Need some input from real, actually practicing litigators itt please
| ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | Jason Genova | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | ,,,...,,......,,....,,,,,,,,....... | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | Sean South of Garryowen | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | Jason Genova | 10/31/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 10/31/24 | | but at what cost | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | Sean South of Garryowen | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | Sean South of Garryowen | 10/31/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 10/31/24 | | Nippon Professional Baseball | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | chilmata | 10/31/24 | | hank_scorpio | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | Nippon Professional Baseball | 10/31/24 | | werekike | 10/31/24 | | but at what cost | 10/31/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 10/31/24 | | werekike | 10/31/24 | | CriminalConversation | 10/31/24 | | trump | 10/31/24 | | Gregor | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | Sean South of Garryowen | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | Sean South of Garryowen | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | Bill (((Goldberg))) | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | infraphysics is hetero | 10/31/24 | | damnum daddy | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | damnum daddy | 10/31/24 | | damnum daddy | 10/31/24 | | bjork | 10/31/24 | | sph | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | sph | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 | | ...:.;.;...;.;;::; | 10/31/24 | | sph | 10/31/24 | | McDonald Trump | 10/31/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 31st, 2024 3:34 PM Author: ...:.;.;...;.;;::;
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264289)
|
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 3:48 PM
Author: ,,,...,,......,,....,,,,,,,,.......
Bad faith isn’t about your personal actions. The question would be whether the court in general believes you intentionally lowballed it to defeat diversity jx. And circumstantially that seems likely if you are only a couple thousand below and then suddenly jack it up after a year. Pepper angus faggot
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264366) |
Date: October 31st, 2024 3:45 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
wtf is a ad damnum?
ive been a lawyer for 20 yrs and never heard that term. is this some shitlaw phrase to sound smart?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264350) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 3:50 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
damnum daddy!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264379) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 3:50 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
i'm a litigator. not a shitigator.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264382) |
Date: October 31st, 2024 3:51 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
this thread isnt going well for op, and it's almost like op wanted the catty responses by telling people on xo when they can and cant poast. it's kind of meta good work
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264389) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 3:55 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
i was top of class at top ls and an appellate clerk, faggot
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264407) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 4:08 PM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264473) |
Date: October 31st, 2024 4:03 PM Author: Sean South of Garryowen
Here is my take:
The original pleading seems intended to keep it in State Court-- $300,000 is quite different from $72,000.
After the deadline to remove you say to OC, hey upping the damages by more than triple. You OK with that?
She says, "No" understandably.
You have a good point re the Court has not even agreed to allow you to change the ad dandum or whatever (aside, isn't this a routine amendment absent any sleazy tactic to avoid federal court? Like, if I want to amend my complaint to add a clam, etc. usually the other side agrees to allow it and, if they don't, the Court will certainly allow).
However, she will say, IF you are hell bent on the $300,000 then you should not have a problem with Federal Court, since you waited this long to amend. Why is it her problem if you just came into the case? You basically spring this big bump in damages on her after the deadline.
I think you lose.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264443) |
Date: October 31st, 2024 4:15 PM Author: Bill (((Goldberg)))
You are historically dumb.
"Bad faith" has nothing to do with whether you, personally, filed the complaint.
You are also conflating the "value" of the case with the amount in controversy. Settlement value and likelihood of success have nothing to do with whether a case is removable. If you have a case with $75,001 in damages, a 1% chance of success, and a $75 settlement value, the removal threshold is met.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264517) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 4:18 PM Author: ...:.;.;...;.;;::;
Bad faith has variable meanings in fed court context my bro. It can be "bad faith" in fed court to include a rightful defendant in a case primarily because he kills diversity. IT can also be bad faith in state court to object needlessly to an increase in ad damnum when the state rules are clear that a motion to amend must be "liberally granted" and the ad damnum can be increased as late as a week or two before trial.
as for settlement value v amount in controversy, bro, I'm trying to work around and justify the original ad damnum amount -- i already know everything you just said and am making arguments. have you ever argued anything in court in the past three years? do you know how constructing arguments works?
Anyway, you arent engaging in good faith w the name calling so I think I'm out Goldberg
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264531) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 4:21 PM Author: McDonald Trump (gunneratttt)
"district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith"
your honor, not only could i not have acted in bad faith because i was not the attorney at the time, i'm also not the plaintiff! i'm his attorney!
one weird trick to avoid removal to fed courts: switch attorneys after a year.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264546) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 4:23 PM Author: ...:.;.;...;.;;::;
you arent helping.
for starters, the judge isnt going to write that. he might write something like that but he's not going to write that.
I thought you said you clerked.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264560)
|
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 4:32 PM Author: McDonald Trump (gunneratttt)
you're so fucking arrogant and stupid it's unreal.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF *YOU* DIDN'T ACT IN BAD FAITH! IT MATTERS IF THE ORIGINAL ATTORNEY DID!
going from *just* under diversity jx threshold to $300k is going to look like it was done intentionally to avoid federal court. it doesn't matter if YOU did it or not, you fucking retard. you are REPRESENTING the plaintiff, not the plaintiff itself.
you provided no rationale other than "wow, it amount is really low!" for it being 72k. it seems from the facts that it *WAS* kept this low to evade diversity jx. you can't get around this by switching attorneys, you absolute FUCKING moron.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48264623) |
Date: October 31st, 2024 7:59 PM Author: sph
It doesn't matter whether you just picked the case up. The "bad faith" referred to in 28 USC 1446(c)(1) is the plaintiff's bad faith, not your bad faith. It also doesn't matter whether the state court has yet permitted an amended complaint with the ad damnum meeting the jurisdictional minimum. The ad damnum is not dispositive.
Here's where this is probably going. If plaintiff provided defendant medical bills exceeding $75k via discovery more than 30 days ago, defendant is fucked under 28 USC 1446(c)(3)(A), because discovery material showing that the real amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold would start the 28 USC 1446(b)(3) 30 day clock.
If defendant asked for the medical bills in discovery and plaintiff dragged its feet, you have a bad faith problem and requesting leave to amend the complaint triggered the 28 USC 1446(b)(3) 30 day clock, which is why defendant's attorney isn't waiting for the state court.
If defendant never sought discovery of medical bills, it gets less clear. You're going to argue that defendant was on inquiry notice that the original ad damnum was less than (or at least became less than, more than 30 days ago) the amount in controversy, so they don't get a second bite at the apple under 28 USC 1446(b)(3). This is a bit of a needle to thread, though, because you need to steer clear of appearing in bad faith.
Note that the settlement value of the claim is not the right measure for the jurisdictional threshold. Think more what you get if you win.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265415) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 8:13 PM Author: McDonald Trump (gunneratttt)
lmao this guy answered your q comprehensively without a hint of insult and you're still mad. god damn.
*asks q*
*gets multiparagraph answer*
"Yeah I know all that already and you are fixating on one thing. Is this Kenny?"
god damn you're such an insufferable asshole.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265472) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2024 8:19 PM Author: McDonald Trump (gunneratttt)
what is irrelevant? he explained how things might shake out depending on different circumstances and provided examples to illustrate that.
and even if he did bring up irrelevant stuff, he tried to answer your question and didn't insult you, so even if his response was poor (it's not), that's no reason to lash out at him.
you're just lashing out because you think he's some poaster you've feuded with before.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5621958&forum_id=2#48265496) |
|
|