He dreamed that he stood in a shadowy Court,
Where the Snark, with a glass in its eye,
Dressed in gown, bands, and wig, was defending a pig
On the charge of deserting its sty.
Plaintiffs Lee Young and Charles Mikhail, Young v Scruggs, have filed a because-we-say-it-isn’t-so-Opposition to Scruggs’ Motion to Dismiss. Admittedly, I’m not an attorney, so I may err in thinking a judge should not be asked to grade papers and give them back for correction; but…
…should this Court find that Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege a claim under RICO, Plaintiffs request leave to file an Amended Complaint…Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request leave to amend their Complaint should the Court find any of Plaintiffs’ claims are insufficiently pled.
“You must know — -” said the Judge: but the Snark exclaimed “Fudge!”
That statute is obsolete quite!
Let me tell you, my friends, the whole question depends
On an ancient manorial right.
When a plaintiff files a because–we-say-it-isn’t-so-Response, a memorandum of the supporting argument typically follows. The Plaintiffs in Young v Scruggs made their argument in an Opposition Brief.
“In the matter of Treason the pig would appear
To have aided, but scarcely abetted:
While the charge of Insolvency fails, it is clear,
If you grant the plea `never indebted.’
Law degree or not, I’ve read Plaintiffs’ Complaint and read, and read again, their Opposition Brief, and have yet to be convinced of Plaintiffs’ argument challenging the deduction of a share of the court-ordered payment to Luckey or the subsequent payment to Langston.
“The fact of Desertion I will not dispute;
But its guilt, as I trust, is removed
(So far as related to the costs of this suit)
By the Alibi which has been proved.
I’m even less convinced of Plaintiffs claim to a RICO standing as I’ve yet to identify the way what they call an enterprise engaged in or affected interstate commerce. Did someone shop in Mobile or what?
Convincing me is not important but it appears that convincing Judge Starrett to grade papers is a must. Meanwhile, what is left to wonder is why plaintiffs’ that were so generously rewarded for their work would file suit for such a comparably small amount.
“Transportation for life” was the sentence it gave,
“And then to be fined forty pound.”
The Jury all cheered, though the Judge said he feared
That the phrase was not legally sound.
But their wild exultation was suddenly checked
When the jailer informed them, with tears,
Such a sentence would have not the slightest effect,
As the pig had been dead for some years.
Thus, the concept of direct injury refers to the relationship between the injury and the defendants’ action, not the plaintiff’s pocketbook. Firestone v. Galbreath, 976 F.2d 279,285 (6th Cir. 1992).