi have entered appearances for Wells Fargo Bank in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 13 in California Northern District Court by the Kazerouni Law Group and Kellett & Bartholow, contends that Wells Fargo overcharged tens of thousands of customers on their mortgage loan accounts and attempted to downplay liability by sending out 'cryptic' letters and cashier checks. According to the suit, the defendant's failure to disclose to customers how their accounts were overcharged or to provide any accounting or itemization of actual damages constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, is 3:24-cv-05105, Prado v. Wells Fargo & Company et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250