The theory behind negligence, in law, is that people should act with sensible care considering any possible damage they may potentially cause to other individuals or their property. Courts provide reprieve in the way of damages as compensation for any person that incurs loss or suffers harm as a result of another person’s negligent actions. For a successful negligence claim, four elements have to be satisfied; duty, breach, proximate causation and injury for it to meet the edge of a substantial reason. Furthermore, any legal claim that has exceeded the time specified within the statute of limitations is considered invalid.
Motions to dismiss and similarly for summary judgment can be sought by litigants in cases where they feel the case is straightforward enough or where they believe the opposing party has a weak case. A motion to compel is a request entered by a claimant asking the court to order the non-complying party to relay all the relevant information required during discovery. Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the United States requires a movant to include a certification that the movant conferred or attempted to confer with the non-complying party in seeking to obtain discovery without beseeching the court.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Question One
Motion to Compel to Answer.
The question asked by Perry’s lawyer is one that is relevant to the case as it speaks to Doctor’s prior knowledge of the effects of Bolton’s rods on patients. If this is proved to be so, then it means that Doctor was negligent in discharging her duties when she performed the surgery. The question thus affects the outcome of the case, whether admissible or not, establishing that the potential answer to that question has probative value, one of two key factors used by courts in deciding whether to invoke such an order. The other factor is whether, in compelling a non-complying party, the non-complying party would be forced to divulge private information. This is not the situation as there is no private information herein that would affect Doctor adversely. Doctor can argue that she is not at fault and instead it is Bolton’s as their rods were defective. The court should, therefore, grant Perry’s motion to compel Doctor to answer the question.
Motion to Dismiss Based on Statute of Limitations
A motion to dismiss disputes the legal adequacy of a case pointing out the weaknesses of the opposition’s case. The court will then establish initially, whether there is, any harm done, and secondly, the remedy available to such injury. If any of these two cannot be established comprehensively, then there would be no case to answer; thus a court would grant such a motion. The statute of limitations brings into question the pertinence of any consecutive claims. If new claims are filed and arise from the original claims, then the date of the amended claim will be related back to the date of the initial claims, and thus the statute of limitations would not impede such claims.
The contention then becomes, could these new claims from Perry be related back to his original claims? The circumstances must then satisfy three factors for Perry’s claim to be allowed. Firstly, the new claim must arise from the initial claim. Secondly, is that Bolton should have known of the initial claims within 120 days of those claims being filed. Lastly, is that the new party facing charges should have known that they were the ones supposed to be named the original defendants in the case were it not for the movant’s mistake. Both claims here arise from a similar nucleus, but there is no evidence pointing to Perry ever blaming Bolton for their defective rods or otherwise but instead blamed Doctor.
The court should grant Bolton’s motion to dismiss on the basis of the statute of limitations having worked its course.
Perry’s Motion for a Summary Judgment
A request for summary judgment is a request usually made by one party asking the court to rule in their favor thereby asserting that the other party has no case due to lack of facts at issue. The movant, therefore, claims that the case should not proceed to trial and should be effectively ruled in the movant’s favor. Claim preclusion prohibits parties involved in one claim to pursue further claims that are attributable to the initial claims especially if the initial claim has been ruled or adjudicated on. This principle is untenable here as Perry is not a party to the first case and thus claim preclusion cannot be asserted in this case. Issue preclusion can, however, be asserted here provided Perry’s motion meets all the requirements; that the issue is similar in both cases, that the issue was adjudicated on in the initial action and that the fact in issue was necessary for the court’s judgment.
The court should effectively grant Perry’s motion for a summary judgment under the principle of collateral estoppel as his claims satisfy all three elements required.
Question Two
Production of Inspector Gadget’s Notes and Witness Statements
The applicable law herein is Rule 37 of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure (FRCP) which requires a movant to make attempts to confer, in good faith, with the non-complying party regarding discovery and disclosure of information during the same before seeking court action. A certification should also be included in the request for a motion to compel.
The information found in the notes and witness statements that were withheld may prove crucial to the case in the case that they contained a probative value. That information having emanated from first-hand witnesses would have an impact on the outcome of the case, and thus the court should have ordered for the production of these materials; whether they would have been admissible or not.
Certification of the Case as Class Action .
The court was right in certifying the case as a class action upon the request of the movants thus binding all the absent members also after certification from the court under the provisions found in Rule 23 of the FRCP. The requirements enumerated under this provision are; that the class should be too great to enjoin all claimants, that there are similar issues of fact or law across the class, that the claims of the representative parties should resemble those of the rest of the class and that the representative parties will sufficiently protect the interests of the class. The class should also satisfy at least one of the requirements under Rule 23(b). In this case, the necessary elements have been satisfied, and thus the court should have certified the case as a Class action.
Can American Assert Claim Preclusion in the Second Claim?
Under claim preclusion, any judgment entered for a particular class marks the end of that class’ claim making any similar claims made thereafter tied to the initial judgment. In establishing whether this does not have to be the case, meaning that the new claims can be adjudicated separately from the first, the court examines the etiology of each claim separately. Claim preclusion might work herein due to the change in the composition of parties in the new claim. Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment and the legal principle of res judicata, had the movants of the first and second claims been the same with the same facts in issue in both cases then American would be able to assert claim preclusion. However, in this case, there are different members even though the facts at issue are similar.
American’s motion for judgment as a matter of law
The court did not adjudicate the case effectively. This is because some facts in issue were overlooked especially in failing to order American to produce the relevant information contained in the notes and witness statements and the lack of consideration of Dr. Decay’s testimony. The court should thus not have granted America’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
