Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


June 14, 2006

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER SITE LITIGATION
ACOSTA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BANKERS TRUST CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO LOWER MANHATTAN REPLEAD

While considering various issues requiring me to define the court's subject matter jurisdiction in relation to complaints alleging respiratory and other personal injuries incurred by workers engaged in post-September 11, 2001 clean-up operations in various downtown Manhattan work sites, I had occasion to review this complaint. The complaint violates almost every precept of proper notice pleading. If allowed to remain, it will complicate the administrative processing of many other cases, cause undue expense to defendants in filing answers and motions, and unduly complicate pre-trial proceedings thereafter. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed, sua sponte, with leave to replead within 30 days, satisfying the criteria noted below.

1. A separate action, with a separately purchased index number, shall be filed for each separate plaintiff and spouse (to the extent of a spousal claim). Fed. R. Civ. P. 18.

The amended complaint will relate back to the original filing date of the deficient complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations, and the amended complaint may so allege, citing this order.

2. Each complaint shall be specific as to which defendants are the objects of claims, and the allegations shall describe the actual (not theoretical) bases for claiming against the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

3. Pleading in the alternative is appropriate if not to avoid the requirement of "simple, concise, and direct" statements of a claim against a particular defendant. Fed. R. Div. P. 8(a).

4. Failure to satisfy the criteria of proper notice pleading in the body of the complaint may not be remedied by resort to an appendix.

5. This list is not exclusive, and will not excuse other deficiencies that may hereafter be identified, by the parties or by the court sua sponte.

SO ORDERED.

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

20060614

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.