Answer to Complaint

[buffs94]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi, I'm a defendant in a fraud lawsuit and of course, I'm being thrown in with the kitchen sink as being an employee of the company that is being sued. It's a fraud lawsuit and the attorneys representing the other defendants are going to file answers. In the California civil cases I've read, virtually every answer I come across contains very basic "Defendant has no information or belief that the allegations of paragraph ___ are true so defendant denies them" or Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph ____" type of responses. I am very tempted to offer up a defense for each an every allegation with specific defenses. For some reason, I believe the explanations will help the judge or jury understand the case more. I was wondering, if it's usually better just to provide very general denials to allegations, or is it better to provide more information? Thank you! I appreciate it.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[tranquility]

You need an attorney or you will end up with a judgment against you. If it was a good idea to do what you want, why doesn't everyone do it? Do you believe you are the first to think that way?

We were involved with a fraud lawsuit for years and which cost us thousands to defend. What did we do? A client left an envelope containing loan documents in the office after his appointment. A couple days later we find them and tell him to pick them up. He asks if we can deliver them to the bank down the street and, since that was were we banked, we did. The loan went bad. They joined us because of our role in the "scheme".

Good times.

But, the bottom line (other than don't do favors for others) was, don't take getting sued lightly. Even if it seems silly. Sometimes, especially if.

 

[buffs94]

Well, by now you have probably heard a thousand times that I don't have an attorney because I can't afford one. Otherwise, I would have one. However, this thing has been going for a long time and up until now, I've been doing what the other counsel has done and they've said I'm holding my own quite well. I appreciate your opinion and yes, it's probably just best to file general denials for each allegation. I'm guilty of doing my job and showing up for work that day. Had I called in sick, someone else's name would have been on the complaint.

 

[tranquility]

If you spend a couple of bucks talking to an attorney, you might find a way to force the company to pay for your defense. You were sued in your role as an employee of the company.

 

[buffs94]

Already have gone down that road. The company no longer exists, that's part of the problem. My boss as well as the former president of the company are being sued as well. Neither of them were able to successfully get the company to pay for their defenses. We did track down the errors and omissions policy but it didn't cover anything prior to 2010.

 

[davidmcbeth3]

Its very common to sue specific employees even when the company is viable (usually the company provides consul). You need a lawyer. Monkey see- monkey do is OK for some things but not in an answer. Maybe you should file another response other than an answer?? There are others available & they won't be available after you file an answer.

 

[buffs94]

Its very common to sue specific employees even when the company is viable (usually the company provides consul). You need a lawyer. Monkey see- monkey do is OK for some things but not in an answer. Maybe you should file another response other than an answer?? There are others available & they won't be available after you file an answer.

Thanks for the advice. Lucky thing is none of the defendants were singled out. He is acusing us of the exact same thing. Obviously, I can't afford a lawyer. Otherwise, I would have taken that advice a long time ago. My initial strategy was to attack each and every allegation but now it seems the best thing to do is deny, deny, deny.

 

[davidmcbeth3]

Thanks for the advice. Lucky thing is none of the defendants were singled out. He is acusing us of the exact same thing. Obviously, I can't afford a lawyer. Otherwise, I would have taken that advice a long time ago. My initial strategy was to attack each and every allegation but now it seems the best thing to do is deny, deny, deny.

Normally with an answer you just admit, deny, or say you don't have the facts to be able to admit so you demand that the plaintiff show proof.

Have you looked at possible reasons to strike sections of the complaint?

 

[John_DFW]

In general, many people make the mistake of saying to much.

I would not think fraud would pierce the corporate veil to hold the officers personally accountable for your legal fees, but might be worth discussing with an attorney.

You say you cannot afford an attorney, but you might not be able to afford not to have one. There are attorneys that will take payment plans, albeit few and far between.

 

[buffs94]

Normally with an answer you just admit, deny, or say you don't have the facts to be able to admit so you demand that the plaintiff show proof.

Have you looked at possible reasons to strike sections of the complaint?

Thank you. Well, I have a conference call every couple of weeks with the other counsel and they all talked about filing a motion to strike or motion for summary judgement. It seems they are all on board right now with filing an answer.

 

[davidmcbeth3]

Thank you. Well, I have a conference call every couple of weeks with the other counsel and they all talked about filing a motion to strike or motion for summary judgement. It seems they are all on board right now with filing an answer.

A motion to strike should be filed before the answer; afterwards, its not an option .. a summary judgment is always an option.

 

[buffs94]

A motion to strike should be filed before the answer; afterwards, its not an option .. a summary judgment is always an option.

Great info. Thank you.