Two more motions to dismiss are being served tomorrow, and will be filed shortly, in the defamation case that Joseph Rakofsky brought against 81 defendants (including me).
These new motions come on behalf of Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyers Mirriam Seddiq (who blogs at Not Guilty) (See: Seddiq Motion) and Jamison Koehler (See: Koehler Motion)
Both are represented by Albany attorney David Brickman, who filed this motion to dismiss on behalf of Philadelphia personal injury attorney Max Kennerly and the Beasly Firm the other day.
For the out-of-towners reading this, New York’s statute that governs motions to dismiss is Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211.
Pingback: Defending People » Compendium of Rakofsky (and Borzouye) v. Internet Blog Posts
Doesn’t plaintiff’s attorney have an obligation to bring a non-frivolous case? And to so certify by signing his pleading? Here, plaintiff’s attorney was admitted to practice law in 2004. Might he be in this way over his head?
Pingback: Rakofsky Case: Reuters Moves To Dismiss – New York Personal Injury Law Blog
Pingback: Rakofsky Motion #7 – Doudna Moves to Dismiss and for Sanctions – New York Personal Injury Law Blog
@Gary E. Rosenberg
The complaint smells of Rakowsky’s authorship and Bourzye merely signing it as attorney. That puts Bourzye on the hook for sanctions for its submission, maybe more so than Rakowsky.
The Complaint was not even verified; but who would want to risk a perjury charge for swearing to things that are contradicted by the transcript? These attorneys (and I use the term loosely) are in for a BIG shock when the sanctions start rolling in. I bet they don’t pay the sanctions and end up in even more trouble.