In a recent discussion here, it occurred to me that it might be useful to have a very basic overview of the civil litigation process for those who need a first step. After a few minutes with Google, I wasn't able to find one. So I wrote it.
Obviously, this is extremely basic, to the point of being oversimplified. It's only meant to paint a fuzzy picture that gives people the vaguest idea of what to expect. Volumes have been written on this topic, so a few paragraphs don't even scratch the surface. That said, here it is.
The complaint (what we've been discussing) just sets out alleged facts and legal theories that the plaintiff has that might allow relief, and what relief is requested. It amounts to a "this is what happened, and this is why I should get X" statement. The point is not to be comprehensive, but to give your opponent a solid idea of what's at issue here.
The answer, in its basic form, just admits or denies the various allegations in the complaint. If the defendant doesn't know enough to admit or deny an allegation, then he can deny based on not having enough information. Defendants can also set out counter-claims against the plaintiff, which read like they would in a plaintiff's complaint. (They can also sue third parties, but let's not get into that). If there are any counter-claims, the plaintiff can answer those in the same way that the defendant answers the complaint.
If there are some factual issues to be resolved, then the parties engage in discovery. The point here is to get all the cards on the table so everybody knows what all the evidence is. (There are also strategic things that happen--like efforts to evade discovery and keep things secret--but that's far beyond the scope of this little comment.) Discovery often takes the form of written questions and responses, requests that the other party admit some facts, and depositions. At the end of discovery, a trial date is set, and you all know what happens next. (Settlement, usually.)
Throughout this process, motions are flying back and forth. Commonly, defendants file motions to dismiss for various reasons, most often for "failure to state a clam for which relief can be granted." This is where the obviously frivolous lawsuits usually end. For example, if someone sues you for lawfully parking in front of his house on a public street, that would probably get tossed immediately. (There doesn't have to be an answer before filing this motion, but there often is.)
The other big motion is a motion for summary judgment, which is most common after discovery has been finished. To prevail, the person making the motion (the movant) must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The point is to get rid of claims or suits where a jury trial wouldn't be helpful (juries only determine issues of fact, not law--that's the judge's job). In this process, one party makes the motion and can present discovery excerpts (submitting all depositions, affidavits, etc. to the court to figure out is, to put it mildly, frowned upon). The other party can then submit contrary exhibits to demonstrate that there actually is a factual dispute, and a trial is necessary. The judge has to decide if a reasonable jury could find in the non-movant's favor, and whether the law supports the movant's position. If it's appropriate, the judge can grant the motion, and the case is done. Otherwise, it keeps heading for trial.
Those are the basics. Of course, there are layers and layers, even after trial. The appeal process is a bit simpler, but can still be pretty drawn out. Enjoy.
Leave a comment