Are the Answers In?
As we move along in civil action 08cv02407 (NLH) (KMW) within the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, we now come to the shocking answers offered by the defendants in the case. Keep one thing in mind as we proceed, that being the fact that these are the revelations of the defendants attorney's, as evidenced by said answers not being directly signed by a named party.
Tell you what, lets take a look at what the law says in reference to answering a complaint first. We would have to begin with FRCVP 7 Pleadings Allowed: Form of Motions and Other Papers. In doing so, we find that FRCVP 7 (a) holds: "Pleadings- Only these pleadings are allowed: (1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a cross-claim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) and answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.
Pursuant to FRCVP 7 (a) (1), stating that one of the allowed pleadings is a complaint. The court's record evidenced by copy of its docket sheet substantiates that this rule was complied with and met by me when I filed a complaint on 5/15/2008. This document became Court docket item #1. (See page 8 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).
Pursuant to FRCVP 7 (a) (2), stating that one of the allowed pleadings is an answer to a complaint, Harrah's Hotel and Casino did file it's answers to the complaint. This document filed on 10/14/2008 became court docket item #7. (See page 8 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).
On 11/18/2008, after receiving the above answers from Harrah's, I did timely file my Reply and Objection to the sufficiency of Defendants Answers. Said fact is evidenced by the court's docket sheet containing docket item #9. (See page 9 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).
Appears, wait a minute, I dislike that word. Why? In my opinion when a judge uses that word be prepared to duck, because the J.S.H.I.T is about to hit the fan. Any judge sitting on the bench now a days will be old enough to remember the song that went, "Is you is or is you ain't my baby." The singer of that song, way back when, didn't ask are you appearing to be my baby? He wanted to know cut and dry-- either you is or you ain't. Now a days we say "don't front."
So the record shows that I filed a complaint and Harrah's Hotel and Casino answered. But wait what about the other defendant? Those of you versed in the law asked this question awhile back I hope, and those not as well versed should be catching on by now. Do I have to break out the ruler? That's right, one defendant has answered to this point and according to the documentary proof before us on the courts docket sheet we are about to go to an initial conference.
The above referenced initial conference is the result of an Order by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, entered on the courts docket as docket item #8 on 10/17/2008. But if I may keep you a little longer, please note that docket item #10 reveals that defendant George Morton was served and his answers to the complaint are due in the court by 12/15/2008. Oh Goodie. Not! Are you forgetting that Mr. Morton did come to the conference on 12/17/2008.
We already established that because Mr. Morton did submit to the courts jurisdiction the cohorts had to resort to removing docket item #11 which was Judge Schneider's Order evidencing this fact. (See J.S.H.I.T.#2 in archives to the left) There are some key issue to reveal to you as to what took place at the initial conference, and I will do that in the next posting.
Thank You for joining me, Big Shout Out to #1 follower Boo!
Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming! TheCasinoGamingOracle (aka OGGO)
P.S. Check out Acronymically Speaking 101, spawned by JSHIT at