What Is COA in Law?
COA — the full form is ’cause of action’ — is a legal term that refers to the set of facts that enables a party to bring a lawsuit against another. The phrase appeared as far back as 1580, when an English scholar used the words "causa petenda" in describing the idea of a cause of action. In other words, a cause of action is what a claimant states as the reason for seeking a remedy by court action. A cause of action includes every fact that must exist in order to give rise to an enforceable right.
One major use of COA is in the specification of the number of causes of action that appear on pleadings . Most counties in Florida have a $400 filing fee limit for civil suits with common counts and two causes of action. The statute that governs civil suit jurisdiction and filing fees is Fla. Stat. §28.241.
There are different types of causes of action, and they are frequently included in insurance coverage cases. A cause of action against an insurance company can be based on a breach of contract. It can also be a claim for an unfair claims settlement practice. A breach of contract cause of action can be used even if the plaintiff does not make a formal demand against the insurance company before filing the suit.
Components of a Cause of Action
The elements of a cause of action are jointly referred to as an element of a claim in lawsuits. Just as the person who files for a divorce needs to prove that specific elements exist within their marriage before they can be divorced, in the same way, are the essential elements of a cause of action necessary. The plaintiff is the party bringing the suit (the petitioner in a divorce). The defendant is the other side to the matter, whereas the respondent is another term for the defendant in a family law matter. The defendant in a lawsuit is normally responding to the claim the plaintiff has made against them.
There are two different types of causes of action: Indivisible (single) and divisible (multiple). For example, if a plaintiff is suing a defendant for children’s support and also for property division within that claim, there will be an indivisible cause of action. However, if there are two claims made in two separate causes of action, it would be termed a divisible cause of action. In the latter case, it is necessary to plead either separately or together with the divisible cause of action in a complaint.
For a cause of action to exist in a complaint, the elements of a cause of action must include: (a) legal ground for the claim, (b) factual allegations, and (c) a legal remedy sought for the alleged claim. These three items must exist together as a complete cause of action.
The Impact of COA in Legal Cases
In legal proceedings, cause of action (COA) plays a pivotal role in ensuring the pursuit of valid, legally sustainable claims. A plaintiff should be guided by the rule that he may only sue on one cause of action by which he may seek all the relief to which he is entitled. In other words, a plaintiff cannot split his cause of action such that he may only sue a defendant on one claim for a single cause of action in one court. The general rule is that a plaintiff may be sued once for a cause of action, meaning that if the cause of action can raise all sorts of issues between the parties, the plaintiff is obliged to raise all such issues, or risk being barred from raising them later on a separate suit. This essentially means that if the matter could have been raised in a previous proceeding, and was not, it would be precluded from being raised again.
Having a cause of action is not just pivotal for the initiation of a lawsuit. It also plays a role in helping to frame the issues in a case, as well as determining the relevant jurisdiction for each lawsuit.
The doctrine of res judicata aims to balance the interests of the parties with the interests of the community. By barring recovery for matters previously decided by the court, it prevents the possibility of having to submit evidence for a case that has already been heard. This can be quite arduous and extend the length of the trial unnecessarily. For similar reasons, it is also essential to prevent lawsuits linked to the same issue from being tried in different courts. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Mr. Celesfontaine v Citibank N.A., where the plaintiff was able to litigate and litigate across a myriad of forums, ultimately resulting in a trip to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands.
Common Types of Cause of Action
The cause of action is the real world problem that is being addressed within the court case. In other words, COA is the situation that the plaintiff seeks remedy for. There are various types of cause of action, depending on the action of the defendant. Whether the case is criminal or civil in nature, s these fundamental categories are used to classify the type of legal dispute that is involved.
Contract based causes of action involve a breach of any term within the contract. For example, if the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the sale of goods and services, the defendant’s failure to deliver goods and services by the specified time leads to the cause of action.
Tort based causes of action are civil cases that involve one party causing harm to the other(s). These are not contract based disputes but instead involve civil wrongs. The defendant’s conduct may be intentional, but it does not have to be. For example, an intentional tort cause of action may arise when an employee of a company is struck in the head by a passing cart within the warehouse. The accident itself could lead to a negligence based cause of action to be filed as well, essentially accusing the defendant of a lack of supervision that led to the employee’s injury.
Violations of statutory duties are also known as statutory torts. Statutes are laws for the people. When one or more laws are broken, the defendant may be held liable for this even if there was no intention to violate the statute. Again, negligence would also have to be proven if the statute was in place to prevent a certain type of accident from taking place.
Writing an Effective Cause of Action
When drafting a cause of action, it is essential to clearly articulate the basis for the claim and the relief sought. To do this, first and foremost, a party should concisely state a legitimate cause of action. In the pleading the party must state the facts the law gives the plaintiff a right to be heard (i.e. demand for equitable and/or monetary relief). The cause of action must also cite to the controlling statute. Additional components of a solid cause of action are clarity, brevity, consistency, specificity, and adherence to applicable legal standards. A well drafted cause of action is a set of allegations in support of a complaint . The cause of action delineates the nature of the claim being filed and informs the defendant of the nature of the suit. A cause of action should contain allegations that a defendant has violated the rights of a plaintiff and a prayer for relief. (Crimi v City of New York 120 AD3d 780 [2d Dept 2014]). Furthermore, the complaint should set forth each cause of action and then supply facts in support of the alleged cause of action. (Ward v City of Long Beach, 116 AD3d 882 [2d Dept 2014]). It is additionally important to remember to avoid legalese – as opposed to utilizing legalistic terms one should simply allege the facts constituting the cause of action (New Images BK v ABN Amro Mortg. Grp., Inc., 125 AD3d 724 [2d Dept 2015]).
Defenses and Issues with a Cause of Action
When faced with a cause of action in law, a defendant or responding party has several options for challenging or defending against the claims presented. Specifically, there are a number of procedures authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) or the rules of the state court system in which the case is brought, that allow a defendant to challenge a cause of action as alleged.
Specifically, a motion to dismiss may be served on the movant, seeking dismissal of the cause of action on a variety of grounds. A 12(b) motion challenges a complaint if there is a jurisdictional problem (immolation of jurisdiction or improper venue) or alternatively alleges that there is a failure of the plaintiff (or claimant) to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In addition, a defendant may serve a motion for summary judgment, based on any of the allowed grounds for summary judgment as set forth in FRCP 56, or the applicable counterpart under the state court rules or statutes. Under FRCP 56, if there is a genuine dispute of material fact, as evidenced by the record (including affidavits), the motion must be denied. However, if there are not genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment is proper and must be granted.
A judge may also decide the pleading of a claimant fails to knock all the issues out of the park, so to speak. In contrast to a 12(b) motion, a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings looks to the pleading and determines as a matter of law whether or not the trier of fact should proceed. Consequently, summary judgment is usually seen as an alternative to a trial, while judgment on the pleadings allows a court to decide based on the pleadings alone.
Finally, a defendant may allege that the claimant lacks standing to bring the cause of action. Standing simply requires that the claimant has a personal, tangible interest in the subject matter and that the claimant has been injured or wronged by the named defendant.
Cause of Action in Various Jurisdictions
The concept of Cause of Action varies across the globe, with the most clear cut distinctions arising in civil law countries. Here the Codes of Civil Procedure from country to country will be very specific in terms of the terminology. As already mentioned, the terms common intention, cohabitation, trespass, insurers negligent misrepresentation and carry over as examples from tort and contract law. The French Code of Civil Procedure details the nature of applications, origins and enforceability of decisions made in relation to a cause of action. The Spanish Code of Civil Procedure defines the composition of an appellate court and includes information about the nature of appeals, the application of litigation costs, and provisional measures. This type of language is typical across the Europe, Central, and South America and the Middle East. It provides very specific detail and is often many pages long, because French Courts and French lawyers like to keep everything as detailed as possible.
Common law systems tend to use the expression "case" more than "cause of action", but otherwise the principle is very similar. COA or case relates to the fact situation which gives rise to an action or procedural proceeding. The judicial opinion will set out the facts in full, and refer to the ultimate outcome in a decision at law (a judgment). Judicial opinions are commonly available online, and can provide a very useful learning experience. While the language is not "codes of civil procedure" each decision is nevertheless analogous in concept. Common law systems are populated by English speaking countries with diverse historical backgrounds, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In these common law systems, the procedural documents such as pleadings, affidavits, and motions, will share the same terms, if not the same very specific terminology as civil law systems. The outcome of each and every cause of action is recorded in an un-editable judgment, available on the internet, where it will remain indefinitely until appealed or overturned. This is the major difference between the two systems.
The Evolution of Cause of Action in Law
The Future of Cause of Action in Law: Trends and Developments
Looking ahead, the concept of cause of action in law is likely to continue to evolve and adapt to reflect the changing social, economic, and technological landscape. One trend that is expected to shape the future of cause of action is the increasing impact of technology on the legal profession, particularly as it relates to the collection and storage of data. As technology becomes more sophisticated, it is likely that precedent will become increasingly accessible and cross-jurisdictional legal principles become more prominent.
Moreover, legal practitioners, academics, and policymakers are continuously evaluating the adequacy of existing legal concepts and frameworks through legal reform initiatives to accommodate new types of causes of action arising from the complexities of social , political, and economic interactions among citizens within and across borders.
In addition, there is a growing consensus on the need to harmonize cause of action principles in order to facilitate the function of and cooperation within transnational organizations, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and regional legal frameworks. Indeed, ongoing efforts to harmonize legal principles across jurisdictions could result in greater efficiency, certainty, and predictability in the application of cause of action principles in cross-border contexts.
Looking forward, lawyers must remain vigilant in their understanding of causes of action so that they can provide counsel and guideline to clients in ever-changing legal landscapes.