Jump to content
nurseprnRN nurseprnRN (Member)

"Turns Out Lawsuits Have Rules"

Politics   (4,138 Views 108 Comments)
13,730 Visitors; 352 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/31/1318130/-Turns-out-that-lawsuits-have-rules?detail=email

THU JUL 31, 2014 AT 12:29 PM PDT

I'm pretty excited about the GOP lawsuit against the administration because it turns out they are coming into my little world of trial law. There are rules and case law here that govern how to deal with ridiculous law suits like this one.

Drew S

They even provide for getting rid of lawsuits before the GOP can ask a single question or demand a single document or hold a single deposition.

Turns out that, unlike State courts, Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. There must be a certain amount in controversy or have a unique Constitutional question.

So I feel pretty good about this thing going away in a big damn hurry.

Let me introduce you to the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. Its a set of 86 rules covering several large areas within trial law including starting cases, discovery, trial and post trial. Its pretty complete and we spend a lot of time on it in law school.

Among these include rule 12 entitled: "Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing" I want to introduce you to two specific sections 12(b) and 12©.

My story continues below.

12(b) provides:

"(b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;

(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;

(3) improper venue;

(4) insufficient process;

(5) insufficient service of process;

(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and

(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19"

12© is the mechanism for making it all go bye-bye:

"© Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed--but early enough not to delay trial--a party may move for judgment on the pleadings."

So there you have it. Very simple really. Federal courts can hear cases that have unique federal questions or in disputes between people of 2 states with more than $75,000 in controversy.

Given all this there are likely 2 ways to trip up the GOP case by the time the first conference hearing is set: There is no subject-matter jurisdiction and there will be a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).

Given that I really don't have the time to write a Memo of Points and Authorities for the Administrations Motion to Dismiss, let me simply point out a few things:

1. The GOP wants to force the Administration to execute a law faster. The administration has never said it would not execute the law, just not now. Not sure, but pretty sure the Executive Branch is in charge of enforcing law, not Congress, so ****. What in fact are we talking about here?

2. The GOP will need to show some sort of damage. Since they have repeatedly (50 times or so) have tried to repeal ACA, clearly they have not been damaged by a delayed enforcement of a part of the ACA when the don't want any of it enforced...at all. No damages. No case (i.e., they won't be able "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.")

All this said, I do think there can be any number of counter-claims the Administration can file that could file. Just spit-balling here but there are any number of torts that can be tossed out there from intentional tort to economic torts.

However, my favorite thing here is that since they are trying to compel him to do something, they are asking for relief under equity. My favorite maxim in equity law is that you must ask for equity with "clean hands." As in, have you contributed to the problem? I'm not sure that the judge will be able to keep a straight face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the common 12 maxims related to this is "equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy," which means the person who seeks equity must have a kind of legal damage in order to ask for a legal remedy or a claim. since there is no damage to the GOP and the ACA is constitutional, equity will see it as done what ought to be done...no damage..no claim...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax payers still get stuck with the legal bills, hundreds of hours of time spent preparing and filing, etc. bah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good day, GrnTea

For a frame of reference... Are you working in the U.S.? Are you a U.S. Citizen?

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good day, GrnTea

For a frame of reference... Are you working in the U.S.? Are you a U.S. Citizen?

Thank you.

Why? Are employed US citizens the only people allowed to have an opinion about the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good day, GrnTea

For a frame of reference... Are you working in the U.S.? Are you a U.S. Citizen?

Thank you.

Yes and yes, but why would you care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement

thread moved to breakroom for best response....members may need to re log in with same username and pass word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Congress reminds me of a story about a drunk. Hangover the husband asks for 2 eggs for breakfast; one scrambled, one fried. The dutiful wife complies only to have the plate of eggs thrown against the wall. She asks, meekly, what was wrong. His response? "You fried the wrong one".

This lawsuit is just the latest of the insanity of the House. Boehner has to take a bit of credit for this dysfunction. As head of his party (although it seems to be in name only) he should be keeping the crazies in line. Instead he complains that Obama is overstepping by use of Executive Orders and in the same day wants Obama to make Executive Orders since Congress will be out of town on their current extended vacation.

Not only is this Congress the least productive but I would venture to guess they have cost the taxpayers more in frivolous, pedantic, captious moves than any other Congress. The House of Representative for the 113th is a poster boy for governmental waste of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To point out what SHOULD be painfully obvious: "Congress" consists of both the House AND the Senate. The latter is ruled by Harry "Dead on Arrival" Reid, and that explains why bill after bill after bill passed by the House make it to the Do-Nothing Senate, only to gather dust in Reid's IN basket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the House has been so productive. They have wasted so much time and money and had committees led by liars like Issa, led by an incompetent GOP. Like him or not, Harry Reid has saved some Senate time by not going forward with much of the offal offered by the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Harry "DOA" Reid will not even allow House legislation to be considered by the Senate, then you are disingenuous at best to say the House doesn't do anything.

What you REALLY mean is: "the House doesn't propose any legislation you LIKE", which is not the same thing as "not doing anything", as you claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my doubts that anyone with any real power in the GOP actually thinks this lawsuit stands a chance. They're not doing this because they think they're going to win. They're doing this to rally certain segments of their base.

And when it is dismissed they know their followers will blame it on the and get them all riled and ready to rabble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×