 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gadow v. Parker1/5/2005
eral Rules of Civil Procedure, the Commonwealth could have raised the defense in the initial motion to dismiss. Similarly, when the petitioner sought to amend his complaint the Commonwealth could have argued, as a basis for opposing the motion, that allowing the amendment would be futile. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that (1) not until after the case was remanded was the Commonwealth procedurally obligated to file a response to the merits of the petition, and (2) not until the Commonwealth had responded to the merits of the petition did Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) require it to plead or waive the limitations defense in its response. Because the Commonwealth had raised the defense at the stage prescribed by Rule 8, the Court concluded that the defense was not waived.
Robinson supports the defendants' position, not Parker's. Here, as in Robinson, the Superior Court had made significant procedural decisions before the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on the defense of limitations.
We acknowledge that it would have been prudent, and indeed preferable and less wasteful of judicial resources, had the defendants raised the limitations defense at the time the Superior Court was deciding whether to grant Parker's motion to amend. But from this it does not follow as a legal matter that the defendants were procedurally obligated to raise the defense at that stage. The Superior Court Civil Rules expressly permit a defendant to raise the defense of limitations in a motion to dismiss or in a first responsive pleading to the complaint. The defendants complied with these Rules by raising the statute of limitations defense in their answer to the original complaint, and later in their motion to dismiss Parker's amended complaint.
The Superior Court concluded, nonetheless, that the limitations defense had been waived. That conclusion was erroneous because, if upheld, it would create a procedural requirement, nowhere codified in the Superior Court Rules, that would have no limits or clear guidelines. Such an approach would render the otherwise clear procedural map provided by the Court Rules unreliable, and would result in unnecessary litigation over what procedural point in the lawsuit represents the earliest possible time to raise an affirmative defense. Although we sympathize with the Superior Court's frustration with the defendants' failure to argue the limitations defense as a ground for opposing leave to amend, in these circumstances the need for clarity and certainty in matters of court procedure outweighs our society's interest in promoting judicial economy. Here, the defendants did raise their limitations defense in compliance with the procedural rules. For that reason the defense was not waived.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the interlocutory order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground of limitation is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for a determination of the motion to dismiss on the merits.
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|