Ah, OK, so this just happened — Jim Lee just filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. I would normally share this document, but not yet…..I may want to put out a video explainer first. And ultimately, Jim’s motion contains almost no substance, so sharing it would not be super helpful. Seeing it won’t tell you anything new.
So what is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings? It is a way of ending a case early. It means Jim is asking the PDJ to end this case immediately. No trial. No evidence. No Mata. No defense. Just “JIM WINS!”
As for next steps, he is asking the judge to schedule a hearing to determine the correct punishment. Bear in mind – that doesn’t mean the motion has been granted, or that he has any chance of winning.
I just talked to a friend about this who asked me: “Scale of 1-10, how f___ed are you?”
My response: zero.
If you are not a lawyer, let me explain something about how this stuff works. Let’s say you are in a car accident. You file a lawsuit against the other driver. You claim the other driver ran a red light and crashed into your car. You claim this injured you.
Let’s assume the other driver responds to your complaint as follows: “Yes, I admit I was driving, I admit I ran a red light, and I admit I caused the crash and injured the plaintiff. I admit EVERYTHING.” They literally didn’t dispute a single thing.
What happens next?
Well, again, if you are not a lawyer, you may not know this, but the main function of courts is to resolve factual disputes. Yes, judges are also there to interpret the law, but that’s a secondary function.
When the parties DO NOT AGREE on the facts of what happened (meaning the facts are DISPUTED), the main function of a trial is to have a jury (or a judge in a bench trial) resolve those disputes. The jury listens to each party’s story and then decides which story they believe. So, when the facts are in dispute, it becomes a jury’s job to decide what they believe the facts are, according to the evidence presented. They are the fact-finders. They resolve factual disputes. That’s how they determine who wins.
But what if there are no factual disputes? What if plaintiff says the defendant caused the crash, and the defendant ADMITS he caused the crash? What then?
In that case, there are NO factual disputes to resolve. Everyone agrees on what happened.
In that case, there is no need for a trial. Instead, the judge can resolve the case “as a matter of law”. That can be done through a MSJ (Motion for Summary Judgment), but it can also be done through what’s called a Motion for Judgment the Pleadings. Either way, you are telling the court: “Hey judge, both sides agree 100% on the facts, so we don’t need a trial…you can simply rule on the pleadings.”
Most of the time a defendant will use this type of motion to have a junk case thrown out. I’ve done that many times.
It is fairly rare for a plaintiff to use this type of motion…because most of the time, the defendant does NOT admit everything.
But yes folks, that is literally the position Jim Lee just took. He filed a motion telling the judge that there are no facts in dispute. He said I admitted everything, and therefore he wins.
Folks – if this was filed in a normal civil case, Jim Lee would be sanctioned. Jim is 100% wrong. Literally every part of his argument is wrong.
Here’s why –
Jim’s argument basically goes like this:
1.) The bar’s complaint says: “Gingras said X.”
2.) In his answer, Gingras admitted: “I said X.”
3.) Therefore, the bar wins!
That is literally his entire argument.
Is he right? Yes and no. He is right that I did not deny saying certain things. That’s true.
But does that mean Jim Lee is going to win this motion? Absolutely not. Here’s why —
The law is 100% clear — TRUE statements cannot be punished. Jim Lee’s own legal authority says this. The U.S. Supreme Court says this. So sure, I admitted I said the stuff quoted in the complaint, but I never admitted anything I said was false. Without that admission, there ARE factual disputes here (tons of them). Thus, there is no chance at all that Jim can win at this stage. Sure, he might win later if he provides receipts….but that’s a question for another day.
Jim also forgot EVERY rule that applies to this situation, including:
- On motion for judgment on pleadings, all allegations of opposing party’s pleadings must be accepted as true. Wenrich v. Household Finance Corp. (App. 1967) 5 Ariz.App. 335, 426 P.2d 671. Here, I am the opposing party. My pleading (my answer) explained that I did NOT lie about anything, and that all of my statements are protected speech. I also asserted a defense which was that Jim Lee’s interpretation of the rules was unconstitutional, under binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Under Arizona law, the PDJ must take my side as correct, which means judgment on the pleadings CANNOT be granted.
- When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all reasonable inferences are draw in favor of the non-moving party (me); Luchanski v. Congrove, 193 Ariz. 176, 179 ¶ 17 (App. 1998).
- Judgment on pleadings should not be granted if upon examination of entire record it is determined that there are disputed facts which, if true, could effect final judgment. Brown v. White (App. 1966) 4 Ariz.App. 255, 419 P.2d 385. Again, you can ONLY seek judgment on the pleadings when ALL material facts are undisputed. Here, there are TONS of material facts in dispute. Did Mata look at social media? Did she talk to her dad about the case? I could go on and on. Judgment on the pleadings can NEVER be granted when the underlying facts are disputed.
- A plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings tests whether the defendant’s answer states a defense.Ellico v. Hackberry Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 3 of Mohave Cnty. Governing Bd., No. 1 CA-CV 13-0025, 2014 WL 465848, at *2 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2014); Walker v. Estavillo, 73 Ariz. 211, 215, 240 P.2d 173, 176 (1952); Colboch v. Aviation Credit Corp., 64 Ariz. 88, 92, 166 P.2d 584, 587 (1946). CLEARLY, my answer DOES state a defense. TONS OF THEM.
My take on this is pretty simple – Jim Lee either has no idea how this type of motion works, or he just doesn’t care. I have said this for some time — the point of a SLAPP action is never to win. The point is to harass. To punish. To exhaust.
Anyway, no worries. I will file a response to this tomorrow, and will probably share both when done.
P.S. Based on a short phone conversation I had with Jim today, it appears the ONLY reason he filed this absolutely improper motion was because he thinks it will help block my efforts to get info from, and about, Mata. He told me he does not see any reason why I need the CJC records, because, per Jim, the case is over.
Except it’s not over Jim. YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING MY SPEECH WAS FALSE. THE CJC INFO WILL PROVE WHAT I SAID WAS TRUE (I THINK). UNTIL THAT IS RESOLVED, THE CASE IS NOT OVER