For the nonlawyers - without looking, I'm going to guess that this will be a document-heavy case (if it survives a motion to dismiss). One where the vendor costs for ediscovery will run five- to six-figures.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Dan has kindly provided the docket link; let's dig in to the actual filings. After I get a drink. A substantially reinforced drink. (It's after 12, it's a Saturday, why not).
Yeah. Lots of exhibits to the complaint. That's a thing that - particularly when coupled with the words 'pro se' sends shivers through the law clerks' souls.
They've been mailed a summons. Odds of them figuring out service are...fun.
OK. Now let's start with the 220-hour complaint. For reference, I'm less than 220 hours into a case that's a complete train wreck - it's two cases that have generated a couple hundred docket entries and hearing binders that made the court reporter guess it had been going for 18 months.
Somewhere these guys said that, as pro se, they had to go to the court with a paper complaint. Not sure that's how the rules work, but this was presumably scanned in by a clerk.
If I were the judge, I wouldn't punish them for waiving work product privilege—I'd insist that any discovery requests from the defense be genuinely relevant—but I'm not the judge. They may come to regret disclosing the steps in their strategic decision-making process.
So, they were ripped off by this company, and now, they're ripping THEMSELVES off.
I hate to blame the victim, but this feels like their plan to get their money back from the Wallet Inspector is to hire the guy who runs the 3-card Monte game, and paying him in advance.
Mustering the sum total of my nothing whatsoever cred on four sides of at least two oceans to ask:
Is this *really* something out of an actual lawsuit anywhere on this planet?
I mean, even if this gets dismissed out of hand and, by some divine mircale, tehse doofuses stop at that point, it ALREADY has negative value (the filing fee)
Comments
amazing
https://bsky.app/profile/izzos.us/post/3lex4eooho22d
Yeah. Lots of exhibits to the complaint. That's a thing that - particularly when coupled with the words 'pro se' sends shivers through the law clerks' souls.
They've been mailed a summons. Odds of them figuring out service are...fun.
1L’s are slow. Take notice, lawyers that file garbage. Everyone knows who you are.
How many times?!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.145045/gov.uscourts.pamd.145045.1.0.pdf
I hate to blame the victim, but this feels like their plan to get their money back from the Wallet Inspector is to hire the guy who runs the 3-card Monte game, and paying him in advance.
Is this *really* something out of an actual lawsuit anywhere on this planet?
It would be a first, but the "ELIZA is an all knowing supreme being" folks could well be the ones to manage it.