This was funny, to me. These are the first three paragraphs in a response to a Motion for Summary Judgment. Not being able to speak on the law in this matter, I proffer the following, and then comment in italics.
1. The defendant has filed for summary judgment in this case, asserting, obviously, that no genuine issues of fact exist to have this matter submitted to a jury.
2. First, Plaintiff notes that the parties and counsels in this matter have been exceedingly civil and candid with one another. Such a practice is refreshing in an arena that gradually becomes increasingly adversarial and acrimonious.
3. Nevertheless, the parties do have opposing positions as it relates to the care and treatment that was given to the Plaintiff Blah Blah. There exist no real factual disputes, but merely a differing of opinions as it relates to medical care and the applicable standards.
If the MSJ is because “no genuine issues of fact exist” then why would the attorney state (in paragraph 3) that, there are “no real factual disputes, but merely a differing of opinions” to the Court?
Help me out here, some of you legal types.
- Sixteen attorney filings yesterday in the civil cases that end with a 4. 12 of them needed big corrections. WTF, attorneys.
- This order’s language: Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Clarify Response to Summary Judgment (Doc. #32), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and the Plaintiffs’ Response to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is AMENDED to conform with the Motion to Amend.
Let me (try to) explain #2.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ). Briefly, an MSJ is filed when a party being sued makes an argument that there aren’t any material facts of the controversy that are actually in dispute. This is usually done after the sides get a chance to flesh out their grievances (but before trial) so as to save time, money, and face, in some cases. :-)
The plaintiff filed a response to the MSJ. Then the plaintiff filed a motion asking for leave (permission) to amend their response to the MSJ. Usually, in our court, you need to file a motion for leave, and then include the entire amended response so that the judge (and the opposing counsel) can read it. It’s not uncommon for the judge to set a deadline for the opposing side to respond to the motion to amend. In this instance, the judge did not.
But instead of following the common practice in our court, the plaintiff—in her motion for leave to amend—included the language she wanted changed. And the judge, instead of denying the motion without prejudice (which allows her to bring it back later in the timeline of this case) gave her leave to amend her previous response. But instead of telling the plaintiff to file an amended response, and having me strike the original response, he says that the original response is amended to conform to the motion to amend (which was actually a motion for leave to amend).
Hence my headache/gripe.
Long story short, bullet 2 says that permission to amend the previous response is given, but only to the effect that the previous response is amended as proposed in the motion for leave to amend.
Crystal clear, ammirite?
Now, if I’m hazy somewhere here, you’re gonna have to ask some of the folks that are lawyers (or work more closely with lawyers) to clear it up. :-)
(BTW: this is post 11,999!)