Friday, December 10, 2021

The Stupid, It Burns

I thought this was something really stupid that Buzzfeed did. But then the Houston Chronicle jumped on the train, and I realized how contagious stupidity is, especially among journalists.

Houston rapper Travis Scott has responded to 11 lawsuits launched against him in the deadly Astroworld festival tragedy denying all liability and requesting he and his record label Cactus Jack Music be dropped as defendants, according to court documents. 

Scott, whose real name is Jacques B. Webster II, has been named in hundreds of lawsuits totaling billions of dollars since the tragedy that took 10 young lives on Nov. 5. Scott’s attorney Ed McPherson issued a “general denial” on his behalf to allegations claiming he was to blame for the deaths and injuries of concertgoers.  

Scott is also requesting the claims be “dismissed with prejudice" so that once finished, cases cannot be refiled.

Representatives with Scott's legal team said in an email to the Chronicle that the request is "a standard response to the plaintiff filing and reiterates what's already been out there that Travis is not legally liable." 

This is not only "a standard reponse to the plaintiff filing," it's absolutely boilerplate.  When I was working for lawyers before law school, and when I was practicing law, the "Defendant's Original Answer" was the first document we made sure to file with the court when our client had been sued.  It always denied "each and every, all and singular" the allegations made in the Plaintiff's Petition, and always requested the case be dismissed with prejudice so res judicata would apply (the civil version of double jeopardy).  A civil case can be dismissed "without prejudice" if the plaintiff has made a fatal error in bringing the case, but one that can be corrected in a new case.  A dismissal "with prejudice" means the plaintiff loses, and can't come back to try again.  Asking for dismissal with prejudice is not shocking; what would be shocking is not asking for it as a matter of course.

Let me explain legal procedure ever so briefly:  if you don't ask the court for relief (either a judgement against the plaintiff, or dismissal of the charges), you don't get it.  Maybe a criminal case is an easier example.  The prosecution makes a case (by arraignment or indictment) against the defendant.  The defendant pleads "not guilty," which doesn't mean the defendant absolutely thinks he is not guilty, but that the prosecution has to prove its case. No one is shocked when a criminal defendant pleads "Not guilty," even if everyone is sure they are (well, some people are, but innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean anything to them.).  In a civil case the defendant ALWAYS denies all the allegation made by the plaintiff, and asks, quite reasonably, that the case be dismissed with prejudice.  That is not the same thing as a 'Motion to Dismiss."  It's a "general denial," which covers any motion to dismiss that may come up later.

Here, think of it in terms of Chekhov's gun.  The gun is on the table in Act I, and it had better go off by Act IV.  But it had better be there in Act I and not appear out of thin air in Act IV as the bad guy is about to kill the helpless maiden (sorry, but JEP's still rule stories), or it's a deus ex machina.  Where the hell did that gun very conveniently come from?  Bugs Bunny can pull giant hammers out of his fur, but we don't allow that kind of shenanigans in plays with real people.

It's also a basic principle of composition (in writing).  If you don't mention it in the first paragraph, the topic had better not come up in the last paragraph.  So if you don't lead with asking the charges to be dismissed, the court might decide it's a little late to bring that up after discovery convinces you the plaintiff can't make a case at trial.  A good defense lawyer covers the bases, and makes sure the court knew from the first that the defendant might seek a dismissal, on the slim risk the court says “You should have mentioned that earlier.”

Boilerplate, as I said.  Travis Scott, like any other civil defendant, is entitled to deny responsibility as alleged by the plaintiffs (which is a narrower thing than denying responsibility for the situation) and so deny any civil liability, and to ask the case to be dismissed as a matter of form.  I guarantee you every civil case any journalist has reported on since the founding of the Republic has included language similar to this and nobody batted an eye.

And then Buzzfeed came along, and every journalist had to join the baying pack, lest they be left out.

It's embarassing, really.  And small wonder we have so many people baying so many stupid things about our legal system and civics in general.  I think we really are all a lot stupider than we used to be.  And believe me, we were never collectively that smart in the first place.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)