< link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://fumare.us/" > < meta name="DC.identifier" content="http://fumare.blogspot.com" > <!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12407651\x26blogName\x3dFUMARE\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d6298351012122011485', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

FUMARE

Law, culture, and Catholicism...up in smoke!

Sunday, March 05, 2006

World's Greatest Pleading

Those of you in the business know that sometimes more argument is not a good thing. With that in mind, the award for "Best Pleading Ever" goes to. . . [drum roll] The City of Detroit!

The award is for the City's very real response to Plaintiff's motion for leave to submit a sur-reply in Chancellor v. City of Detroit, et al., No. 03-40344 (E.D. Mich.). For those of you with access to the Eastern District of Michigan's E.C.F. system, it is document 128. Enjoy.


DEFENDANT CITY'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF DETROIT'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF SECOND RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


CONSISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

I. HAVING ALREADY FILED AN EXCESSIVELY LONG BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT CITY'S MOTION, COULD THE PLAINTIFF REALLY HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO SAY THAT IS OF REAL VALUE?

II. ARE WE WELL PAST THE POINT WHEN ADVOCATES SHOULD JUST SHUT UP AND TRUST THE COURT TO SEE THROUGH ALL THE VERBIAGE AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO RULE ON THE CITY'S MOTION?

III. HOW MUCH OF THIS CAN THE COURT BE EXPECTED TO TAKE?

IV. IF THE PLAINTIFF IS PERMITTED TO FILE A SUR-REPLY, SHOULD THE CITY THEN BE PERMITTED TO FILE A SUR-SUR-REPLY?

V. THEN DOES THE PLAINTIFF GET TO FILE A SUR-SUR-SUR-REPLY?

VI-[infinity]. AND SO ON AND SO FORTH?

[infinity]+1. I WILL WAGER ONE DOLLAR THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS GOING TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THIS BRIEF. ANY TAKERS?


CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORIES

E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(c)(8).


ARGUMENT

Enough Aready.


s/John XXXXX_________
John XXXXXX (P-XXXXX)
Attorney for Defendant City
1650 First National Building
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 237-XXXX
XXXXX@LAW.ci.detroit.mi.us
Dated: February 10, 2006

|