Lott v. Levitt, Part VI

Lott filed his response to the motion to dismiss Monday. Lott seems to have the better of this exchange as a matter of positive (if not normative) law because of the liberal pleading rules that make it nearly impossible to dismiss a case on the pleadings. That has little predictive value for what happens afterwards. (Note, however, the Northern District of Illinois’ Local Rules’ 15-page limit, which make it nearly impossible to file a motion for summary judgment without the permission of the court.)

Previous entry.


  • Is it my imagination, but is this a response to a 12(b)(6) motion that doesn’t even cite the applicable legal standards? I guess we all know them, but even district courts are apt to make mistakes. (As mentioned in your post the standards favor Lott.)

    It reads more like a press release than a document that should be before a court.

  • Local federal district court rules that impose unreasonable page limits on briefs, or otherwise require leave of court before a summary judgment motion can be filed, are essentially unlawful and defeat the intended purpose of summary judgment.

    An emergent trend in the Fed. R. Civ. P. is amendments that limit the ability of district courts to prescribe local rules that turn the federal judiciary into 93 fiefdoms, spawning inconsistent results and uncertainty. Rule 56 is long overdue for such an overhaul.