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.
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.