Pleading Requirements: H.B. 1011 (2013)
Clarifies that “every pleading demanding relief for damages in money
Clarifies that “every pleading demanding relief for damages in money in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction shall, without demined any specific amount of money, set forth only that the amount sought as damages is in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction, except in actions sounding in contract. Every pleading demanding relief for damages in an amount of that required for diversity jurisdiction or less shall specify the amount of such damages sought to be recovered. Further clarifies that “if the amount of damages sought to be recovered is less than the amount required for diversity jurisdiction, the defendant may file, for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction only, a Motion to Clarify Damages prior to the pretrial order to require the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of evidence that the amount of damages, if awarded, will not exceed the amount required for diversity. If the court finds that any damages awarded are more likely than not to exceed the amount of damages required for diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff shall amend his or her pleadings in conformance with the law.
ATRA’s statement on passage of Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
ATRA’s statement on Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
ATRA President Tiger Joyce released the following statement in response to the unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6:
ATRA voices its disappointment as Congress fails to include liability protections in its latest COVID-19 relief package.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce writes in this op-ed about a growing trend of state courts bucking SCOTUS precedent when it comes to personal jurisdiction.
Activism in AG’s office, Supreme Court’s acceptance of lawsuit funding and loose venue rules to blame