## Facts

- CompuServe Inc., an online services provider, entered a distribution agreement with FontBank, Inc., a graphic arts company controlled by its sole shareholder, Jerry Saperstein.
- FontBank sued CompuServe in state court in 1996 for breach of contract.
- CompuServe filed a federal action in the Southern District of Ohio against FontBank and Saperstein seeking declaratory relief and damages for defamation, interference with contractual relations, and alleged violations of Ohio deceptive trade practices and related state law.
- Saperstein, proceeding pro se, answered in federal court and asserted four counterclaims sounding in defamation and business tort/statutory business-practices theories; the counterclaims alleged few supporting facts.
- CompuServe moved for a more definite statement as to two counterclaims; both sides filed motions seeking more definite statements.
- Saperstein filed an amended answer as of right, adding limited detail and asserting he could not identify specific defamatory statements because CompuServe had not produced discovery.
- Saperstein then filed another amended pleading adding six new counterclaims without obtaining written consent or leave of court.
- After a pretrial conference, the district court struck the six new counterclaims and, acting sua sponte, dismissed the original four counterclaims without prejudice on the ground that they remained inadequately stated despite the prior opportunity to clarify.
- The district court also dismissed CompuServe’s federal action with prejudice after concluding the declaratory-judgment issues overlapped with matters that should be handled in the ongoing state-court litigation.
- Saperstein appealed, challenging the striking of the six new counterclaims, the sua sponte dismissal of his four original counterclaims, and the dismissal of CompuServe’s federal claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 15(a) permits a district court to strike counterclaims added in a second amended answer filed without leave after the pleader has already used the one amendment allowed as of course.
2. Whether Rule 16(c) authorizes a district court to dismiss counterclaims sua sponte at the pretrial stage for vagueness or conclusory pleading without providing notice under dismissal standards or an additional opportunity to amend.
3. Whether the district court properly disposed of CompuServe’s federal action in light of parallel state litigation addressing overlapping contract-related issues.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court upheld the order striking the six new counterclaims because they were asserted in an amended pleading filed without the consent or leave required by Rule 15(a).
- The court reversed the sua sponte dismissal of Saperstein’s original four counterclaims, concluding the district court exceeded permissible pretrial case-management authority by terminating the claims without using ordinary dismissal procedures or allowing a further chance to amend.
- The court left undisturbed the district court’s disposition of CompuServe’s federal claims.

## Legal Principles

- After a party uses the one amendment permitted as of course under Rule 15(a), further amendments require either the opposing party’s written consent or leave of court; claims added without compliance may be struck.
- Rule 16(c) permits pretrial management to simplify issues and, in appropriate circumstances, remove clearly unsustainable claims, but it does not permit a court to bypass ordinary safeguards governing dismissal and amendment of pleadings.
- When claims are dismissed for pleading deficiencies, procedural fairness generally requires notice and application of standards associated with dismissal practice, or an opportunity to cure by amendment, including consideration of a litigant’s pro se status.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit enforced Rule 15(a)’s limits on unauthorized amended pleadings while holding that Rule 16(c) case-management authority does not justify sua sponte termination of counterclaims for deficient pleading without the procedural protections ordinarily associated with dismissal or a meaningful opportunity to amend.


CompuServe Inc. v. Saperstein, 172 F.3d 47 (6th Cir. 1999)