IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor,
Although the defense acknowledges that the motion to dismiss was submitted after the conclusion of the discovery phase, we respectfully request your consideration due to exceptional circumstances. The defense had previously filed a motion to compel, to which the plaintiff was not required to respond until after the conclusion of discovery, deviating from the prescribed timeline. The defense had been awaiting a specific response to the motion to compel before initiating the motion to dismiss. While both actions occurred post-discovery, we contend that the delayed response to the motion to compel warrants reconsideration for the motion to dismiss.
We respectfully ask for your permission to allow the plaintiff to address the motion to dismiss, ensuring that it is duly considered in light of the circumstances described.
Thank You,
The Motion to Reconsider is
sustained and I will rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Reasoning for this, one of the key arguments to the Defense's arguments did need that section that was to be answered. The reasoning for the delay in the answering and subsequent Motion was via me. I missed the Motion to Compel which led to it being delayed. Given this I will be granting it.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense moves for the dismissal of the complaint in this case and respectfully asserts the following:
- Legal Errors: The foundation of the Plaintiff's case is seriously flawed due to a series of legal errors. The Plaintiff's lawyer, in the original complaint, mentioned laws that were never officially enacted. Additionally, a key precedent supporting the Plaintiff's claims was cited without providing the necessary documentation. These clear omissions and misrepresentations undermine the core of the Plaintiff's case, making it not only deficient but fundamentally flawed.
- Contradiction: A crucial element of the Plaintiff's case revolves around the alleged mistaken transfer of $35,000, a central point of their grievance. However, a troubling contradiction arises when the Plaintiffs lawyer, in response to a direct question about the plaintiff acknowledging an error, categorically states, "No." This contradiction between the initial claim and subsequent denial reveals a significant lack of consistency, casting doubt on the credibility of the entire narrative.
- Admission of Intent: The most revealing aspect is the Plaintiff's explicit denial of any error in the transaction. By stating unequivocally that no mistake was made during the fund transfer, the Plaintiff unintentionally admits to the intentional nature of the transaction. This admission not only challenges the foundation of the Plaintiff's case but also renders it inherently frivolous, as the alleged mistake is contradicted by the Plaintiff's own statement.
Based on the mentioned legal issues, the Defense respectfully urges this honorable court to utilize its judicial authority and promptly dismiss this case with prejudice under Rule 5.14.
DATED: This 30th day of January 2024
Before I rule on this, I want to cover every argument presented by the Defense. Those being, Legal Errors, Contradiction, and Admission of Intent.
Lets start with Legal Errors, while yes that specific bill is not in affect yet there is another bill similar to it that being the Foundations of Contract Law. Given the reasonings listed within the original complaint. Assuming we follow the Foundations of Contract Law, yes the contract would state the need to pay the desired amount. Once that is fulfilled then the Contract in question would no longer be required. Given the amount was paid the contract is nullified and unless there is a clause stating that any amount over MUST be paid back, the amount over is not subject to being paid back.
Onto Contradiction, put this simply, yes. The Plaintiff did contradict themselves via the question in interrogatory in which they stated no to a question regarding the acknowledgement of a mistake. Thus contradicting the complaint leading to the entire lawsuit technically not being needed as the Plaintiff agrees there was no mistake.
Admission of Intent was answered within Contradiction.
All if this to say, I will be
sustaining the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this case with Prejudice for the above reasoning. The Federal Court thanks all for their time.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED
Your Honor,
The plaintiffs' 72-hour window to present their opening statement has expired. Despite being actively involved, the plaintiffs' legal team still failed to submit their opening statement on time. The plaintiffs legal team has emphasized the significance of adhering to the timelines specified in the court guidelines but failed to submit their opening statement promptly. This action violates my client's constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial. This is also even more reason to consider the previous motion to dismiss.
Thank You,
Given the previous ruling, this case has been dismissed thus no ruling on this is needed.
