Thursday, November 10, 2011

Dear John Doe: Welcome to Rule 11!

In the anonymous blogger case pending before Judge Cooke, The Kluginator has filed a little document known in legal circles as a "Rule 11 motion."

Here is the blockbuster opening paragraph:
Defendant and his counsel have misapplied existing law in Defendant’s Counter-Complaint. To begin with, Defendant cannot maintain the Counter-Complaint under the fictitious name “John Doe” and be permitted to use his anonymity as both a sword and a shield. Moreover, Defendant and his counsel have asserted duplicative counts for declaratory relief that fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and are merely denials of the properly dismissed Count III, rendering the Counter-Complaint moot and therefore seeks an improper advisory opinion from this Court. Further, Defendant’s Counter-Complaint is a clear attempt at forum-shopping and judge shopping. Despite having proper notice of the frivolousness of their positions, Defendant and his counsel have refused to withdraw the Defendant’s Counter-Complaint [D.E. 1]. Accordingly, sanctions should be imposed against Defendant and his counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
Ok, I agree none of that sounds too hot, but on the other hand that's pretty much a day in the life at any given moment in state court.

What am I missing here?

(I sure hope they met and conferred on this one!)


Anonymous said...

I propose a new rule, if a Rule 11 Motion is filed someone MUST be on the hook for fees. In other words, if your motion fails, you owe the other guy the fees for defending against the Rule 11 Motion - no matter what.

Anonymous said...

Kluger = bully. like a weeble.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

motion to dismiss = motion for sanctions

Anonymous said...

If randazzao wasnt such an ahole in his letters, I would be all over the kluginator, but r is getting his just desserts.

Anonymous said...

kluger is an asshole. he screws referring attorneys. beware.

The Constant Complainer said...

What's up, buddy! I like the new layout of your site. I had stopped by the other day and it was down, but now I see why. This is a new fresh look and I think it works for you!

Now on to the topic on anonymous blogging. Here's an interesting article the Los Angeles Times did on this very same topic:

While I blog under the character of The Constant Complainer, for example, I always cite stories and credits, where necessary. But the majority don't. And I know people who have had run-ins with others hiding behind their computer screens who are basically unreachable - unless you literally sue and go after their domain service. That is a dis-service. But it's going to take a pretty big law suit to change that around.

There are ways to get around private domains though. For example, in Go Daddy's case, if you complain to their security team and can show proof of a web site harming someone/something, they will remove the "private" domain capability and temporarily allow the "whois" to be viewed while they investigate it. Not many people know that.