Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it's just a procedural point he doesn't know about. He could perhaps find an online forum that provides free advice and ask about it. If there was sensible advice, they'd probably either tell him what the procedure is, or suggest he look up the appropriate civil procedures.Wouldn’t the fact that you don’t know where to turn at the very threshold of the lawsuit be some indication that you are into something that is WAY OVER YOUR HEAD?!
With all respect owing, it is clear that you don’t know any more about practicing law and civil procedures than the OP. The difference between you is that the OP admits to it whereas you - with the use of legalese that you don’t know the meaning of - try to hoodwink people into thinking that you know when you know that you don’t know.I would answer the affirmative defenses ... with a motion to strike first & then with answer to the affirmative defense . . . blah, blah. . .
I am not a lawyer, but also agree, the Rules of Procedure outline the Pleadings. I have heard of terms such as rejoinder, surrejoinder, rebutter, or "Reponse to defendant's answer", etc. though, as I am sure you have also.For instance there is NO form of pleading in Indiana or in any of the other 50 states or the federal system known as an ANSWER to an ANSWER
I don't. I have great respect for thier knowledge, especially those versed in criminal law.It beats me why anyone that is not a lawyer would pretend to be one. People hate lawyers!
latigo:Really?? So I guess my recent motion to strike affirmative defenses which resulted in 7 of 8 defenses being stricken was ordered by a judge who does not know civil procedure either.. a motion to strike can be filed for ANY pleading -- it attacks the legal sufficiency of a pleading. And if an affirmative defense is stricken, they are limited to the defense at trial..so I say go for the motion to strike. Do some R&D on this motion -- a memorandum of law would / should be filed with it.With all respect owing, it is clear that you don’t know any more about practicing law and civil procedures than the OP. The difference between you is that the OP admits to it whereas you - with the use of legalese that you don’t know the meaning of - try to hoodwink people into thinking that you know when you know that you don’t know.
For instance there is NO form of pleading in Indiana or in any of the other 50 states or the federal system known as an ANSWER to an ANSWER! (It is apparent that you merely picked up on it because the OP naively suggested it.)
The Indiana Rules of Court and Trial Procedure are very typical in describing and limiting the pleadings that are permitted.
“Rule 7. Pleadings allowed . . .
(A) Pleadings. The pleadings shall consist of:
(1) A complaint and an answer;
(2) A reply to a denominated counterclaim;
(3) An answer to a cross-claim;
(4) A third-party complaint,
(5) A third-party answer.
NO OTHER PLEADINGS SHALL BE ALLOWED; but the court may, in its discretion, order a reply to an answer or third-party answer. Matters formerly required to be pleaded by a reply or other subsequent pleading may be proved even though they are not pleaded.” (Emphasis added)
_______________________
Much worse you would have the OP file a motion to strike the defendant’s affirmative defenses while having no clue as to the subject matter of the lawsuit or the contents of the defenses and whether or not those pleadings are subject to being stricken.
And in so doing have the OP run the risk of being ordered to pay the defendant’s attorney fees in defending a specious motion.
You should consider asking questions in this legal forum rather than trying to answer them with guesswork.
_________________
It beats me why anyone that is not a lawyer would pretend to be one. People hate lawyers!