Draft/Featured

Draft a complaint outline that survives the motion

Maps every element of every count to a fact you actually have, flags what is still missing, and names the counts to cut before filing.

About 20 minintermediateLitigation

Your prompt5,131 characters

Still to fill in: Fact summary, Court / jurisdiction, Theories to test

RoleYou are a senior plaintiff-side litigator who has drafted hundreds of complaints and defended most of them against a Rule 12(b)(6). You plead facts, not labels, and you would rather file four counts that hold than nine that hand the defense a motion. You will not write an element you cannot tie to something in the file; when the fact is missing you say so, in writing, instead of papering over it.What I needBuild a count-by-count outline for a complaint to be filed in Court / jurisdiction, stress-testing the theories I name: Theories to test. Calibrate how many counts survive your cut to my posture: aggressive.InputsFacts: Fact summary Court / jurisdiction: Court / jurisdiction Theories to test: Theories to test Parties and citizenship: Parties and citizenship Damages: Damages Filing posture: aggressiveHow to work this1. For each theory, list the elements that must be pled under the law governing in Court / jurisdiction, and name the pleading standard: federal Twombly/Iqbal or the state analogue. If you are not certain of the elements there, say so rather than guessing. 2. Under each element, quote the fact from my summary that satisfies it. Any element without a quoted fact gets [MISSING], plus the document, witness, or record that would supply it. 3. Run the clock before anything else: accrual date, limitations period, tolling. Flag any count near or past the line. 4. State the jurisdictional and venue basis in one or two sentences and name the statute. If diversity is the hook, test the citizenship of Parties and citizenship: citizenship, not residence; an LLC takes its members' citizenship. 5. List the administrative prerequisites before filing: right-to-sue letter, notice of claim, pre-suit demand, certificate of merit, exhaustion. 6. For every count, name the argument defense counsel leads with on a motion to dismiss and answer it in one sentence. If it cannot be answered, move the count to Recommended cuts. 7. Plead damages by category with an order of magnitude drawn from Damages, and separately identify any fee-shifting, penalty, or multiplier. 8. Write the opening story in two or three sentences: the version a judge repeats to a clerk. No "Comes now Plaintiff."Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every factual, legal, and strategic assumption behind the outline. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Call out specifically if you assumed which state's substantive law governs, that a fact in my summary is documented rather than merely remembered, or that administrative remedies were exhausted. Where this is weakest. The two or three counts or elements most likely to draw a successful motion. Name the count and the element, not "the pleading generally." What only you can decide. The judgment calls I deliberately did not make. Present each as options with tradeoffs. At minimum: plead the aggressive counts now: more settlement pressure and broader discovery, but a motion to dismiss and a possible Rule 11 exchange, or file tight, draw no motion, and signal a smaller case. Also whether to name the individual alongside the entity, which raises the temperature and can defeat removal but costs you a cooperative witness. What would make this materially better. The specific document, witness, or date that would close the largest [MISSING] gap. Rank by impact.Output formatStory paragraph, then jurisdiction and venue in one or two sentences. Then a block per count: argumentative heading, numbered elements each carrying a quoted fact or a [MISSING] flag, the anticipated motion-to-dismiss attack, and the one-line answer. Close with Recommended cuts, then the four sections above.Never do this- If the outline would fit any plaintiff suing any defendant anywhere, it is too generic. Rebuild it from the dates and names I actually gave you. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it could be argued," and "it depends." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. My name goes on the signature block. - Never invent a fact. If my summary does not contain it, it does not exist; write [MISSING] instead. Every case, statute, and limitations period must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - check before filing]. - Where you do not know the elements or the filing prerequisites in Court / jurisdiction, say you do not know. Do not smooth the gap over with fluent prose. - Do not pad the complaint with counts. If three theories hold and two do not, write three counts and explain the two cuts. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does every element carry either a quoted fact or a [MISSING] flag? Neither is not an option. - Does every count name the attack it will draw, with the answer? - Have I run the limitations clock and the administrative prerequisites, not just the elements? - Is any citation unmarked and unverified? - Would this outline be useless to a lawyer filing a different case? It should be.

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

Defense counsel already has authority to move against the whole complaint and is hunting for the one count that makes the rest look overreaching. Take that assignment. For each count, write the one-paragraph dismissal argument you would file as the movant and rate it: likely granted, granted with leave to amend, or denied. Then tell me which count I should drop before filing so the motion loses its best hook, and what dropping it costs me in leverage.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

What does the defendant's answer have to admit or deny, paragraph by paragraph? Draft the actual fact section: paragraphs 1 through 25. Open with a sentence the judge will remember, use short numbered paragraphs with dates and names, keep every allegation to one fact, and end on the moment that crystallizes the wrong. Flag any paragraph that rests on a fact I have not confirmed.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The facts you would give a partner in ninety seconds, with dates
Where you intend to file, and whether state or federal pleading standards govern
The parties and their citizenship, if diversity is your hook
Damages category and rough magnitude
Whether any administrative prerequisite is already satisfied or still pending

Watch for

The model will fill gaps with invented facts if the summary is thin. Confirm every quoted allegation ties to a document or a witness you actually have.
Limitations periods, tolling, and pre-suit notice requirements are jurisdiction-specific and unforgiving. Verify each one before filing.
Diversity jurisdiction turns on citizenship, not residence, and an LLC takes the citizenship of every member. The model routinely gets this wrong.
Do not paste privileged intake notes or client communications unless your firm's AI policy and the engagement terms permit it.
A count the model calls survivable may still be a strategic mistake. Pleading it can invite removal, a fee-shifting counterclaim, or a Rule 11 letter.

What comes back

A story paragraph, then a one-or-two-sentence jurisdiction and venue statement. Then count blocks: argumentative heading, numbered elements each with a quoted supporting fact or a [MISSING] flag, the anticipated 12(b)(6) attack, and the answer to it. Closes with Recommended cuts and the four sections: Assumptions / Where this is weakest / What only you can decide / What would make this better.

See an example of what you’ll get

Story. In March 2025, Acme fired its top-performing VP of Sales four days after she reported unpaid overtime to HR. The "performance" Acme now cites appears nowhere in her January review, which rated her "exceeds expectations." Two other women who raised wage complaints were terminated within ninety days. Jurisdiction and venue. Federal question under Title VII and the FLSA, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, with supplemental jurisdiction over the California claims under § 1367. Venue is the problem. Section 1391(b)(2) needs a substantial part of the events to have occurred in this district, and your summary does not say where Reyes worked, where she sent the March 3 email, or where the termination decision was made: [MISSING]. What it does say is that Acme is headquartered in Austin and Liu is a Texas citizen, which also closes off § 1391(b)(1), since not all defendants reside in California. Give me her work location and the decisionmaker's, or venue is the first motion Acme files. Clock. Two periods and one prerequisite, and your summary answers none of them. - *Title VII exhaustion*: [MISSING]. No charge date, no right-to-sue letter, no receipt date. Do not plead exhaustion until the letter is in the file; when it is, count the suit deadline from the date she received it, not the date it issued. - *Title VII charge window*: runs from the March 7, 2025 termination. Whether the period is 180 or 300 days turns on the deferral-agency rule, and I will not state that from memory [UNVERIFIED - confirm before filing]. So you can check my count rather than trust it: from March 7, 2025, a 180-day period closed September 3, 2025, and a 300-day period closed January 1, 2026, a federal holiday, so confirm whether the period rolls to the next business day. Confirm which applies, then confirm the actual charge date against it. - *FLSA lookback*: the limitations period and the willfulness extension are statutory and I have not verified the current text [UNVERIFIED - confirm 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) before you plead a class period]. It runs back from the filing date, so it only shortens while this outline sits. Count I: Acme fired Reyes four days after she reported a wage violation, and its stated reason contradicts its own records. 1. *Protected activity*: "On March 3, 2025 she emailed HR about unpaid overtime for her team." 2. *Adverse action*: "Fired March 7." 3. *Causal link*: four-day gap. Temporal proximity this tight supports causation at the pleading stage. *Yartzoff v. Thomas*, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987) [UNVERIFIED - confirm pin cite]. 4. *Pretext*: [MISSING] No comparator data. Need the performance records of male VPs retained in the same cycle, obtainable only in discovery; plead the January "exceeds" review instead and reserve comparators. - *Anticipated 12(b)(6):* Acme argues an internal HR email is not protected activity under Title VII because it complained about overtime, not sex. Answer: plead the wage-disparity framing expressly in ¶ 14 and lean on § 1102.5, where the protected activity is broader. Recommended cuts. IIED. What you have is retaliation, not conduct "beyond all bounds of decency," and the workers' compensation exclusivity bar is a live problem [UNVERIFIED - confirm the current scope of the bar for IIED claims in this posture]. Pleading it invites a motion that makes Counts I-III look padded. --- Assumptions I made. California substantive law governs the state counts [verify - your summary puts Acme's headquarters in Austin and never says where Reyes worked; if she worked in Texas, the § 1102.5 and public-policy counts disappear and the venue problem gets worse]. The January review is a written document in your possession [verify - if it is her recollection, ¶ 9 needs rewording]. Acme is the sole employer, with no PEO or staffing entity in the chain [verify]. The two other women who were terminated are identifiable and willing to be named [verify - as this is pleaded, they are the pattern evidence]. Where this is weakest. Two places, both in Count I. The pretext element rests on the January "exceeds" review and nothing else; the comparator data is [MISSING], and Acme will argue at the pleading stage that one favorable review does not make its stated reason implausible. And the protected-activity element is soft on Title VII specifically. The March 3 email complained about unpaid overtime, not sex, which is why the count leans on § 1102.5. If the wage-disparity framing in ¶ 14 is not supported by something Reyes actually wrote, Count I's first element is the one that fails. What only you can decide. Whether to plead Title VII at all before the right-to-sue letter is in hand. Filing the FLSA and § 1102.5 counts now starts the case and locks the earliest filing date, but a Title VII count pleaded without exhaustion draws a motion you will lose and colors the judge's first read of the complaint; waiting keeps the pleading clean and gives Acme months to build a performance file. Second: name Liu individually or sue Acme alone. Naming him buys nothing jurisdictionally here. You are in federal court on a federal question, so there is no removal to defeat, and it costs you the most useful witness on who actually made the decision. Third: file in N.D. Cal. and litigate venue, or file where the events occurred and give up the California statutory counts. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact. (1) The right-to-sue letter with its envelope: it decides whether Count I can be filed at all and fixes the suit deadline from the receipt date. (2) Reyes's work location and the name of the decisionmaker, which resolve venue and choice of law in one answer. (3) The January review as an actual document, which is the entire pretext showing until discovery opens. (4) The names and separation dates of the two other women, which is what turns a four-day gap into a pattern.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Elements first, facts under them.** For each theory, list what must be pled in the governing jurisdiction, then quote the fact that satisfies each element. No fact, no element. 2. **Mark the holes.** Any element without a quoted fact gets [MISSING] plus the document, witness, or record that would fill it. A complaint is judged on what it pleads, not on what counsel knows. 3. **Check the clock early.** Accrual date, limitations period, tolling. A brilliant count that is six weeks late is a malpractice letter. 4. **Clear the prerequisites.** Right-to-sue letter, notice of claim, pre-suit demand, certificate of merit, exhaustion. Missing one kills an otherwise perfect count. 5. **Anticipate the 12(b)(6).** For every count, name the argument defense counsel leads with and say whether the count survives it. If it does not, cut the count. 6. **One count per theory.** A complaint is judged by its strongest count, not its longest. Padding invites a motion and a roadmap. 7. **Damages with a number.** Category plus order of magnitude, and separately any fee-shifting, penalty, or multiplier. 8. **Open with a story, not a recital.** Two or three sentences a judge can repeat to a clerk. "Comes now Plaintiff" is dead.