A lawsuit or (very rarely) "suit in law"[1]
is a civil action brought in a
court of
law in which a
plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a
defendant's actions, demands a
legal or
equitable remedy. The
defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If
the plaintiff is successful,
judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of
court orders may be issued to enforce a
right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent
injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A
declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future
legal disputes. Although not as common, lawsuit may also refer to a
criminal action, criminal proceeding, or criminal claim.
A lawsuit may involve
dispute resolution of
private law issues between
individuals,
business entities or
non-profit organizations. A lawsuit may also enable the
state to be treated as if it were a private party in a
civil case, as plaintiff, or
defendant regarding an injury, or may provide the state with a civil
cause of action to enforce certain laws.
The conduct of a lawsuit is called litigation. One who has a
tendency to litigate rather than seek non-judicial remedies is called
litigious.[2]
The plaintiffs and defendants are called litigants and the
attorneys representing them are called litigators.[3]
Rules of procedure and complications in lawsuits
Rules of criminal or
civil procedure govern the conduct of a lawsuit in the
common law
adversarial system of dispute resolution. Procedural rules are
additionally constrained/informed by separate
statutory laws, case law, and constitutional provisions that define
the rights of the parties to a lawsuit (see especially
due process), though the rules generally reflect this legal context
on their face. The details of procedure differ greatly from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction, and often from court to court within the same
jurisdiction. The rules are very important for litigants to know,
however, because they dictate the timing and progression of the
lawsuit—what may be filed and when, to obtain what result. Failure to
comply with the procedural rules may result in serious limitations upon
the ability to present claims or defenses at any subsequent trial, or
even dismissal of the lawsuit.
Though the majority of lawsuits are settled and never reach trial,[4]
they can be very complicated to litigate. This is particularly true in
federal systems, where a federal court may be applying state law
(e.g., the
Erie doctrine in the
United States) or vice versa, or one state applying the law of
another, and where it additionally may not be clear which level (or
location) of court actually has
jurisdiction over the claim or
personal jurisdiction over the defendant. For example, about 98
percent of civil cases in the
United States federal courts are resolved without a trial. Domestic
courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon
foreign defendants, over whom they may not, as a practical matter, even
have the ability to enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are
outside their reach.
Lawsuits become additionally complicated as more parties become
involved (see
joinder).
Within a "single" lawsuit, there can be any number of claims and
defenses (all based on numerous laws) between any number of plaintiffs
or defendants, each of whom can bring any number of cross-claims and
counterclaims against each other, and even bring additional parties into
the suit on either side after it progresses. However, courts typically
have some power to sever claims and parties into separate actions if it
is more efficient to do so, such as if there is not a sufficient overlap
of factual issues between the various associates.
The
progress of a lawsuit
The following is a generalized description of how a lawsuit may
proceed in a common law jurisdiction:
Pleading
A lawsuit begins when a complaint is filed with the court. This
complaint states that one or more plaintiffs seeks damages or
equitable relief from one or more stated defendants, and identifies
the legal and factual bases for doing so. It is important that the
"plaintiff selects the proper venue with the proper jurisdiction to
bring his lawsuit." The clerk of a court signs or stamps the court seal
upon a
summons, which is then
served by the plaintiff upon the defendant, together with a copy of
the complaint. This service notifies the defendants that they are being
sued and that they have a specific time limit to file a response. By
providing a copy of the complaint, the service also notifies the
defendants of the nature of the claims. Once the defendants are served
with the summons and complaint, they are subject to a time limit to file
an answer
stating their defenses to the plaintiff's claims, including any
challenges to the court's jurisdiction, and any counterclaims they wish
to assert against the plaintiff.
In a handful of jurisdictions (notably, the
U.S. state of
New
York) a lawsuit begins when one or more plaintiffs properly serve a
summons and complaint upon the defendant(s). In such jurisdictions,
nothing must be filed with the court until a dispute develops requiring
actual judicial intervention.
If the defendant chooses to file an answer within the time permitted,
the answer must address each of the plaintiffs' allegations by admitting
the allegation, denying it, or pleading a lack of sufficient information
to admit or deny the allegation. Some jurisdictions, like California,
still authorize general denials of each and every allegation in the
complaint. At the time the defendant files an answer, the defendant also
raises all "affirmative" defenses. The defendant may also assert
counterclaims for damages or equitable relief against the plaintiff, and
in the case of "compulsory counterclaims," must do so or risk having the
counterclaim barred in any subsequent proceeding. The defendant may also
file a "third
party complaint" seeking to join another party or parties in the
action in the belief that those parties may be liable for some or all of
the plaintiff's claimed damages. Filing an answer "joins the cause" and
moves the case into the pre-trial phase.
Instead of filing an answer within the time specified in the summons,
the defendant can choose to dispute the validity of the complaint by
filing a
demurrer (in the handful of jurisdictions where that is still
allowed) or one or more "pre-answer motions," such as a motion to
dismiss. The motion must be filed within the time period specified in
the summons for an answer. If all such motions are denied by the trial
court, and the defendant loses on all appeals from such denials (if that
option is available), then the defendant must file an answer.
Usually the
pleadings are drafted by a
lawyer,
but in many courts persons can file papers and represent themselves,
which is called appearing
pro se. Many courts have a
pro se clerk to assist people without lawyers.
Pretrial discovery
The early stages of the lawsuit may involve initial disclosures of
evidence by each party and
discovery, which is the structured exchange of
evidence and
statements between the parties. Discovery is meant to eliminate
surprises and clarify what the lawsuit is about, and to make the parties
realize they should settle or drop frivolous claims and defenses. At
this point the parties may also engage in pretrial motions to exclude or
include particular legal or factual issues before trial.
At the close of discovery, the parties may either pick a
jury and
then have a
trial by jury or the case may proceed as a bench trial heard only by
the judge if the parties waive a jury trial or if the right to a jury
trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under
equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction.
Trial and judgment
Main article:
Judgment (law)At trial, each person presents witnesses and enters evidence into the
record, at the close of which the judge or jury renders their decision.
Generally speaking, the plaintiff has the
burden of proof in making his claims. The defendant may have the
burden of proof on other issues, however, such as
affirmative defenses.
There are numerous motions that either party can file throughout the
lawsuit to terminate it "prematurely"—before submission to the judge or
jury for final consideration. These motions attempt to persuade the
judge, through legal argument and sometimes accompanying evidence, that
because there is no reasonable way that the other party could legally
win, there is no sense in continuing with the trial. Motions for
summary judgment, for example, can usually be brought before, after,
or during the actual presentation of the case. Motions can also be
brought after the close of a trial to undo a jury verdict contrary to
law or against the weight of the evidence, or to convince the judge to
change the decision or grant a new trial.
Also, at any time during this process from the filing of the
complaint to the final judgment, the plaintiff may withdraw the
complaint and end the whole matter, or the defendant may agree to a
settlement. If the case settles, the parties might choose to enter into
a stipulated judgment with the settlement agreement attached, or the
plaintiff may simply file a
voluntary dismissal, so that the settlement agreement is never
entered into the court record.
Appeal
After a final decision has been made, either party or both may
appeal
from the judgment if they believe there had been a procedural error made
by the trial court. Even the prevailing party may appeal, if, for
example, they wanted a larger award than was granted. The
appellate court (which may be structured as an intermediate
appellate court) and/or a higher court then affirms the judgment,
declines to hear it (which effectively affirms it), reverses—or vacates
and remands, which involves sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial
court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly for a whole new trial.
Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before
finally resolution.
Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, prevent parties from
relitigating the facts on appeal, due to a history of unscrupulous
lawyers deliberately reserving such issues in order to ambush each other
in the appellate courts (the "invited error" problem). The idea is that
it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant
issues of fact before the trial court. Thus, a party who does not raise
an issue of fact at the trial court level generally cannot raise it on
appeal. Furthermore, appellate courts in such jurisdictions will not
question the facts as found by a judge or jury in the trial court, as
long as there was some evidence in the record to support such
findings—and even if the appellate judge would not personally have
believed the underlying evidence if present when it was entered into the
record.
When the lawsuit is finally resolved, or the allotted time to appeal
has expired, the matter is
res judicata. The plaintiff may not bring another action based
on the same claim again. In addition, other parties who later attempt to
re-litigate a matter already ruled on in a previous lawsuit will be
estopped from doing so.[5]
Enforcement
When a final judgment is entered, the plaintiff is usually barred
under the doctrine of
res judicata from trying to bring the same or similar claim
again against that defendant, or from relitigating any of the issues,
even under different legal claims or theories. This prevents a new trial
of the same case with a different result, or if the plaintiff won, a
repeat trial that merely multiplies the judgment against the defendant.
If the judgment is for the plaintiff, then the defendant must comply
under penalty of law with the judgment, which is usually a monetary
award. If the defendant fails to pay, the court has various powers to
seize any of the defendant's assets located within its jurisdiction,
such as:
If all assets are located elsewhere, the plaintiff must file another
suit in the appropriate court to seek enforcement of the other court's
previous judgment. This can be a difficult task when crossing from a
court in one state or nation to another, though courts tend to grant
each other respect when there is not a clear legal rule to the contrary.
A defendant who has no assets in any jurisdiction is said to be
"judgment-proof."[6]
The term is generally a colloquialism to describe an impecunious
defendant.
Indigent judgment-proof defendants are no longer imprisoned; debtor's
prisons have been outlawed by statute, constitutional amendment, or
international human rights treaties in the vast majority of common law
jurisdictions.
History of the term "lawsuit"
During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common for lawyers to
speak of bringing an "action" at law and a "suit" in
equity. An example of that distinction survives today in the text of
the
Civil Rights Act of 1871. The fusion of common law and equity in
England in the
Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 led to the collapse of that
distinction, so it became possible to speak of a "lawsuit." In the
United States, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) abolished the distinction
between actions at law and suits in equity in federal practice, in favor
of a single form referred to as a "civil action."
In
England and Wales the term "claim" is far more common; the person
initiating proceedings is called the
claimant.
American terminology is slightly different, in that the term "claim"
refers only to a particular count (or cause of action) in a lawsuit.
Americans also use "claim" to describe a demand filed with an insurer or
administrative agency. If the claim is denied, then the claimant (or
policyholder or applicant) files a lawsuit with the courts and becomes a
plaintiff.
In medieval times, both "action" and "suit" had the approximate
meaning of some kind of legal proceeding, but an action terminated when
a judgment was rendered, while a suit also included the execution of the
judgment.
Financing for
lawsuits
In the United States, plaintiffs and defendants that lack financial
resources for
litigation or other legal expenses may be able to obtain
legal financing. Legal financing companies can provide a cash
advance to litigants in return for a share of the ultimate
settlement or award. If the case ultimately loses, the litigant does
not have to pay any of the money funded back.
Legal financing is different from a typical bank
loan. The
legal financing company does not look at credit history or employment
history. Litigants do not have to repay the cash advance with monthly
payments, but do have to fill out an application so that the legal
financing company can review the merits of the case.
Legal financing can be a practical means for litigants to obtain
financing while they wait for a monetary settlement or an award in their
personal injury,
workers' compensation, or
civil rights lawsuit. Oftentimes, plaintiffs who were injured or
forced to leave their jobs still have
mortgages, rent, medical expenses, or other bills to pay. Other
times, litigants may simply need money to pay for the costs of
litigation and attorneys' fees. For this reason, many litigants turn to
reputable legal financing companies to apply for a cash advance to help
pay for bills.
Defendants, civil rights organizations, public interest
organizations, and government public officials can set up an account to
pay for litigation costs and legal expenses. These
legal defense funds can have large membership counts where the
members contribute to the fund. Unlike legal financing from legal
financing companies, legal defense funds provide a separate account for
litigation rather than a one-time cash advancement, though both are used
for purposes of financing litigation and legal costs.
See also