LightNews LightNews
justlurkinaround.bsky.social
@justlurkinaround.bsky.social
22 followers 90 following 90 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
justlurkinaround.bsky.social
The God's-honest answer to that question may genuinely be "no."

This is another paragraph that made my head explode. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of government contractors, law firms, attorney- client relationships, the legal system writ large, etc etc...
Excerpt from terrible government brief stating (very incorrectly): Plaintiff’s claim of compelled speech similarly falters. Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim that the Executive Order’s requirement that government contractors “disclose any business they do with Jenner and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract” is unconstitutional. EO 14230 § 3(a). For one, when business conducted with Jenner & Block is “related to the subject of the Government contract,” it is very likely that Jenner & Block is a government subcontractor, whose work Defendants are entitled to monitor. See Scahill v. District of Columbia, 909 F.3d 1177, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“First Amendment concerns are not implicated where the government requires disclosure for its operations.”).
April 9, 2025 at 2:13 AM
justlurkinaround.bsky.social
Oh my God. I saw the "Shotgun Pleading" section in the TOC and thought "are they trying to argue that listing so many discrete constitutional violations is shotgun pleading?" But no. Somehow their actual argument is even dumber than that:
Screenshot of brief excerpt reading: Shotgun Pleading Each count of the Complaint begins with a paragraph stating, “Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.” See Compl. ¶¶ 140, 154, 161, 167, 172, 181, 188, 201, 208, 218, 227, 235, 239. The Complaint does not limit “the preceding paragraphs” to those relevant to or illustrative of the legal and factual basis for each individual count, but incorporates every paragraph, including of any preceding counts, count after count. As an example, Count XIII necessarily includes every preceding paragraph, including those in Counts I–XII. From a practical perspective, this severely handicaps the Defendants’ and the Court’s ability to ascertain the particulars of Plaintiff’s challenges to the various sections of the Executive Order, including which allegations and claims in the Complaint pertain to which sections of the Executive Order. The D.C. Circuit has emphasized that FED. R. CIV. P. 8 “underscore[s] the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–69 (D.C. Cir. 2004). This case demonstrates why. Plaintiff’s imprecise practice here only complicates Defendants’ task in moving for dismissal and the Court’s ability to assess these arguments. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Complaint in this respect is a paradigm example of a “shotgun pleading.” See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015). Defendants reserve the right to include in any follow-on briefing additional argument or bases for dismissal or judgment to the extent Plaintiff clarifies their claims in a manner not clearly evident on the face of its Complaint and TRO Motion. To provide some structure this overbroad shotgun Complaint, Defendants have organized this motion to dismiss by addressing what appear to be Plaintiff’s challenges to each section of the Executive Order.
April 9, 2025 at 12:51 AM
justlurkinaround.bsky.social
Apropos of nothing...
Screenshot from 2023 Vault Law firm diversity survey for Perkins Coie, showing a table with a breakdown of PC equity partners by race and gender. Of 531 total equity partners, 306 are white men.
March 7, 2025 at 6:19 AM