Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,876 times 30 Legal AnalysesHolding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty
984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 1,378 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the district court properly struck lengthy, stale and previously litigated factual allegations to streamline the action
Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distributing Co.
961 F.2d 654 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 445 timesHolding that the NLRA preempts a RICO claim when "the underlying conduct of the plaintiffs' RICO claim is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws"
Williams v. Jader Fuel Co., Inc.
944 F.2d 1388 (7th Cir. 1991) Cited 368 timesRecognizing this practice but leaving its propriety unaddressed before jumping to the merits
United States v. 416.81 Acres of Land
514 F.2d 627 (7th Cir. 1975) Cited 173 timesAnalyzing a Rule 12(f) motion by "accepting as true the factual underpinnings of the [non-movant's] objections" to the motion
Nwachukwu v. Karl
216 F.R.D. 176 (D.D.C. 2003) Cited 20 timesDenying the plaintiff's request to strike an answer and portions thereof under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and rejecting a request to strike an answer based on "misconduct on the part of the defendant"
Zwebner v. John Does Anonymous Foundation, Inc.
No. CV-00-1322-HU (D. Or. Feb. 28, 2001)No. CV-00-1322-HU February 28, 2001 Renee E. Rothauge BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY Portland, Oregon Attorney for Plaintiff. George P. Fisher GEORGE P. FISHER, ATTORNEY AT LAW Portland, Oregon Attorney for Defendant John Does Anonymous Foundation, Inc. OPINION ORDER DENNIS JAMES HUBEL, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Michael Zwebner brings this tort action against defendants John Does Anonymous Foundation, Inc. (JDAF), and Does 1 through 100. Plaintiff alleges that the JDAF, which operates and maintains an
Temperato v. Rainbolt
22 F.R.D. 57 (E.D. Ill. 1958) Cited 6 timesAction to recover damages for breach of contract and to enjoin unfair trade practices. On motions to strike answer and demand for jury trial, the District Court, Juergens, J., held that because of gross violation of rules of pleading, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rules 8 and subd. (c), 9(c), 28 U.S.C.A., entire complaint should be stricken in the interest of justice, but that defendant was entitled to jury trial of legal issues raised by count of complaint seeking damages for breach of contract
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 354,229 times 943 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 160,289 times 196 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 Cited 112,111 times 198 Legal AnalysesHolding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 92,835 times 91 Legal AnalysesFinding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 Cited 7,742 times 2 Legal AnalysesDefining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure