Wednesday audio (only Sec. B recorded--same stuff). Essays ## 2 and 3 drop at 12:30 tomorrow; due in class on Thursday, February 19. No class this Friday.
One quick note: Contrast Winston's approach to the answer--provide a lot of detail, a lot of new facts, and present a counter-narrative--with the far more common approach described in King Vision, where defendants refuse to admit (or even respond to) anything and end up with a document full of nonsense. Neither is consistent with the FRCP, although for different reasons. But only rarely (as with Judge Shadur in King Vision) do judges or plaintiffs bother to do anything about it.
Prep the remainder of Affirmative Defenses. Consider the following additional problem for identifying what is the claim and what is an affirmative defense:
§ 1: Prohibited Conduct: No person shall cause a retirement plan to engage in a transaction if he knows or should know that the transaction constitutes an agreement with a party in interest.
§ 2: Transactions Exempted The prohibitions provided in § 1 shall not apply to a contract or reasonable arrangements for office space.
A sues X under § 1 over a transaction that might be one for office space. What must plaintiff plead in his complaint?
Move to Additional Claims. Prep everything but Rules 41 and 55 and Jones, prepping Questions 1-7. Start putting together the pieces of the Holmes v. Clear Code puzzle; for tomorrow, identify the label for each claim.
