Taoist, Loophole, Ed, Bama, Buddy

[DR STRANGELOVE]

Picked up my exams today at school and I didn't score as high as I thought I would have on one of them....

here is the question, I kindly ask without going too deep as i don't want to take up any of your time what your initial thoughts are...

I will be visiting the Prof to discuss the matter.....



Question:

A sues B in federal court claiming B manufactured a cabbage patch kid that blew up in A's baby's crib. In B's answer, B admits manufacturing the death doll. Five days later, the statute of limitations runs on A's claim. ten days later (15 after B filed its original answer), B files an amended answer denying it manufactured the death doll. A files a motion to strike the amended pleading. Should the court...

(A) Deny A's motion and allow the amended answer because B can amend its answer as a matter of course up to 20 days after filing.

or

(B) Grant the motion to strike because B is bound to the admissions in its answer?


Thanks guys....

 

[Bluemound Freak]

C. Jump over the desk and choke the living shit out of the other counselor and run from the building screaming the theme song to the Love Boat!

 

[taoist]

Anthony,

Under our Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (your rules may be different), Rule 15 states "A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires."


...on the other hand, it would seem that B would be bound by its original answer. I would think that once B filed a pleading admitting to manufacturing the death doll, B couldn't file an amended pleading that completely contradicts the original pleading. I suppose I would have to go with answer B, but what in the heck do I know? LOL :shrug:


p.s. Put a MadJack's size asswhooping on my Federal Income Tax Exam last night!!! Believe it or not there were four questions regarding the federal income tax consequences of gambling.... You better believe that I paid attention during those lectures!!!

 

[Eddie Haskell]

A.

Then have Plaintiffs counsel call his carrier.

Eddie

 

[loophole]

good god dr; i'm not not a civil litigator any more, and did very little in federal court in the past anyway. my guess would be that the amendment should be allowed unless the plaintiff can show he relied to his detriment on the admission by b and thus did not identify the true manufacturer until after the statute ran. but i gotta tell you, that's a half-assed guess.

 

[buddy]

I'm not a lawyer, but being a yankee I still have an opinion on this situation.

Since this case is being heard in Federal Court, I would try to find out if the presiding judge is from Pittsburgh, Pa.

If so, he's either an alcoholic, racial bigot, or on the take in which case either side can have the case thrown out for incompetent judgemanship.

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

well I went with B in my argument and only received 81%, 3 friends on mine went with A and received 87, 91, and 92.

Thanks for your help guys, it is greatly appreciated...

I arranged an app't with the Prof on Tuesday...


Chad,

I knew you would kick some ass!!

 

[GENO]

Anthony I am not an attorney, .....BUT I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night


sorry buddy I just could not resist

 

[buddy]

GENO.

Touche!