DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigation in a Box

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigation in a Box INVESTIGATION IN A BOX INVESTIGATION in a Box A TOOLKIT FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF TITLE IX ADMINISTRATORS By: Brett A. Sokolow, J.D. Daniel C. Swinton, J.D., Ed.D. Leslee K. Morris, J.D. Marianne E. Price, M.S. Michelle N. Issadore, M.Ed. INVESTIGATION IN A BOX NAVIGATING INVESTIGATION IN A BOX TABLE OF CONTENTS Title IX Overview 1 The Table of Contents A Note on Terminology 2 headers and page numbers Flow of Resolution in 5 Steps 4 serve as internal links; Model Variations — Investigators Making a Determination 4 Click on the TOC item Civil Rights Investigation/Resolution Process in 10 Steps 5 or page number to which Investigation Overview 6 you wish to go to be taken there directly. Preparing for the Investigation 8 Models of Proof 8 Investigator’s Preparation Checklist 11 Additional Planning for the Investigation 12 Reviewing the Policy: Parsing the Policy Elements 16 The Investigation Timeline 20 Investigation Timeline Compliance Example 21 Investigation Timeline Compliance Template 22 Sample Investigation Timeline (Civil Rights Model) 23 Editor: Sample Investigation Timeline (Hearing Panel) 24 Cynthia E. Gomez The Investigation File and Logs 25 Associate Editor: Investigator’s Checklist 25 Samantha Dutill Sample Communications Log 26 This toolkit is intended to provide Communications Log Template 27 assistance in conducting campus civil rights investigations. Organizing the Investigation File 28 It is not given and should not be taken Investigator’s Checklist 28 as legal advice. Initial Contact/Scheduling Witness Interviews 29 Before acting on any Initial Contact/Scheduling Responding Party 30 of the ideas, opinions, Notice of Investigation 31 or suggestions in this toolkit, Notice of Interview and Investigation 32 users should always check first Notice of Allegation 35 with a licensed attorney Notice of Hearing 37 in their own jurisdiction. Persona Non Grata 38 No-Contact Directives 39 ©2015, ATIXA. General Interview Questions 40 All rights reserved. Questioning Skills 42 Sample Questions Exercise 44 www.atixa.org ii INVESTIGATION IN A BOX TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) Questioning Reminders 45 Interviewing the Reporting Party 46 Investigator’s Checklist 46 Potential Interview Considerations and Questions for the Reporting Party 48 Addressing a Reluctant Victim 50 Investigator’s Checklist 50 Template Letter To Reluctant Victim 51 Notifying the Responding Party of the Allegations 53 Investigator’s Checklist 53 Interviewing the Responding Party 54 Investigator’s Checklist 54 Potential Interview Considerations and Questions for the Responding Party 56 Release of Information from an Educational Record Protected Under FERPA 57 Interviewing Witnesses 58 Investigator’s Checklist 58 Sample Witness List 60 Flowchart of Witnesses 61 Witness List Template 62 Witness Rights Model Disclosure Template 63 Follow-Up Email to All Witnesses 64 Interviewee Verification: Email to Parties/Witnesses 65 Interview Question Examples: Initial and Follow-Up Interviews 66 Post-Interview: 5 Documents to Create 71 Other Evidence 72 Writing Investigation Reports, Making Credibility Determinations, Conducting Analysis, and Making Findings 73 Investigator’s Checklist 73 Weighing Evidence and Assessing Credibility 75 iii INVESTIGATION IN A BOX TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) Sample Template for Investigative Reports 80 Sample Template for Investigative Reports II 84 Sample Investigation Report and Findings with Analysis 87 Investigation Report into Allegations of Hazing and Sexual Misconduct with Analysis 97 Drug-Related Assault Investigation 108 Post-Investigation: Outcome Letters 120 Communicating the Final Results to the Parties 120 Sample Outcome Letter for Title IX Resolutions 121 Sample Outcome Letter For Reporting Party 124 Finding and Sanction Letter Notification to Reporting Party 127 Finding and Sanction Letter 128 Notice Of Final Determination — No Appeal 129 Notice Of Outcome — Investigator Renders Finding 130 Notice Of Outcome — Hearing Board Renders Finding 131 Notice Of Appeal 132 Notice Of Final Determination — Post-Appeal 133 Appendix 1 134 Civil Rights Investigation Model Flowchart 135 Sample Pre-Investigation Action Plan 136 General Investigation Tips 140 12 Tips for Investigating Sexual Misconduct Allegations 141 12 Tips for Investigating Stalking Allegations 142 12 Tips for Investigating Intimate Partner Violence/Relationship Violence Allegations 143 Template Questions for a Reporting Party in a Title IX Case 144 Sample Timeline of Incident 147 ATIXA Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Model Policy 148 Best-Practice Checklist Related to Sexual Harassment/Violence 173 Appendix 2 177 Case Studies 178 Vignettes 225 iv INVESTIGATION IN A BOX TITLE IX OVERVIEW “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 Implementing Regulations at: 20 U.S.C. § 1681 & 34 C.F.R. Part 106 1 INVESTIGATION IN A BOX A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY Reporting Party: In this document, the person alleging to have experienced a violation of campus policy is referred to as the reporting party. Responding Party: In this document, the person who is alleged to have violated campus policy is referred to as the responding party. Examples of Conduct Covered by Title IX Sexual Misconduct: Sexual harassment § Hostile environment § Quid pro quo § Retaliatory harassment Non-consensual sexual intercourse Non-consensual sexual contact Sexual exploitation, including: § Voyeurism § Invasion of sexual privacy § Prostitution § Nonconsensual video or audio recording, or broadcasting of sexual activity § Exceeding boundaries of consent, such as allowing friends to hide in the closet to observe sexual activity without the consent of both parties § Knowingly transmitting an STI or STD The following common code violations could also fall under Title IX if severe or pervasive enough to cause a discriminatory effect on the basis of sex and/or gender: • Discrimination • Hazing (a form of sexual harassment) • Stalking (a form of sexual harassment) • Intimate partner/relationship abuse or violence (a form of sexual harassment) • Threatening physical harm • Causing physical harm • Extreme verbal abuse • Hate speech (on a private campus) • Bullying/cyberbullying • Vandalism • Public exposure (could also be viewed as sexual exploitation) • Destruction of/damage to property 2 INVESTIGATION IN A BOX • Intimidation • Conduct that may endanger the health or safety of others Additional employee/faculty policies • Consensual relationships (should be processed as employee misconduct, not as a Title IX matter, unless there is a quid pro quo element) 3 INVESTIGATION IN A BOX FLOW OF RESOLUTION IN 5 STEPS 1. Incident 2. Notice 3. Investigation 4. Finding (hearing, determination, and appeal) 5. Remedies for victim and community (begin upon receipt of notice and are implemented on an ongoing basis, often even after finding) MODEL VARIATIONS — INVESTIGATORS MAKING A DETERMINATION • Investigators gather facts only, making no assessment or analysis. A subsequent finding by the next decision-maker in the chain (e.g., administrator, hearing panel, etc.) is informed by the investigation. • Investigators gather and fact-find to include an assessment of credibility, triangulation of witness/evidence, and corroboration assessment. No determination is made by them. A subsequent determination by the next decision-maker next in the chain is informed by the investigation. • Investigators gather facts, then share informal (unwritten) opinions with the next decision- maker in the chain. • Investigators fact-find, then make a determination as to whether the reporting party violated the code in the form of a recommendation to the next level of decision-maker. • Investigators fact-find, making a determination that is subject to a hearing (does not have to be a hearing panel) at the next level of decision-maker. (In this model, the finding of the investigation is the subject of the hearing or determination.) • Investigators fact-find, then make a determination by a preponderance of the evidence. • Investigators fact-find, then make a determination by a preponderance and recommend sanctions, responsive actions, and/or remedies. • Investigators fact-find, then make a determination by a preponderance and decide sanctions, responsive actions, and/or remedies. 4 INVESTIGATION IN A BOX CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION/ RESOLUTION PROCESS IN 10 STEPS Most Title IX and other civil rights resolutions will involve the following 10 steps, although the ordering of some steps may occur differently depending on the specifics of the investigation. 1. Allegation/notice/grievance to school 2. Preliminary inquiry 3. Gatekeeper determination (as early as step 3 or as late as 9) 4. Strategize investigation 5. Formal comprehensive investigation 6. Notice of allegations to the responding party (could occur as early as step 3, but likely between 6–8) 7. Witness interviews 8. Evidence gathering 9. Analysis 10. Finding (followed by resolution and remedies, which are afforded throughout and could continue following conclusion of the resolution process) 5 INVESTIGATION IN A BOX INVESTIGATION OVERVIEW The investigation is the process of actively gathering information to determine if a school’s policies have been violated. The investigation involves the active accumulation of information by neutral investigators, who are either fact-gatherers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pleading State of Mind After Ashcroft V. Iqbal
    Pleading State of Mind After Ashcroft v. Iqbal CAROLINE N. MITCHELL AND DAVID L. WALLACH The Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal marks a welcome and significant stiffening of the federal pleading standard. This article explores the background of the case, the decision and its ramifications. The authors conclude that by requiring sufficient specificity and plausible allegations of misconduct or misfeasance in all civil actions, the Supreme Court has made clear that non-specific “notice” pleadings can no longer unleash costly litigation. n May 18, 2009, in a 5-to-4 decision in This welcome development makes it consider- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court stiffened ably more difficult for plaintiffs armed only with Othe federal pleading standard under Rule 8 of vague factual allegations to launch expensive litiga- the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Iqbal contin- tion. At the same time, Iqbal raises difficult questions ues down the path set by the Court’s 2007 decision in about how to properly apply this new federal plead- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. It makes clear that the ing standard and complicates the calculus for plain- stricter pleading standard announced in Twombly ap- tiffs and defendants alike at the pleading stage of civil plies to all civil actions in federal court, not just to anti- cases in federal courts. trust or other complex cases, as many courts had held. Federal securities law claims have been subject to BACKGROUND a heightened pleading standard since the advent of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) Iqbal arose from the Federal Bureau of Investiga- of 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum in Support of Demurrer
    18CV337830 Santa Clara – Civil 1 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Electronically Filed Richard B. Lapp (SBN 271052) by Superior Court of CA, 2 E-mail: [email protected] County of Santa Clara, Camille A. Olson (SBN 111919) 3 E-mail: [email protected] on 4/2/2019 5:14 PM Robin E. Devaux (SBN 233444) Reviewed By: R. Walker 4 E-mail: [email protected] Case #18CV337830 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor Envelope: 2709539 5 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 6 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 7 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Jeffrey A. Wortman (SBN 180781) 8 E-mail: [email protected] 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 9 Los Angeles, California 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 10 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 11 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Reiko Furuta (SBN 169206) 12 E-mail: [email protected] 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 13 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 14 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 15 16 Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY 17 18 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 19 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 20 R. ROSS and C. ROGUS, individually and on Case No. 18 CV 337830 behalf of all others similarly situated, 21 DEFENDANT HEWLETT PACKARD Plaintiffs, ENTERPRISE COMPANY’S 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND v. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 23 DEMURRER HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 24 COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, (formerly Date: June 28, 2019 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY), Time: 9:00 a.m. 25 Department: 1 Defendant. 26 Complaint Filed: November 8, 2018 Trial Date: Not Set 27 28 DEFENDANT HPE’S MPA IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER / CASE NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning Law Is
    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL REASONING LAW IS "MAN MADE" IT CHANGES OVER TIME TO ACCOMMODATE SOCIETY'S NEEDS LAW IS MADE BY LEGISLATURE LAW IS INTERPRETED BY COURTS TO DETERMINE 1)WHETHER IT IS "CONSTITUTIONAL" 2)WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG THERE IS A PROCESS WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED (CALLED "PROCEDURAL LAW") I. Thomas Jefferson: "The study of the law qualifies a man to be useful to himself, to his neighbors, and to the public." II. Ask Several Students to give their definition of "Law." A. Even after years and thousands of dollars, "LAW" still is not easy to define B. What does law Consist of ? Law consists of enforceable rule governing relationships among individuals and between individuals and their society. 1. Students Need to Understand. a. The law is a set of general ideas b. When these general ideas are applied, a judge cannot fit a case to suit a rule; he must fit (or find) a rule to suit the unique case at hand. c. The judge must also supply legitimate reasons for his decisions. C. So, How was the Law Created. The law considered in this text are "man made" law. This law can (and will) change over time in response to the changes and needs of society. D. Example. Grandma, who is 87 years old, walks into a pawn shop. She wants to sell her ring that has been in the family for 200 years. Grandma asks the dealer, "how much will you give me for this ring." The dealer, in good faith, tells Grandma he doesn't know what kind of metal is in the ring, but he will give her $150.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court's New Notice Pleading Requirements
    MICHAEL (FORMATTED).DOC 5/13/2016 4:57 PM THE SUPREME COURT’S NEW NOTICE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS: REVOLUTIONARY OR EVOLUTIONARY RICHARD A. MICHAEL* The Roberts Court’s decisions about the requirements of federal pleading have engendered significant controversy in the literature. These cases, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly1 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,2 have been said by some to have destroyed the federal notice-pleading system and “radically tipped the balance in favor of defendants.”3 It is the position of this article that these cases do not “radically” change federal pleading but merely modify it in a reasonable manner to correct past errors in the interpretation of its rules and address problems that have troubled courts and legal scholars since the adoption of the federal rules. It is further believed that recent decisions from modern fact-pleading jurisdictions provide a roadmap for the proper interpretation of the “facial plausibility” now required in federal pleadings. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF NOTICE PLEADING..........................268 II.THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF DISCOVERY AND PLEADING ..............272 III.TWOMBLY AND IQBAL..................................................................277 *Professor Emeritus, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law. J.D. 1958, Loyola of Chicago; LL.M. 1960 University of Illinois. Member, American Law Institute. Special thanks are expressed to Professor Locke for reviewing a draft of this article and to Brendan Kottenstette and Chantel Boctor for their able research assistance. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. 1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 2. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Pleading -- Unnecessary Allegations in Answer -- Motion to Strike Earl W
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 29 | Number 4 Article 14 6-1-1951 Pleading -- Unnecessary Allegations in Answer -- Motion to Strike Earl W. Vaughn Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Earl W. Vaughn, Pleading -- Unnecessary Allegations in Answer -- Motion to Strike, 29 N.C. L. Rev. 488 (1951). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol29/iss4/14 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29 of the relation back rule may be based. With such a repudiation of the relation back rule, priority, as between liens and contract liens or any combination thereof, would simply depend on the times of the filing of notices of lien or recording of the contract liens. Furthermore, in Penland v. Red Hill Methodist Church,52 the court held, in deciding a venue question, that as far as an interest in real property is concerned there is no essential difference between a statutory lien and a contract lien. 52 Hence, there is little reason why the recordation of statutory liens and the recordation of contract liens should not be given the same effect. This would make the rules easy of application and produce uniformity in lien law generally. WILLIAm H. BonBirr, JR. Pleading-Unnecessary Allegations in Answer-Motion to Strike Plaintiff instituted an action against defendant administrator to com- pel defendant to pay plaintiff, as sole distributee, assets of the estate of one Arsemus Chandler.
    [Show full text]
  • Whose Law of Personal Jurisdiction? the Choice of Law Problem in the Recognition of Foreign Judgments
    WHOSE LAW OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION? THE CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEM IN THE RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ∗ TANYA J. MONESTIER INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1730 I. THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES ...................................................................... 1733 II. WHOSE LAW OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION? ...................................... 1739 A. There Is No Statutory Authority for Assessing Jurisdiction According to the Law of F1 ....................................................... 1744 B. U.S. Courts Are Ill-Equipped to Assess Whether a Foreign Court Had Personal Jurisdiction Under Foreign Law .............. 1748 C. Second Guessing a Foreign Court Is an Affront to International Comity ................................................................. 1756 D. Assessing Whether a Foreign Court Had Jurisdiction Under Foreign Law Is an Exercise in Futility ........................... 1759 E. U.S. Courts Do Not Engage in an Adequate Analysis of Foreign Law .............................................................................. 1761 III. WHAT IS THE LAW OF F2? ................................................................. 1763 IV. ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONAL COMPLEXITY ..................................... 1768 A. Submission ................................................................................. 1768 B. Notice ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Choice of Procedural Law in International Commercial Arbitration: Providing "Proper Notice" to a Foreign Pa
    Hastings Business Law Journal Volume 10 Article 6 Number 2 Summer 2014 Summer 2014 Choice of Procedural Law in International Commercial Arbitration: Providing "Proper Notice" to a Foreign Party to Ensure That the Arbitral Award Can Be Enforced Tiffany Ng Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_business_law_journal Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Tiffany Ng, Choice of Procedural Law in International Commercial Arbitration: Providing "Proper Notice" to a Foreign Party to Ensure That the Arbitral Award Can Be Enforced, 10 Hastings Bus. L.J. 491 (2014). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol10/iss2/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Business Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Choice of Procedural Law in International Commercial Arbitration: Providing "Proper Notice" to a Foreign Party to Ensure That the Arbitral Award Can Be Enforced Tiffany Ng* International parties seeking dispute resolution often opt for arbitration for flexibility and financial reasons. Parties, however, frequently fail to anticipate issues in choice of procedural laws before entering into arbitrationagreements. Parties are usually not meticulous enough to specify what procedural laws govern the arbitral process should disputes arise. As a result, internationalparties often claim due process violations because they received notice of the proceeding based on a foreign standard, which often offers less protection than their home country. As of today, there are still no standard guidelinesfor courts to determine what constitutes "propernotice.
    [Show full text]
  • Frivolous and Bad Faith Claims: Defense Strategies in Employment Litigation
    Frivolous and Bad Faith Claims: Defense Strategies in Employment Litigation A Lexis Practice Advisor® Practice Note by Ellen V. Holloman and Jaclyn A. Hall, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP Ellen Holloman Jaclyn Hall This practice note provides guidance on defending frivolous and bad faith claims in employment actions. While this practice note generally covers federal employment law claims, many of the strategies discussed below also apply to state employment law claims. When handling employment law claims in state court be sure to check the applicable state laws and rules. This practice note specifically addresses the following key issues concerning frivolous and bad faith claims in employment litigation: ● Determining If a Claim Is Frivolous or in Bad Faith ● Motion Practice against Frivolous Lawsuits ● Additional Strategies Available against Serial Frivolous Filers ● Alternative Dispute Resolution ● Settlement ● Attorney’s Fees and Costs ● Dealing with Frivolous Appeals Be mindful that frivolous and bad faith claims present particular challenges. On the one hand, if an employee lawsuit becomes public, there is a risk of reputational harm and damage even where the allegations are clearly unfounded. On the other hand, employers that wish to quickly settle employee complaints regardless of the lack of merit of the underlying allegations to avoid litigation can unwittingly be creating an incentive for other employees to file similar suits. Even claims that are on their face patently frivolous and completely lacking in evidentiary support will incur legal fees to defend. Finally, an award of sanctions and damages could be a Pyrrhic victory if a bad-faith plaintiff does not have the resources to pay.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Rewrites Pleading Requirements
    Supreme Court Rewrites Pleading Requirements Gregory P. Joseph* In 1957, the Supreme Court ruled that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). On May 21, 2007, the Supreme Court decided that “this famous observation has earned its retirement.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). In the process, the Court revolutionized pleading rules, introducing twin requirements of fact-based pleading and plausibility. Bell Atlantic was an antitrust action alleging an illegal conspiracy among the Baby Bells to inhibit the growth of third-party competitors and to refrain from competing among themselves. The District Court dismissed the complaint, but Second Circuit reversed, citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002), for the proposition that “Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” and observing that “[a]ntitrust actions are not among those exceptions.” Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 425 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2005), rev’d, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901 (U.S. May 21, 2007). In reversing the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court used sweeping language to impose a duty to plead facts pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) — a duty that it did not, and logically could not, confine to the antitrust field: * Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices LLC, New York.
    [Show full text]
  • CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT - Page 1 of 15
    Case 14-03241-rld Doc 1 Filed 10/08/14 Michael Fuller, Oregon Bar No. 09357 OlsenDaines, P.C. US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl. Portland, Oregon 97204 [email protected] Direct 503-201-4570 Kelly Donovan Jones, Oregon Bar No. 074217 Kelly D. Jones, Attorney at Law 819 SE Morrison St Ste 255 Portland, Oregon 97214 [email protected] Phone 503-847-4329 Of Special Counsel for Plaintiff (Additional counsel appear on signature page) UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Case No. 14-33295-rld7 In re Adv. Proc. No. Rebecca Campos, CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION Debtor. COMPLAINT Willful Automatic Stay Violation REBECCA CAMPOS, individually and on (11 U.S.C. § 362(k)) behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC. and WEBBANK, Defendants. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT - Page 1 of 15 OlsenDaines, P.C. US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl. Portland, Oregon 97204 Case 14-03241-rld Doc 1 Filed 10/08/14 1. INTRODUCTION Rebecca Campos (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this action against Bluestem Brands, Inc. (“Bluestem”, including its brand known as “Fingerhut”) and Webbank (“Bluestem” and “Webbank” collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Fingerhut/Webbank is an identifier for the Fingerhut Program. 2. Plaintiff and Class members owed a debt on a credit account to Defendants prior to filing bankruptcy. 3. After Plaintiff filed bankruptcy on June 4, 2014, Defendants sent Plaintiff a collection letter dated August 5, 2014. The letter acknowledged that Plaintiff had filed bankruptcy and stated in bold, “Please continue to pay your minimum monthly payments on your credit account for each billing cycle, unless we inform you that we have approved your benefit.” 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Answers, Replies and Defenses
    Civil Answers, Replies and Defenses The forms in this packet are to be used as a template, please re- type the forms and do not fill in the blanks. Please read the instructions carefully before completing the forms. The Court Clerks CANNOT accept documents that do not conform to the instructions in this packet. You should refer to the Comanche Nation Tribal Court Codes prior to filing any petition or pleadings for a complete understanding of the rules and procedures governing your case. Should you need assistance in preparing any documents, you must consult with an attorney at your own expense. This court does not have legal aid. The Court Clerks are prohibited by Ethical Code and Court Rules to provide legal advice and help parties prepare or type court documents. Different situations may require special procedures and the Court Clerks CANNOT advise you on how to proceed or what forms may be necessary in specific situations. INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING IMPORTANT INFORMATION PLEASE READ!!! 1. Documents must be typed DOUBLE-SPACED and on LETTER SIZE PAPER (8 ½” x 11”). 2. Documents must be signed in front of the Court Clerk or a notary public when you are ready to file. 3. Filing fees, copy fees, etc. must be made in the form of a CASHIER’S CHECK or MONEY ORDER and must be payable to “Comanche Nation Tribal Court”. Filing fees MUST be paid at the time of filing your petition. If you are unsure of the amount of the filing fees, contact the Court Clerk. 4. Submit original Documents and one (1) copy for each party to be served, and an additional copy if you want a copy of the document for your records.
    [Show full text]