May 19, 2014—San Diego, CA—California Coalition For Families and Children, PBC announces filing of motions and oppositions in its Racketeering and Civil Rights lawsuit against Family Courts and the Divorce Industry. The latest round of filings explains to the United States District Court the foundation for the lawsuit and request that the Court permit the case to move into discovery.
“Defendants filed an avalanche of almost two hundred pages of attacks on the First Amended Complaint on virtually every legal ground that could be imagined” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition. “They threw the book at us, and we responded in kind.”
California Coalition’s opposition brief totaled 186 pages of analysis explaining the legal foundations of the Action. The motions were filed as part of an “Omnibus” round of briefing ordered by presiding District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. In the filing, defendants joined forces and also filed separate “joinder” briefs on issues unique to each defendant. “They pretty much ganged up on us in this round—we’re facing an army of lawyers representing lawyers–divorce law firms, forensic psychologists, family law judges, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Commission on Judicial Performance, even Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye” says Stuart.
The “Omnibus” filing challenged the legal foundation for California Coalition’s First Amended Complaint. At this round of the litigation, no party can present evidence, but the District Court Judge examines the Plaintiff’s legal theories to determine if they state a cause of action recognizable under law. If the Complaint states “cognizable claims”, the case goes forward. Defendants can also assert technical defenses, such as expiration of statutes of limitation, or jurisdictional issues. Such defenses don’t adjudicate the merits of the claim—but only whether the complaint meets a checklist of technicalities. It’s common for such motions to be raised at the outset of the litigation. For many issues, the complaint can be “fixed” by simply amending to satisfy the technicalities. In other cases, such as statute of limitations or jurisdiction bars, judicial or other immunities, and certain other “all-or-nothing” defenses, a court isn’t required to grant the plaintiff permission to amend if it’s apparent that even an amended complaint couldn’t go forward. The Omnibus brief filed by all defendants raised many of these “all or nothing” defenses.
[More at WeigtierMatter.com]