2020-12-07 - Scott v. Moon Mk VI(?)

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
polyester said:
From the judge's reasoning for setting aside the default:

View attachment 1928004

I know Null's lawyer already pointed this out in one of his motions, but it's nice to read it in the judge's own words:
Melinda shot herself in the foot by running her mouth about her conspiracy theory that Null currently lives with his mom.

PS: The judge's order briefly recognizes that Null's lawyer also made other possibly valid arguments for setting aside the default. Maybe those would have also done the trick. But I guess we'll never know, because Melinda just couldn't help herself. So the judge didn't even need to evaluate those other arguments. Nice one, Melinda!
Click to expand...
I love seeing smug morons get their comeuppance. Everything Melinda sought to accomplish has failed, and it's entirely her own fault.
Congratulations, you're a failure!
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: AmateurComedicTaxidermist, YarrBlueballs, Useful_Mistake and 3 others
Spergichu said:
I wonder how Caleb Tobias and Enoch Toblah feel about their mom effectively losing another lawsuit. I hope Melinda doesn't take out her tard rage on them or her other children.
Click to expand...
Wait. Have her children come here to protect mommy? Really? Most excellent. Link?
 
Dr Pepper said:
Since it was dismissed with prejudice does that mean she can't sue Null again? @AnOminous
Click to expand...
It isn't dismissed yet unless I missed something. She has 14 days to respond to the motion to dismiss per the February 16, 2021 order, which would be Tuesday, March 2, 2021. Since it's a motion to dismiss on the merits as well as for procedural reasons, the reason for dismissing it will determine whether it is dismissed with or without prejudice. Generally, a dismissal for procedural reasons is without prejudice, while a dismissal on the merits is with prejudice.

It wouldn't actually stop her from suing again, though such a suit would be subject to dismissal because of res judicata, a form of claim preclusion on the grounds that the matter has already been decided. It would also not stop her from filing a lawsuit based on some other kooky theory or for something that happens in the future. Another factor called collateral estoppel might come into play in future cases, i.e., Scott would be bound by any unfavorable factual findings made as the basis for the court's ruling.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Splendid, Kiwi Lime Pie, Kosher Salt and 4 others
AnOminous said:
It isn't dismissed yet unless I missed something. She has 14 days to respond to the motion to dismiss per the February 16, 2021 order, which would be Tuesday, March 2, 2021. Since it's a motion to dismiss on the merits as well as for procedural reasons, the reason for dismissing it will determine whether it is dismissed with or without prejudice. Generally, a dismissal for procedural reasons is without prejudice, while a dismissal on the merits is with prejudice.

It wouldn't actually stop her from suing again, though such a suit would be subject to dismissal because of res judicata, a form of claim preclusion on the grounds that the matter has already been decided. It would also not stop her from filing a lawsuit based on some other kooky theory or for something that happens in the future. Another factor called collateral estoppel might come into play in future cases, i.e., Scott would be bound by any unfavorable factual findings made as the basis for the court's ruling.
Click to expand...
Is there any legal recourse that would bar her from bringing suit in general? Everyone at the courts must knows she's insane and wasting a fuck ton of tax money.

Edit: Forgot to add but will she have to pay Josh's court fees if it's dismissed?
 
Dr Pepper said:
Is there any legal recourse that would bar her from bringing suit in general? Everyone at the courts must knows she's insane and wasting a fuck ton of tax money.
Click to expand...
Not really. Every rare now and again a litigant will be enjoined from filing future suits, but this is very rare at the federal level and generally requires a serial litigant filing sometimes literally hundreds of bogus lawsuits.

Edit: Forgot to add but will she have to pay Josh's court fees if it's dismissed?
Click to expand...
That's really up to the judge. I am not very hopeful.
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin, Kosher Salt, Anne Hyroe and 4 others
Dr Pepper said:
Is there any legal recourse that would bar her from bringing suit in general? Everyone at the courts must knows she's insane and wasting a fuck ton of tax money.
Click to expand...
There are cases of that happening in Virginia (for example you could look at Adkins v. CP/IPERS Arlington Hotel LLC or Draper v. Muy Pizza Se. LLC), but it happens rarely, and the courts must be increadibly pissed off.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: The Littlest Shitlord, Kosher Salt and Dr Pepper
Useful_Mistake said:
There are cases of that happening in Virginia (for example you could look at Adkins v. CP/IPERS Arlington Hotel LLC or Draper v. Muy Pizza Se. LLC), but it happens rarely, and the courts must be increadibly pissed off.
Click to expand...
The first is a state case based on state law, after multiple frivolous filings in state court. The second case is a lot more relevant, as it is, like this one, based on frivolous in forma pauperis suits filed by an indigent plaintiff in the Western District of Virginia. It also isn't a permanent injunction, but merely a two year injunction which requires the plaintiff actually to pay the filing fee and imposing a $300 fine for dismissed for being "frivolous, or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, untimeliness, or failure to state a claim."

Unfortunately, the 4th Circuit appellate ruling is unpublished and not binding precedent, but its reasoning could very well be persuasive.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: AmateurComedicTaxidermist, Pat Fried Rice, The Littlest Shitlord and 3 others
AnOminous said:
The first is a state case based on state law, after multiple frivolous filings in state court. The second case is a lot more relevant, as it is, like this one, based on frivolous in forma pauperis suits filed by an indigent plaintiff in the Western District of Virginia. It also isn't a permanent injunction, but merely a two year injunction which requires the plaintiff actually to pay the filing fee and imposing a $300 fine for dismissed for being "frivolous, or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, untimeliness, or failure to state a claim."

Unfortunately, the 4th Circuit appellate ruling is unpublished and not binding precedent, but its reasoning could very well be persuasive.
Click to expand...
What about this case:
Fourth Circuit Appeal Court case In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1992). I especially like this part ("this Court expressly upheld a pre-filing review system that denied in forma pauperis status to a frequent filer of frivolous complaints except upon good cause shown) which would seriously deter Mel.


AnOminous said:
Unfortunately, the 4th Circuit appellate ruling is unpublished and not binding precedent, but its reasoning could very well be persuasive.
Click to expand...
Originally when posting that in Mel's thread I meant the published district court ruling (Draper v. Muy Pizza Se. LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00013 (W.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2018 ) ), which I then noted that it was affirmed by the appeals court even if the appeals court ruling was unpublished. Sorry about the mix up, I should have made it clearer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pat Fried Rice
Useful_Mistake said:
What about this case:
Fourth Circuit Appeal Court case In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1992). I especially like this part ("this Court expressly upheld a pre-filing review system that denied in forma pauperis status to a frequent filer of frivolous complaints except upon good cause shown) which would seriously deter Mel.



Originally when posting that in Mel's thread I meant the published district court ruling (Draper v. Muy Pizza Se. LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00013 (W.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2018 ) ), which I then noted that it was affirmed by the appeals court even if the appeals court ruling was unpublished. Sorry about the mix up, I should have made it clearer.
Click to expand...
Only an appeals court ruling would be binding on other courts. Another judge on the same court could rule differently. That's why I looked to the 4th Circuit to see if it had been upheld in a published decision. In any event, relief like this is generally discretionary.

This also isn't terribly useful, because the appellant in this case had missed the deadline for a direct appeal, so the court was only addressing whether the denial of a motion to modify the injunction was an abuse of discretion, and because of fairly arcane deadline rules, only as a motion under FRCP 60(b). In short, the court couldn't consider the merits of the underlying pre-filing review order.

The short answer is courts can indeed impose such review, especially on i.f.p. frequent filers. Actually doing so is fairly uncommon, however.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Marvin and The Littlest Shitlord
AnOminous said:
The short answer is courts can indeed impose such review, especially on i.f.p. frequent filers. Actually doing so is fairly uncommon, however.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the conclusion I came to as well. Oh well, we can hope
 
  • Feels
Reactions: AnOminous
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back