Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)

When will the Judge issue a ruling regarding the Motion to Dismiss?

  • This Month

    Votes: 66 13.9%

  • Next Month

    Votes: 56 11.8%

  • This Year

    Votes: 74 15.5%

  • Next Year

    Votes: 164 34.5%

  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 116 24.4%
  • Total voters
    476
000578.png
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Markass the Worst, Harvey Danger, DSP's Tax Lawyer and 3 others
Useful_Mistake said:
Reminder. Russ has 14 days to call up Mr. Hardin and propose to him the schedule for the rest of the lawsuit. 14 days after that they "must conduct their planning conference". Within 14 days of that, they also must exchange preliminary discovery information, most notably of which, Russ will have to provide documentation for Null's inspection relating to the alleged damage Null has caused, and documents relating as to how Russ got to that number. Within 35 days of Null's answer (filed yesterday), the parties must file upon the court either an agreed upon schedule, or a request for court to hold a hearing to determine such schedule.
Click to expand...
At least now we're actually on some type of schedule.

I kinda smirked at this (doc. 65, at p. 5):

1705595820058.png

Mostly 'cuz I remember pointing out a certain ambiguity regarding the court's schedule that Harden is mildly complaining about here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Windex, Peace Or Love, Markass the Worst and 4 others
One of the best parts is that the Court saying that if Russ wants to continue he has to add Alphabet and do it in Florida is probably the legaly correct result. I could see them imputng the LLC as a defendant since he sued "the website" and saying "alright Russ, if you wanna sue Josh you have to add in his company and alphabet. And the case is getting transfered to where a defendant lives. So pick Florida, California, or west Virginia"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Francis York Morgan, Markass the Worst, Not a bee and 7 others
mindlessobserver said:
Its really annoying trying to make sense of the hash the 10th circuit has just made of the FRCP. I think I am as confused as they are as to where this case is. Are we at Summary Judgement or Pre-trial dismissal to state a claim? It seems like the rules are functioning under Schrodinger's principle of quantum super position. They exist in a binary state until you actually try and observe them.
Click to expand...
The recent events with Null's filing and the fact that Greer's Lawyer left and now Greer is on his own have led me to a new theory about why En Banc was denied. I used to agree with Null's theory that someone on the court saw an opportunity to hurt KF but now I don't.

I think what has happened is the 10th saw a horrendous case backed up by a powerful and extremely capable lawyer on behalf of an extremely powerful interest group. I suspect the 10th was more concerned about dealing with copyright lawyers and advocates for increasing the power and scope of copyright enforcement than the merits of the case. Possibly there were some political shenanigans behind closed doors on behalf of copyright advocacy groups. I also suspect that the 10th figured they could avoid the painful and difficult legal battle with the copyright groups and once the precedent that the copyright groups wanted was achieved they knew the copyright groups would leave and the case would be defeated in another manner because it is horrendous.

I know absolutely nothing about law or legal matters but I feel I understand politics a bit and given the interest groups involved and the constraints of the position of a judge while still trying to get a somewhat fair outcome this seems like something I might have done if I was in that position. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but if Greer's case basically fails completely I will consider it evidence that I might be right.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: rubytintedchix, Apteryx Owenii, Pee Cola and 2 others
I'm not optimistic about the change of venue. Josh has pretty definitely availed himself of the courts jurisdiction. Even said publicly he just wanted to get this over with rather then raise a jurisdiction issue.

If Google is brought in though, they could request a venue change. But most likely they would be of a similar mind as Josh and just want to get rid of Russel as expeditiously as possible.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Clovis and Pee Cola
mindlessobserver said:
I'm not optimistic about the change of venue. Josh has pretty definitely availed himself of the courts jurisdiction. Even said publicly he just wanted to get this over with rather then raise a jurisdiction issue.

If Google is brought in though, they could request a venue change. But most likely they would be of a similar mind as Josh and just want to get rid of Russel as expeditiously as possible.
Click to expand...
There is literally no reason for this case to be in Utah, you can't just automatically sue somebody in any district court you claim to reside in and then say "now you're stuck because you filed a motion to dismiss". Federal Civil Rules are extremely strict and detailed about motion sequence and things like that. Generally, it's the other way around and you have to file the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim before anything else or you waive it.

Although the 10th circuit's opinion seems to be that the rules of civl procedure don't apply to this case, so who knows.

Null said:
Allow me to simplify.
Click to expand...
Gross.

Maybe we need a banner about how much you love Isreal if it goes back to the 10th circuit. Post a super cut of you saying it a bunch in the podcast on the sidebar and everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Markass the Worst, Harvey Danger, Kosher Salt and 5 others
Useful_Mistake said:
Reminder. Russ has 14 days to call up Mr. Hardin and propose to him the schedule for the rest of the lawsuit. 14 days after that they "must conduct their planning conference". Within 14 days of that, they also must exchange preliminary discovery information, most notably of which, Russ will have to provide documentation for Null's inspection relating to the alleged damage Null has caused, and documents relating as to how Russ got to that number. Within 35 days of Null's answer (filed yesterday), the parties must file upon the court either an agreed upon schedule, or a request for court to hold a hearing to determine such schedule.
Click to expand...
More like Russ has -90 days to submit any kind of paperwork he likes, at which point the clerk of courts will unilaterally approve whatever Russ requests while probably not notifying the Defendant. At which point Null will probably be forced to default.

And good luck appealing any of that, because guess who the fuck he'd have to appeal to.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Botchy Galoop, Tealeaf, Markass the Worst and 4 others
waffle said:
There is literally no reason for this case to be in Utah, you can't just automatically sue somebody in any district court you claim to reside in and then say "now you're stuck because you filed a motion to dismiss". Federal Civil Rules are extremely strict and detailed about motion sequence and things like that. Generally, it's the other way around and you have to file the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim before anything else or you waive it.
Click to expand...
The only reason it’s stayed in Utah for so long is because Null got Skortas for the meme magic. Even though he’s a sympathetic figure in the Greer extended universe, he’s still a lefty, pro-censorship chump.

He was actually a guest in the occasional Utah talk radio program a few years ago but his insufferable politics wore out his welcome really fast in this cherry red state. I’m not surprised but I am a little disappointed he half-assed the defense.

I listened to his oral arguments during the appeal and I expected him to hammer on copyright law harder (like Hardin currently is.) Instead, he focused on how Greer was such a meanie poo-poo head to him. One of the (((judges))) even interrupted him and reminded him that his complaints were rich, considering who he was defending.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: R00T, Tealeaf, Romeo and 12 others
waffle said:
There is literally no reason for this case to be in Utah, you can't just automatically sue somebody in any district court you claim to reside in and then say "now you're stuck because you filed a motion to dismiss". Federal Civil Rules are extremely strict and detailed about motion sequence and things like that. Generally, it's the other way around and you have to file the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim before anything else or you waive it.
Click to expand...
I agree. The issue however is that the time to bring a Jurisdiction defense is not after engaging with the lawsuit all the way up to an Appellate hearing and appearance on a matter not grounded in the specific jurisdiction argument. A Jurisdiction defense generally has to be the FIRST thing you raise and argue, before you argue over anything else. The Courts really don't want situations where (as in this case) years of time is spent wrangling over bullshit, only for the defendant to then go; "actually no, lol, you don't have Jurisdiction. You got to dismiss and redo everything somewhere else".

Its fine to still bring the defense foreword, if only to see if you can make it stick or preserve it for appeal, but I doubt its getting through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Windex, Kosher Salt and BULLY HUNTER_78
mindlessobserver said:
I agree. The issue however is that the time to bring a Jurisdiction defense is not after engaging with the lawsuit all the way up to an Appellate hearing and appearance on a matter not grounded in the specific jurisdiction argument. A Jurisdiction defense generally has to be the FIRST thing you raise and argue, before you argue over anything else. The Courts really don't want situations where (as in this case) years of time is spent wrangling over bullshit, only for the defendant to then go; "actually no, lol, you don't have Jurisdiction. You got to dismiss and redo everything somewhere else".

Its fine to still bring the defense foreword, if only to see if you can make it stick or preserve it for appeal, but I doubt its getting through.
Click to expand...
Improper venue is a motion under Rule 12(b). I won't pretend to have indepth 10th cirxuit federal civ pro knowledge, so if you're telling me you have a case on point i believe you. But, as a general law school answer any 12(b) motion is treated as preserved if it's filed with or before an answer.

Respectfuly (really) I think you're crossing the streams on Internstional Shoe style purposeful availment of the forum analysis and the old voluntarily invoking the jurisdiction of the court exception to personal jurisdiction. It should be transferred, but barring a local rule that's different they should probably let him pick any home state of a defendant.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ConSluttant
waffle said:
Improper venue is a motion under Rule 12(b). I won't pretend to have indepth 10th cirxuit federal civ pro knowledge, so if you're telling me you have a case on point i believe you. But, as a general law school answer any 12(b) motion is treated as preserved if it's filed with or before an answer.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Null didn't ask the court to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction. He asked them to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Which is a very different matter. This motion was not delivered with a simultaneous motion to dismiss for jurisdiction issues. Generally you have to make the Jurisdiction argument out the gate. And in the case of the 6th Circuit this was so extreme that a Lawyer making a "motion of appearance" without also challenging the Jurisdiction was enough to avail yourself of the courts Jurisdiction. Thankfully that level of insanity was reversed. 2 years ago in Blessing v. Chandrasekhar (2021).

The 11th circuit meanwhile, says that ANY Rule 12 motion (like motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim) must include a Jurisdiction challenge or its waived. Aero Technologies LLC v. Lockton Companies International (2012)

My cursory search of the 10th circuit is not yielding anything specific, so its possible this could still fly there. But this is getting into the weeds, and not "as a general rule".
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Canebrake, Markass the Worst, Pee Cola and 4 others
mindlessobserver said:
Yes, but Null didn't ask the court to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction. He asked them to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Which is a very different matter. This motion was not delivered with a simultaneous motion to dismiss for jurisdiction issues. Generally you have to make the Jurisdiction argument out the gate. And in the case of the 6th Circuit this was so extreme that a Lawyer making a "motion of appearance" without also challenging the Jurisdiction was enough to avail yourself of the courts Jurisdiction. Thankfully that level of insanity was reversed. 2 years ago in Blessing v. Chandrasekhar (2021).

The 11th circuit meanwhile, says that ANY Rule 12 motion (like motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim) must include a Jurisdiction challenge or its waived. Aero Technologies LLC v. Lockton Companies International (2012)

My cursory search of the 10th circuit is not yielding anything specific, so its possible this could still fly there. But this is getting into the weeds, and not "as a general rule".
Click to expand...
I was wrong, because i was letting local practice guide me local practice guide me and we lack rule 12(h). But, look at the pendng motion again. It's a motion to transfer venue, not one that chalengrs subject matter jurisdiction, those are treated differently
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back