Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) allows a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Use of this dragon cartoon logo is not only distracting, it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon.
Lmao, I’ve never heard of any other watermarks warranting this extreme response. Does the judge just get to decide whatever he wants is impertinent or scandalous?
I don’t know if there’s a specific legal meaning — legal jargon isn’t always plain English — but it might be that the meaning there is the other English meaning of “impertinent”:
impertinent (comparative more impertinent, superlative most impertinent)
Insolent, ill-mannered or disrespectful; Disregardful.
(archaic) Not pertaining or related to (something or someone); Irrelevant or useless.
I mean, the term right before it in the code is “immaterial”, which is very close to the second common-language definition. Just because it’s archaic in common-language use doesn’t mean that it is in the legal world — a lot of legal terms with jargon meanings were in common use at one point.
Definition: Impertinent means something that is not relevant or important to the matter at hand. For example, if someone is talking about their favorite food and you start talking about your favorite color, that would be impertinent because it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. In legal terms, impertinent evidence or allegations are ones that do not help prove or disprove the case and are not important for the court to consider.
A lawfirm’s watermark being deemed irrelevant or inconsequential as grounds for dismissal of a complaint seems like a rule that never applies to anybody else.
It’s not a dismissal. It was stricken, with the option to refile the exact same substance in a new format.
And this kind of stuff happens all the time, like when someone forgets to attach a table of contents, a certificate of compliance, a certificate of word count, an incorrect word count, improperly formatted documents, etc.
This is a pretty common response to improper format, like certain courts that require a particular font, a particular page size, a particular spacing requirement, etc. Those usually have a written rule the court can point to and say “hey follow local rule so and so” and just make them re-file.
It’s a little bit less common where someone violates an unwritten rule, and the court comes in and says “cmon you should’ve known better.” But it happens.
The hilarious part is that they think the rule of law actually still applies in America. It’s already dead. The message just hasn’t yet traveled from the nerves back to the brain yet.
Lmao imagine people who equate costumes and dress-up as an actual judge of character calling other people “juvenile”. I would argue that their attitude and shooting down a legal document to be “impertinent”.
Does the picture change the wording? No
I’m so sick of fucking small-brain morons who can’t get over something as stupid as appearances in things where it is completely irrelevant.
On what grounds?
EDIT:
Lmao, I’ve never heard of any other watermarks warranting this extreme response. Does the judge just get to decide whatever he wants is impertinent or scandalous?
Yeah, “scandalous” is too much. I can see “impertinent”, though. I don’t agree, but courts are notoriously uptight.
I don’t know if there’s a specific legal meaning — legal jargon isn’t always plain English — but it might be that the meaning there is the other English meaning of “impertinent”:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impertinent
I mean, the term right before it in the code is “immaterial”, which is very close to the second common-language definition. Just because it’s archaic in common-language use doesn’t mean that it is in the legal world — a lot of legal terms with jargon meanings were in common use at one point.
kagis
Yeah, sounds like it:
https://www.lsd.law/define/impertinent
A lawfirm’s watermark being deemed irrelevant or inconsequential as grounds for dismissal of a complaint seems like a rule that never applies to anybody else.
It’s not a dismissal. It was stricken, with the option to refile the exact same substance in a new format.
And this kind of stuff happens all the time, like when someone forgets to attach a table of contents, a certificate of compliance, a certificate of word count, an incorrect word count, improperly formatted documents, etc.
This is a pretty common response to improper format, like certain courts that require a particular font, a particular page size, a particular spacing requirement, etc. Those usually have a written rule the court can point to and say “hey follow local rule so and so” and just make them re-file.
It’s a little bit less common where someone violates an unwritten rule, and the court comes in and says “cmon you should’ve known better.” But it happens.
IT was not dismissed! He told them to resend it without the cartoon image.
The complaint itself was dismissed. They now have to file it again.
Could be my terminology is wrong.
Not wrong, just that you’re correcting me for semantics.
Unless I’m a judge and I don’t like em
Did you actually read the record? Because that’s not at all what happened. Go back and read the next paragraph.
The hilarious part is that they think the rule of law actually still applies in America. It’s already dead. The message just hasn’t yet traveled from the nerves back to the brain yet.
Lmao imagine people who equate costumes and dress-up as an actual judge of character calling other people “juvenile”. I would argue that their attitude and shooting down a legal document to be “impertinent”.
Does the picture change the wording? No
I’m so sick of fucking small-brain morons who can’t get over something as stupid as appearances in things where it is completely irrelevant.
This fucker doesn’t even powder his wig.
Way to tell on yourself, ya fuckin’ scallywag.