|
Let us begin
with a recent example from OBar. I won't
give the citation because the authorship is not
important. Plus I have enough enemies. This is
just one paragraph; you can imagine the rest.
In considering a plaintiff's request for leave
to amend, "a trial court's 'primary
consideration is whether there is actual
prejudice to the defendants because of the
delay.'" Helman v. EPL Prolong, Inc.
(2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 231, 251, 743 N.E.2d
484, citing Schweizer v. Riverside
Methodist Hosp. (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d
539, 546, 671 N.E.2d 312. Although we have
held in a case involving the assertion of a
new claim against an existing defendant that
the plaintiff must make "'at least a
prima facie showing [of] support for the new
matters sought to be pleaded,'" that
consideration is meant to aid in determining
whether the amendment is '"simply a
delaying tactic, [or] one which would cause
prejudice to the defendant.'" Wilmington
Steel Products, 60 Ohio St.3d at 122, 573
N.E.2d 622, quoting Solowitch v. Bennett
(1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 115, 117, 8 OBR 169, 456
N.E.2d 562. Indeed one federal court has
refused to allow a proposed new party, yet
unserved, to appear at all, even as an amicus,
in opposition to a motion to add it as a
party-defendant in an existing action. Paradigm
Ins. Co. v. Walters Diving & Marine, Inc.
(E.D.La.1999), No. 98-1617, 1999 WL 232669.
See, also, In re Everfresh Beverages, Inc.
(1999), 238 B.R. 558, 569, fn. 8 (observing in
ruling on a motion to add additional
defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) that
"[t]he Proposed Additional Defendants'
rights, including objecting to the Plaintiffs'
complaint on the ground of timeliness"
were not before the court).
The paragraph is unreadable. It's littered
with quotes, and quotes within quotes. There are
letters and numbers jumbled up in the middle.
And it even cites a footnote. It has some
redeeming values — the author at least didn't
write "aid in the determination of"
instead "aid in determining." And
mercifully, there are no passive sentences. But
its word-per-sentence count is 42. The
Flesch-Kincaid readability score is 24 (out of
100).
First, we take out the worst offense and
remove the citations to footnotes, and we have
this:
In considering a plaintiff's request for leave
to amend, "a trial court's 'primary
consideration is whether there is actual
prejudice to the defendants because of the
delay.'"1 Although we have held in a case
involving the assertion of a new claim against
an existing defendant that the plaintiff must
make "'at least a prima facie showing
[of] support for the new matters sought to be
pleaded,'" that consideration is meant to
aid in determining whether the amendment is
"'simply a delaying tactic, [or] one
which would cause prejudice to the
defendant.'"2 Indeed one federal court
has refused to allow a proposed new party, yet
unserved, to appear at all, even as an amicus,
in opposition to a motion to add it as a
party-defendant in an existing action.3
1 Helman v. EPL Prolong, Inc. (2000), 139
Ohio App.3d 231, 251, 743 N.E.2d 484, citing Schweizer
v. Riverside Methodist Hosp. (1996), 108
Ohio App.3d 539, 546, 671 N.E.2d 312.
2 Wilmington Steel Products, 60 Ohio
St.3d at 122, 573 N.E.2d 622, quoting Solowitch
v. Bennett (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 115, 117,
8 OBR 169, 456 N.E.2d 562.
3 Paradigm Ins. Co. v. Walters Diving
& Marine, Inc. (E.D.La.1999), No.
98-1617, 1999 WL 232669. See, also, In re
Everfresh Beverages, Inc. (1999), 238 B.R.
558, 569, fn. 8 (observing in ruling on a
motion to add additional defendants pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) that "[t]he
Proposed Additional Defendants' rights,
including objecting to the Plaintiffs'
complaint on the ground of timeliness"
were not before the court).
Still difficult, but a start. Next, let's try
to cut down the sentence length by purging some
of the quotes.
In considering a plaintiff's request for leave
to amend, the primary consideration is
prejudice to the defendant.1 In a case
involving the assertion of a new claim against
an existing defendant, we have held that the
plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of
"support for the new matters sought to be
pleaded." But that consideration is to
help the trial court determine whether the
amendment is a delaying tactic, or one to
prejudice the defendant.2 One federal court
has even refused to allow a proposed new
party, yet unserved, to appear at all, even as
an amicus, to oppose a motion to add it as a
party-defendant in an existing action.3
(footnotes omitted).
This revision gets words-per-sentence down to
24 from 42, and readability up to 39 from 24.
But it's still not very good. One problem is
that I can't really tell what this paragraph is
about. So I went back and read the case again.
The paragraph is redundant, so it can be cut
altogether. That makes 0 words-per-sentence.
|
