Comments on: “Federal judge scolds BigLaw lawyers for ‘behemoth pleadings’ and ‘prolixity'”

By: D

Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:16:45 +0000

It seems to me, Richard, that the plaintiffs (et al.) do this grasping maneuver because it works often enough to be worthwhile. Judges could make it painful enough to curb this behavior, but they don’t. Everyone involved, including the judges suffer from this acquiescence, just like a parent and everyone else suffer from an undisciplined child. It will save time in the long run, but it requires fortitude now.

For those more directly involved, feel free to correct my misperceptions.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:41:58 +0000

You generally don’t need volume to state the allegations required under Twombly/Iqbal. You just need to actually identify some wrongful conduct and state what that conduct was and the defendant’s connection to that wrongful conduct. But then I may be jaded from representing a local public entity. I see many cases where the claimed harm is set out in great detail, but the factual allegations related to liability can be summed up as “the defendants should have done some unspecified thing so that the harm didn’t happen” or “the defendant didn’t do some unspecified thing that would have stopped the harm from happening.”

By: VMS

VMS — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:02:06 +0000

Well if you have a ‘behemoth pleading,’ then one cannot run afoul of Twombly/Iqbal.

The federal courts and defense attorneys have been using these decisions to dismiss otherwise worthy cases.

As they say, better safe than sorry.