Plaintiff Maria filed a suit against Judy under Virginia wrongful death statute. The plaintiff accused the defendant of submitting a statement to a local gang insincerely accusing Maria’s son, Ed, for stealing some of the gang’s property.
We will write a custom Essay on Law: Civil Procedure Hypos specifically for you
301 certified writers online
It was clear that the gang would react by assassinating Ed, and this came to a reality when they later beat Maria’s son to death. However, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) (6).
Under the Virginia’s wrongful death statute, the surviving parents are allowed to bring wrongful death actions. However, the wrongful death actions are only legitimate against people who are directly accountable for causing the death.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Virginia decreed that individuals who solicit others to assassinate someone could be declared responsible under the wrongful death law. The statute also calls for the compensation for damages caused due to wrongful death. The damages include funeral expenses and mental anguish as well as punitive damages.
The demise of a family member is always a terrible event. Before issuing any declaration, the court must analyze the grounds on which the accused is filing the motion to dismiss. A denial claim with insufficient evidence will not be enough for the court to dismiss the case.
The defendant may claim that she was not directly responsible for the death. However, the recent declaration by the Supreme Court of Virginia that any individual who solicits the death of another person should be held liable will be of great significance when jurors issue a ruling on this case.
Motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) can only be credible if it is supported with adequate evidence. The accusation filed against the defendant is grave and justice is only viable if the case goes through a full trial. Therefore, in the event that the accused does not provide sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, the motion to dismiss should not be granted.
Phyllis, the plaintiff, petitioned Dreyfus claiming that the accused had negligently constructed her home, which caused her injuries. Soon after, the accused moved to dismiss the allegations under Rule 12(b)(6) stating he is immune of any cases of negligence in construction of homes filed against him under the state law.
The petitioner retorted by seeking to amend her complaint to allege that the defendant was reckless in constructing her home a particular way. Dreyfus was now not immune to these claims. Therefore, the issue is whether plaintiff can be granted permission to amend her complaint when the trial has begun.
According to Rule 15(b), a court may permit an amendment during and after, based on two grounds, viz. an objection at trial or for issues tried by consensus.
Jurors can freely allow an amendment if doing so will help in the presentation of merits and the opposing party fails to prove to the court that the actions of the petitioner would show partiality in the case. However, if the issues are tried by approval of the parties, they must be handled as if they were mentioned in the pleadings.
In this case, Phyllis requested to amend the allegations because the accused was immune of the previous accusations. Immunity does not make Dreyfus innocent.
If Phyllis can provide evidence that the injuries she incurred were due to Dreyfus’s recklessness when he constructed her home, then the defendant has to prove his innocence. The introduction of the amendment in the trial does not show prejudice to any of the parties.
The petitioner should be permitted to amend her complaint as long as the accused cannot prove that this amendment would cause prejudice. Though the defendant was immune to accusation of negligence of construction, he has to be answerable to the injuries that Phyllis got from her home. However, the court should issue a continuance so that the objecting party can collect more evidence.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Diogenes (FL) proclaimed a counterclaim for defamation under state law after Plato (VA) sued Diogenes in a Florida federal court for copyright infringement under the federal Copyright Act. Plato demanded a compensation fee of $ 20,000.
The defamation counterclaim was that Plato had conveyed a letter to its colleagues that Diogenes had copied Plato’s writings coupled with using the writings without authorization or good attribution. Diogenes was seeking a compensation of $76,000 under state law as well as $ 55,000 for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.
The counterclaims are allowed by the Federal Rules under Rule 13. Diogenes asserted compulsory counterclaims because it was prompted with the same incidence that inspired the basis of the petitioner’s suit.
According to Rule 13(a)(1), a compulsory claim evolves out of an occurrence, which is the subject matter of the plaintiff and does not need another party that the court has no authority. Both parties are accusing each other for copyright infringement under the federal Copyright Act, though Diogenes filed another accusation under the state law.
The federal court has jurisdiction to listen compulsory counterclaims because the federal court has a supplementary authority to preside over counterclaims that are compulsory, even in situations whereby the matter would be handled by the state court. Therefore, Diogenes counterclaim should be handled by the federal court even if it introduced defamation claim based on a state law.
Parker (MA) filed a suit against Douglas (VT) accusing him of negligence after causing an automobile accident. In response, Douglas stated a third-party claim against Tina (VT) seeking Tina’s participation in the accusation leveled against him.
Likewise, Parker declared an assertion against Tina with allegations similar to those of Douglas. Parker also filed accusation against Tina on allegations of damages for a disparate violation of agreement.
Rule 14 of the federal rules of civil procedure addresses the issue of third-party practice. According Rule 14(a)(1), the defendant may introduce a third-party in a given case by acting as a third-party plaintiff and issue summons, as well as complaints on a person who may be either partially or fully responsible for the allegations that have been petitioned against him or her.
However, the third-party plaintiff must get a leave from the court before proceeding with the summoning if he or she filed the third party objection not more than ten days after issuing the original answer. The Federals rules under Rule 14(a)(3) also provide guidelines on how a plaintiff can accuse a third-party defendant.
The complainant can declare against the third-party accused of any assertion that develops and is unrelated to the case that the petitioner has filed against the defendant. The third-party defendant can then assert a counterclaim under Rule13b.
Douglas is permitted by the federal laws to assert Tina, who is the third party, to contribute to the case after getting a leave from the court. In the case of Parker, he can only assert one of his claims against Tina, which is the allegation of being responsible for violating a contract. Parker cannot assert the same accusation he has filed against Douglas; instead, Tina can go ahead and assert a counterclaim under Rule 13(b).