I am the law of the dance, said he....

[captainsblog]

It was a long and dreary day- out moments past 8, in moments before 7, raining almost the entire time. So it's nice to end the day with a little schadenfreude.

To appreciate it, you have to understand United States legal civil procedure. Put down that axe.  I'll make it simple. It's just a little dance we do; there are variations among systems, and among courts within systems, but the basics can be done in 100 words or less (yes, I will count):

You sue someone by serving a "complaint." If they contest it, they do so by serving an "answer." If they think they have a claim against the suing party over and above the defense, they assert it in a "counterclaim." The original suing party then serves a "reply."

Naturally, there are exceptions, and one is enshrined in the procedural rules for what I'd call the "Medium Claims Court" for upstate New York cities. In their unique practice, counterclaims do NOT have to be replied to. They "shall be deemed denied."

Ninety words, bitches. But not as good as the ones I got to write earlier tonight, responding the the lawyer who wasted my time in a case I filed earlier this year.

The court was one governed by those medium-claim procedural rules. I complained, he answered, he counterclaimed. I did not reply; see above.  After weeks of nothingness, I scheduled the case for trial, certifying, among other things, "All pleadings served."  Dude just filed his own papers, (a) to remove the case from the trial calendar because I had falsely stated, "All pleadings served, " and (b) to enter a default judgment against my client because I hadn't filed a reply.

And so now I get to reply- not to the counterclaim, but to the incompetence.  My letter follows, with my unstated snarkiness in italics:

Dear [oh, let's call him Mikey]:

I received your motion dated October 17, 2012 concerning the note of issue filed in this matter.  I enclose a copy of section 907 of the Uniform City Court Act for your reference. (It's pretty clear you've never seen it before.) I don’t think it could be any clearer in NOT requiring a reply to your counterclaim absent court order.

If you wish to withdraw this motion prior to its return date, and notify the court of same, I will treat this as an oversight and move forward with the progress of the case to trial. (Because, hey, we all fuck up. Just ask Eleanor about my efforts to refurnish a 10-year-old computer.) However, if you require either answering papers or an appearance to oppose the relief sought, I will seek attorneys fees and costs for being required to defend a motion that is frivolous on its face. (So there.)

 Alternatively, I have some settlement authority, so please call me if you wish to discuss that. (He won't.)

Yours, etc.

I also resisted making any references to binders, horses or bayonets.

Comments

[catecumen]

"Like." :-)

[audacian.livejournal.com]

Ouch. Nice smackdown.

[captainsblog.livejournal.com]

Thanks- if that's the word for it.

If he'd given me the courtesy of a call to tip me off to my "default," I'd have been a lot less inclined to respond with this kind of smack. I almost always do likewise when someone else gets caught in a BS procedural trap like this.

And he's no greenhorn kid-he was admitted in 2004.

[logicalargument.livejournal.com]

Dumb mistakes do happen, and I've made my share, but when one chooses to be arrogant as well as careless, a righteous comeuppance is well earned and well deserved.

Of course, this reminds me about some of the things that I've left undone, which is always the downside of reading posts by other lawyers. :-)

[ellettra.livejournal.com]

The phrase "frivolous on its face" never fails to make me giggle. Not sure why.

[captainsblog.livejournal.com]

It's kinda evoking Krusty the Clown for me, but your mileage may vary;)

[ellettra.livejournal.com]

Hahahaha, totally.

[tilia-tomentosa.livejournal.com]

My oh my! :)

(And what is it about horses and bayonets now? I just can't keep up with every American craziness.)

[captainsblog.livejournal.com]

Romney's been playing to the warmonger wing of his party, and one of his promises has been to restore the power of the US Navy, by building 13 battleships, despite the fact that the Navy has no reported need for them. His talking point is that our current Navy has the lowest number of ships than it's had since 1916.

This crap came up in the first debate, and Obama, clearly on a bad day, had no reply to it. When he trotted it out again in the third debate earlier this week, the President had the response, and nailed it.

Paraphrasing: That's true, Mittens. We also have a much smaller inventory of horses and bayonets than we did in 1916. But back then we did NOT have things we have now. Like airplanes. And fewer, but VERY BIG, ships(they're called "aircraft carriers") for the planes to take off and land from. And tanks, which were just being developed in World War I. And those OTHER ships, the ones that go UNDER the water, called 'submarines.' We have a LOT more of those than we did back then. So go check your binders full of military assets and stick them up your magic underwear."

Like I said: paraphrasing.

(Also, editing: for code and clarification.)