Leonardo's Motion to Dismiss

Quote from Eric Walker

If I were an anthropologist observing the tribe of lawyers and the legal system, I would guess that law is the practice of boiling hand-wavy gobbledygook down into precise gobbledygook.

"Precise gobbledygook" is a synonym for technical language, the language of art and science. It only appears indecipherable to those who are impatient, who expect understanding to be automatic, who basically want to be spoon-fed. As an immediate reaction, it's totally understandable. After all, what the hell does "sua sponte" mean? However, it takes a moment to look it up. and then one knows.

The lawyers are not writing for the public, generally, in a lawsuit. They are writing for the judge and other lawyers, who know this specialized language. The language itself is not difficult, if one is willing to spend a little time with the words. When I don't know what a word means in these filings, I look it up! I read articles about it. Then, sometimes, I will explain what I find, which, of course, makes my posts longer. I cite sources, making my posts longer. In addition, I write my impressions -- that's my "opinion." I find cross-links and associations and may note them. My posts here are largely my research notes, they are how I learn. Gradually, as I become familiar with issues or a situation or a field, they will become more focused.

Civil litigation in the U.S. is an adversarial system, generally. Lawyers for each side will present alleged fact and argument in favor of their side. Some will, on occasion, grant and accept fact and argument alleged by another side, reducing and narrowing controversy. Others will fight to the bitter end on everything. They have the right to do that, but it can also damage how they are seen by the judge. In theory, the judge's personal opinion about their "character" should not matter, but this is human society and it does matter.

Lawyers will argue differently when presenting a case to a jury. They will avoid "legalese" unless it is fully established for the jury, which is a "jury of peers," not legal experts.

At this point, the plaintiffs and defendants are sorting through the pleadings, generally looking to simplify the case by striking offensive parts of the other side's pleadings. This process is coming to an end, but one part of it may remain rather open: there can be motions for Summary Judgement or Judgment on the Pleadings, and Rossi is, at this point, rather vulnerable to this, on a few different grounds.

Discovery is proceeding, and now it is official: some discovery will be confidential, not to be published without court permission.

Quote from Shane D.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Welcome back Abd. As to your quote, all I can say is that the Judge, in Document 62, seems to be telling the parties that this is getting very complex due their fractured filings as counter-claimants, and counter third party claimants. And that it is up to each to join together, and present their combined motion in a "streamlined fashion".

Sounds to me like she thinks it is all gobbledygook too...in legal speak that is, and wants some clarification.

She wants simplicity. Her Order does allow them to present distinct responses, but she wants to eliminate the overlap. It's pretty simple. The term, by the way, would be third party defendants. They are not claimants unless they file claims. (I.e, Fabiani could claim he hasn't been paid for work done.)

If they have serious problems cooperating, they could ask the judge for permission to file separately. Most likely, though, they will be able to cooperate, and then, as suggested, to create separate sections for individual motions as needed. This will simplify the docket and the process of judicial response.

I don't think this has anything to do with "gobbledy gook." I highly recommend to anyone distressed by the gobbledy gook to simply realize that it is written in a language they are not familiar with, so instant understanding is not to be expected. It takes some study! That approach will pay off in many areas!

Smart cookie, she is. The way I think, that makes my job of predicting her decisions -- a game I'm playing -- easier. By the way, I certainly do not expect to predict perfectly, and a reason can be that there will be a range of possible "smart" decisions, besides the not-inconsiderable possibility of my own errors.