I wish I had your confidence that justice through
Post# of 72447
Posted On: 01/06/2016 1:36:18 AM
I wish I had your confidence that justice through our legal system will be soon delivered. I certainly hope that you are right. But unfortunately, I have enough experience with our legal system (the civil side) that I am less optimistic that the judge will bring a swift end to this injustice.
It is my understanding from the transcript that Sullivan will be filing a 12(b)(6) motion on behalf of CTIX. This motion basically asserts that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. This is a very low bar for the plaintiffs to clear because judges are taught to assume (for the purposes of this motion) that the facts as alleged by the plaintiffs are true. So if those "alleged facts" include all the elements of the alleged illegal conduct, the judge will usually deny the defendants 12(b)(6) motion.
12(b)(6) motions are rarely successful. They are usually denied because plaintiffs lawyers know what basic elements must be present in the complaint to survive a 12(b)(6). In this case, I think that Sullivan has worked so hard to prevent Rosen from being able to once again amend the complaint, because he feels that the original complaint was so poorly written that he might be able to win the 12(b)(6). However, it is unlikely that Rosen will make that mistake again this time.
If Sullivan does win the 12(b)(6), then he may also succeed at getting the Rosen firm sanctioned by the court. Because if Rosen can't get this case past a 12(b)(6) motion despite getting three bites at the apple, then it would seem that the case is undeniably frivolous.
Perhaps Sullivan and this judge will restore some of my faith in our legal system. I can only hope...
ETA: The link below has info about 12(b)(6) motions.
http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com...ate-claim/
It is my understanding from the transcript that Sullivan will be filing a 12(b)(6) motion on behalf of CTIX. This motion basically asserts that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. This is a very low bar for the plaintiffs to clear because judges are taught to assume (for the purposes of this motion) that the facts as alleged by the plaintiffs are true. So if those "alleged facts" include all the elements of the alleged illegal conduct, the judge will usually deny the defendants 12(b)(6) motion.
12(b)(6) motions are rarely successful. They are usually denied because plaintiffs lawyers know what basic elements must be present in the complaint to survive a 12(b)(6). In this case, I think that Sullivan has worked so hard to prevent Rosen from being able to once again amend the complaint, because he feels that the original complaint was so poorly written that he might be able to win the 12(b)(6). However, it is unlikely that Rosen will make that mistake again this time.
If Sullivan does win the 12(b)(6), then he may also succeed at getting the Rosen firm sanctioned by the court. Because if Rosen can't get this case past a 12(b)(6) motion despite getting three bites at the apple, then it would seem that the case is undeniably frivolous.
Perhaps Sullivan and this judge will restore some of my faith in our legal system. I can only hope...
ETA: The link below has info about 12(b)(6) motions.
http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com...ate-claim/
Quote:
A few more days won't make one bit of difference. Right is right and Wrong isn't. As Jimmy says, "Come Monday".
It's time for the good guys to kick a little ass. It's gonna get fun now boys and girls. And shorty isn't gonna like it at all. - scgmck1
(0)
(0)