Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc

This is a comedy of errors on both sides. First, π sues the wrong person. After π realizes this, he didn't stop and sue the right person because the Statute of Limitations had passed by that point. ∆ denied ¶5 of the complaint. However, they only denied it because they misunderstood the role of the Answer.

However, π did not follow FRCP 10(c) in that the specific allegations were not separated and individually numbered under 10(b).
A complaint should be able to be understood by the laziest layperson.