drumpf seeks to appeal the denial of his motion to amend on a dismissed case

[Takket]

WTF kind of wordsmithing is this? Are they hoping they might win a case if they just CONFUSE the judges now?

Link to tweet

?s=20

[soothsayer]

1. If they had put 1/8 of this effort into mitigating the pandemic, this country would be wide open and

If they had put 1/8 of this effort into mitigating the pandemic, this country would be wide open and safely enjoying business as usual.

[uppityperson]

2. "only" lol

[Iliyah]

3. Case dismissed with prejudice . .

No do overs . ….. it's done.

[Stallion]

8. Appellate Court Can Grant Relief...

reversing trial court dismissal with prejudice. But that would just allow the plaintiff's to file an amended petition. Note they haven't got past the preliminary pleading stage. The trial court has ruled they can plead no set of facts entitling the plaintiff's to relief. There has not been a trial on the merits because first they need to plead a claim upon which relief may be granted

The caselaw generally provides that a motion to file an amended petition should be liberally granted--unless the trial court deems that a party can plead no set of facts entitling them to relief (futility) or the case is moot etc

[The Genealogist]

4. Sounds like word salad to me

Of course I am no lawyer. I guess they are just throwing things against the wall to see if they stick, in hopes that they will eventually find a judge who buys their bullshit. As ridiculous as Trump is, I'm surprised he hasn't just issued an executive order giving himself 270 electoral votes and proclaiming himself emperor.

[Ms. Toad]

10. Unfortunately it's not word salad.

It will almost certainly fail.

Anytime you amend a complaint, it replaces the original one.

The District Court denied Team Trump's request to amend.

That means when the court took TT to the woodshed, it did so based on the wrong complaint.

If it had allowed TT to amend the complaint, the amended complaint would have been so spectacular that TT would not have been taken to the woodshed.

So, to be fair, appellate court, you have to let us amend the compliant (and since that makes it a new complaint - we start all over again, as if the other one never existed).

[madaboutharry]

5. I think Trump wrote this.

He thinks he knows more than “The Generals” and “The Doctors,” so it would make sense he thinks he knows more than “The Lawyers.”

This reads like made up bullshit from someone who never went to law school.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Perfectly logical,

in legalese.

The trial court did (at least) two things:

Deny Team Trump's motion to amend the complaint a second time
Dismiss the complaint (as originally amended)

They are saying - we can live with the dead complaint.

BUT - the court was wrong to deny us the opportunity to amend the complaint (a second time). If only we'd been able to amend the complaint a second time the outcome would have been different.

So tell the court to let us amend our complaint. And, guess what, once we change it they have to rule on the new complaint (since any amended complaint completely replaces the prior - now dead - one).

In other words, they are looking for a do-over - without having to argue that the tongue lashing itself was wrong.

[StarfishSaver]

7. You can't amend a complaint in a case that no longer exists

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Yes, if the case was dismissed with prejudice they can't just amend,

they have to start over.

[StarfishSaver]

11. And let's pretend that we're not, by virtue of the no standing ruling, non-entities

The second amended complaint doesn't fix the standing issue, so even if they were allowed to amend - which would be ridiculous - they still would have no standing.

This is just stupid now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. It's an embarrassment to lawyers and law schools everywhere.

How are they going to create standing out of thin air, no matter how many complaints and amended complaints they produce?

This is so stupid I just can't believe it. A first-year law student who came up with something like this would be laughed out of their civil procedure class and probably flunk the exam. Come on, judge, it's time for Rule 11.

[StarfishSaver]

13. +1,000

[Stallion]

14. The Plaintiff's burden is to plead facts establishing a cause of action including standing

this exercise is really pretty common in especially in federal court where its not uncommon for a plaintiff to seek leave to amend a petition even 4-5 times.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. I never saw shenanigans like this when I was practicing law.

Maybe lawyers have gotten sloppier in the last 20 years.

[Stallion]

17. Did you practice in Federal Court?

Federal complaints need to be precise in their factual allegations. I'd bet 30% of federal cases are stalled at this pleading stage. Its the new summary judgment practice. Dismissal on the pleadings. Pretty strong precedent that motion for leave to amend should be liberally granted unless court determines that a plaintiff can plead no set of facts that states a claim(ie futility)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Yes, I did. In my experience the federal judges were tougher to persuade

and more likely to kick your ass over procedure than the state court judges. Of course leave to amend is usually granted "unless the court determines that a plaintiff can plead no set of facts that states a claim," but it seemed to me that in this case the judge thought everything about their claims was futile. This is clearly just performative litigation with no purpose except to delay, which puts these nitwits squarely in the crosshairs of Rule 11.

[StarfishSaver]

16. ...

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Iliyah]

19. "disenfranchise all of Pennsylvania" . . .

regarding a democratic election. How can republicans stomach that.

[Volaris]

20. My understanding of the dismissal was because the judge decided there was

No way to amend TO anything, because the underlying argument was complete bullshit...