The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Update on Brittan Heller/Heide Iravani v. A. Ciolli litigation?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 16th, 2007 6:46 PM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch Any new developments in the Brittan Heller & Heide Iravani v. Anthony Ciolli litigation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8393335) |
 |
Date: July 16th, 2007 7:14 PM Author: vibrant carnelian rigor Nothing since the 5th
http://news.justia.com/cases/doe-v-ciolli/400225/ |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:10 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch Has GTO been on XO recently? Has he said if he was served yet? I feel kind of bad for the guy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396112) |
|
Date: January 12th, 2008 3:44 PM Author: laughsome rehab death wish This Autoadmit Lawsuit thread should go in the Time Capsule. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#9152104) |
Date: July 16th, 2007 9:12 PM Author: Adventurous piazza (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8394167) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:11 AM Author: slimy bossy church building (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396114) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:20 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch Has anyone been served (that you know of)? I remember reading about 2 weeks ago that Ciolli still hadn't been served. This makes no sense because the summer is now half over and after Labor Day, work will pick up for the professors and lawyers involved. Even Heide will be back at law school. It doesn't make sense to drag their feet and it seems like getting GTO served would take less than $50. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396129) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:24 AM Author: exhilarant university If GTO is served and he then files and wins a 12(b)(6) motion, there is no longer a named defendant. Hmmmm.
I would think that each time a defendant is served, a process server would file an affidavit of service with the court and we would see an appropriate entry on justia. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:41 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino What makes you think a motion to dismiss WRT GTO would be granted?
You don't think the pleadings contained sufficient functional descriptions of unknown defendants?
In any case under FRCP 17(a), even if there isn't sufficient functional description of unknown defendants, "No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest."
Furthermore, such action would be dismissed without prejudice. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:47 AM Author: excitant really tough guy This is nice, but as a practical matter, GTO would be immune as a moderator and, in any event, he was following the express orders of Jarrett who owns the site. GTO simply wouldn't have been allowed to remove things if Jarrett didn't OK it. Jarrett has already said he didn't OK it because he wanted to solve everything at once by discussing with the girls.
As a practical matter, GTO is only being named to harass him. Revenge, I guess. Legally it's just plain stupid because there's no case against GTO. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:52 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino As for the moderator and following express orders of the owner claims - aren't those just arguments? Also, even if that could be a complete defense, what makes you think it doesn't have to be proven? It didn't occur to you that the court might want to see some evidence regarding what his authority/knowledge/involvement were? What makes you think there's no genuine issue of material fact warranting dismissal?
I think you guys are allowing your partiality to get in the way of your logic. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:56 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug I think you are avoiding responding to my post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396189) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:00 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch We're using common sense. Of course this will have to be proven. So they'll show them their agreement that says, more or less, "Jarrett owns XO and GTO is the Education Director" and they'll give statements about what their roles were, how GTO made stuff like lawfirmdiscussion.com and worked on law school numbers and wrote papers while Jarrett made all the final rulings on moderation policies and specific calls like the YLS girls issue.
After this is shown, the way the law works now, GTO isn't liable. Yes, they have to prove it. But after they say that, GTO's out. Will it take a while? Sure. Will it be "messy"? I guess. But is Brittan Heller getting any loot from GTO? Hell no. Same with Heide. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:55 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch ... and to this day Jarrett asserts that GTO didn't have permission to remove anything. Jarrett has really been a stalwart throughout--saying flat-out that he took the reins here and because he owns the site GTO would've been violating their agreement if he'd done anything. I think the plaintiffs *do* understand this but are just ignoring to assert some touchy-feely "GTO is mean" theory or just try to embarass GTO more. That's all I can think of. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396186) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:47 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug "What makes you think a motion to dismiss WRT GTO would be granted?"
I'm guessing the fact that they have no colorable claim against him has something to do with it. Since you enjoy telling people how little they know about black letter law, care to inform us which claim you think holds water WRT GTO based on your understanding of that law?
After hammering people for their failure to understand the technical ins and outs of defamation per se, I look forward to hearing you make things up about IIED by acts of omission, defamation by silence, and vicarious copyright liability. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:52 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch "After hammering people for their failure to understand the technical ins and outs of defamation per se, I look forward to hearing you make things up about IIED by acts of omission, defamation by silence, and vicarious copyright liability. "
LOL. 180! |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:55 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Trust me, he's working on doing exactly that right this moment. His post will be filled with lots of qualifying statements like "a judge might say" or "one could argue" but he'll have absolutely nothing in terms of precedent to support it. Then he'll ignore the fact that the complaint fails to mention any statements by GTO and fails to cite any actionable activities by GTO and claim that maybe there is more to the record than the complaint alleges, thus giving him a catch-all way to justify a legally impossible argument based on the very complaint a 12(b)(6) motion would be decided upon. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396185) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:57 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch Tell me if I'm wrong -- GTO was following Jarrett's "orders" and had an agreement that compelled him to do so (or stop working on XO). Thus, suing GTO instead of/without Jarrett in the suit is just a stunt because they don't care about the law as it stands today and don't care about non-lawyers that they can't give a hard time.
Right or wrong? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:00 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug I 100% agree that naming GTO was a stunt. I don't think "following orders" would give him defense had he actually done something, though. It may well have given the plaintiffs an added cause of action against Rach on respondeat superior, but they never bothered to file against Rach.
How does a following orders defense help? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:05 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch GTO didn't set policies, thus he was acting as an employee when he raised the issue of the threads to Jarrett and allowed Jarrett to tell him what to do.
Morally, still a bad result for GTO but legally, seems to make a big diff. You sue the person who set the policy that hurt you, not a person who was following the policy and brought the issue to the owner. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:07 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino How am I supposed to know that? Do you really think that merely claiming it puts it beyond question?
I'm not aware of a "but your honor I had to keep doing it or else I wouldn't be able to continue to work on this forum" defense, can you provide a cite? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:07 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Still waiting... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396217) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:13 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Still waiting for what?
You seem to think that merely claiming that he was following orders, without more, is sufficient to establish it as undisputed fact. Furthermore, you seem to think, even if true, it would be a complete defense.
What am I supposed to be answering here? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:15 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug 1) Learn to use the reply function. I never said that.
2) Since you enjoy telling people how little they know about black letter law, care to inform us which claim you think holds water WRT GTO based on your understanding of that law? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:18 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Gimme a link to the complaint again and I'll identify one or more for which there's a triable issue of material fact. (Which, of course, is all that it is needed for the judge properly to deny a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6)). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396243) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:22 AM Author: excitant really tough guy Leiter, just wondering, do you teach Civ Pro? Or do you just teach useless upper-level courses (Law & Philosophy; Jurisprudence) that practicing BIGLAW attorneys don't need/use? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396252) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:23 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino No link? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396256) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:28 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/aaComplaint.pdf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396264) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:26 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Subject: Here is your link to the Complaint, friend http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/aaComplaint.pdf
Good luck! |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:44 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino I don't need luck.
The complaint alleges that Ciolli had the ability and authority to remove posts in April 2007. You allege that he didn't. Genuine issue of material fact.
There's also the copyright claim.
You guys hoot and holler that this is a bogus claim. It isn't. There are statutory damages for copyright infringment - no actual economic damages need be shown and the owner of the copyright need not have expolited the copyright for value. There does not have to be a commercial use - but even so, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether they profited from it (again, that isn't even necessary). GTO is alleged to have had actual knowledge of the infringment. The plaintif has filed for copyright protection (which is only necessary to file suit for infringment - it is not necessary that the filing took place before the infringment.)
The pleadings state a case for GTO's liability for contributory infringment of copyright.
Is that enough? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:52 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug "The complaint alleges that Ciolli had the ability and authority to remove posts in April 2007. You allege that he didn't. Genuine issue of material fact."
Wrong. That's a fact, but it's not a material fact. The issue of whether GTO could have removed the posts is not material to the copyright claim unless you believe that failure to prevent someone else's copyright violation is a copyright violation itself. And of course, it's not like the copyright violation occurred on this site anyway. You can't post pictures here. So really, all GTO did was fail to delete someone's publicity of their copyright violation at another location (the T14 girls site). Therefore, even if failure to delete copyrighted pictures somehow made him vicariously liable for the actions of someone he's never met who doesn't work for him, it still would be a loser argument on these facts since GTO could't delete the pictures. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:56 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino It is material. The complaint alleges that he knew of the copyright infringment, had the ability and authority to remove it, and did not. The site generates (generated?) revenue from advertising. Prima facie case of contributory infringment established.
I took a copyrights course and I could cite case law supporting this, but I'm not going to. I think I've done quite enough to support my case and I don't see any quid pro quo coming from you.
Let me also note that we've come a long, long way from the OP. Now instead of arguing that there is no case against ANY defendant, you've narrowed that quite substantially. Why the retreat? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:09 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug "It is material."
Material facts are something more than facts that seem important. The truth or falsity of this one does not go towards any claim I've ever heard. And you don't cite any law.
"The complaint alleges that he knew of the copyright infringment, had the ability and authority to remove it, and did not. "
It does allege that. Problem is, the violation didn't take place here so GTO's ability to remove links is not relevant. And of course, even ignoring that factual problem and the fact that GTO didn't control the T14 site, they cite no law to defend how this failure to act is actionable. And even a 1L knows that there are scant few torts that manifest due to a person's failure to act.
"The site generates (generated?) revenue from advertising. Prima facie case of contributory infringment established."
How does advertisement by this site pertain to a copyright infringement that took place on another site? And how does the fact they have a continuing stream of advertisement revenue make the fact that GTO did nothing suddenly actionable? How does inaction constitute contributory action? Contributory violations require inducement or assistance. There has never been a case claiming failure to delete is equal to affirmative assistance. It simply does't exist.
"I took a copyrights course and I could cite case law supporting this, but I'm not going to. I think I've done quite enough to support my case and I don't see any quid pro quo coming from you."
No you can't. And you certainly haven't done "quite enough". You haven't done anything other than make bald assertions. And have I failed my quid pro quo duties if I don't cite case law proving a law doesn't exist to rebut your failure to produce anything that says it does? That's kind of a funny idea of quid pro quo.
"Let me also note that we've come a long, long way from the OP. Now instead of arguing that there is no case against ANY defendant, you've narrowed that quite substantially. Why the retreat?"
I never said said there was no case against any defendant. If you recall, I was actually defending you on the defamation per se stuff yesterday. Try keeping your flame wars straight. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:15 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch To view the links, you had to leave XO. And very few people/no one came to XO just to look at links of Heide. The money they made/didnt make had almost nothing to do with if there were links on the site. If anything, the hosts of the pictures (Hide Behind) made money, because they have banners.
XO didnt host or display the pictures. Only links to a site that also didnt host the pictures--just display them. The pictures seem to have been hosted by HideBehind.
By the way, the pictures are still up, according to another thread today. You can still view the pictures... Hide Behind hasn't taken them down. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 1:41 PM Author: vibrant carnelian rigor Oops
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659500&mc=1&forum_id=2
|
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 6:32 PM Author: Topaz den jap How does HideBehind "hide" itself? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398337) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:41 AM Author: Thriller jet temple I just want to make sure I have a fair accounting of how this debate with anonlurker has gone.
You suggest GTO won't win at summary judgment. You are called on to cite a claim in the complaint on which the alleged facts implicate GTO in any way. After refusing to answer the question for like 30 minutes, you demand a link so as to read the complaint. Given a link, you return, and cite a claim not mentioned in the complaint as the one that would defeat a 12(b)(6) motion on the complaint and then refuse to answer any questions about how that non-pleaded claim would even apply to GTO. Then you boast about having done enough.
Does that sound like a fair summary?
IRONIC! |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:43 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch 181 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396584) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:48 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug tyty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396623) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:53 AM Author: diverse base "The complaint alleges that Ciolli had the ability and authority to remove posts in April 2007. You allege that he didn't. Genuine issue of material fact."
WTF? Mere allegations do not genuine issues of material fact make. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:56 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch I've given up on arguing with Leiter. I didn't realize he was so blinded by hate--I'd seen other people say that, but now I've seen it myself. I'm throwing in the towel on trying to reason with that insufferable fat douchebag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396357) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:00 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Your surrender is noted and accepted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396375) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:03 AM Author: Kink-friendly Aggressive Giraffe Lose 50 lbs, Leiter. And stop living in a dream land. You are hard to argue against because you're stubborn and believe what you want. It has little/nothing to do with any correctness on your fatass part. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396390) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:06 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino LOL you guys have completely abandoned any hope of challenging me on the merits. I win. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396402) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:09 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch Read the bottom of the thread. No one gave up. We're pwning you but you yourself are useless to argue with. Being a fat ignorant fuck doesn't make you right -- it just makes you worthless to discuss things with. GOI, fatty. Go rank Philosophy programs according to the BMI of their fattest faculty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396420) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:57 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino WHOA! You seriously need a refresher course in Civ Pro my friend! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396364) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:01 AM Author: diverse base Disputed allegations are not necessarily genuine issues. If for some reason the color of the sky is a material fact and one party claims the sky is green while the other claims it's blue, that's not a genuine issue of material fact no matter how strongly the first party believes it's green.
But whatever. You're either Leiter or flame, so I'm just not going to bother. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:07 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino LOL look up "genuine issue of material fact" please. Thanks a bunch, HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396412) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:08 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren This is the one thing you're right about (for 12(b)(6) purposes) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397813) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:56 AM Author: bull headed motley love of her life community account Maybe you should read over the elements of a copyright infringement claim before you post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396358) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:58 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino I did. Would you care to post them and show where I went wrong? Or are you just going to flail your arms around.
Make sure you address contributory infringment, please. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 12:38 PM Author: Supple outnumbered masturbator senate what would contributory infringement have to do with GTO? he doesnt own the site and he sure as hell didnt post any of the stuff on a third party site. he has to check every link posted on here now? oh man, your theory blows dude (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396858) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 1:11 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Theoretically, if GTO had egged on Paulie Wallnuts to start the T14 site, or if GTO had provided him with an xoxo.com email address to receive submissions, or gotten him in contact with a picture hosting site in assistance with the formation of the T14 site, or if GTO had offered to go out and affirmatively help Paulie find more pics, or something of that nature, a potential contributory infringement claim would arise independent of GTO's ownership and moderator function on xoxo and independent of whether he actually committed the main infringing act. But the key point here is that none of this ever happened, and the complaint certainly doesn't allege it. Contributory infringement can only be satisfied by assistance or inducement of someone else who is committing a copyright infringement. Failure to delete links is not assistance. Failure to speak out against the infringers is not inducement. This is fairly obvious.
Now, mind you, the complaint doesn't even mention this cause of action so I have no idea how we got on the topic. But if it did, based on the facts asserted in the complaints (plus any facts not asserted which are generally known by posters around these parts), it would be a loser. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:13 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren Exactly.
Althought, the complaint does allege infringement, and I bet they'd allow a contributory theory based on that alone (but not without sufficient facts alleged). |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:09 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren "I did."
you have not mentioned allegations to satisfy the great majority of elements necessary for an infringement claim against GTO. If you missed on thing, it would be easy to point it out, but you really just aren't even close.
You are severely deficient in your arguments. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:07 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren "he complaint alleges that Ciolli had the ability and authority to remove posts in April 2007. You allege that he didn't. Genuine issue of material fact."
I'm sorry, how is that material?
"You guys hoot and holler that this is a bogus claim. It isn't...The pleadings state a case for GTO's liability for contributory infringment of copyright."
Please explain how in hell the complaint leads a contributory infringement claim against GTO. This ought to be interesting. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:11 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug More to the point, even if there were enough facts there for it to be a semi-colorable contention (which there aren't), it wasn't pleaded. So now you're relying on a judge to read in a cause of action against a defendant who is not implicated in any other part of the suit whatsoever. This doesn't seem like firm ground to me anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397822) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:16 AM Author: excitant really tough guy it seems like if GTO raised the issue to cohen in a timely manner and GTO had reason to believe that cohen would contact heide and brittan, then GTO just isn't liable. at all. cohen owns XO and cohen is still operating XO. the relief the p's seek and the decisions they're suing over (the decision to leave the stuff on XO) are decidedly in the realm of cohen's control. not GTO's (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396237) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:13 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch So they filed the lawsuit and filed against GTO in particular just to speculate and try to piece some theory together? Because their complaint mentions portions of the 3-5 threads about the two girls but never says anything about what GTO did that would be actionable under current law. My guess is the P's just want to embarass GTO while taking a shot at changing the law or getting a favorable (lucky) ruling that allows them to move forward (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396231) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 9:58 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Go ahead and allow your interests and partiality to impair your ability to assess the merits of Ps case if you want.
It is quite puzzling that some of you respond to legitimate arguments with ad hominems, and yet still fantasize that you can be decent lawyers.
Bury your heads in the sand if you want. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:00 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug So, you're really not going to answer an extremely simple and direct question and then turn around and scold us for being partial and burying our heads? Interesting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396200) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:02 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Which question is that?
Frankly I don't care if you live in denial. Let me go find this question of yours. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:03 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug "Since you enjoy telling people how little they know about black letter law, care to inform us which claim you think holds water WRT GTO based on your understanding of that law?"
Anxiously awaiting your reply. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:03 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch You're the king of ad hominems. Do you read your own posts?
You're also great at ignoring reality, which seems to be that the case hasn't progressed for shit and the girls' info is still out there for public consumption while their lawyers and "reputation defenders" are mucking it up. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:07 AM Author: Scarlet startling whorehouse genital piercing I agree with you. I'm not a lawyer, nor a student of the law, but there are several reasons to believe that Heide and Brittan's case has merit. First, given the simple definitions of defamation, some of the statements are clearly defamatory. Second, for similar reasons, IIED claims seem meritorious. Third, I don't think three very qualified lawyers would take a completely meritless case pro bono.
However, most of the claims are garbage. While the only sensible and humane response to big-titted Heide's plight is sympathy, for she's mostly a blameless victim, it's equally important to understand that Lemley and Rosen's shotgun approach of trying to expose and hurt innocent posters simply because they post on XOXO is deplorable. If they succeed in exposing most of the 28, they'll have committed an injustice larger than the harm XOXO has caused to the Does. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 2:05 PM Author: dull digit ratio wrinkle The only reason people say the IIED claims seem meritorious is because they look at all the posts in totality and say yep, that's extreme and outrageous, and yep, that could cause severe emotional distress. But when you look at each claim in isolation, the actions of a particular defendant seem not extreme and outrageous and not prone to causing severe emotional distress. I wish, for once, that someone would a) recognize this legally essential problem; and b) argue that nonetheless IIED is feasible. I'm not saying it's impossible--I have some ideas for b) in mind--but I do think it's difficult.
Also, I think people on this board are unreasonably open to IIED in general. IIED is a fringe tort. If you allow this case to continue past 12(b)(6), do you permit every schoolyard bullying case? What about against individuals who were not major contributors to the bullying, but made one or two cruel statements against the victim? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 2:14 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug I honestly don't know how that would be viewed by a court. Can they not treat the mass taunting as one group act? Is IIED limited to specific actions of individuals? What if 3 people execute a prank that would satisfy IIED easily if it had been done by 1 guy. Does the fact that no 1 guy did the whole thing and each only did a 1/3 share really get them off? I can't imagine that's the case. Here we obviously don't have such a highly coordinated effort, but I wonder if some sort of group liability wouldn't be available. I've never heard of this being done, but I can't say my knowledge of IIED litigation goes all that far beyond learning the elements for the bar and knowing that it's much harder to prove than most people think. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397384) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 2:24 PM Author: dull digit ratio wrinkle I doubt group liability applies. I think vicarious liability does not apply in this situation.
I think a better argument is that context matters for IIED. For the plaintiffs to win, the context would have to be take into account for each of the the extreme and outrageousness, intent (which for the plaintiffs' purposes, means recklessness), and causation of severe emotional distress elements of IIED. There are lots of thorny problems. Consider causation. Plaintiffs must prove that each D's action caused severe emotional distress. But surely plaintiffs would not claim that but for that D's action, they would not have suffered severe emotional distress. Generally, without but for causation, plaintiffs cannot win. However, we could look at this as a "combined fire" problem (two fires, each sufficient to burn down a house, combine to burn down the house--both are actionable). But this is different from that problem in that each action taken alone would not be sufficient to cause severe emotional distress.
I don't want to argue about the law ad nauseum, I don't have time. I'm just pointing out these claims are tricky |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 3:49 PM Author: mentally impaired quadroon The posts were spread out over a 3 yr period (for Brittan) and over a 6-8 month period (for Heide). Doubt group liability would apply. How do you hold someone who posted about the LSAT score claim in 2005 liable for whatever someone else said in 2007? Even if you could, she the law allow that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397753) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 3:50 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Fair point. There would have to be some sort of reasonable cap on the duration.
Again, I'm not saying this *will* happen, I'm just wondering if it could because I don't know much about the subject. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 3:58 PM Author: mentally impaired quadroon Holding anyone responsible for something said even a few days or a week or so after they posted is stretching it. I have big questions about this issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397778) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 3:36 PM Author: Scarlet startling whorehouse genital piercing I honestly wouldn't mind a world where schoolyard bullying is cracked down on hard. It causes a lot of needless psychological distress. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397700) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:01 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Don't tell me that you guys haven't considered the fact that the court can subpoena him to appear and disclose what he knows, if anything, about the parties identities, even if no claims could be maintained against him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396202) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:03 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Don't tell me you think that a 12(b)(6) motion would be denied because the wrongfully named defendant might be a relevant witness who could be subpoenaed. Because someone might need to take civ pro again. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396211) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:11 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino I think you need to reread my post. I said he could be subpoenaed even if no claims could be maintained against him.
You do realize that non-parties can be subpoenaed, right? Maybe I'm not the one who needs to retake civ pro. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:13 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug You just edited your fucking post. LOL. That's pretty fucking desperate. And you still haven't responded to my question.
'Since you enjoy telling people how little they know about black letter law, care to inform us which claim you think holds water WRT GTO based on your understanding of that law?" |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:26 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Waiting for the link. I'll take a close look at it and identify a genuine issue of material fact WRT GWO - since that is all that's needed for a 12(b)(6) motion to fail. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396262) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:27 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/aaComplaint.pdf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396263) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:29 AM Author: excitant really tough guy Wow, I saw the edit too. Before, your post indicated that GTO could be a Defendant even without claims against him, just because they could subpoena him.
BTW, not that you care Leiter, but the identities that GTO knows are those of people that were making innocent comments. GTO knows who AHWIAB is (they hung out in DC on at least one ocassion when MindTheGap and others were there), but GTO doesn't know who StanfordTroll or D: or the others are. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how persecuting AHWIAB helps the YLS girls. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:52 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino I think I only edited to correct a typo. In any case, is there some board rule that says one may not edit their posts?
If my pre-edit post said that he could be a defendant without claims against him that was clearly a typo. I was explaining that he could be SUBPOENAED without claims against him, which is undeniably true. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:57 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Well, you edited the entire first sentence to say something entirely different than it said before once you realized you had been pwn3d, and then had the nerve to respond to my post claiming I had misread it when you knew damn well that you had fucked up and I had correctly called you on it (typo or not). There aren't any rules around here so you didnt break a rule, but it sure exposed you as a desperate douchebag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396362) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:00 AM Author: Kink-friendly Aggressive Giraffe TITCR.
Also, logic doesn't support what he's now trying to say--that he wanted to tell us you can subpoena a non-party. No one was arguing about that.
This guy, whether Leiter or not, is a huge douchebag. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:58 AM Author: Kink-friendly Aggressive Giraffe You wouldn't bother typing out a long-winded post to say "you can subpoena non-parties". Everyone knows that. You were trying to say you can sue someone (name them as a D) without knowing exactly why... just so you could "figure it out as you go". That is clearly bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396365) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:05 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Are you guys trying to harp on one post, and the consequences of my editing it, because you have given up arguing the merits?
Just to get you back on track, I'll concede that I did whatever it is you're claiming that I did.
Now let's get back to the merits, shall we? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:18 AM Author: Kink-friendly Aggressive Giraffe No one ever said you're stupid. Just biased + dishonest... Makes it very hard to argue against you. Kind of like talking to far-right or far-left people, i.e. useless. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396467) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:14 AM Author: Thriller jet temple uh, nice edit, dude. Ironic! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396235) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:30 AM Author: Dead provocative library gaming laptop Editing posts really doesn't impress anyone, dood. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396274) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:07 AM Author: trip codepig They probably sent him a waiver of service form. If he rejects waiver then GTO would have to pay for all reasonable costs associated with serving him. It also gives him a longer response time for his answer - 60 days instead of 20. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396216) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:09 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch Thank you. That makes sense. So we're looking at another month before GTO would respond? (mid-June + 60 days) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396222) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:03 AM Author: trip codepig They have 120 days to serve in fed court so it could be longer. When they do get around to serving him or mailing him waiver then it could be either 20 days if served or 60 if mailed a waiver. It can be a slow process. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396388) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:04 AM Author: Kink-friendly Aggressive Giraffe So the dates they set regarding discovery and trial date, etc, mean nothing? Theres something about an anticipated litigation schedule that's posted on the Justicia thing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396394) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:10 AM Author: trip codepig I haven't seen it and am not all that familiar with the order of these things. It would depend on the dates of the proposed discovery and trial. I have a feeling those are just set to give them a date almost like they are in line and their place is being held. I imagine if discovery and other things are set they would be set for at least after 120 days seeing as how service could still happen up until then and even after that with permission. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396423) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:36 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug It appears that our intrepid plaintiffs troll has taken the unfortunate timing of me having to take a shit as an opportunity to leave the thread claiming I didn't give him the link he demanded. Of course, I had posted it before his final request for a link, but that probably won't stop him from coming back later and claiming it never happened. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396285) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:48 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino I thought your request deserved a whole 15 minutes of my time. Sorry I wasn't faster massah.
See below. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:47 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Reposted from above....
***************
I don't need luck.
The complaint alleges that Ciolli had the ability and authority to remove posts in April 2007. You allege that he didn't. Genuine issue of material fact.
There's also the copyright claim.
You guys hoot and holler that this is a bogus claim. It isn't. There are statutory damages for copyright infringment - no actual economic damages need be shown and the owner of the copyright need not have expolited the copyright for value. There does not have to be a commercial use - but even so, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether they profited from it (again, that isn't even necessary). GTO is alleged to have had actual knowledge of the infringment. The plaintif has filed for copyright protection (which is only necessary to file suit for infringment - it is not necessary that the filing took place before the infringment.)
The pleadings state a case for GTO's liability for contributory infringment of copyright.
Is that enough? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 10:58 AM Author: Heady pit juggernaut How is the copyright claim valid against GTO though. None of the pics were posted on this site? Are you saying that the law holds you liable if you have a site that links to a site with copyrighted pictures on them? I don't think it extends that far. Perhaps if xoxo hosted the pictures they could make an argument that GTO had power and failed to remove the pictures, but as is the copyright claim against GTO seems worthless. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396368) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:02 AM Author: Kink-friendly Aggressive Giraffe This is my understanding also. If the pictures were hosted on XO and GTO could remove the pictures themselves, that = copyright infringement.
If the site just has links which may or may not go to copyrighted material, then its different.
If the latter case = copyright infringement, the whole internet is fucked up. Because site operators would have to police their comments and all their boards, which is not required.
This guy just interprets the law to be whatever he wants/wishes. It's annoying and its very hard to argue against someone who does that. Basically impossible. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:05 AM Author: Heady pit juggernaut Yeah, that is my reading. He finds one issue of material facts as to GTO and one colarable claim of the Does. Problem is, the fact of whether GTO had power is irrelevant to the stated claim. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396398) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:26 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch The rule that the P's would argue for, re: contributory infringement, would mean that sites would have to actually *check* links to make sure they're not going to potentially-infringing places. I doubt Congress or the courts want to be sitting in a place that requires site admins to check all links and remove them. It would stifle things and create a ton of liability. On the other hand, even if they did require this, I don't think the links were even to actual pictures but to the t14 *site* (the main page). There may have been infringing things on the site, but I still don't think GTO would have to remove a link or remove discussions unless they linked directly to a picture.
Does this make sense? It makes no sense that GTO would have to remove links to a *site* that may or may not have things that might infringe copyright. We link to goddesspost and other sites on here all the time... theres infringing material on all of them... is Jarrett liable? the thought is laughable. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 2:04 PM Author: vibrant carnelian rigor I'm glad this issue is finally being aired.
It's bugged me for the last month. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 7:14 PM Author: Rough-skinned duck-like people who are hurt This is an excellent point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398497) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:04 AM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess I can almost guarantee that the copyright was not registered within three months of the creation of the work, so that knocks your damages down considerably.
Further, I do not believe the pleadings state a case for GTO's contributory infringement. In fact, as far as I can tell, this isn't even alleged. The Complaint never states that GTO had control over the contest or that he was a participant in the alternate website. If you are basing this on the fact that the infringement "claims" simply refer to "Defendants" as having infringed, then I would suggest you are in for a disappointment. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:08 AM Author: Kink-friendly Aggressive Giraffe They have a hundred claims in the complaint and most of them are very hazy as to who did what. For example, :D didn't raise the issue of Brittan's LSAT and PW didn't talk about Brittan's "herpes" claim and MoreDoughHi doesn't seem to have been involved with the t14 thing. And it's unclear what GTO did other than take Brittan/Heide's complaints to Jarrett and ask how he wanted them handled. The complaint, like the case itself, is just a huge clusterfuck they're using to get outings. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396413) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:13 AM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess This is correct. But specifically to the copyright claim, I do not believe they have alleged any fact linking GTO to the infringement, so d00d's argument blows. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396444) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:22 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch They lumped together 28 defendants and then listed off a litany of comments and alleged harms in a way that makes it look like all defendants played a part on some/all harms. That has to be a gimmick/tactic. Further, they didn't even name people who did things much worse than people they did name.
I have a theory about why AHWIAB was named: they know he didnt say that much and was just playing along or being sarcastic, but they also know that GTO knows who AHWIAB is IRL, so it was a way to get a ton of pressure on GTO and make him sweat. If I am right, then the plaintiffs are scumbags since they realize that AHWIAB was basically harmless. Saying "I want to have sex with Heide" =/= harassing her, even if he was describing some "gross" things. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:11 AM Author: wonderful cowardly casino First of all, not for statutory damages. After all that would probably be the best thing for the parties to pursue. Second of all, they can seek an injunction against further infringment.
Next up - there is no requirement that contributory infringment be pleaded with particularity.
HTH |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:17 AM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess Umm,
(1) Yes, a number of the statutory damages are now unavailable; and
(2) be that as it may, you actually have to state a claim, which they have not done.
You are either dumb as a fucking rock or a law school student. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:26 AM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug "Next up - there is no requirement that contributory infringment be pleaded with particularity."
This is gobbly gook. Aside from the fact that the complaint never mentions the idea of contributory infringement (sort of a small problem, don't you think?), the complainants also fail to allege any facts that go towards proving GTO did something that could be categorized as assistance. As I have said a few times now, inaction won't hack it. Regardless of particularity requirements, if GTO seeks 12(b)(6), he'll win. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:29 AM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch Why dont they just sue the actual site that is (still) hosting the pictures?
http://why-hasnt-heide-sued-hidebehind.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659500&mc=1&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 11:59 AM Author: Kink-friendly Aggressive Giraffe They just want to get revenge and lash out -- Suing the actual site with the pictures wouldn't accomplish that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396680) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 12:43 PM Author: wonderful cowardly casino Guys -
I'm not done with this yet. I'll take on any and all issues you want to bring up but I do have things to do now. I'll stop by later to hand out some more humiliating PWNINGS. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 12:44 PM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess Thats working out for you so far. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396887) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 12:47 PM Author: Supple outnumbered masturbator senate so far, it's not going well for you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396904) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 12:50 PM Author: haunting orchestra pit LOL, you've been demolished on this thread. You've left about 20 individual posts unanswered that completely destroys the legal 'arguments' you're bringing up. Sad, really. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8396912) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 1:11 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Uh, yeah, good luck with that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397015) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 1:17 PM Author: Hateful maize cuckold I bet they wanted to sue ciolli and not cohen because cohen isn't in the legal field, while ciolli will likely still want to take a bar somewhere, and now, he's gonna have to answer "yes" when they ask if he's ever been sued, and then he'll have to divulge all the gory details about his involvement with the board and the things said on it. They know they won't win, they just are trying to further torpedo his C&F. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397068) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 1:36 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug Still doesn't explain why they didn't sue them BOTH. That's what I can't figure out. They seem to have approached this from a perspective of either/or in terms of going for revenge vs. going for effective remedy of the situation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397161) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 2:32 PM Author: vibrant carnelian rigor titcr
plaintiffs' legal strategy is as screwy as Fertik's speech patterns :p |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 3:06 PM Author: bronze talented theater goyim They didn't sue Cohen because he doesn't exist. There is only Ciolli. I thought everyone knew this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397598) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 3:14 PM Author: vibrant carnelian rigor *has "Fight Club" flashback* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397624) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 3:18 PM Author: bronze talented theater goyim Don't lie, you know it makes sense.
Rach only exists now to give Ciolli an execuse. When was the last time you saw Rach get involved with a thread, talk to people, show any personality. Ciolli tried to maintain two distinct characters but gave up on the fictious Jarrett Cohen recently. Now, "Jarrett" just serves as the most convenient excuse ever. If he was real, he would have been sued. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 3:31 PM Author: vibrant carnelian rigor How did I lie?
:'( |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:34 PM Author: Marvelous locus new version Did Cohen ever attend law school? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397900) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:23 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren Since ISukAtMPRE is totally inept, I'll make his contributory infringement argument for him.
The complaint does not distinguish between defendants when making allegations, saying "defendants" did this and "defendants" did that, even though in some instances the complaint attributes specific acts to specific defendants.
Plaintiffs state no copyright infringement claim against GTO based on any allegations specifically attributable to GTO.
However, plaintiffs' broad "defendants did this" allegations are argued to apply to all defendants, then they may state a claim against GTO for copyright infringement.
However, this presents a bit of a Catch-22 for plaintiffs: if they say their "defendants" allegations apply to *all* defendants, they may be liable for Rule 11 sanctions for not undertaking a reasonable investigation into the truth of or support for their allegations, since I think it's pretty obvious that not all defendants did all actions attributed to "defendants."
|
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:31 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug I really, really doubt that would work. I mean, fair play for trying to make a case when there are no facts, and I know you're doing it as an academic exercise rather than making a heartfelt case, but what judge is going to deny 12(b)(6) on the theory that the plaintiffs have failed to distinguish who they are alleging did what and thus can't isolate what this one defendant is being sued for? That sounds a lot more like a reason a judge would to grant summary judgment than to deny it. At some stage, plaintiffs have to specify their claims and they need some sort of factual support to tie up any individual defendant to the case. And what judge wouldn't grant it here? The P's have had their time since filing to gather info. It's put up or shut up time, not stall time.
And as you say, this may be an extremely Pyrrhic victory in the long run if they are able to pull this off. What person in their right mind wouldn't seek rule 11 damages if they were dragged into court to defend a suit that didn't allege anything actionable against them and had their name dragged through the press in the process? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:35 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren "but what judge is going to deny 12(b)(6) on the theory that the plaintiffs have failed to distinguish who they are alleging did what and thus can't isolate what this one defendant is being sued for?"
Well, all you need to show for 12(b)(6) (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim) purposes is that you've alleged facts that constitute a valid claim. If you interpret their "defendants" language as including GTO everywhere it's used, they have alleged a claim against GTO.
Of course, there is no evidence to support this interpretation, and all evidence shows this to be unlikely, so they (a) would lose a summary judgment (i.e. Rule 56) motion, and (b) may have violated Rule 11 in making such allegations.
|
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:39 PM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess You have to state facts sufficient to support a claim d00der. They have not done this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397922) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:47 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren They have alleged ownership of copyrights in photographs and that "defendants" copied these photographs without authorization.
BAM! Validly stated claim for copyright infringement against "defendants."
Did you even read the preceding posts? |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:52 PM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess I have won a 12(b) motion on this very ground man, that is not sufficient. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397959) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:01 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren Which ground? The "allegations against a group without specificity as to its members" grounds? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397998) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:09 PM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess see below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398038) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:14 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren So, you won a motion for more definite statement, then a motion to dismiss?
That certainly sounds legit, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a straight up 12(b)(6) motion go either way *if* the Ps argue that "defendants" means everyone. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:16 PM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess I think your tolerance for horseshit may be a lot higher then the average federal judge if you are putting a 50/50 stake on it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398058) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:21 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren I'm not saying *I* would tolerate it. As mentioned below, I would grant a motion for Rule 11 sanctions as the complaint is stated.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised for a judge to say that they stated a claim against all defendants (regardless of whether they met their ethical obligations in doing so). |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:25 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug The fact that nobody can even figure out who the defendants are or exactly how many of them there are may support a higher level of bullshit tolerance for lack of specificity than a judge would normally allow, as well. But when it comes down to it, the P's are going to have to specify their complaint at some point, and at that juncture, GTO will have all claims against him dismissed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398092) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:51 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren This is likely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398176) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2007 9:43 AM Author: Mind-boggling doobsian trailer park When was the last time GTO posted on here? Did he say anything about this? I'm wondering if he'll simply ask the court for 12b6? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8410963) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:45 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug I'm a little confused (and it may just be because I suck at CivPro). But why would they get away with lumping GTO in with "the defendants" despite no evidence against him at a 12(b)(6) hearing and then fail to achieve the same result in a rule 56 motion? In both settings you need material facts to substantiate the claims, no? Is the burden different? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397935) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:48 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren You don't need evidence for 12(b)(6). You just need allegations that, if true, would state a claim.
For summary judgment, you need a genuinely disputed issue of material fact. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:06 PM Author: know-it-all confused state jewess At the very least GTO wins a motion for a more definite statement, and then wins the motion to dismiss. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398020) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:08 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren Yup. That sounds right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398031) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:48 PM Author: Dark Irradiated Market Personal Credit Line The ISuckatMPRE guy is totally inept. Nice try at resurrecting the discussion anyway.
The big problem I see is that the complaint doesn't draw distinctions between who's responsible for what. The facts aren't clear and the whole Rule 11 sanctions thing isn't absurd. If you said a few things or posted a few things or even emailed pictures to the t14 site, you shouldn't necessarily be linked to the LSAT claims or the comments about wanting to have sex with Heide. Having your name drug through the mud simply to the plaintiffs could take a shot at getting revenge should be actionable to the extent it hurts you and you haven't done much of anything.
It's ironic that the girls want to get their verdict, so to speak, by doing the same thing to a ton of people on the basis that a few of them may have done things that upset them. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:52 PM Author: Abnormal theater stage brethren Since I'm a stickler, I would probably grant Rule 11 sanctions based on the wording of the complaint unless they can show that they took a reasonable investigation into the actions of all "defendants" for allegations attributed to "defendants."
Most judges probably wouldn't on that alone.
However, if they actually *argue* that the language should be interpreted that way (i.e. when we say "defendants" did something, we mean every defendant did that thing) in order to survive a motion to dismiss, I think you're definitely getting into Rule 11 territory with a lot of judges (unless you can show you investigated all those allegations w/r/t each defendant). |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:57 PM Author: Dark Irradiated Market Personal Credit Line It's so obvious that they were painting with an extremely broad brush on purpose. They wanted to smear everyone together and especially to make it seem like GTO (one of the "Defendants" afterall) did something particularly worthy of being named. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397979) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:01 PM Author: big geriatric keepsake machete antidepressant drug You think ISuckatMPRE was inept before? Wait until he returns and sees that someone with more than half a brain has offered him some sort of argument to run with. He'll be claiming that he was arguing the technicality of 12(b)(6) vs. Rule 56 all along. Nevermind that he devoted half a dozen posts to claiming that any allegation is a material fact. Nevermind that he flagrantly misunderstood the elements of a contributory infringement claim. All he needs is something to run with an he'll be off. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397999) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 5:10 PM Author: haunting orchestra pit Duh, anyone with half a brain would IMMEDIATELY understand what he was getting at, anonlurker. Your failure to grasp the intricacies of this debate only puts your idiocy on display. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398043) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 6:22 PM Author: zombie-like lemon space crotch 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8398296) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2007 4:49 PM Author: Dark Irradiated Market Personal Credit Line I hit post twice. Oops. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8397950) |
|
Date: July 30th, 2007 4:32 PM Author: Fragrant Pungent Crackhouse Degenerate 4given :) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8451854) |
|
Date: October 2nd, 2007 9:25 PM Author: Lilac bearded partner property (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=659228&forum_id=2#8719875) |
|
Date: January 27th, 2008 3:52 PM Author: Autistic razzle-dazzle principal's office nibblets This looks like an update.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/21/
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/21/1.html
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/21/2.html
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/21/3.html
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/21/4.html
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/21/5.html
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/21/6.html |