The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads

[Thorn 3,032]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Describing a popinjay, were you?

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Describing a popinjay, were you?

Opposing counsel filed a post-trial brief referring to my expert as someone who "deemed himself knowledgeable in cartography." This guy was admitted as an expert in cartography, satellite imaging, and forensic geography, and his work is the basis of all commercial satellite imaging technology in the U.S. today. As a for instance, the guys who made Google Earth used to work for him at NASA.

I explained that he isn't some "random gadabout who claims to be good with maps."

[Thorn 3,032]

One time opposing counsel called the dispute in our case "quite the kerfluffle."

"Did you say kerfluffle or kerfuffle?" I asked him.

"Kerfluffle. Is that wrong? Is it really kerfuffle?"

"Pretty sure it's kerfuffle."

We settled the next week.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Thorn

[TheAristocrat 1,975]

Attorneys that deal with electronic discovery: Remember to have someone ensure that redacted records are OCR'ed prior to production. If they use the extracted text from the original record, the redactions can be searched and viewed in the text file despite not being seen on the produced images.

[mr roboto 8,531]

I met a guy who is a CPA but his full time job is as an expert witness in IP/patent cases. He's 38 years old and makes like 300k a year in San Francisco testifying on estimated damages. Crazy world.

[Ditkaless Wonders 16,250]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

I may have gone with "Libertine", "Licentious", or "Profligate". Still, "gadabout" is a solid choice. Before the movie "Rounders" I may have used that as well, but it seems to have shifted its meaning, at least in my mind.

[Ditkaless Wonders 16,250]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Describing a popinjay, were you?

Opposing counsel filed a post-trial brief referring to my expert as someone who "deemed himself knowledgeable in cartography." This guy was admitted as an expert in cartography, satellite imaging, and forensic geography, and his work is the basis of all commercial satellite imaging technology in the U.S. today. As a for instance, the guys who made Google Earth used to work for him at NASA.

I explained that he isn't some "random gadabout who claims to be good with maps."

Ahhh. Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of "gadabout". I'll have to check.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Describing a popinjay, were you?

Opposing counsel filed a post-trial brief referring to my expert as someone who "deemed himself knowledgeable in cartography." This guy was admitted as an expert in cartography, satellite imaging, and forensic geography, and his work is the basis of all commercial satellite imaging technology in the U.S. today. As a for instance, the guys who made Google Earth used to work for him at NASA.

I explained that he isn't some "random gadabout who claims to be good with maps."

Ahhh. Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of "gadabout". I'll have to check.

Sort of an aimless social butterfly.

[Zow 8,504]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Awesome.

A former coworker and I have a game where we try to one-up one another using weird or obscure words or references in a pleading. A week ago I used "Toucan Sam" to describe an officer with the uncanny ability to smell marijuana even when marijuana is not present. Very proud of myself, I threw him a verbal jab to let him know he had some work to do. He responded by sending me a motion to suppress that he had just filed that included references to Agamemnon and Cthulhu. Dude's just on a whole other level.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Awesome.

A former coworker and I have a game where we try to one-up one another using weird or obscure words or references in a pleading. A week ago I used "Toucan Sam" to describe an officer with the uncanny ability to smell marijuana even when marijuana is not present. Very proud of myself, I threw him a verbal jab to let him know he had some work to do. He responded by sending me a motion to suppress that he had just filed that included references to Agamemnon and Cthulhu. Dude's just on a whole other level.

?

[Thorn 3,032]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Awesome.

A former coworker and I have a game where we try to one-up one another using weird or obscure words or references in a pleading. A week ago I used "Toucan Sam" to describe an officer with the uncanny ability to smell marijuana even when marijuana is not present. Very proud of myself, I threw him a verbal jab to let him know he had some work to do. He responded by sending me a motion to suppress that he had just filed that included references to Agamemnon and Cthulhu. Dude's just on a whole other level.

?

I feel like woz purposely misuses a word or creates a nonsensical phrase at least once per day, like a perverse Easter egg hunt for dorks.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Awesome.

A former coworker and I have a game where we try to one-up one another using weird or obscure words or references in a pleading. A week ago I used "Toucan Sam" to describe an officer with the uncanny ability to smell marijuana even when marijuana is not present. Very proud of myself, I threw him a verbal jab to let him know he had some work to do. He responded by sending me a motion to suppress that he had just filed that included references to Agamemnon and Cthulhu. Dude's just on a whole other level.

?

I feel like woz purposely misuses a word or creates a nonsensical phrase at least once per day, like a perverse Easter egg hunt for dorks.

Maybe he was just trying to avoid typing "oral jab"

[-fish- 13,791]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

[-fish- 13,791]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

Gotcha. I guess I don't consider a second day to be a second mediation. That's dumb of me.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Henry Ford

[-fish- 13,791]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

Gotcha. I guess I don't consider a second day to be a second mediation. That's dumb of me.

not back to back days. you do one, the carriers all need to go back for more authority and report, and they come back a couple weeks or a month later with more authority.

[Thorn 3,032]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

Gotcha. I guess I don't consider a second day to be a second mediation. That's dumb of me.

not back to back days. you do one, the carriers all need to go back for more authority and report, and they come back a couple weeks or a month later with more authority.

That sounds like a lot of posturing. Can we just pretend we did the "first" mediation and show up at the "second" one with realistic numbers and authority to settle?

[Henry Ford 60,520]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

Gotcha. I guess I don't consider a second day to be a second mediation. That's dumb of me.

not back to back days. you do one, the carriers all need to go back for more authority and report, and they come back a couple weeks or a month later with more authority.

That sounds like a lot of posturing. Can we just pretend we did the "first" mediation and show up at the "second" one with realistic numbers and authority to settle?

Yeah, this.

[-fish- 13,791]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

Gotcha. I guess I don't consider a second day to be a second mediation. That's dumb of me.

not back to back days. you do one, the carriers all need to go back for more authority and report, and they come back a couple weeks or a month later with more authority.

That sounds like a lot of posturing. Can we just pretend we did the "first" mediation and show up at the "second" one with realistic numbers and authority to settle?

I've always been a Plaintiff's guy. I don't know what the hell goes on in their minds.

They've had my settlement demand for 6 weeks. It took 5 hours for them to put an offer on the table. Now we're only 90% apart.

[Thorn 3,032]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

Gotcha. I guess I don't consider a second day to be a second mediation. That's dumb of me.

not back to back days. you do one, the carriers all need to go back for more authority and report, and they come back a couple weeks or a month later with more authority.

That sounds like a lot of posturing. Can we just pretend we did the "first" mediation and show up at the "second" one with realistic numbers and authority to settle?

I've always been a Plaintiff's guy. I don't know what the hell goes on in their minds.

They've had my settlement demand for 6 weeks. It took 5 hours for them to put an offer on the table. Now we're only 90% apart.

Is mediation required there? In my state, it's mandatory for everyone to show up with authority and to bargain in good faith. If an insurance person said, let's come back another day after I obtain more authority, the mediator would file her (required) report to the court with the box checked that Defendant did NOT attend with authority.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

Gotcha. I guess I don't consider a second day to be a second mediation. That's dumb of me.

not back to back days. you do one, the carriers all need to go back for more authority and report, and they come back a couple weeks or a month later with more authority.

That sounds like a lot of posturing. Can we just pretend we did the "first" mediation and show up at the "second" one with realistic numbers and authority to settle?

I've always been a Plaintiff's guy. I don't know what the hell goes on in their minds.

They've had my settlement demand for 6 weeks. It took 5 hours for them to put an offer on the table. Now we're only 90% apart.

Is mediation required there? In my state, it's mandatory for everyone to show up with authority and to bargain in good faith. If an insurance person said, let's come back another day after I obtain more authority, the mediator would file her (required) report to the court with the box checked that Defendant did NOT attend with authority.

I think this is voluntary mediation.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

yay. a mediation with coverage counsel who isn't prepared, doesn't know the trial date, and thought that there's a second mediation scheduled.

Why would you schedule a second mediation before the first one happens?

in some complex cases, you know that you are going to need more than one day and the good mediators book months out, so you get two dates up front.

Gotcha. I guess I don't consider a second day to be a second mediation. That's dumb of me.

not back to back days. you do one, the carriers all need to go back for more authority and report, and they come back a couple weeks or a month later with more authority.

That sounds like a lot of posturing. Can we just pretend we did the "first" mediation and show up at the "second" one with realistic numbers and authority to settle?

I've always been a Plaintiff's guy. I don't know what the hell goes on in their minds.

They've had my settlement demand for 6 weeks. It took 5 hours for them to put an offer on the table. Now we're only 90% apart.

This is why I usually end up leaving around noon with my client.

[Zow 8,504]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Awesome.

A former coworker and I have a game where we try to one-up one another using weird or obscure words or references in a pleading. A week ago I used "Toucan Sam" to describe an officer with the uncanny ability to smell marijuana even when marijuana is not present. Very proud of myself, I threw him a verbal jab to let him know he had some work to do. He responded by sending me a motion to suppress that he had just filed that included references to Agamemnon and Cthulhu. Dude's just on a whole other level.

?

I feel like woz purposely misuses a word or creates a nonsensical phrase at least once per day, like a perverse Easter egg hunt for dorks.

Maybe he was just trying to avoid typing "oral jab"

[Zow 8,504]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.

Awesome.

A former coworker and I have a game where we try to one-up one another using weird or obscure words or references in a pleading. A week ago I used "Toucan Sam" to describe an officer with the uncanny ability to smell marijuana even when marijuana is not present. Very proud of myself, I threw him a verbal jab to let him know he had some work to do. He responded by sending me a motion to suppress that he had just filed that included references to Agamemnon and Cthulhu. Dude's just on a whole other level.

?

I feel like woz purposely misuses a word or creates a nonsensical phrase at least once per day, like a perverse Easter egg hunt for dorks.

I really have no idea what you are postulating to here.

[Yankee23Fan 9,292]

Our family courts issue tentative orders on motions - basically the judge gives you a heads up as to what their order is going to be based on the filings and legal arguments prior to oral argument. You choose to accept them or not.

I just got what has to be the most well reasoned, fair, and totally reasonable tentative decision I have ever seen on a disputed family case. I'm literally in disbelief that such a reasonable order could be drafted. I've never seen anything like it. And I didn't even win every point. In fact, I lost a pretty big one. But I can't argue with the path the judge took to get there and the entirety of the order shows a reasonable and thoughtful process of trying to be fair to everyone within the confines of the law and making sure the ultimate issues of importance or dealt with correctly.

I would frame this thing but I'd have to redact all of it but still. I like this judge.

[-fish- 13,791]

Guys that showed up at mediation with no authority just got caught not disclosing 500 boxes of potentially relevant documents for a year, even after I got a motion to compel and then an order sanctioning them for not complying.

Could be a rare case where discovery abuses are so bad that the court strikes their answer and I get a default judgment.

[Thorn 3,032]

Guys that showed up at mediation with no authority just got caught not disclosing 500 boxes of potentially relevant documents for a year, even after I got a motion to compel and then an order sanctioning them for not complying.

Could be a rare case where discovery abuses are so bad that the court strikes their answer and I get a default judgment.

I have a case (still ongoing) where I have had to ask for 3 discovery conferences, an order compelling df to show up at a depo, and at one point, when they said the df was physically unable to be deposed, the court asked for a doctor's note, and that note said "nope he's fine, just needs to watch his insulin."

My request for sanctions (including default) got me cost of deposition and attorney's fees for matters related to discovery disputes, capped at $1500.

[Zow 8,504]

I may have gotten called for jury duty on my own jury trial next week. Big one too where a loss means natural life in prison. I think I'd make a stellar juror.

[Ned Ryerson 293]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

[Sweet J 3,275]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

:headexplode:

I've been too long out of the practice of law.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

[Ned Ryerson 293]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

Thanks. Presuming that I feel as if there is no "question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs", can the case be dismissed?

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

Thanks. Presuming that I feel as if there is no "question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs", can the case be dismissed?

No, but if the judge determines that he/she feels there's no question of law or fact to all plaintiffs, it might be severed as an improper joinder, giving your client two cases instead of one.

[Sweet J 3,275]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

Thanks. Presuming that I feel as if there is no "question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs", can the case be dismissed?

No, but if the judge determines that he/she feels there's no question of law or fact to all plaintiffs, it might be severed as an improper joinder, giving your client two cases instead of one.

curious -- why or why not would someone in Ned's client's position want to sever the cases? Two separate cases increases the costs, no?

[Henry Ford 60,520]

Wait - where did the trademark infringement action get filed?

[Aerial Assault 2,383]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

Thanks. Presuming that I feel as if there is no "question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs", can the case be dismissed?

Not on that basis. You may want to look at a motion to sever under Rule 21.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

Thanks. Presuming that I feel as if there is no "question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs", can the case be dismissed?

No, but if the judge determines that he/she feels there's no question of law or fact to all plaintiffs, it might be severed as an improper joinder, giving your client two cases instead of one.

curious -- why or why not would someone in Ned's client's position want to sever the cases? Two separate cases increases the costs, no?

Plaintiffs like to band together to share expert/filing/etc. costs. It keeps a contingency fee lawyer from being too overextended, and they can work on things together and present a united front. Defendants would often prefer they have to try those cases separately, and have extra pressure to settle.

[Ned Ryerson 293]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

Thanks. Presuming that I feel as if there is no "question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs", can the case be dismissed?

No, but if the judge determines that he/she feels there's no question of law or fact to all plaintiffs, it might be severed as an improper joinder, giving your client two cases instead of one.

curious -- why or why not would someone in Ned's client's position want to sever the cases? Two separate cases increases the costs, no?

Plaintiffs like to band together to share expert/filing/etc. costs. It keeps a contingency fee lawyer from being too overextended, and they can work on things together and present a united front. Defendants would often prefer they have to try those cases separately, and have extra pressure to settle.

This.

Wait - where did the trademark infringement action get filed?

Which Court?

[Aerial Assault 2,383]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

Thanks. Presuming that I feel as if there is no "question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs", can the case be dismissed?

No, but if the judge determines that he/she feels there's no question of law or fact to all plaintiffs, it might be severed as an improper joinder, giving your client two cases instead of one.

curious -- why or why not would someone in Ned's client's position want to sever the cases? Two separate cases increases the costs, no?

Plaintiffs like to band together to share expert/filing/etc. costs. It keeps a contingency fee lawyer from being too overextended, and they can work on things together and present a united front. Defendants would often prefer they have to try those cases separately, and have extra pressure to settle.

.

Right. Improperly or questionably joined cases almost always feature a weak sister, too, which may not even be pursued (or can more swiftly be disposed of) if severed.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Aerial Assault

[Sweet J 3,275]

"Motion to F^ck this Court and Everything It Stands For." http://www.scribd.com/doc/262808205/Notice-to-####-This-Court-and-Everything-That-It-Stands-For

I've just read the first page and a half, and it's magnificent. As with any good legal brief, it starts out gentle:

"Firstly, Jason IS my husband, as I have state, you a*shole. And my son is no longer an infant. He is grown into a strong, extremely intelligent and beautiful little boy. Don't you ever again in your mother*cking life attempt to disrespect me, my family, or our status again. Keep our names out of your unworthy mouth, you old, IMPOTENT geezer."

I've only gotten that far. I hope it stays just as good.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Sweet J

[Christo 6,185]

[Christo 6,185]

Won my first jury trial as a solo. It's been a good month

[njherdfan 140]

"Motion to F^ck this Court and Everything It Stands For." http://www.scribd.com/doc/262808205/Notice-to-####-This-Court-and-Everything-That-It-Stands-For

I've just read the first page and a half, and it's magnificent. As with any good legal brief, it starts out gentle:

"Firstly, Jason IS my husband, as I have state, you a*shole. And my son is no longer an infant. He is grown into a strong, extremely intelligent and beautiful little boy. Don't you ever again in your mother*cking life attempt to disrespect me, my family, or our status again. Keep our names out of your unworthy mouth, you old, IMPOTENT geezer."

I've only gotten that far. I hope it stays just as good.

She gets to the Sovereign Citizen argument on page 3, so I would say that it improves.

[Yankee23Fan 9,292]

I apologize for asking what is a fairly stupid question, but this seems like a safe place (i hope), and while I litigate I am not a seasoned litigator, as compared to many others here.

What "community of interest" is required for two parties to file a lawsuit against the same defendant?

My scenario is as follows. Party A has a claim against my client under the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute for those that do not know) for trademark infringement. Party B also has a claim against my client under the Lanham act, but for false advertising. The act bringing rise to the false advertising claim has nothing to do with the act giving rise to the trademark infringement claim.

Under this scenario, are A & B entitled to sue my client in the action? if not, what is the proper the proper response to the Complaint.

Civ pro expertise greatly appreciated.

You're looking for the scope of Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and common issue(s) of law or fact between the parties

Thanks. Presuming that I feel as if there is no "question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs", can the case be dismissed?

I don't do that area of law but I have to think that if both have a colorful case that the court would sever it instead of dismiss it.

[Yankee23Fan 9,292]

"Motion to F^ck this Court and Everything It Stands For." http://www.scribd.com/doc/262808205/Notice-to-####-This-Court-and-Everything-That-It-Stands-For

I've just read the first page and a half, and it's magnificent. As with any good legal brief, it starts out gentle:

"Firstly, Jason IS my husband, as I have state, you a*shole. And my son is no longer an infant. He is grown into a strong, extremely intelligent and beautiful little boy. Don't you ever again in your mother*cking life attempt to disrespect me, my family, or our status again. Keep our names out of your unworthy mouth, you old, IMPOTENT geezer."

I've only gotten that far. I hope it stays just as good.

I am so using this somehow. I have to.

[PatsWillWin 669]

Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.

Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.

I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.

Wait, so is John the guy renting the house to Jane in this situation?

[DocGonzo 50]

I printed out that Notice to **** This Court etc and dropped it on the chair of a guy with whom I share office space. I put a sticky note on the front: "This lady stopped in while you were out and dropped this off. She wouldn't say who referred her to you but she was adamant that she wanted you to help out her out. Give it a read and then see me and I'll give you her contact info."

He might be gone for the weekend already, but I'm hoping he gets it off his chair before someone e-mails him the story.

I've been inconsistent in my Internetting since about January and haven't checked in much here. Hope everyone is doing well in their respective endeavors.

Edited April 24, 2015 by DocGonzo

[Yankee23Fan 9,292]

Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.

Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.

I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.

Wait, so is John the guy renting the house to Jane in this situation?

No the understory is much more complicated. But for the purposes of the WTF moment it doesn't matter. And I'm still dealing with this.

[Sweet J 3,275]

Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.

Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.

I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.

Wait, so is John the guy renting the house to Jane in this situation?

No the understory is much more complicated. But for the purposes of the WTF moment it doesn't matter. And I'm still dealing with this.

It sounds like a crazy story and I'm eager to hear the resolution. People like that make my blood boil. I think there is a reason I'm not a litigator -- I would die of an early heart attack from years of stress caused by me having to resist the urge to choke this living sht out of whatever jackhole I'm dealing with that day.

And in your case, I was assuming it had to do with the transfer of property. They guy was maybe purchasing but couldn't move in until a specified date? Or maybe he purchased but there is an existing renter that is being allowed to stay in for a certain amount of time?