Sorry, DD2, but you're wrong. First, so that no on
Post# of 72446
Posted On: 08/19/2016 9:16:00 AM
Re: daydreaming2 #26537
Sorry, DD2, but you're wrong. First, so that no one can twist my words in any way, I firmly believe that Sullivan did a brilliant job and he proved that sanctions SHOULD be imposed. But, Hi-yo Silver on the other board threw out a crazy hypothetical which is totally wrong, and which you are buying into.
Here's the hypothetical he stated: Appeals court overturns Judge Failla's decision. Case is NOT dismissed. Rosen still gets sanctioned.
In what I consider to be the extremely unlikely case that the Appeals Court were to overturn Judge Failla's ruling, the case (Zagami v. Cellceutix) would proceed to trial.
Therefore, it could not be said that Rosen brought a frivolous suit, which is the basis for asking for sanctions against Rosen, if the suit were deemed to be NOT frivolous.
So Rosen would then appeal any sanctions brought against them, saying that no sanctions should be imposed -- because you can't punish someone for wrongdoing if a higher court says there is no wrongdoing.
In other words, if you accuse someone of abusive litigation, and a higher court says the litigation is NOT abusive, you can't have a lower court then punish them for an offense that the higher court says did not occur.
Example: a Basher is accused by his mother of coming out of the basement where he lives. A pan of spaghetti sauce gets knocked off the stove. Basher's mom says he's going to be punished by not being allowed to borrow the car to go to his friend's house to play Dungeons and Dragons. Basher goes to the nanny-cam and shows video -- the cat knocked the pan off the stove.
• Should Mommy still punish Basher for something he didn't do?
loanranger is dead wrong on this. I don't know why he would post something as crazy as saying you can still be sanctioned for improper behavior, if the behavior is found not to be improper. Nuts.
REMEMBER, I DON'T FOR A MINUTE BELIEVE THAT THE APPEALS COURT WILL LET ROSEN OFF THE HOOK.
Here's the hypothetical he stated: Appeals court overturns Judge Failla's decision. Case is NOT dismissed. Rosen still gets sanctioned.
In what I consider to be the extremely unlikely case that the Appeals Court were to overturn Judge Failla's ruling, the case (Zagami v. Cellceutix) would proceed to trial.
Therefore, it could not be said that Rosen brought a frivolous suit, which is the basis for asking for sanctions against Rosen, if the suit were deemed to be NOT frivolous.
So Rosen would then appeal any sanctions brought against them, saying that no sanctions should be imposed -- because you can't punish someone for wrongdoing if a higher court says there is no wrongdoing.
In other words, if you accuse someone of abusive litigation, and a higher court says the litigation is NOT abusive, you can't have a lower court then punish them for an offense that the higher court says did not occur.
Example: a Basher is accused by his mother of coming out of the basement where he lives. A pan of spaghetti sauce gets knocked off the stove. Basher's mom says he's going to be punished by not being allowed to borrow the car to go to his friend's house to play Dungeons and Dragons. Basher goes to the nanny-cam and shows video -- the cat knocked the pan off the stove.
• Should Mommy still punish Basher for something he didn't do?
loanranger is dead wrong on this. I don't know why he would post something as crazy as saying you can still be sanctioned for improper behavior, if the behavior is found not to be improper. Nuts.
REMEMBER, I DON'T FOR A MINUTE BELIEVE THAT THE APPEALS COURT WILL LET ROSEN OFF THE HOOK.
(3)
(0)