The DC Court has rejected the McArdle, et al., legal motion to dismiss the Vest derivative suit. The ruling is barely two pages long.
11 Comments
Comments are closed.
The DC Court has rejected the McArdle, et al., legal motion to dismiss the Vest derivative suit. The ruling is barely two pages long.
Comments are closed.
Did the LNC seriously try to have this dismissed on the basis of standing? Whoever recommended that strategy should be very embarrassed, and that the LNC took that advice is evidence they are very stupid. But wouldn’t it be fun if they tried exactly the same thing with the Harlos suit?
I mean, what did you expect in the motion to dismiss?
My thought is “why is the judge’s order to short?”
Leaves me wondering what was persuasive from the Vest arguments to get the win she got.
It’s not a ruling on the merits of the case, just a procedural ruling. Those tend to be shorter.
What was persuasive was that it’s clear she has standing, The opinion expressly says why.
There is presently a pending motion to dismiss the Harlos suit on substantially the same unpersuasive arguments. Harlos has a response due and her lawyers (who are also Vest’s lawyers) are working on the response.
It’s expensive fighting corruption, so if you know anyone who has the means to contribute to the legal fees, please send them to the webpage I’m maintaining to keep track of the suits.
https://sarwark.org/MAGArdle/
If the motion to dismiss is frivolous can’t you get attorney fees awarded to cover the cost of responding to it? Depending on the particular ethics rules there might also be room for a bar complaint here…
Speaking of corruption, look how much the party spent fighting the corrupt trio of Sarwark, Henchman and Bilyeu.
What did Bilyeu do other than the removal of the secretary? Was she even chair for 6 months?
They have already filed a similar motion on the Harlos suit, but it might have a different judge. However, this would be persuasive there.
I love a good brief brief.
If a brief isn’t brief enough, it’s a boxer.
If a brief is too brief, it’s a thong.
Either way, somebody’s getting it in the shorts.