Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

CompuServe Inc. v. Saperstein | 172 F.3d 47 (Table), 1999 WL 16481 (6th Cir. 1999)

Must a court conduct a trial on a frivolous claim? The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure say no. Rule Sixteen empowers courts to formulate and simplify the issues presented. Courts may even eliminate frivolous claims.

But can a judge go too far in trimming the claims presented for litigation? In CompuServe Incorporated versus Saperstein, the judge dismisses a litigant’s claims without offering him another chance to amend.

CompuServe entered into an agreement with FontBank, a graphic arts company owned by Jerry Saperstein. They planned for FontBank to provide content for CompuServe subscribers. However, the parties’ relationship quickly soured, spurring litigation in multiple courts.

FontBank sued CompuServe first. It filed a breach-of-contract claim in state court. CompuServe then sued Saperstein and FontBank in federal court, stating additional claims beyond breach of contract. CompuServe wanted to consolidate all the relevant issues in one proceeding.

Saperstein filed an answer. He was acting pro se, representing himself without an attorney’s assistance. His answer included four counterclaims, pleaded in conclusory fashion without supporting factual allegations.

Both parties moved for more definite statements. This procedural tactic forces the opponent to correct a vague pleading.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, parties are permitted to amend pleadings once as a matter of course and subsequently with permission from the court or the opposing party. Saperstein amended once, adding a little to his counterclaims. Then without seeking permission, Saperstein filed another amended answer. He left the original four counterclaims essentially the same and added six new counterclaims.

The judge held a pretrial conference. CompuServe moved to strike Saperstein’s six new counterclaims, but it didn’t make any objection to the original four.

Following the pretrial conference, the court effectively eliminated Saperstein’s claims. The court granted CompuServe’s motion to strike the six new counterclaims. In addition, acting sua sponte, meaning on its own initiative, the court dismissed Saperstein’s original four counterclaims. The court relied on its case management authority from Rule 16 to dismiss the counterclaims. The court explained that the counterclaims still didn’t meet pleading standards even though Saperstein had two opportunities to amend. The dismissal was without prejudice, which permitted Saperstein a chance to refile.

CompuServe later decided to face the state court litigation and abort its federal court claims. The district court granted CompuServe’s motion to dismiss its claims with prejudice.

Saperstein appealed to the Sixth Circuit, challenging the dismissal of CompuServe’s claims and his counterclaims.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 36,700 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]

Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]

Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]

Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть