• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

wrongful termination

Lossleader, (or others who might know the answer, of course) is there a particular time period within which a party has to respond after receiving notice of a motion to dismiss in this particular court?

Here, when you serve a notice of motion, the notice includes the date that the motion is going to be heard (as that is established before you can even serve the notice), and then the responding party has to file any responding materials no later than X days before the hearing date (X varies, depending on several factors, none of which are relevant for purposes of this post or this disucssion).

In the Ryan case, there is no motion date specified on the documents filed to date, so I'm guessing that it is different there insofar as time to respond goes. Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated, so that I'll know how long I should keep looking for Ryan's response and what the ramifications are of any failure to respond within a specified period.

Thanks in advance :)
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Lossleader, (or others who might know the answer, of course) is there a particular time period within which a party has to respond after receiving notice of a motion to dismiss in this particular court?

Here, when you serve a notice of motion, the notice includes the date that the motion is going to be heard (as that is established before you can even serve the notice), and then the responding party has to file any responding materials no later than X days before the hearing date (X varies, depending on several factors, none of which are relevant for purposes of this post or this disucssion).
Click to expand...

Well, that's the New York rule, too. I can't find the federal rule. Let's assume that, in general, the opposition would have about a month to put in responsive papers. With a bit of whining, one could get as much as two months. I wouldn't expect to see answering papers until mif-February.

But I actually wouldn't expect to see answering papers at all. My guess is that the day before the papers are due, Ryans lawyers are going to quit. This will cause the court to stay the entire proceding for at least another month for Ryan to obtain counsel.

He won't. The case will be dismissed.
 
Loss Leader said:
Well, that's the New York rule, too. I can't find the federal rule. Let's assume that, in general, the opposition would have about a month to put in responsive papers. With a bit of whining, one could get as much as two months. I wouldn't expect to see answering papers until mif-February.
Click to expand...

Scots Law too, as it happens.

But I actually wouldn't expect to see answering papers at all. My guess is that the day before the papers are due, Ryans lawyers are going to quit. This will cause the court to stay the entire proceding for at least another month for Ryan to obtain counsel.
Click to expand...

Probabably, but when we see liability cases it is surprising just how many wise up in time and actually produce case papers.
 
I have just sent the following email to UL's attorneys. I aimed it at the associate I believe actually wrote the motion to dismiss.

Email to UL's Lawyer said:
I'm an attorney practicing in New York. As a hobby, I have been following the somewhat disquiting development of the 9/11 "truth" movement. Most of those involved in combatting their nonsense are engineers, architects and other scientific types. I try to contribute by offering plain explanations when one of these conspiracy theorists crosses into the court system.

To that end, I have been following with great interest Kevin Ryan's disasterous attempts to use an unlawful termination case as a backdoor to getting at UL's records. I read with great admiration your memorandum supporting UL's Motion to Dismiss. It was a tightly argued, consise and thorough piece of writing of which you should be very proud.

It would greatly help if you could let me know when answering papers are required from Mr. Ryan and whether oral arguments will be held. Of course, this information is not priviledged and I would never expect you to answer anything that might fall within the attorney-client bounds.

Thank you and I look forward to your continued success in the litigation.
Click to expand...
 
Loss Leader said:
I have just sent the following email to UL's attorneys. I aimed it at the associate I believe actually wrote the motion to dismiss.
Click to expand...

Interested to see what you get, but if you're not known to them then I fear that there may be insufficient esprit de corps to elicit a sensible response.
 
Architect said:
Interested to see what you get, but if you're not known to them then I fear that there may be insufficient esprit de corps to elicit a sensible response.
Click to expand...

That's why I wrote it to the associate. My theory is that she worked like crazy on that memo of law, gave it to a partner and then never heard one word of thanks, let alone praise. I'm hoping she's so hungry for someone to acknowledge her that she writes me back like we're best friends.
 
Hey Mr Lawyer! You misspelled concise!

Sorry, but I always wanted to do that to a lawyer. Please don't take it personally.
 
Whether a pleading is amended or not, the courts are all supposed to interpret the pleadings as generously as possible. They're really supposed to bend over backwards to figure out whether you make out a claim. I have heard of cases whether the courts have attempted to tease the legal underpinnings from words scrawled by a mentally ill plaintiff on a brown grocery bag.
Click to expand...

very much in evidence with chistophera's claim of personal injury by way of mental manipulation, involving mass hypnosis in which the judge tried very hard to tease out of it said legal underpinnings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom