You and I view that late filing differently. He should have had those affidavits much earlier, he should have had the stronger case much earlier. The only LOGICAL reason he delayed those was to spring them on the defendants. He tried to trap them, and it backfired.
Why do people keep repeating this day before shit, thats not true, he got slapped down years before.
There is a case for it, which is why I understand how he thought the trap would work. But suggestion is not assured, and he should have made sure the case was strong enough to stand on its own before trying anything funny. He got clever, and it backfired. He sahould have made his case strong enough to stand on its own first, then got clever.
The suggestion is pretty strong, he absolutely messed up by not having the response in order, but he should have also been able to patch it under the rules.
Nah, I do agree that the suggestion is strong, I can see the logical through line for all his tactics. There is a reason I have never accused him of being incompetent, he is by all means competent.
If we look at the genesis of this whole affair the defendants, in the beginning, they thought they were dealing with teen agers and kids. Look at their first defensive tweets, homeland security, I am working with the cybercrimes unit etc etc. After the "we'll be in touch" contact the shit got real and it spiraled into the crap tornado it is now. These are people who live and act a fake life for a living (well kinda) and their maturity is stunted to age 14. I was at the hearing and will be attending all the others, Rial looked scared as hell walking in, Soye was hiding down the street, they're in over their heads and filled with a false illusion if they think the mediation order is a win.
I agree. Filing exactly at the filing deadline is a dirty trick, but it's a familiar one. Where he absolutely fucked up is that his filing was fucking awful, and he didn't even manage to have it in by the deadline.
Evidently the judge didn't agree. And god knows that it's not like he only violated the Rule 11 contract. Including new arguments and new evidence meant that the defense was always going to argue surprise, and Ty certainly didn't convince anybody at the hearing that there wasn't surprise.
People saying 'the judge didn't agree' is dumb, the caselaw says the judge was wrong, the judge can not agree all he wants on appeal that gets overturned.
Not even getting into the bit where judges have vast discretion as to what to admit, can you actually show that caselaw? Because you keep screeching about "the caselaw" and now I'm curious as to what it actually has to say.
mostly agree except for on Funi's part. We know THEY think "lol we get out of this lolol" but realistically with the Judge ordering mediation they SHOULD think "Fuck we MIGHT NOT be out on everything let's cut our losses here and settle" because they can get out right now real easy and even be looked at as the good guys by many.
Agree. It's either now, or after the TCPA gets rules on. I don't think that the mediator will be able to convince anyone by it's meeting. But it might push Funi after the TCPA drops.
There's nothing in that rule 11 about amending pleadings.
www.courtlistener.com
Rule 63 of the Texas Code of Civil Procedure allows you to amend your pleadings so long as they are not amended within seven days of the trial date, as you stated. However, the case you cited implies the opposite of what you are saying it does.There's nothing in that rule 11 about amending pleadings.
Rule 63 basically says that you can file amendments freely except when it comes to trial. TCPA is not a trial. There's a squiggly bit in the middle of rule 63 that suggests that filings can be tossed if they surprise a party, but reading it in concert with related rules (66, and 166) suggests that that really only means amendments within 7 days at trial. Tossing an amended pleading for 'surprise' also requires some showing of surprise, which I don't think was really a thing. Almost nothing new was in the 2ap
Regardless Chupp allowed the affidavits.
Caselaw on rule 63 suggests its VERY permissive, so absent a trial date I think amended pleadings pretty much have to be accepted in texas.
See
"We hold the same to be true under rule 63's requirement that leave of court be obtained before amended pleadings can be filed within seven days of trial or thereafter. The rule applies in instances where there is a trial on the merits of the case. It does not apply in the instance of a hearing on a plea to the jurisdiction, as such is preliminary to a trial on the merits. Therefore, we will consider appellant's amended pleadings as the "live" pleadings in this appeal. "Grand Prairie Hosp. v. Tarrant Appraisal D., 707 S.W.2d 281 – CourtListener.com
Opinion for Grand Prairie Hosp. v. Tarrant Appraisal D., 707 S.W.2d 281 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
This has a STRONG suggestion that any hearing that is preliminary of a trial on the merits is permissible for the plaintiff to amend their petition as they please.
Nigger are you seriously still arguing? I'm not telling you to admit defeat but you really should stop.
We spent 5 or so pages trying to get it to read. It never learned how to, but it just keeps on going. It like an autism power energizer bunny.
