Trump sues NY Times for $15 Billion

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 34
  • Views: 784
  • Politics 
You know that NYT is salivating at the chance to go through discovery for this lawsuit.

The claims in the lawsuit are so broad that pretty much anything and everything Trump has done for decades might be on the table as potential evidence to rebut these claims. (I know that no sane judge is going to allow that, but no sane judge is going to take this lawsuit seriously, either.)
 
Wheels81 said:
Trump’s lawyers will amend the complaint but it’s still pretty embarrassing to have the complaint dismissed after only four days.

www.nytimes.com

Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times

The judge said that the complaint failed to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Mr. Trump has 28 days to refile.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

Did not realize there was a specific thread for this so bringing some comments over from the other thread.

lawtig02 said:
LOL. For a federal judge to dismiss a complaint within the same week it is filed is HIGHLY unusual. Humiliating for the lawyers who signed their names to the complaint. Merryday is a Republican with a long, distinguished career on the bench -- a GHWB appointee.


In a ruling dripping with derision, a federal judge has rejected President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, asserting that the rambling 85-page suit did not follow federal rules for filing civil complaints.

The president’s team has been given a month to refile, and a Trump spokesperson indicated that they will do so.

Judge Steven D. Merryday of the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida said Friday that the suit “stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements of Rule 8” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A complaint must be a “short, plain, direct statement of allegations of fact,” he wrote, and Trump’s broadside against The Times was “decidedly improper and impermissible.”

Merryday said Trump’s legal team can refile in the next four weeks, but must keep the complaint to 40 pages or fewer.

A complaint is not supposed to be “a public forum for vituperation and invective” or “a megaphone for public relations,” he said.
Click to expand...

ChapelHillSooner said:
Trump lawyers signed up to be humiliated. They knew that that was part of the job.

Doubt any of them want to file complaints filled with Trump grievances but they are willing to humiliate themselves to serve Trump.
Click to expand...

lawtig02 said:
This is such a great read, and a castration of the lawyers doing Trump's bidding -- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.5.0.pdf

As every member of the bar of every federal court knows (or is presumed to know), Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that a complaint include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(e)(1) helpfully adds that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Some pleadings are necessarily longer than others. The difference likely depends on the number of parties and claims, the complexity of the governing facts, and the duration and scope of pertinent events. But both a shorter pleading and a longer pleading must comprise “simple, concise, and direct” allegations that offer a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Rule 8 governs every pleading in a federal court, regardless of the amount in controversy, the identity of the parties, the skill or reputation of the counsel, the urgency or importance (real or imagined) of the dispute, or any public interest at issue in the dispute.

In this action, a prominent American citizen (perhaps the most prominent American citizen) alleges defamation by a prominent American newspaper publisher (perhaps the most prominent American newspaper publisher) and by several other corporate and natural persons. Alleging only two simple counts of defamation, the complaint consumes eighty-five pages. Count I appears on page eighty, and Count II appears on page eighty-three. Pages one through seventy-nine, plus part of page eighty, present allegations common to both counts and to all defendants. Each count alleges a claim against each defendant and, apparently, each claim seeks the same remedy against each defendant.

Even under the most generous and lenient application of Rule 8, the complaint is decidedly improper and impermissible. The pleader initially alleges an electoral victory by President Trump “in historic fashion” — by “trouncing” the opponent — and alludes to “persistent election interference from the legacy media, led most notoriously by the New York Times.” The pleader alludes to “the halcyon days” of the newspaper but complains that the newspaper has become a “full throated mouthpiece of the Democrat party,” which allegedly resulted in the “deranged endorsement” of President Trump’s principal opponent in the most recent presidential election. The reader of the complaint must labor through allegations, such as “a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray Lady.’” The reader must endure an allegation of “the desperate need to defame with a partisan spear rather than report with an authentic looking glass” and an allegation that “the false narrative about ‘The Apprentice’ was just the tip of Defendants’ melting iceberg of falsehoods.” Similarly, in one of many, often repetitive, and laudatory (toward President Trump) but superfluous allegations, the pleader states, “‘The Apprentice’ represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump’s singular brilliance, which captured the [Z]eitgeist of our time.”

The complaint continues with allegations in defense of President Trump’s father and the acquisition of the Trumps’ wealth; with a protracted list of the many properties owned, developed, or managed by The Trump Organization and a list of President Trump’s many books; with a long account of the history of “The Apprentice”; with an extensive list of President Trump’s “media appearances”; with a detailed account of other legal actions both by and against President Trump, including an account of the “Russia Collusion Hoax” and incidents of alleged “lawfare” against President Trump; and with much more, persistently alleged in abundant, florid, and enervating detail.

Even assuming that each allegation in the complaint is true (of course, that is for a jury to decide and is not pertinent here; this order suggests nothing about the truth of the allegations or the validity of the claims but addresses only the manner of the presentation of the allegations in the complaint); even assuming that at trial the plaintiff offers evidence supporting every allegation in the complaint and that the evidence is accepted by the jury as fact; and even assuming that after finally “melting” the defendants’ alleged “iceberg of falsehoods” the plaintiff prevails for each reason alleged in the complaint — even assuming all of that — a complaint remains an improper and impermissible place for the tedious and burdensome aggregation of prospective evidence, for the rehearsal of tendentious arguments, or for the protracted recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader’s claim for relief. As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.

A complaint is a mechanism to fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically inform the defendants — in a professionally constrained manner consistent with the dignity of the adversarial process in an Article III court of the United States — of the nature and content of the claims. A complaint is a short, plain, direct statement of allegations of fact sufficient to create a facially plausible claim for relief and sufficient to permit the formulation of an informed response. Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.

This complaint stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements of Rule 8. This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner. The complaint is STRUCK with leave to amend within twenty-eight days. The amended complaint must not exceed forty pages, excluding only the caption, the signature, and any attachment.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 19, 2025.
Click to expand...

Calheel said:
Why was this filed in the M.D. Fla? Wouldn’t Trump want Cannon on this case? I can’t imagine she would ever pen something like this.
Click to expand...

lawtig02 said:
No idea. The Middle District is pretty good relatively speaking, so I was also surprised he filed it there. Unless I'm mistaken, Cannon is still the only district judge in the Fort Pierce Division of the Southern District, so it likely would have been assigned to her if they filed it there. I'm assuming they had a reason, but given the extraordinary incompetence of Trump's lawyers (many of whom are now leading the DOJ), that assumption may be misplaced.
Click to expand...
 
Hillary should sue Fox News for $30 billion, lol.

Just kidding. I would be really shocked if the NYT has much concern about this. Should be gone on a motion to dismiss.
 
Wheels81 said:
Trump’s lawyers will amend the complaint but it’s still pretty embarrassing to have the complaint dismissed after only four days.

www.nytimes.com

Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times

The judge said that the complaint failed to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Mr. Trump has 28 days to refile.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
LOL I didn't even realize this had already happened when I made my post. Entirely appropriate and a hilarious rebuke of Trump's ethics-less attorneys (the only attorneys who will represent Trump anymore are the ones entirely lacking in legal ethics).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top