The Mother of All Ass Kicking

[Res Ipsa]

Donald Trump sued a long list of defendants for $24 million., alleging a broad conspiracy generally composed of the FBI, DOJ, and the Clinton campaign to damage his campaign with false allegations about his connections with Russia that totally never existed. The Defendants moved to dismiss. In response, Trump asked the Judge to allow him to amend his complaint, which Judges can allow to give the plaintiff a chance to cure any problems with the Complaint. Trump then filed an Amended Complaint.

Defendants again moved to dismiss. The judge just granted their motions. Here is a link to the order:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .267.0.pdf

I've been practicing law almost 40 years. I've never been involved with or even around a case with an order of dismissal this brutal. It's not the worst complaint I've ever seen (I had at least one case with a pro se sovereign citizen), but it would certainly be in the top 5. This is abuse of the court system for purer grandstanding and theatrics and, I'm sure, more conning money out of MAGAs.

In judgespeak, the judge is inviting defendants to file a motion for sanctions, which he will, and certainly should, grant.

The opinion is long (65 pages) but well worth reading. The judge was a Clinton appointee, but I'll repeat what I said about Judge Cannon: if you think federal judges feel any sort of obligation toward Presidents that nominate them, you've been watching too many movies or something. Yes, from time time you can find a corrupt judge. The difference between God and a federal judge is that God has to follow the judge's orders -- and that kind of power certainly can corrupt anyone. But Clinton was president long ago, and the judge has lifetime tenure. Trump's lawsuit is just as bad and frivolous as the judge describes.

For me, the money quote is this:

What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances.

(p. 5). That single sentence not only completely sums up the Amended Complaint in a single sentence, it sums up today's MAGA Republican Party. I'd guess that federal judges have had it with MAGA litigation nonsense, and it's sounding like more Americans feel the same.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]
In judgespeak, the judge is inviting defendants to file a motion for sanctions, which he will, and certainly should, grant.
[...]

In dummied down speak... what does this mean?

[Marcus]

I like how the judge gets into it immediately:

First, the pleading itself. A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Each claim must be stated in numbered paragraphs, and each numbered paragraph limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs. It
contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown
persons, and 10 “ABC Corporations” identified as fictitious and unknown entities.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is neither short nor plain, and it certainly does not establish that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.

That the complaint cited 10 "fictitious and unknown" people, as well as 10 "fictitious and unknown" entities is hilarous.

[Marcus]

Many of the Amended Complaint’s characterizations of events are implausible because
they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached....

Plaintiff has annotated the Amended Complaint with 293 footnotes containing references
to various public reports and findings. He is not required to annotate his Complaint; in fact, it is
inconsistent with Rule 8’s requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim. But if a party
chooses to include such references, it is expected that they be presented in good faith and with evidentiary support. Unfortunately, that is not the case here...

wow. your title is exactly correct.

[Marcus]

oh my heck.

...According to Plaintiff, ... the fact that they “knew that Florida is a state in the United States which was an important one” is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over Defendants under the “effects” test...

Knowledge that Florida is a state in the United States does not equate to knowledge that Defendants’ actions will have consequences in Florida. If that were the case, there would be nationwide personal jurisdiction over almost all claims arising in the United States. Such is clearly not contemplated by Florida’s long-arm statute, and I therefore reject Plaintiff’s argument...

Infrequently, I've had to be politely patient due to errors of logic with some of my students when they review their presentations with me , but NEVER to the extent that I've had to say something like the above. this is unreal.

[Res Ipsa]

[...]
In judgespeak, the judge is inviting defendants to file a motion for sanctions, which he will, and certainly should, grant.
[...]

In dummied down speak... what does this mean?

So, for civil cases in federal court, the applicable rules for litigation are found in the Federal Rules For Civil Procedure. Rule 11 applies to sanctions:

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

There are additional sections, but that's the meat of the rule. In essence, it sets the minimum standards for what constitutes a non-frivolous lawsuit.In the order, the judge expresses his doubt that Trump's amended complaint meets those minimum requirements listed in (b). Motions for sanctions under this rule are disfavored, at least in my judicial district, so the winner of a case doesn't routinely file a Rule 11 motion against the loser. I may have filed a couple while I was still litigating. I think I won one. But I did only after sending the opposing attorney copies of the cases that said one of the causes of action in his complaint was foreclosed by binding precedent, along with the necessary supporting evidence and requested him to voluntarily dismiss that cause of action. When he declined, I had to prepare a file a motion to dismiss, which was granted. I was then awarded the cost of preparing the motion to dismiss (time spent x hourly rate) plus the cost of preparing the sanctions motion. But only filed it because it was pretty open and shut and I had set it up properly by giving him the necessary case law and evidence and asking him to dismiss.

I've seen other opinions in which judges hinted in an order of dismissal that they would give serious consideration to a Rule 11 motion. I don't recall one that was quite this blatant.

[Res Ipsa]

I like how the judge gets into it immediately:

First, the pleading itself. A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Each claim must be stated in numbered paragraphs, and each numbered paragraph limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs. It
contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown
persons, and 10 “ABC Corporations” identified as fictitious and unknown entities.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is neither short nor plain, and it certainly does not establish that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.

That the complaint cited 10 "fictitious and unknown" people, as well as 10 "fictitious and unknown" entities is hilarous.

I know it looks funny, but that is actually pretty routine. When a plaintiff files suit, sometimes they know some person or entity was involved, but they don't know the specific entity when they file the complaint. So, the complaint will include John Does or ABC Corporations as defendants. That is particularly true in a case involving any type of conspiracy claim. If the identity of additional participants in the conspiracy are revealed during discovery, the plaintiff will file a motion to add the person or entity as a defendant.

[Res Ipsa]

oh my heck.

...According to Plaintiff, ... the fact that they “knew that Florida is a state in the United States which was an important one” is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over Defendants under the “effects” test...

Knowledge that Florida is a state in the United States does not equate to knowledge that Defendants’ actions will have consequences in Florida. If that were the case, there would be nationwide personal jurisdiction over almost all claims arising in the United States. Such is clearly not contemplated by Florida’s long-arm statute, and I therefore reject Plaintiff’s argument...

Infrequently, I've had to be politely patient due to errors of logic with some of my students when they review their presentations with me , but NEVER to the extent that I've had to say something like the above. this is unreal.

So, filing this lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida was blatant forum, and likely judge, shopping. Guess which Judge he was shopping for? If I were that judge, I'd be pissed.

[Marcus]

I like how the judge gets into it immediately:




That the complaint cited 10 "fictitious and unknown" people, as well as 10 "fictitious and unknown" entities is hilarous.

I know it looks funny, but that is actually pretty routine. When a plaintiff files suit, sometimes they know some person or entity was involved, but they don't know the specific entity when they file the complaint. So, the complaint will include John Does or ABC Corporations as defendants. That is particularly true in a case involving any type of conspiracy claim. If the identity of additional participants in the conspiracy are revealed during discovery, the plaintiff will file a motion to add the person or entity as a defendant.

oh,ok, thanks for the information.

the "knowledge of Florida" rejection is still my favorite.

[Res Ipsa]

I know it looks funny, but that is actually pretty routine. When a plaintiff files suit, sometimes they know some person or entity was involved, but they don't know the specific entity when they file the complaint. So, the complaint will include John Does or ABC Corporations as defendants. That is particularly true in a case involving any type of conspiracy claim. If the identity of additional participants in the conspiracy are revealed during discovery, the plaintiff will file a motion to add the person or entity as a defendant.

oh,ok, thanks for the information.

the "knowledge of Florida" rejection is still my favorite.

It's so hard for me to choose just one.