Supersize My Claim
[Background: We are currently in Week 3 of Civ Pro, as such we're scratching the surface of pleadings. Specifically, we're asking how specific a pleading has to be to state a claim.]
In light of that, our "casebook" (which is in multi-volume reader form pending publication of the 9th edition) cites Pelman v. McDonalds as an example of a case that's dismissed for insufficiently stating a claim (2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15202). Well it turns out the Second Circuit disagrees (hat tip, Bashman). They held that the pleading sufficiently states a claim under NY law. There is a nice, but short, discussion of the relevant Fed. R. Civ. P.
Below are my reflections on this in an effort to make this seemingly perplexing ruling understandable to anyone who doesn't know or give a crap about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Initially when this case was first filed, it gathered a lot of news coverage because of the social/political implications raised. My gut reaction was that it should be dismissed, therefore the dismissal did not strike me as anything unique. However, that was under the assumption that the plaintiffs' claim was that MickeyD's caused their obesity. The relevant NY state law gives individuals a cause of action if they are harmed as a result of deception by a business. The difference is the point at issue between the 2nd Circuit and the District Court. Fascinating how much you learn in just a semester of law school.
Anywho, the whole idea of the Federal Rules is to make claims really simple so that they simply serve as a notice to the defendants. This claim failed to show or plead causation, but the 2d Circuit's ruling basically affirms a NY state law and SCOTUS rulings that causation, actual harm, and things like that are really for the discovery part of a lawsuit rather than the pleading stage. Again, this is my attempt to explain why I think the Appeals Court actually got it right in reinstating a claim.
In light of that, our "casebook" (which is in multi-volume reader form pending publication of the 9th edition) cites Pelman v. McDonalds as an example of a case that's dismissed for insufficiently stating a claim (2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15202). Well it turns out the Second Circuit disagrees (hat tip, Bashman). They held that the pleading sufficiently states a claim under NY law. There is a nice, but short, discussion of the relevant Fed. R. Civ. P.
Below are my reflections on this in an effort to make this seemingly perplexing ruling understandable to anyone who doesn't know or give a crap about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Initially when this case was first filed, it gathered a lot of news coverage because of the social/political implications raised. My gut reaction was that it should be dismissed, therefore the dismissal did not strike me as anything unique. However, that was under the assumption that the plaintiffs' claim was that MickeyD's caused their obesity. The relevant NY state law gives individuals a cause of action if they are harmed as a result of deception by a business. The difference is the point at issue between the 2nd Circuit and the District Court. Fascinating how much you learn in just a semester of law school.
Anywho, the whole idea of the Federal Rules is to make claims really simple so that they simply serve as a notice to the defendants. This claim failed to show or plead causation, but the 2d Circuit's ruling basically affirms a NY state law and SCOTUS rulings that causation, actual harm, and things like that are really for the discovery part of a lawsuit rather than the pleading stage. Again, this is my attempt to explain why I think the Appeals Court actually got it right in reinstating a claim.
Labels: Court Cases
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 5:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home