The Lawsuits Thread

[ForeverYoung]

Amber did not file a motion to dismiss the complaint. At least not yet. What she filed was a motion asking for permission to amend the first motion to dismiss. With this motion she filed a brief in support of her request. The media did not report it correctly. The judge can still deny her request if and when Johnny's lawyers oppose her motion.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

[Lbock]

Amber did not file a motion to dismiss the complaint. At least not yet. What she filed was a motion asking for permission to amend the first motion to dismiss. With this motion she filed a brief in support of her request. The media did not report it correctly. The judge can still deny her request if and when Johnny's lawyers oppose her motion.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

I don’t always understand this but isn’t the demurrer the request for dismissal. And if judge won’t do that they want the plea in bar ?

[ForeverYoung]

Amber did not file a motion to dismiss the complaint. At least not yet. What she filed was a motion asking for permission to amend the first motion to dismiss. With this motion she filed a brief in support of her request. The media did not report it correctly. The judge can still deny her request if and when Johnny's lawyers oppose her motion.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/s ... 5-2019.pdf

I don’t always understand this but isn’t the demurrer the request for dismissal. And if judge won’t do that they want the plea in bar ?

What they did was file a motion to amend the first motion to dismiss. The plea in bar was a brief in support of this motion. You have to try and prove why your motion should be granted.

http://www.cameronmcevoy.com/wp-content ... essva.pdfs

Edit: Technically they are two different filings but the Virginia courts "lump them together."
http://www.vtla.us/2013/Journal/Vol_24_ ... sitive.pdf

[Lbock]

Is a demurrer the same as a motion to dismiss?

A demurrer is an objection to a complaint or counterclaim, not a motion to dismiss a case. ... A demurrer does not dispute the facts of the case but argues there is no legal claim even if the facts presented by the plaintiff are true. The demurrer is either sustained or overruled by the judge, not the jury.

Is a demurrer sustained or granted?

n. (dee-muhr-ur) a written response to a complaint filed in a lawsuit which, in effect, pleads for dismissal on the point that even if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit. ... If after amendment the complaint is still not legally good, a demurrer will be granted sustained.

The demurrer is either sustained or overruled by the judge, not the jury. If a judge overrules the demurrer, the defendant must respond to the rest of the plaintiff's complaint or risk a default judgment where the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff without allowing the defendant the right to defend. If a judge sustains a demurrer, the case is either dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. A demurrer dismissed with prejudice means the plaintiff cannot amend his complaint and serve it to the defendant.

[ForeverYoung]

Is a demurrer the same as a motion to dismiss?

A demurrer is an objection to a complaint or counterclaim, not a motion to dismiss a case. ... A demurrer does not dispute the facts of the case but argues there is no legal claim even if the facts presented by the plaintiff are true. The demurrer is either sustained or overruled by the judge, not the jury.

Is a demurrer sustained or granted?

n. (dee-muhr-ur) a written response to a complaint filed in a lawsuit which, in effect, pleads for dismissal on the point that even if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit. ... If after amendment the complaint is still not legally good, a demurrer will be granted sustained.

The demurrer is either sustained or overruled by the judge, not the jury. If a judge overrules the demurrer, the defendant must respond to the rest of the plaintiff's complaint or risk a default judgment where the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff without allowing the defendant the right to defend. If a judge sustains a demurrer, the case is either dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. A demurrer dismissed with prejudice means the plaintiff cannot amend his complaint and serve it to the defendant.

Hope this answers your question.

http://www.vtla.us/2013/Journal/Vol_24_ ... sitive.pdf

[meeps]

It has probably been said here before - but for somebody so, according to herself, at least, fierce and fiercely independent, and who claims to have such a strong case with evidence and eyewitnesses, plus also claiming that she stands up for all abused women everywhere, Ms Heard seems very, very reluctant to testify under oath in a court of law ...
So sorry for the long sentence

[ForeverYoung]

It has probably been said here before - but for somebody so, according to herself, at least, fierce and fiercely independent, and who claims to have such a strong case with evidence and eyewitnesses, plus also claiming that she stands up for all abused women everywhere, Ms Heard seems very, very reluctant to testify under oath in a court of law ...
So sorry for the long sentence

Agreed. Miss "I will not be silenced" certainly doesn't want to talk now or have certain documents released.

[meeps]

No, she don't! Not if she can wriggle out of it in any way ...

[Lbock]

It has probably been said here before - but for somebody so, according to herself, at least, fierce and fiercely independent, and who claims to have such a strong case with evidence and eyewitnesses, plus also claiming that she stands up for all abused women everywhere, Ms Heard seems very, very reluctant to testify under oath in a court of law ...
So sorry for the long sentence

These just don’t age well

Heard’s attorney said in a statement to TheWrap. “If GQ had done even a basic investigation into Mr. Depp’s claims, it would have quickly realized that his statements are entirely untrue. Mr. Depp has blatantly disregarded the parties’ confidentiality agreement and yet has refused to allow Ms. Heard to respond to his baseless allegations, despite repeated requests that she be allowed to do so.”

[justintime]

Thanks for those links, ForeverYoung.

It seems her new lawyers are doing the obvious and are basing their new motion on timing: supposedly, since so much time has passed between event and filing, they are claiming the lawsuit is inadmissible. But wasn’t this course of action already addressed and rejected by the first team? No need for evidence from anyone. Above all, no need for truth or justice. Sounds like it would have been right up their alley. Must have been a good reason why it was abandoned. Cretins.

“. . . . Heard’s attorney said in a statement to TheWrap. “If GQ had done even a basic investigation into Mr. Depp’s claims, it would have quickly realized that his statements are entirely untrue. Mr. Depp has blatantly disregarded the parties’ confidentiality agreement and yet has refused to allow Ms. Heard to respond to his baseless allegations, despite repeated requests that she be allowed to do so.”

Ha! First of all, I can’t believe any media source would be revisiting the “silenced woman” angle yet again in this case, much less use the same, tired verbiage. Mr. Waldman put it to rest quite eloquently early on. The fact is, if The Wrap or any of its vile, biased cohorts had done “even a basic investigation” perhaps they would have stumbled on a few facts themselves: Johnny’s GQ comments were a first and were made with an effort to not overtly reference her. She, on the other hand, had been routinely breaking the “parties confidentiality agreement” from day one in/on any medium/platform available - and many were provided.

So, I guess The Wrap - and probably others to come - are being recruited by the MeToo founder et al to play along in their blatant effort to catch up, rake in the publicity, and get paid for it. Seems we’re in for an inexcusable rehashing of the last few years just to make sure they’re earning their fees, which they’ve already laid at JD’s doorstep in the new motion. Do you think maybe this Queen of Metoo (Women Only Version) attorney has been hired just to waste time?

[Ruby Begonia]

Thanks for those links, ForeverYoung.....

So, I guess The Wrap - and probably others to come - are being recruited by the MeToo founder et al to play along in their blatant effort to catch up, rake in the publicity, and get paid for it. Seems we’re in for an inexcusable rehashing of the last few years just to make sure they’re earning their fees, which they’ve already laid at JD’s doorstep in the new motion. Do you think maybe this Queen of Metoo (Women Only Version) attorney has been hired just to waste time?

Two of her new attorneys go by the names of Fink and Rottenborn.

[ForeverYoung]

It kind of looks to me like she is avoiding filing an Answer where she would have to admit or deny each count of the Complaint. These latest filings are pretty obvious that she is VERY desperate to have the complaint dismissed.

[Ruby Begonia]

Today there is a new document from Heard's new attorneys Rottenborn and Treece of Wood Rogers entitled "Letter to Judge White." The link is to the case on the Fairfax County site. I think most us have seen the Clerk of Court John T. Frey's stamp on the case documents, but her attorneys addressed their communication to him "Dear Clerk" instead of bothering to find out his name. Probably share Heard's disdain for the "little people."

They've sent Judge White material in support of her recent motion for a protective order. Specifically, 66 pages showing Johnny's approval of protective orders in 3 lawsuits: Depp v Bloom Hergott et al., Depp v Mandel, and Doe v Depp. I think the 2012 lawsuit involves the college professor Jerry restrained and had removed from an Iggy Pop concert Vanessa and the kids also attended because the woman was allegedly drunk, pawing JD and wouldn't leave him alone after being asked multiple times. I think she claimed she had some type of disability that the removal aggravated and suffered humiliation because her pants slid down while arena security dragged her belligerent self away from the VIP section .

None of those suits were filed for defamation, which makes them entirely different. Repeating the last part if In-Too-Depp's September 6th post from The Blast article:

The Blast broke the story, Amber believes the release of highly embarrassing and sensitive information would not only negatively affect her, but would significantly harm her family and friends.

Johnny disagrees, and argues Amber should not be allowed to hide behind a "wall of confidentiality" that he believes are based upon her alleged lies.

"Although she has not yet made the assertion, being embarrassed by the factual evisceration of one’s lies would not meet the standard. The court should not allow Ms. Heard to use confidentiality as both a sword and a shield," he argues.

With this letter to the judge, along with her attorneys' suggestion that the case should be dismissed due to late filing, plus their further attempts to make it seem like Johnny is delusional for thinking everything Heard says is about him and that her op-ed was instead about "a violent white man," it's clear they're at the point of throwing everything at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.

[Chocolat]

My question is, does Johnny get another opportunity to oppose this new "letter" to the judge?
It certainly would be important to have his side respond to Heard's last ditch effort claims.

[ForeverYoung]

My question is, does Johnny get another opportunity to oppose this new "letter" to the judge?
It certainly would be important to have his side respond to Heard's last ditch effort claims.

From what I can see, this new letter to the judge is only supplying documents for cases her team referred to, but did not supply, when she did her request for a protective order. Johnny's team already opposed her request but that doesn't mean they can't do another brief in support of their opposition. So yes, they should be able to provide a response.