Thursday audio--Section A, Section B. Essay # 3 has posted--note different essays for each section. Due in class on Thursday, February 20.
We continue with our statute of limitations example. What is the alternative approach to raising the defense besides an answer and a 12(c) motion? What determines which approach plaintiff can take? If the defendant raises statute of limitations via 12(b)(6) motion, how does the court know the date of filing? Can the court look beyond the pleadings on a 12(c)?
We then turn to new claims:• What rules govern in pleading additional claims? What happens in response to those additional claims? Who can those claims be brought against? What happened procedurally in Jones?
• What is the common standard for bringing additional claims?
We will work through the following case (this expands on the problem in Glannon pp. 246-47). Map out all the claims, decide what type they are, and whether they must, can, or cannot be brought. (As always, assume jurisdiction over each and focus only on the FRCP). Everything arises from the deal between Holmes and Clear Code (negotiated by Cosgrove) to produce some code for Holmes. Consider the opening procedural steps in all of this and then go from there.
• Holmes against Clear Code for breach of contract for failing to provide working code.
• Holmes against Cosgrove, Clear Code's former president, for fraud in the inducement for inducing Holmes to enter into the contract
• Clear Code against Holmes for non-payment on this contract.
• Clear Code against Holmes for non-payment on a prior job
• Cosgrove against Clear Code for indemnification of any judgment Cosgrove must pay to Holmes.
• Cosgrove against Clear Code for wrongful termination (Clear Code fired him after the Holmes deal went bad).
• Clear Code against Cosgrove to enforce a non-compete, to stop Cosgrove from working for a competitor
• Clear Code against its insurance provider, for indemnification under their insurance contract.
• Clear Code against Jasper for making bad code (Clear Code sub-contracted the Holmes job to Jasper).
• Jasper against Clear Code for non-payment.
• Jasper against Clear Code for non-payment on a past job.
• Jasper against High Tech for selling a defective computer (which caused Jasper's bad code).
• Jasper against Holmes for Quantum Meruit (to recover the value of the work done on the project)
• Jasper against Holmes for Defamation (Holmes told people Jasper was a bad coder)
• Holmes against Jasper for Tortious Interference with his original deal with Clear Code.
Identify what type of claim each of this is, under what rules, what standards, and whether it can be included in the case.
