Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Soylent Pudding
Jun 22, 2007

We've got people!


MechaX posted:

I definitely did this to a law school friend that now primarily does Federal court diversity jurisdiction cases these days. She was in complete disbelief that this can even happen in civil practice these days.

But at least in my experience, law school was never too keen on exposing a "bad" example of a real life something for obvious reasons; but this though...

When I was in law school my civil procedure professor would give us assignments where he would find crazy and terrible filings and say "you're opposing counsel, respond to this. Have fun."

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Soylent Pudding
Jun 22, 2007

We've got people!


To me the interesting question is whether the fee shifting under TCPA constitutes a redressable harm compared to losing summary judgment later on. Feels like a tough argument to make.

Soylent Pudding
Jun 22, 2007

We've got people!


Once I requested a three week continuance on a compelled mediation because our client was an independent contractor and he'd have to last minute cancel an overseas job and pay a hefty cancellation fee. The judge denied it, our client cancelled and payed the fee. The the other party, that filed the compelled mediation motion in the first place, no showed the mediation. Judge was pissed but not pissed enough to make them reimburse our client for the economic damage.

Soylent Pudding
Jun 22, 2007

We've got people!


It's important to emphasize that his lawyers were hilariously incompetent and obviously more concerned with trying to become stars on the culture war circuit than effectively trying the case. If I recall correctly at one point they tried to argue it was defamatory to call Vic a "piece of poo poo" because Vic is not literally excrement.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply