Lance Armstrong's lawsuit thrown out by judge for being too long

Sounds like a lazy judge to me.

I wish I could tell my boss that I didn't want to do an assignment because it was 'too boring.'

It sounds like a judge who could see/read through the bullsh*t.

SuperMan wrote:

Sounds like a lazy judge to me.

I wish I could tell my boss that I didn't want to do an assignment because it was 'too boring.'

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a "short plain statement" of the facts. The rule is intended to prevent attorneys from running up an excessive bill and wasting the court's time by filing overly verbose pleadings. I really wish I saw the rule enforced more often. There is way too much make work in the legal business (or "billing opportunities" as one former employer told me).

Lance has pi**ed off the wrong people for far too long.

He's just a jerk, people don't like him and word gets around.

Don't know who he teeked off this time but doped or not this a testament to the man's personality. He's an A-hole and he's getting what is to be expected in part from pi**ing on so many people over the years.

This is a perfect example of don't be a jerk to people when you're a famous athlete, especially after you retire.

Not a lawyer, but that Constitution stuff he pulled sounded so stupid. That only applies when you are facing civil or criminal charges. USADA isn't pursuing that type of case so it doesn't apply, right?

redux wrote:

Not a lawyer, but that Constitution stuff he pulled sounded so stupid. That only applies when you are facing civil or criminal charges. USADA isn't pursuing that type of case so it doesn't apply, right?

Depends upon whether you're talking about procedural or substantive due process, and whether USADA is totally a private entity, or is acting under color of government authority.

I guess that's what I'm not clear on. USADA gets most of its money through federal grants and it's using all the government evidence for their case. How does the C play that? I assume there's precedence.

Burglared Turd wrote:

Lance has pi**ed off the wrong people for far too long.

He's just a jerk, people don't like him and word gets around.

Yes, and for this reason, the legal system shouldn't apply to him! Burn him!

LA was asking for an emergency temporary restraining order, which means the judge interrupted whatever he was doing - like deciding other people's cases - to give his attention to the look at what LA was saying was a big emergency. Sounds like the judge didn't like someone interrupting his normal business with needlessly verbose BS. Good for him.

Now LA's lawyers will just cut down their filings and refile them before the arbitration deadline. They billed LA to write the the 1st complaint and now they will bill him for the time they take to cut out all of the stuff they wrote the 1st time. You've got to love how lawyers operate.

No, the legal system does apply to him and you're being a sarcastic a**.

But normally, ex-riders, USADA people, media, lawyers etc you should be nice too. People that would normally back him and say he's a nice guy instead want to burn him. Why? The only possible reason I can get out of his proclaimed innocence and so many people going along with the USADA is that he's a jerk.

Literally everyone Lance has come across hates his guts from the media reports on this and past cases.

These cyclists all seem like fairies, every single one of them to be this childish.

Burglared Turd wrote:

Literally everyone Lance has come across hates his guts from the media reports on this and past cases.

There's a story (probably apocryphal but telling nonetheless) that's been around involving a couple of cyclists, one of whom was from Austin, Texas, Armstrong's hometown. Curious, the first cyclist asks the Austinite what people there "thought of Lance Armstrong."

The reply: "Oh, it's about 50-50. Half the people like him, half the people hate him."

"Why do half the people hate him?!?"

"They've met him."

He was told he can refile the case without prejudice.

Precious Roy wrote:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a "short plain statement" of the facts. The rule is intended to prevent attorneys from running up an excessive bill and wasting the court's time by filing overly verbose pleadings.

This is not the purpose of the short and plain statement requirement and if, as a later poster mentioned, this was a motion for TRO that CivPro rule does not apply

He was told he can refile the case without prejudice.

Night Runner wrote:

He was told he can refile the case without prejudice.

Yes, I know. I've read Judge Sparks' order.

Below is the same situation, reversed if a judge were to pass judgement on the USADA's claims against Armstrong.

"This Court is not inclined to indulge USADA's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to their claims."

Defendants? I thought Armstrong was the defendant.

atikUS wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a "short plain statement" of the facts. The rule is intended to prevent attorneys from running up an excessive bill and wasting the court's time by filing overly verbose pleadings.

This is not the purpose of the short and plain statement requirement and if, as a later poster mentioned, this was a motion for TRO that CivPro rule does not apply

FRCP 8 applies to all pleadings that state a claim for relief. J. Sparks cited R. 8 in his opinion. LA requested a TRO in his complaint. You can't get a TRO without filing a complaint.

Bobby1 wrote:

Defendants? I thought Armstrong was the defendant.

Armstrong is the defendant in the USADA case before the Arbitration panel.

He is the Plaintiff in the civil action he filed in court against USADA.