Responding to a Complaint: Tips for Drafting Answers
In her Litigation 101 column, Shira Forman provides guidelines and strategies for drafting an answer that will serve your client well as litigation moves forward.
June 30, 2017 at 12:00 AM
11 minute read
Your client has been sued, and the summons and complaint that initiated the lawsuit have landed on your desk. After considering and ruling out some of the possible next steps—a motion to dismiss, removal, and jurisdictional objections, to name a few—the task at hand is to file a strong and thorough answer to the complaint. Here are some guidelines and strategies for drafting an answer that will serve your client well as the case moves forward.
Calculate Time to Respond
The first thing to do upon receiving a summons and complaint is to note the date on which the client was served. In a New York state court case, the answer must be filed within 20 days of personal service of the complaint, or within 30 days of the time when service by any other means is effective. In federal court, in most cases, a defendant must respond within 21 days after service of the complaint. (Consult the applicable rules for guidance on how to obtain, if necessary, an extension of time to answer the complaint.)
Is Defendant Named Correctly?
Complaints often name the wrong defendants. In the case of a corporate defendant, a complaint may erroneously list a “D/B/A” name instead of the defendant's registered legal name or name a parent company instead of a subsidiary, or vice versa. Regardless of who is named as a defendant, you should make sure to enter an appearance and answer only on behalf of the proper individual or legal entity. The New York Secretary of State website has a corporation database which is a good resource for ascertaining correct legal names of businesses and other helpful information about the parties.
Do Your Research
As with drafting a complaint, it is important to gather as much information as possible before you get started. Review each allegation with your client and determine whether there are witnesses or documents that either support or contradict the facts alleged. Explore whether there are facts that give rise to affirmative defenses or counterclaims. Although you have the option of asserting a general denial, courts look more favorably upon answers with specific admissions and denials, as it is rare that a complaint will contain no facts which can be admitted.
Respond to the Allegations
The crux of the answer is the defendant's numbered statements admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint. For each numbered allegation in the complaint, state clearly whether the defendant admits or denies the allegation. Any allegation that is not responded to will be considered admitted.
An allegation can be admitted in part and denied in part, but be sure to specify which part of the allegation is admitted and which is denied. For example: “Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, except Defendant admits that he began working for the Plaintiff in May 2005.”
CPLR 3018(a) requires that, for each denial, the defendant must assert whether the denial is based on the defendant's knowledge, on defendant's information or belief, or on lack of sufficient knowledge and information. Denial based on lack of sufficient knowledge or information should not be pled in connection with an allegation that is a matter of public record. When appropriate, you can also answer that a particular allegation calls for a conclusion of law for which no response is required.
Plead Affirmative Defenses
After responding to the plaintiff's allegations, the defendant has the opportunity to raise any available affirmative defenses—defenses that, if successful, will defeat the plaintiff's claim even if the allegations in the complaint are determined to be true. CPRL 3018 describes affirmative defenses as “matters which if not pleaded would be likely to take the adverse party by surprise or would raise issues of fact not appearing on the face of a prior pleading.” CPLR 3018 also offers a helpful (but not exclusive) list of possible affirmative defenses: “arbitration and award, collateral estoppel, culpable conduct claimed in diminution of damages as set forth in article 14-A, discharge in bankruptcy, facts showing illegality either by statute or common law, fraud, infancy or other disability of the party defending, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, and statute of limitation.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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.
You Might Like
View AllArt of the Settlement: Trump Attorney Reveals Strategy in ABC Lawsuit
Trump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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