Not addressing an argument in Repsone to Motion for Reconsideration

[joelock16]

Nevada 9th Circuit.. US Federal Court

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed with a number of different arguments made in support of the Motion therein. In their Response to the Motion, the opposition failed to address some of the arguments made. Does that mean they concede them? I was told it does. Is there case law out there supporting this?? I cant seem to find any.

Pro Se here... so any guidance and information is greatly appreciated!!

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

"I was told" is a very dangerous three words for anyone, especially one acting Pro Se in federal court.

They may have not been addressed because they were so poorly worded.

 

[joelock16]

"I was told" is a very dangerous three words for anyone, especially one acting Pro Se in federal court.

They may have not been addressed because they were so poorly worded.

I appreciate the concern w the "i was told"... that is why i was asking....

BUT....

you are going under the assumption that because i am not a lawyer, I cannot form a complete thought and/or write in a professional manner...
that is an extremely unfair stereotype and bias..

AND... you responded to my thread insulting me.... without answering the question... the least you could've done is throw me a bone and answer the question to offset the insult.....

let's say .. just for the sake of this thread... it WAS worded in a well thought-out and executed, coherent argument, with federal case law supporting it...... and they fail to even mention it in their response...

did they concede the argument??

 

[Zigner]

I appreciate the concern w the "i was told"... that is why i was asking....

BUT....

you are going under the assumption that because i am not a lawyer, I cannot form a complete thought and/or write in a professional manner...
that is an extremely unfair stereotype and bias..

AND... you responded to my thread insulting me.... without answering the question... the least you could've done is throw me a bone and answer the question to offset the insult.....

let's say .. just for the sake of this thread... it WAS worded in a well thought-out and executed, coherent argument, with federal case law supporting it...... and they fail to even mention it in their response...

did they concede the argument??

You need an attorney.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I appreciate the concern w the "i was told"... that is why i was asking....

BUT....

you are going under the assumption that because i am not a lawyer, I cannot form a complete thought and/or write in a professional manner...
that is an extremely unfair stereotype and bias..

AND... you responded to my thread insulting me.... without answering the question... the least you could've done is throw me a bone and answer the question to offset the insult.....

let's say .. just for the sake of this thread... it WAS worded in a well thought-out and executed, coherent argument, with federal case law supporting it...... and they fail to even mention it in their response...

did they concede the argument??

I in no way insulted you. I simply pointed out one reason they may not have felt the need to respond to something while well written would be a reason and professionally written thought might not rise to the level that they felt needs to be answered.

A court, especially a Federal Court is not for the faint of heart. Your reaction to my response seems to show some faintness (if that is a word). Also, someone not able to look up case law and statutes that would answer that question has no business representing themselves in Federal Court.

 

[joelock16]

I in no way insulted you. I simply pointed out one reason they may not have felt the need to respond to something while well written would be a reason and professionally written thought might not rise to the level that they felt needs to be answered.

A court, especially a Federal Court is not for the faint of heart. Your reaction to my response seems to show some faintness (if that is a word). Also, someone not able to look up case law and statutes that would answer that question has no business representing themselves in Federal Court.

My reaction was to you taking the time to respond and not answer the question presented.... which has happened now twice....

I thought this was a place to ask questions in an attempt to have them answered... both of your responses are assumptions.... 1st.. instead of just answering... you see I am pro se and your 1st reaction and thought is I couldnt argue it correctly.... and the 2nd... bc I called you out on it... you assume I cant handle myself properly....

Both times not answering the question...

Is it too much to ask that you simply stick to addressing the question in your responses? If not... I respectfully ask you not reply again... I am here for a few answers... not for banter back and forth

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

There is no way to answer without reading both your Motion, their response and likely the history of the case. All of which is beyond the scope of an internet forum.

 

[quincy]

Nevada 9th Circuit.. US Federal Court

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed with a number of different arguments made in support of the Motion therein. In their Response to the Motion, the opposition failed to address some of the arguments made. Does that mean they concede them? I was told it does. Is there case law out there supporting this?? I cant seem to find any.

Pro Se here... so any guidance and information is greatly appreciated!!

The simple answer is "no."

Not every argument needs a response. Responses might not be filed at all (although they generally will be).

Some arguments are so poorly presented or are so deficient that they are doomed to failure all on their own.

The response will often focus on the crucial facts and winnable issues. Weak arguments are not beneficial (to either side).

 

[Taxing Matters]

Nevada 9th Circuit.. US Federal Court

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed with a number of different arguments made in support of the Motion therein. In their Response to the Motion, the opposition failed to address some of the arguments made. Does that mean they concede them? I was told it does. Is there case law out there supporting this?? I cant seem to find any.

Pro Se here... so any guidance and information is greatly appreciated!!

In federal court the failure to deny a claim in a pleading when a responsive pleading is required by you means you admit to that claim. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 8(b)(6). The most common pleadings are the complaint filed by the plaintiff and the answer filed by the defendant. So when a plaintiff makes a claim in his/her complaint (other than the amount of damages) the failure by the defendant to deny the claim will result in the defendant admitting to that claim. Thus, it is very important that defendant take care to carefully read the complaint and deny anything he does not wish to admit.

There is no similar rule for all motions. Thus, a motion may generally be unopposed by the other party without admitting or conceding the motion. Of course, I only skip responding to a motion filed by an opposing party when I am confident the motion is not a good one and the court will see that on its own and deny it.

 

[quincy]

It might also be important to note that there really isn't a "motion for reconsideration" under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - although if such a motion is filed it will be treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment.

If you are not able to show there has been an intervening change in the law, or there is some new evidence not previously available, or there is an error of fact or law that needs correcting .... your motion will most likely be denied.

It might be smart for you to speak to an attorney in your area for advice and direction.

 

[Litigator22]

Nevada 9th Circuit.. US Federal Court

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed with a number of different arguments made in support of the Motion therein. In their Response to the Motion, the opposition failed to address some of the arguments made. Does that mean they concede them? I was told it does. Is there case law out there supporting this?? I cant seem to find any.

Pro Se here... so any guidance and information is greatly appreciated!!

No! There is no "case law" nor rule of law requiring your opponent to respond to each and every point raised in support of your motion. And since there is nothing in the federal rules contemplating a motion for reconsideration why would there be any rules governing a response?

What you seem to be proposing is that unless it does so, your opponent loses by default. A proposition. that raises serious questions as to your suitability as a pro per litigant, but a marked decree of unwarranted confidence and self-assurance.

The laws allowing a person to represent themselves in courts of law existed at the times of A. Lincoln, but it didn't change his belief that they have a fool for a client.

Incidentally, how do you intend to convince the same judge that ruled against you that he committed a grievous error in "misapprehending the adversarial issues"; that you are a "misunderstood litigant" and not an "irresolute litigant". (See: Bank of Waunake v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)

In other words, that he is as big a fool as yourself.

 

[quincy]

In Michigan, a pro se legal assistance clinic was opened last year by the US District Court for Eastern Michigan and the Detroit Mercy School of Law. The clinic was created to provide legal advice and assistance to low-income litigants who are representing themselves in federal civil lawsuits. A similar clinic operates in Brooklyn, New York.

It would be nice to see more of these clinics throughout the US as there is a definite need for them.

I think it unfair to call pro se litigants "fools" as most who file suit without benefit of an attorney do so not by choice but out of financial necessity.

The fact that the odds are stacked against a pro se litigant being successful in a federal court action does not mean they can't be.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

It would be interesting to see the stats for Pro Se litigants that used the clinic. But they won't really matter much because there is some number of litigants that once they sit down with a lawyer or law student in such a clinic either find out they are way over their head or have no case.

If the first and last thing those running the clinic isn't "You really need a lawyer" they should be disbarred.

 

[quincy]

It would be interesting to see the stats for Pro Se litigants that used the clinic. But they won't really matter much because there is some number of litigants that once they sit down with a lawyer or law student in such a clinic either find out they are way over their head or have no case.

If the first and last thing those running the clinic isn't "You really need a lawyer" they should be disbarred.

I will see if I can round up statistics but, since it is a relatively new program, I doubt any exist. There might be something from the Brooklyn clinic.

Those who assist in the Clinic, by the way, are law students supervised by licensed attorneys.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I don't think the stats will matter much even in Brooklyn because of the number of cases that stop being handled pro se, either from walking away or getting a lawyer, once they get educated somewhat.