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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

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

  • This Month

    Votes: 67 14.5%

  • Next Month

    Votes: 56 12.1%

  • This Year

    Votes: 73 15.8%

  • Next Year

    Votes: 155 33.5%

  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 112 24.2%
  • Total voters
    463
Harvey Danger said:
Can the judge pick his top 5 reasons to dismiss, and an appeal has to defeat all 5? Or does he have to pick one and just mention the others?
Click to expand...
Irene and 22 others said:
I think the goal is that when the case is dismissed (for whatever reason) to have at least five other reasons that the case could have been reasonably been dismissed for, but that the court does not opine further on.
Click to expand...
fortunately, mr. hardin's filing at ecf 274 was not just one motion to dismiss; it was four motions to dismiss and a motion to change venue:
1749483895928.webp
surprisingly, greee did manage to address each motion is his response, but the court still has not ruled on any, which the magistrate acknowledged:
1749485274589.webp

Note: The SPO was revised following the start of this case in 2020. I believe that the original SPO is what applies to this case. However, I do not know if the Court has stated this explicitly. The revised SPO has different provisions concerning de-designation of AEO, which is why this detail is relevant here.
Click to expand...
June 4. “Attorney’s Eyes Only” email will be de-designated if Plaintiff does not provide an explanation of why the designation is appropriate.
Click to expand...
this is not an automatic process. mr. hardin may not assume that the email is de-designated after a specific amount of time.

Useful_Mistake said:
That was not his reasoning. His reasoning was that the Scheduling Order date was the thing that decided whether a new or old SPO was to be used.

View attachment 7478179
Click to expand...
nice citation. i wonder who brought it to your (and mr. hardin's) attention ... :thinking:
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Quioui, UncleTusky, Prokhor Zakharov and 7 others
I'm lazy, is there any real practical difference between the various SPOs? If there is, will Greee incorrectly assume the older one because of some imagined benefit?

Hardin can't assume the email is de-designated but he can motion that it be so, and point to no response from the last mention.
 
reptile baht spaniard rid said:
I'm lazy, is there any real practical difference between the various SPOs? If there is, will Greee incorrectly assume the older one because of some imagined benefit?

Hardin can't assume the email is de-designated but he can motion that it be so, and point to no response from the last mention.
Click to expand...
no, greee presumably knows which spo is in effect, because he was the one to question the fact that there are two different orders when he asked the court for clarification at ecf 222 ecf 263. the significant differences are that there is no automatic de-designation period and mr. hardin must request (and document that he requested) a meet and confer with greee prior to bringing the issue to the court's attention. the email may not be published until then.

edited to correct the docket entry in which greee clearly indicates that he is aware which spo is in effect. ninja'd by the thread janny.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: CEO of Gay, and six goriilion others, Moosebonker and 4 others
reptile baht spaniard rid said:
Hardin can't assume the email is de-designated but he can motion that it be so, and point to no response from the last mention.
Click to expand...
I see no reason he can't de-designate the email as it isn't part of discovery, which is stayed, which the SPO applies to. Obviously there's a question of if the court sees it that way.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: koos koets
.iota. said:
this is not an automatic process. mr. hardin may not assume that the email is de-designated after a specific amount of time.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is now my understanding based on UM's citation of ECF 272, which clarifies that the Court's current SPO applies in this case. My misunderstanding was due to an email from Mr. Hardin to Mr. Greer that claimed there could be automatic de-designation. There was such a process in the prior SPO, but there is not such a process in the current SPO. Thanks for the correction!
 
  • Informative
Reactions: CEO of Gay, The Un-Clit, often puzzled and 2 others
.iota. said:
fortunately, mr. hardin's filing at ecf 274 was not just one motion to dismiss; it was four motions to dismiss and a motion to change venue:
Click to expand...
Sure, but can the judge grant all 4 at once, or does he pick one and rule the other 3 are moot?

I know he can pick one and say "even if X wasn't the case, I'd still dismiss for Y". But in my mind that only creates 1 appealable issue. I'd rather Russ have to convince judges (even so-called ones in the 10th) to overturn a ton of different rulings, having to deal with all his failures.

Hardin's got a few more MtD he could add to the pile now. I don't know if it makes sense to wait until the others are ruled on, or drop them in now and hope they all get covered in some kind of big omnibus dismissal.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: CEO of Gay, Prokhor Zakharov, Broken Cuddles and 3 others
.iota. said:
greee presumably knows which spo is in effect, because he was the one to question the fact that there are two different orders when he asked the court for clarification at ecf 222
Click to expand...

Greer made no mention of there being an old-vs.new SPO. ECF 222 was him demanding to be provided a copy of the SPO that had been in place since the scheduling conference because up until that moment he couldn't have been bothered to seek it out on his own. He was essentially blaming the judge for not having entered the SPO into the docket for him to read, despite that not being a thing that is ever done.

Harvey Danger said:
Hardin's got a few more MtD he could add to the pile now. I don't know if it makes sense to wait until the others are ruled on, or drop them in now and hope they all get covered in some kind of big omnibus dismissal.
Click to expand...

For the fuckteenth time, Hardin still has until June 30th to respond to Greer's objection to the motion to dismiss at ECF 274 (which, despite being multi-faceted, is just one motion, like how the Trinity is "three persons in one God" think shamrock). He specifically asked for the extra time to make that filing so that other currently-open matters can be resolved, and so that additional arguments in favor of dismissal can be raised, including the IFP fraud. It's all in ECF 289.
 
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: CEO of Gay, Prokhor Zakharov, Broken Cuddles and 2 others
Harvey Danger said:
Sure, but can the judge grant all 4 at once, or does he pick one and rule the other 3 are moot?
Click to expand...
They CAN do that, but they usually do a 1/2/3 to cover their asses and against appeals. Something like "we dismiss this because it's not even coherently formatted and written. But if it we assume it was, we still dismiss it because it's fucking insane bullshit. And even if it weren't, we dismiss it because this is a Wendy's, sir."
obsdj said:
He was essentially blaming the judge for not having entered the SPO into the docket for him to read, despite that not being a thing that is ever done
Click to expand...
holyshit I just realized that assuming the court emails him shit as it gets posted, russ probably does EVERYTHING through email, and if so .... wow

that's worse than the people who live in Outlook tbh
 
  • Like
Reactions: koos koets and UselessRubberKeyboard
Useful_Mistake said:
I believe there will only be a docket entry if he does not pay, as Mr. Hardin will therefore have to inform the Judge of that.
Click to expand...
How does he pay? Is it different payee/process than how the filing fee was paid? I can see Greee treating any difference as an insurmountable obstacle.
 
Watching Rekieta said:
How does he pay? Is it different payee/process than how the filing fee was paid? I can see Greee treating any difference as an insurmountable obstacle.
Click to expand...
the filing fee is paid to the court, the court records it was paid

the sanction was to Null through and via undersigned council - the court can also issue sanctions that are paid to the court, if it wants
Useful_Mistake said:
Whatever way is convenient for both parties.
Click to expand...
are dead hookers (referred to as trunkers in Vegas) a negotiable currency? What about interests in dead brothels?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Botchy Galoop, LiquidChrisRespecter, Disgruntled Pupper and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back