Hawaiian dredging wages8/24/2023 ![]() Similarly, when the claim rests entirely upon a statute, it seems almost elementary that the defendant be entitled, without being forced to go into further procedures, to demand sufficient informative facts from the complaint to show that the plaintiff, if his facts be true, is actually within the terms of the statute in making his claim. Therefore, if a pleader cannot allege definitely and in good faith the existence of an essential element of his claim, it is difficult to see why this basic deficiency should not be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court. Thus it seems to be the purpose of Rule 8 to relieve the pleader from the niceties of the dotted i and the crossed t and the uncertainties of distinguishing in advance between evidentiary and ultimate facts, while still requiring, in a practical and sensible way, that he set out sufficient factual matter to outline the elements of his cause of action or claim, proof of which is essential to his recovery. These elements should be indicated by operative facts, in order that entitlement to relief can be shown by the complaint. Apparently the only practical way of making such a showing is to state the prima facie elements of the claim. This is the implication we find necessarily flowing from sub-section (2) of sub-paragraph (a) of Rule 8: "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief". See Lasky, Memorandum for the Committee on Rule 8, 13 F.R.D. This court thinks that the requirements of Rule 8 are not met by a mere "notice of disaffection" to the opposite party. Rules 8 provides, in part: "A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief * * * shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, * * * (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment * * *." ![]() This motion is based upon failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 8, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. Taylor, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant Hawaiian Dredging Co., Limited. *644 *645 Landau & Fairbanks, (Samuel Landau, Honolulu, Hawaii), for plaintiffs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |