New York Law School strikes back

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
MTal
Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:47 pm

New York Law School strikes back

Postby MTal » Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:27 pm

"In a motion to dismiss the complaint filed Thursday, the law school said the plaintiffs relied on "broad generalities" instead of concrete facts to back up their claims that the school massaged its post-graduation statistics to lure prospective students."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... job_rates/

Personally I believe the plaintiffs laid out a good case and the motion will be denied.

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:32 pm

MTal wrote:"In a motion to dismiss the complaint filed Thursday, the law school said the plaintiffs relied on "broad generalities" instead of concrete facts to back up their claims that the school massaged its post-graduation statistics to lure prospective students."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... job_rates/

Personally I believe the plaintiffs laid out a good case and the motion will be denied.

And your long tenure in law school helped you come to that conclusion? Just kidding brother.

Seriously though, quite interested to see how this turns out. Thanks for posting.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby scammedhard » Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:36 pm

"New York Law School strikes back?"

Every Defendant always files a motion to dismiss alleging the Plaintiff has failed to present a case... This is a typical, mechanical response.

User avatar
Kess
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:26 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby Kess » Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:14 pm

scammedhard wrote:"New York Law School strikes back?"

Every Defendant always files a motion to dismiss alleging the Plaintiff has failed to present a case... This is a typical, mechanical response.


+1

Nothing worth mentioning here.

User avatar
theadvancededit
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:31 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby theadvancededit » Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:00 pm

scammedhard wrote:"New York Law School strikes back?"

Every Defendant always files a motion to dismiss alleging the Plaintiff has failed to present a case... This is a typical, mechanical response.


+2

Standard motion practice, especially when billable hours are involved.

User avatar
Opie
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:27 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby Opie » Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:59 pm

theadvancededit wrote:
scammedhard wrote:"New York Law School strikes back?"

Every Defendant always files a motion to dismiss alleging the Plaintiff has failed to present a case... This is a typical, mechanical response.


+2

Standard motion practice, especially when billable hours are involved.


Yeah, why would you not file a motion to dismiss? Should I bill my client to file a largely prewritten motion I could do in my sleep and possibly win this case without ever going to court? Sure, why not.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby minnbills » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:02 pm

Opie wrote:Yeah, why would you not file a motion to dismiss? Should I bill my client to file a largely prewritten motion I could do in my sleep and possibly win this case without ever going to court? Sure, why not.


Or write a poor one knowing it will be denied so you can go to trial and bill even more hours.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby paratactical » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:57 pm

lolololol @ MtD being largely prewritten.

pwyoung
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:19 am

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby pwyoung » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:02 am

I'm just stunned that MTal has stuck around for 4 years.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby JCougar » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:25 am

paratactical wrote:lolololol @ MtD being largely prewritten.


Everyone I've talked to basically says they're all the same.

User avatar
BiglawOrBust
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby BiglawOrBust » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:39 am

scammedhard wrote:"New York Law School strikes back?"

Every Defendant always files a motion to dismiss alleging the Plaintiff has failed to present a case... This is a typical, mechanical response.


All right! Show's over, folks. Move along now.

MrAnon
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby MrAnon » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:42 am

How is "we just did what the ABA told us to" a defense?

I stole that candy bar, but EVERYONE was stealing candy bars!

User avatar
theadvancededit
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:31 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby theadvancededit » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:25 pm

minnbills wrote:
Opie wrote:Yeah, why would you not file a motion to dismiss? Should I bill my client to file a largely prewritten motion I could do in my sleep and possibly win this case without ever going to court? Sure, why not.


Or write a poor one knowing it will be denied so you can go to trial and bill even more hours.


Conference, conference, conference.

Kimberly
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby Kimberly » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:35 pm

minnbills wrote:
Opie wrote:Yeah, why would you not file a motion to dismiss? Should I bill my client to file a largely prewritten motion I could do in my sleep and possibly win this case without ever going to court? Sure, why not.


Or write a poor one knowing it will be denied so you can go to trial and bill even more hours.


It makes my stomach turn just to read this (= :evil: ). :(

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby minnbills » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:35 pm

Are you upset by jokes Kim?

Kimberly
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby Kimberly » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:37 pm

minnbills wrote:Are you upset by jokes Kim?


Only jokes with a nuance of sad and disturbing reality.

blsingindisguise
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby blsingindisguise » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:38 pm

lol, like 3/4 of the talk in this thread is massively confused. MTD's are indeed routine (so yes, there's nothing special about the mere fact of one being filed), but they are far from mechanical. In fact they are a crucial stage in litigation and are often heavily researched because they decide whether various claims in the lawsuit remain or get knocked out -- this means (1) if you're the defendant and you get all or most of the substantive claims knocked out, you've won, (2) if you're the plai and enough of your claims survive, you have good leverage to push a settlement, and (3) their results will shape the amount and kind of discovery taken, which has huge bearing on the cost of the litigation.

Also, the thing above about deliberately filing a bad motion to dismiss -- highly unlikely.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby paratactical » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:47 pm

Filing an intentionally bad MtD would be hard to prove, but if you could those sanctions would be bonkers.

Also, if you're doing canned MtDs, you're doing something crazy to be sued by enough people singularly to get that many cases. The law might be routine, but the supporting shit, especially well composed statements of facts, should be meticulously composed and quite time consuming. The last MtD I did was a fucking opus of a paper and handily rid the firm's clients of an obviously pesky and inappropriate suit, but it still took time to put together.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby romothesavior » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:43 pm

paratactical wrote:Filing an intentionally bad MtD would be hard to prove, but if you could those sanctions would be bonkers.

Also, if you're doing canned MtDs, you're doing something crazy to be sued by enough people singularly to get that many cases. The law might be routine, but the supporting shit, especially well composed statements of facts, should be meticulously composed and quite time consuming. The last MtD I did was a fucking opus of a paper and handily rid the firm's clients of an obviously pesky and inappropriate suit, but it still took time to put together.

I still think you should go to law school. You would be so much better at being a lawyer than most of us.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby paratactical » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:32 pm

I'm too smart for that racket, jabroni. In ten years, I'll be the admin manager of a firm and raking it in.

TheFactor
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:12 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby TheFactor » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:32 pm

MTal wrote:"In a motion to dismiss the complaint filed Thursday, the law school said the plaintiffs relied on "broad generalities" instead of concrete facts to back up their claims that the school massaged its post-graduation statistics to lure prospective students."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... job_rates/

Personally I believe the plaintiffs laid out a good case and the motion will be denied.

THANKS FOR YOU OPINION BRO!

User avatar
BiglawOrBust
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby BiglawOrBust » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:38 am

Kimberly wrote:
minnbills wrote:
Opie wrote:Yeah, why would you not file a motion to dismiss? Should I bill my client to file a largely prewritten motion I could do in my sleep and possibly win this case without ever going to court? Sure, why not.


Or write a poor one knowing it will be denied so you can go to trial and bill even more hours.


It makes my stomach turn just to read this (= :evil: ). :(


Someone's going into PI

User avatar
theadvancededit
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:31 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby theadvancededit » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:56 pm

BiglawOrBust wrote:
Kimberly wrote:
minnbills wrote:
Opie wrote:Yeah, why would you not file a motion to dismiss? Should I bill my client to file a largely prewritten motion I could do in my sleep and possibly win this case without ever going to court? Sure, why not.


Or write a poor one knowing it will be denied so you can go to trial and bill even more hours.


It makes my stomach turn just to read this (= :evil: ). :(


Someone's going into PI


Hahaha, PI motions are the fan fiction of the legal universe.

Kimberly
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby Kimberly » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:22 am

BiglawOrBust wrote:
Kimberly wrote:
minnbills wrote:
Opie wrote:Yeah, why would you not file a motion to dismiss? Should I bill my client to file a largely prewritten motion I could do in my sleep and possibly win this case without ever going to court? Sure, why not.


Or write a poor one knowing it will be denied so you can go to trial and bill even more hours.


It makes my stomach turn just to read this (= :evil: ). :(


Someone's going into PI



Haaaahaaaa. Nice guess. In all of my outrageous optimism, I would be suited for it.... but I got other plans...

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: New York Law School strikes back

Postby minnbills » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:25 am

So you're a sellout like the rest of us?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dannyswo, judill, tommypickles and 6 guests