When a retailer brings a federal diversity action against an architect for fraudulent misrepresentations, what is the outcome if the architect did not respond to the original complaint upon the filing of the amended complaint with a jury demand?

In a diversity action where the retailer has made claims against an architect for fraudulent misrepresentations, the correct outcome, given that the architect did not respond to the original complaint upon the filing of the amended complaint with a jury demand, is that the retailer succeeds on both claims. This conclusion stems from the principle that when a defendant fails to respond to a complaint, they may be deemed to have admitted the allegations made in that complaint.

When an amended complaint is filed, if the defendant has not answered the original complaint, they are typically required to respond to the amended complaint. If they fail to do so, the court may enter a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. In this scenario involving fraudulent misrepresentations, if the architect has not engaged with the legal process by responding, the retailer can prevail on the claims due to the architect's inaction.

This understanding aligns with civil procedure principles, wherein the failure to respond can result in a significant disadvantage for the defendant, essentially allowing the plaintiff to win their case by default if the necessary procedural steps are met. Thus, the outcome reflects a recognition of the architecture's lack of response as grounds for a judgment in favor of the retailer.