Lawsuit: Dismissed The_Superior10 v. Lukeyyy11 [2024] FCR 11

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
breach of procedure
Your Honor,
according to court procedure 5.2 "A Motion to Dismiss must be submitted at anytime prior to the beginning of opening statements." opening statements have already began and discovery has already ended therefor this motion to dismiss violates rule 5.2. further more rule 5.1 dictates that "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions." the defence never specified under which discovery rule he is filing his motion to dismiss under.​

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
​

Your Honor,

I would like to address the objection raised by the plaintiff. The motion was presented prior to the start of the plaintiffs opening statement. Additionally, I would like to highlight that the previous question prompting this motion remained unanswered until after the conclusion of the discovery phase. Given the unconventional timeline, I assert that this motion should be taken into consideration. Had the plaintiff's legal team thoroughly reviewed the complete motion, they would have observed the inclusion of the rule under which the motion was filed at the bottom of the document, as indicated below.

"Based on the mentioned legal issues, the Defense respectfully urges this honorable court to utilize its judicial authority and promptly dismiss this case with prejudice under Rule 5.14."

Thank You

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION
breach of procedure
Your Honor,
according to court procedure 5.2 "A Motion to Dismiss must be submitted at anytime prior to the beginning of opening statements." opening statements have already began and discovery has already ended therefor this motion to dismiss violates rule 5.2. further more rule 5.1 dictates that "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions." the defence never specified under which discovery rule he is filing his motion to dismiss under.​

The Objection will be sustained given Opening Statements have in fact started via the proceedings of the Case. Via this reasoning alone the Objection has merit and is granted.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Objection will be sustained given Opening Statements have in fact started via the proceedings of the Case. Via this reasoning alone the Objection has merit and is granted.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

​

Your Honor,

Although the defense acknowledges that the motion to dismiss was submitted after the conclusion of the discovery phase, we respectfully request your consideration due to exceptional circumstances. The defense had previously filed a motion to compel, to which the plaintiff was not required to respond until after the conclusion of discovery, deviating from the prescribed timeline. The defense had been awaiting a specific response to the motion to compel before initiating the motion to dismiss. While both actions occurred post-discovery, we contend that the delayed response to the motion to compel warrants reconsideration for the motion to dismiss.

We respectfully ask for your permission to allow the plaintiff to address the motion to dismiss, ensuring that it is duly considered in light of the circumstances described.


Thank You,

 

[RelaxedGV]

Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the Motion to Reconsider.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

I understand the defense's position that exceptional circumstances led to the delayed submission of the motion to dismiss. However, it is important to maintain the integrity of the legal process and adhere to the timelines outlined in the court guidlines.

The defense's decision to await a response to the motion to compel before initiating the motion to dismiss, while understandable, does not negate the fact that both actions were filed after the conclusion of the discovery phase.

Granting the motion to dismiss based on the delayed response to the motion to compel would set a precedent that could undermine the established rules and timelines of the legal system.

i ask the court to uphold the established timelines and deny the request for the plaintiff to address the motion to dismiss.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Apologies for missing this, I must have missed it while ruling on all of the Objections. This Motion is Sustained as the question can simply be answered by a simple yes or no. The Plaintiff is to provide an either yes or no answer to the question from the Defense. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to do so.

Discovery is also now over and we will be moving onto Opening Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide theirs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED​

Your Honor,

The plaintiffs' 72-hour window to present their opening statement has expired. Despite being actively involved, the plaintiffs' legal team still failed to submit their opening statement on time. The plaintiffs legal team has emphasized the significance of adhering to the timelines specified in the court guidelines but failed to submit their opening statement promptly. This action violates my client's constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial. This is also even more reason to consider the previous motion to dismiss.

Thank You,

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED​

Your Honor,

The plaintiffs' 72-hour window to present their opening statement has expired. Despite being actively involved, the plaintiffs' legal team still failed to submit their opening statement on time. The plaintiffs legal team has emphasized the significance of adhering to the timelines specified in the court guidelines but failed to submit their opening statement promptly. This action violates my client's constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial. This is also even more reason to consider the previous motion to dismiss.

Thank You,

Your Honor,
I was awaiting to see your response on the motion to dismiss. Should I go ahead and post my opening statments?

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

​

Your Honor,

Although the defense acknowledges that the motion to dismiss was submitted after the conclusion of the discovery phase, we respectfully request your consideration due to exceptional circumstances. The defense had previously filed a motion to compel, to which the plaintiff was not required to respond until after the conclusion of discovery, deviating from the prescribed timeline. The defense had been awaiting a specific response to the motion to compel before initiating the motion to dismiss. While both actions occurred post-discovery, we contend that the delayed response to the motion to compel warrants reconsideration for the motion to dismiss.

We respectfully ask for your permission to allow the plaintiff to address the motion to dismiss, ensuring that it is duly considered in light of the circumstances described.


Thank You,

The Motion to Reconsider is sustained and I will rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Reasoning for this, one of the key arguments to the Defense's arguments did need that section that was to be answered. The reasoning for the delay in the answering and subsequent Motion was via me. I missed the Motion to Compel which led to it being delayed. Given this I will be granting it.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

The defense moves for the dismissal of the complaint in this case and respectfully asserts the following:

1. Legal Errors: The foundation of the Plaintiff's case is seriously flawed due to a series of legal errors. The Plaintiff's lawyer, in the original complaint, mentioned laws that were never officially enacted. Additionally, a key precedent supporting the Plaintiff's claims was cited without providing the necessary documentation. These clear omissions and misrepresentations undermine the core of the Plaintiff's case, making it not only deficient but fundamentally flawed.
   
   
2. Contradiction: A crucial element of the Plaintiff's case revolves around the alleged mistaken transfer of $35,000, a central point of their grievance. However, a troubling contradiction arises when the Plaintiffs lawyer, in response to a direct question about the plaintiff acknowledging an error, categorically states, "No." This contradiction between the initial claim and subsequent denial reveals a significant lack of consistency, casting doubt on the credibility of the entire narrative.
   
   
3. Admission of Intent: The most revealing aspect is the Plaintiff's explicit denial of any error in the transaction. By stating unequivocally that no mistake was made during the fund transfer, the Plaintiff unintentionally admits to the intentional nature of the transaction. This admission not only challenges the foundation of the Plaintiff's case but also renders it inherently frivolous, as the alleged mistake is contradicted by the Plaintiff's own statement.

Based on the mentioned legal issues, the Defense respectfully urges this honorable court to utilize its judicial authority and promptly dismiss this case with prejudice under Rule 5.14.

DATED: This 30th day of January 2024

Before I rule on this, I want to cover every argument presented by the Defense. Those being, Legal Errors, Contradiction, and Admission of Intent.

Lets start with Legal Errors, while yes that specific bill is not in affect yet there is another bill similar to it that being the Foundations of Contract Law. Given the reasonings listed within the original complaint. Assuming we follow the Foundations of Contract Law, yes the contract would state the need to pay the desired amount. Once that is fulfilled then the Contract in question would no longer be required. Given the amount was paid the contract is nullified and unless there is a clause stating that any amount over MUST be paid back, the amount over is not subject to being paid back.

Onto Contradiction, put this simply, yes. The Plaintiff did contradict themselves via the question in interrogatory in which they stated no to a question regarding the acknowledgement of a mistake. Thus contradicting the complaint leading to the entire lawsuit technically not being needed as the Plaintiff agrees there was no mistake.

Admission of Intent was answered within Contradiction.

All if this to say, I will be sustaining the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this case with Prejudice for the above reasoning. The Federal Court thanks all for their time.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED​

Your Honor,

The plaintiffs' 72-hour window to present their opening statement has expired. Despite being actively involved, the plaintiffs' legal team still failed to submit their opening statement on time. The plaintiffs legal team has emphasized the significance of adhering to the timelines specified in the court guidelines but failed to submit their opening statement promptly. This action violates my client's constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial. This is also even more reason to consider the previous motion to dismiss.

Thank You,

Given the previous ruling, this case has been dismissed thus no ruling on this is needed.