{"id":1981,"date":"2007-09-29T09:55:54","date_gmt":"2007-09-29T16:55:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bloodhoundrealty.com\/BloodhoundBlog\/?p=1981"},"modified":"2007-09-30T09:43:17","modified_gmt":"2007-09-30T16:43:17","slug":"the-voices-of-bitter-experience-activerains-petition-against-move-inc-is-a-heart-breaking-sob-story-with-no-legal-merit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bloodhoundrealty.com\/BloodhoundBlog\/1981\/the-voices-of-bitter-experience-activerains-petition-against-move-inc-is-a-heart-breaking-sob-story-with-no-legal-merit\/","title":{"rendered":"The voices of bitter experience: ActiveRain’s petition against Move, Inc., is a heart-breaking sob story with no legal merit"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve read ActiveRain’s lawsuit against Move, Inc.,<\/a> twice now. I had thought that I might parse the document, to show its fundamental weaknesses, but this isn’t necessary. It’s so weak that we can knock the whole thing down in a few paragraphs.<\/p>\n

The gist of the document is an extended sob story of how ActiveRain wuz done wrong. This might seem meaningful in a newspaper story or a dinner party anecdote, but it don’t mean squat to a judge. In a courtroom, every story is a sob story. Everyone, it turns out, is ‘left in a maimed and disadvantaged position’ — doomed to a grubby, grungy, loveless life in a wheelchair, begging for quarters down at the bus station.<\/p>\n

Here’s a summary of the thing. People so much want to judge issues of fact by their emotions, but this is a fair — if comical — run down of the actual facts, take them for what you will.<\/p>\n

Notable omissions<\/b><\/p>\n

AR petitioned for a jury trial, but their best possible outcome would be either a bench ruling or a directed verdict. Legal pleadings are written for judges, not casual readers, newspaper reporters or dinner party conversants. In fact, many lawsuit petitions take this form, just enough to get to court with the case to come later. But if AR really had a slam dunk case against Move, I would expect to see some evidence of it. The attorneys do, however, try to hold Move accountable for violations of a Washington State statute in paragraphs 67 through 74. I think the actual purpose of this is well-poisoning, to make a number of smarmy assertions about the behavior of past Move, Inc., executives.*<\/p>\n

The complaint itself<\/b><\/p>\n

This is the essence of the complaint:<\/p>\n