Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 5, 2014 5:35:30 GMT -6
I'm now considering judgment on the petition from counsel.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 11, 2015 13:36:46 GMT -6
*an embarrassing period of time later, a harassed-looking Magistrate re-enters the Cort...*
Having read the response by the defence briefly in December, and now again, I grant the motion to dismiss. As false light is not universally accepted as a cause of action, and Wisconsin has not so incorporated it into law, it cannot stand as a cause of action here.
However, I do not dismiss the case with prejudice. Our judicial growth and understanding is only germinal, despite our long pedigree as a nation; that the plaintiff utilised a tort recognize both in his home state (Pennsylvania) and at the national level (United States), but which did not carry across to our very specific legal peculiarities, is not a spectacular misdeed. I am also aware that in a germinal tradition it is a lot easier to kill a case than in a settled tradition; and though Corts must, in both civil and criminal cases, give the defendant the benefit of the doubt (i.e., innocent until proven guilty in criminal cases, burden of proof in civil cases), it seems to me that equity demands that breathing space be given to both sides of a dispute to make their case. I take the point made by the defence that the plaintiff has already amended his complaint once, to clarify what was implicit; however, this would not be the first civil case in world history to go through multiple major amendments.
However, if the plaintiff wishes to file a 2nd Amended Complaint, it must be a defamation complaint utilising the same facts, under the terms of New York Times Co vs Sullivan - ie, demonstrating that the defendant "that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity" as to the statements mentioned in the 1st Amended Complaint.
If the plaintiff desires to proceed, they must file a 2nd Amended Complaint within 14 calendar days (ie, by 25/03/2015, GMT timezone). Alternatively, he may formally discontinue the claim. If he does neither, the Cort will assume that his "final" case is the 1st Amended Complaint, and change its decision to dismissal with prejudice.
(I state the full range of options, and indeed rather unusually offer a "default decision" option, so that we can limit further back and forth, in the interests of speed.)
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on May 5, 2015 6:34:35 GMT -6
To confirm, the case was dismissed with prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on May 16, 2015 12:59:46 GMT -6
However, I do not dismiss the case with prejudice. <snip> To confirm, the case was dismissed with prejudice. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 16, 2015 16:14:29 GMT -6
The judgment states that unless the petition is refiled, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
|
|