Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)

[Lapsus of the bepsus]

jesus can you faggots keep the irrelevant karl yobst jokes in the karl yobst thread instead of spamming this one?
just because one lolsuit makes it to frontpage features doesnt mean its suddenly related to every other lolsuit discussed on this website

 

[FamicomGorby]

I just hope I'm not overhyping myself for the big hearing, but I expect it to be legendary.

I'm just hoping Greer gets asked what the fuck he's going to do with the case now? He has no evidence, that he's actually submitted, and no witnesses that could be used to introduce evidence in a trial. I don't see how there's any way for this case to proceed as is and surely the magistrate has to know that.

Not expecting too much from the hearing, Greer has been pretty meek in the past when some authority figure asks him what the fuck he thinks he's doing. Like in the Ariana Grande case where the judge just laid into him for like twenty minutes for wasting everyone's time.

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

He has no evidence, that he's actually submitted, and no witnesses that could be used to introduce evidence in a trial.

Not to mention his revised complaint wherein he names 2 anons. Good fucking luck with that.

 

[waffle]

I'm just hoping Greer gets asked what the fuck he's going to do with the case now? He has no evidence, that he's actually submitted, and no witnesses that could be used to introduce evidence in a trial. I don't see how there's any way for this case to proceed as is and surely the magistrate has to know that

If we don't get an outright dismissal then I'm hopeful we will leave the upcoming hearing with essentially a show cause order where the judge says "Russ you have to explain what admissible evidence you think your have and/or are going to discover and from who. Otherwise I'm dismissing the case". Russ is still IFP so the Court still has a heightened ongoing duty to dismiss the case if it is just kind of generally non-viable. It'd be one of the more appeal proof ways to get rid of it.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

Otherwise I'm dismissing the case".

If the magistrate doesn't think the district judge would sign off a dismissal, he's unlikely to dismiss the case even if he does think it's justified. Instead expect to see him try to get this case to move forward through threat of further sanctions against Greer. Despite all of Greer's piss and vinegar in his filings, he's a complete noodle in person and will meekly say "Yes, judge." when asked to do something. Russ inevitably not doing the thing that the court has requested he do may result in the gavel getting brought down later, but I think the best we get out of this are some additional sanctions against Greer if the magistrate thinks that this might be the best way of getting rid of this trash fire as soon as possible.

 

[UselessRubberKeyboard]

Not to mention his revised complaint wherein he names 2 anons. Good fucking luck with that.

This is probably a dumb question, but how many times can Russ ‘revise’ his ‘complaint’? If this one seems to be going nowhere, can he ask for another revision with some bullshit ‘please yer onna I dun goofed am stupid pro se will write a betta one honest’?

 

[Harvey Danger]

Not to mention his revised complaint wherein he names 2 anons. Good fucking luck with that.

That's the part I'm looking forward to the most. In the hearing lineup, Hardin's motion to stay pending service is sandwiched in between Russ getting sanctioned, and IFP getting reviewed. It probably has a high chance of succeeding as the case really can't proceed until Russ resolves it (non-clown world anyway).

I'm also curious what order the judge is going to start unraveling all this. The FAC could put everything on hold. If IFP gets revoked Russ might just give up. The sanctions and bonded stay can be resolved separate from everything else. That's everything listed, but the judge might also want to start on Russ' sanction nonsense, or get a status update on discovery. There's so many places to begin, and I don't think any of them naturally flow to the others.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

If IFP gets revoked Russ might just give up.

If the IFP gets revoked, if I remember correctly, according to the rules, the case must be dismissed, and there is no discretion regarding this matter.

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

how many times can Russ ‘revise’ his ‘complaint’?

If I'm not mistaken, he gets one guaranteed amendment.

He'll have to ask the Judge and Mr Hardin for any others.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Leaving aside the specifics of Greer's case where there are no rules anyway, how does adding defendants in an amended complaint usually work? Can you really dodge the statute of limitations by adding people onto an ancient lawsuit even if you couldn't charge them in a new lawsuit today?

 

[DavidS877]

Leaving aside the specifics of Greer's case where there are no rules anyway, how does adding defendants in an amended complaint usually work? Can you really dodge the statute of limitations by adding people onto an ancient lawsuit even if you couldn't charge them in a new lawsuit today?

As I understand, they can only be added if they should have been part of the original lawsuit but were omitted because they weren't known or similar. Say in discovery you find that TardCo is owned by ReCo and you're suing TardCo. You realize after the statute of limitations you need to add ReCo. This would be fine(more or less). Similar to the substitution of Lolcow LLC for "KiwiFarms, a website"

In this case, not a chance. Both alleged users were known to the Plaintiff at the beginning of the lawsuit(and may have even been mentioned in the original complaint that I'm too lazy to check) and should have been added then or sued separately before the statute of limitations. They weren't found in discovery or something else that would allow it.

The question is if the judge is going to toss them or let Greer attempt to serve them and then if found force them to say "Um, Statute of Limitations".

Edit:
Yes, Greer has soundly shot himself in the foot, both were mentioned on the original complaint.

I don't think there's any circumstance he can claim to avoid the statute of limitations since it's in HIS OWN FILING.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

If I'm not mistaken, he gets one guaranteed amendment.

He'll have to ask the Judge and Mr Hardin for any others.
View attachment 7214962

You quoted state rules, this is a federal court.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Leaving aside the specifics of Greer's case where there are no rules anyway, how does adding defendants in an amended complaint usually work?

Move for an order amending the complaint to include the new party/ies.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

I'm worried that at the hearing the Judge will DENY Hardin's motion to stay discovery and just say "Fuck you, you wasted 2 months"

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

You quoted state rules, this is a federal court.

My bad. FRCP 15 says the same thing though.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

. The sanctions and bonded stay can be resolved separate from everything else.

I am actually a bit annoyed about the latter. The bond issue should have been resolved immediately, and the non-resolution of it is prejudice to both parties (Josh doesn't get to collect, and without the bonded stay, it probably can accumulate interest, which is prejudice to Russ). I'm not sure how a hearing on the issue is helpful; either Russ is entitled to a said bonded stay, or he isn't. It's perhaps one of the least complex questions the Magistrate has chosen for the hearing, and I'm not sure what Russ or Mr. Hardin can say about the matter that is not before the judge already in briefings.

or get a status update on discovery.

Update, generally, implies that things are going on. Well, I suppose that might not be fair, as Russ' discovery abuse is certainly still going on.

If the IFP gets revoked, if I remember correctly, according to the rules, the case must be dismissed, and there is no discretion regarding this matter.

That's what our Magistrate says, yes. See: Rodriguez v. Power 2:23-cv-00438 at 8 (D. Utah Jun 21, 2024) ("Under the IFP Statute, the court is required to dismiss the case at any time if the court determines, among other things, that the allegation of poverty is untrue.") (also noting the difference regarding the matter between FRCP and the local rules). But, as Mr. Hardin has pointed out, that's not always true:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.148809/gov.uscourts.utd.148809.253.0.pdf

Either one suits us fine, though a dismissal is of course better. While, I do not claim to be an expert on this difference, I believe it's a matter of "change in financial situation" vs. "a lie about a financial situation." Mr. Hardin's citation would therefore be about the former, and I know that my citation is about the latter.

Leaving aside the specifics of Greer's case where there are no rules anyway, how does adding defendants in an amended complaint usually work? Can you really dodge the statute of limitations by adding people onto an ancient lawsuit even if you couldn't charge them in a new lawsuit today?

I maintain that the other defendants were added untimely, and that any action is therefore barred.

 

[Harvey Danger]

The bond issue should have been resolved immediately... I'm not sure how a hearing on the issue is helpful; either Russ is entitled to a said bonded stay, or he isn't.

Agree, but I think adding it to the hearing was a timing and frustration reaction. On March 11, Greer asked for bond, Hardin asked for IFP review, and dropped a reply to Greer's response on sanctions. On March 12, there were 4 Defense additions to the docket, plus the Magistrate denying Hardin's short discovery form. March 13 was when the Magistrate scheduled the hearing.

Under my theory of "Magistrate works slowly on orders and ignores the docket until he's done", I think he resurfaced from chambers on the 12th to drop his latest order, saw 7 new entries since he last checked, and just swept it all into a hearing. I think he was annoyed and used the scheduling as his way of yelling STOP IT RETARDS into the docket. The issues slotted for agenda aren't because he needs briefing, but because he doesn't want to write 7 more orders. The only thing he looked at was Hardin's time extension to respond to the FAC, made necessary by the hearing date.

Denying bond in text would take more work to explain the reasoning. Browbeating Russ in person before denying it is probably sufficient. Hopefully he's not planning that for Hardin too, but I suspect what stops it is having a solid rule or citation to instruct the judge on what he can't get away with dismissing out of hand.

Update, generally, implies that things are going on.

Couldn't Hardin have emailed a couple more discovery requests to Russ by now, which were uneventfully fulfilled, and therefore the court (and us) wouldn't know about it? If Hardin didn't need to compel cooperation, he wouldn't have needed to file anything yet.

...stop laughing, it's theoretically possible! At least to the point that the judge may ask about it.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Agree, but I think adding it to the hearing was a timing and frustration reaction

Oh, yes, certainly. I'm not arguing against that point.

Denying bond in text would take more work to explain the reasoning. Browbeating Russ in person before denying it is probably sufficient. Hopefully he's not planning that for Hardin too, but I suspect what stops it is having a solid rule or citation to instruct the judge on what he can't get away with dismissing out of hand.

I don't think it would be hard to make an order regarding the simple issue, and even if it was, I don't like that everyone suffers from the (pointless) delay. I think we're both in agreement on that, though.

...stop laughing, it's theoretically possible!

I guess we'll find out when it becomes relevant again.

 

[AnOminous]

My bad. FRCP 15 says the same thing though.

The initial complaint was both filed much longer than 21 days ago, it was filed literally four years ago.

And an answer (a responsive pleading) was filed in January of last year.

So the time for an amendment as of right expired in 2020.

It's a moot point, because Hardin consented to the amendment of the complaint. At some time in the future, if it isn't already clear, there's a very good reason (or maybe many reasons) that he did that.

 

[Null]

Can anyone find an archive of this page in 2020 BEFORE November 2020?

https://kiwifars.net/misc/contact

Archive.org blocks us and archive.is only has it from November