New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Liberal Construction of Pro Se Complaint vs. Mandatory Specificity — Violation of Rule 8(a) by Prolixity

Download PDF

From Bender v. City of N.Y., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103947 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 201):

The present case has a long and complicated procedural history spanning numerous docket numbers and complaints. Plaintiff's many lawsuits against various individual and official defendants stem from her years-long feud with the 11th St. Bar, an allegedly illegal tavern operating next door to her apartment. Plaintiff alleges that her efforts to call attention to the bar's illegal status have led to numerous retaliatory incidents of false arrest and malicious prosecution, as well as frequent violations of her state and federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that the many harms she has experienced are the result of a conspiracy among local zoning officials, members of the New York City Police Department, city prosecutors, other government officials and the bar's owners.

Defendants here seek dismissal of Plaintiff's amended complaint, which spans 159 pages and 545 paragraphs pleading 34 causes of action against at least 58 named and additional unnamed defendants. The amended complaint seeks to "supplement" Plaintiff's 61 page complaint (referred to here as the "original complaint") consisting of 220 paragraphs of allegations. It is worth noting that this Plaintiff has previously filed at least three other complaints, in case numbers 08 civ. 331, 08 civ. 332, and 08 civ. 5816, that were dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's order to file an amended complaint.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff's unwieldy complaint violates the mandates of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement" of those facts entitling a plaintiff to relief. This rule was instituted "because unnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to it because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage." Shabtai v. Levande, 38 Fed. Appx. 684, 686 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff's unwieldy complaint is especially troublesome because she has had numerous opportunities to file new and amended complaints throughout her many lawsuits. Further, her styling of the amended complaint as a "supplement" to her earlier complaint would require this Court to examine hundreds of pages of allegations to construe her claims in the strongest possible light. For this reason, the Court will rely primarily on the allegations as plead in Plaintiff's lengthy amended complaint. Where a cause of action is only pled in her "original" complaint, the Court will accept the allegations as plead there. In all other instances, Plaintiff's 155 pages of allegations in her amended complaint should be more than sufficient to adequately state her claims.

Because Plaintiff is pro se, this Court has interpreted Plaintiff's claims to make the strongest arguments they can plausibly suggest. Morpurgo v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor, 697 F. Supp. 2d 309, 322 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). However, this Court is also mindful that claims of a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of an individual are "so easily made and can precipitate such protracted proceedings with such disruption of governmental functions" that detailed fact pleading is required to withstand a motion to dismiss. Angola v. Civiletti, 666 F.2d 1, 4 (2d Cir. 1981). As the Second Circuit has repeatedly held, "complaints relying on the civil rights statutes are insufficient unless they contain some specific allegations of fact indicating a deprivation of rights, instead of a litany of general conclusions that shock but have no meaning." Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 363 (2d Cir. 1987).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice