Corporate & Securities Law

A Brilliant Opinion

By David Fischer

There is tension between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) - requiring a ?short and plain statement? - and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) - requiring the party state fraud claim with particularity.  Not to mention between Rule 8(a) and Twombley.

The (new) Legal Writer blog brings to our attention an excellent July 27, 2008 opinion from the District Court for the Western District of Washington concerning a 465 page complaint.  According to the opinion:

The title to the Complaint is eight pages. …  It appears to list all of Plaintiff?s claims, as well as their statutory and precedential basis.  In eighteen pages following the title, the Plaintiff lists the Defendants.  There are six Defendants. ….

Not before page 30 does the Complaint address the facts alleged. Plaintiff?s allegations continue for 87 pages?including a 37 page pit-stop to quote emails. …. The Court notes, with some irony, that in his response opposing Defendants? motions for a more definite statement, the Plaintiff successfully states his allegations in two pages.  …

On page 117, Plaintiff embarks on an odyssey through his claims for relief. While the Court understands that asserting 54 claims requires some space, the 341 pages used to do so is unreasonable.

The Court granted the defendants’ motions for a more definite statement and concluded:

Plaintiff has a great deal to say,

But it seems he skipped Rule 8(a),

His Complaint is too long,

Which renders it wrong,

Please re-write and re-file today.

Brilliant.

Full post as published by Antitrust Review on July 23, 2008 (boomark / email).