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

Does Rule 15(b) (Constructive Amendment of Pleadings at Trial with Permission or on Consent) Apply at Summary Judgment? Is That Rule the Last Word on Whether Issues Not Pled Can Be Litigated on Summary Judgment? Circuit Split

Download PDF

Tank v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166382 (D.N.D. Nov. 22, 2013):

But, even if the Amended Complaint did not include an alternative request for payment of royalty and penalty interest for the Lassen Well, defendants have argued from the outset that this was the more appropriate remedy over lease cancellation if the court disagreed with their safe-harbor arguments. In addition, the Tanks asked for penalty interest as an alternative remedy in the briefing on the motions for summary judgment and defendants responded on the merits. In fact, not only was the issue fully litigated, the court denied the request for lease cancellation, in part, based on the availability of payment of penalty interest as a more appropriate remedy in this case. Consequently, for this reason also, the court rejects defendants' argument that the only issue in play with respect to the untimely payment of royalty with respect to the Lassen Well was that of lease cancellation. See, e.g. First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., Ltd., 477 F.3d 616, 622-24 (8th Cir. 2007) (concluding that an affirmative defense not pled in the answer was litigated by the parties upon summary judgment); Torry v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 399 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2005) ( ourt can resolve issues not raised in the complaint that have been litigated upon summary judgment with the implied consent of the parties); People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, 367-68 (4th Cir. 2001); Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 569-70 (2d Cir. 2000); cf. Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Morrison-Quirk Grain Corp., 54 F.3d 478, (8th 1995) (holding that issue raised during a pretrial conference and in the pretrial order was a "constructive amendment" of the pleadings); but see Flintlock Const. Services, LLC v. Well-Come Holdings, LLC, 710 F.3d 1221, 1227-28 (11th Cir. 2013); Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162, 1168-69 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Footnote 3.     As indicated by the foregoing cases, the federal circuit courts are split on whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) applies at the summary judgment stage and whether that rule is the last word on the subject of whether issues not raised in the pleadings can be litigated upon summary judgment by "constructive amendment." See Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 676 F.3d 318, 326-27& n.7 (3rd Cir. 2012) (citing cases from the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits stating Rule 15(b) does apply and cases from the D.C., Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits saying it does not); Ahmad v. Furlong, 435 F.3d 1196, 1203 n.1 (10th Cir.2006) (noting split among the circuits and within some of the circuits). It does not appear the Eighth Circuit has ruled on the issue with respect to matters not raised in the complaint, but, as noted above, it has addressed the issue with respect to an affirmative defense not pled in the answer.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

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