"For those of us scouring filings for questionable AI screw-ups though, we now zoom to a handwritten insert included with the order, justifying the decision to allow the motion even if it technically missed a deadline based on Jones v. Goodman, 57 Cal.App.5th 521, where the court writes, that an amended motion should relate back to the initial motion "as long as the initial motion was in 'substantial compliance' with the governing rule.""
"Except that's not what Jones actually says. The defendants in Jones had themselves argued - and we quote - that "substantial compliance with the rule is all that is required; and the amended motion should be deemed to 'relate back' to the initial motion, just as an amended pleading might relate back to the filing of the original pleading." This would be an odd rule to adopt since it would dispose of any meanin"
Elon Musk and co-defendants obtained a granted motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute in litigation with Aaron Greenspan. Greenspan argued the motion was untimely, and the court exercised its statutory discretion to entertain the motion despite the deadline. A handwritten insert in the order justified allowing the late motion by citing Jones v. Goodman and stating an amended motion can relate back to an initial motion if the initial motion was in substantial compliance. The Jones decision was mischaracterized because the defendants in Jones had urged that substantial compliance should allow relation back, a position the court did not adopt.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]