D&D General Luke Gygax statement about recent GaryCon concerns.

[Snarf Zagyg]

Mostly correct re: even if true. A motion to dismiss generally assumes all facts in the best possible light as to the other party (so here in the best possible light as to the defendant you mean Plaintiff).

It's still quite something to argue that the plaintiff's complaint actually alleges the defendant harassed everyone equally so the specific allegation falls short.

Not really. That's usually one of the main points of a motion to dismiss- if you are making general allegations, but fail to allege the things that happen to you (the Plaintiff) with specificity, that's usually a dismissal.

If you look at the memorandum of law (#32), there appear to be some pretty decent arguments, mostly premised on the concept that the Plaintiff put in a bunch of salacious details, but they don't really add up to a cause of action (because of SOL, because they don't allege that there was discrimination against plaintiff on gender, etc.)

Short version- if a complaint is just "He's a very bad man!" then a motion to dismiss is often appropriate- the complaint usually has to say, "He's a bad man, to me, in this legally recognized way."

We'll see!

 

[Mort]

Not really. That's usually one of the main points of a motion to dismiss- if you are making general allegations, but fail to allege the things that happen to you (the Plaintiff) with specificity, that's usually a dismissal.

If you look at the memorandum of law (#32), there appear to be some pretty decent arguments, mostly premised on the concept that the Plaintiff put in a bunch of salacious details, but they don't really add up to a cause of action (because of SOL, because they don't allege that there was discrimination against plaintiff on gender, etc.)

Short version- if a complaint is just "He's a very bad man!" then a motion to dismiss is often appropriate- the complaint usually has to say, "He's a bad man, to me, in this legally recognized way."

We'll see!

 

[Mort]

Not really. That's usually one of the main points of a motion to dismiss- if you are making general allegations, but fail to allege the things that happen to you (the Plaintiff) with specificity, that's usually a dismissal.

If you look at the memorandum of law (#32), there appear to be some pretty decent arguments, mostly premised on the concept that the Plaintiff put in a bunch of salacious details, but they don't really add up to a cause of action (because of SOL, because they don't allege that there was discrimination against plaintiff on gender, etc.)

Short version- if a complaint is just "He's a very bad man!" then a motion to dismiss is often appropriate- the complaint usually has to say, "He's a bad man, to me, in this legally recognized way."

We'll see!

I'm not arguing whether there is a good or bad case. I'm just pointing out that it's an interesting (and sadly funny) argument saying we win because even if "plaintiff alleges the defendant harassed everyone equally..." were true it fails to satisfy the statute's grounds for discrimination.

The fact that it may be a WINNING legal argument is even (well to me) sadder/funnier.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. That's usually one of the main points of a motion to dismiss- if you are making general allegations, but fail to allege the things that happen to you (the Plaintiff) with specificity, that's usually a dismissal.

If you look at the memorandum of law (#32), there appear to be some pretty decent arguments, mostly premised on the concept that the Plaintiff put in a bunch of salacious details, but they don't really add up to a cause of action (because of SOL, because they don't allege that there was discrimination against plaintiff on gender, etc.)

Short version- if a complaint is just "He's a very bad man!" then a motion to dismiss is often appropriate- the complaint usually has to say, "He's a bad man, to me, in this legally recognized way."

We'll see!

I've seen a good number of Motions to Dismiss here in Los Angeles, and without exception the judges have allowed the plaintiff(s) to amend the complaint at least once and often multiple times until the causes of action are acceptable, or the judge finally dismisses.

Is New York harsher on this than Los Angeles is?

 

[Dausuul]

So, if I understand this right, the Luke Gygax-related part of this can be summed up thusly:

1. The CEO of Servotronics is alleged to be one sketchy, shady, skanky dude.
2. Among his alleged sketchy, shady, skanky behaviors was redirecting company money to his gaming buddies in various ways.
3. Luke Gygax was one of the gaming buddies in question.
4. It is highly possible that Luke's acceptance of this money was unethical, him being a Servotronics board member; but he is not named as a defendant at this time, nor is he alleged to have done anything else sketchy, shady, or skanky.

Does that about cover it?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not arguing whether there is a good or bad case. I'm just pointing out that it's an interesting (and sadly funny) argument saying we win because even if "plaintiff alleges the defendant harassed everyone equally..." were true it fails to satisfy the statute's grounds for discrimination.

The fact that it may be a WINNING legal argument is even (well to me) sadder/funnier.

I'm not entirely sure where you see that argument? But in the memorandum of law, it does point out (correctly) that the acts complained of did not have a causal relationship with the action pled.

In other words, there's no general law that you can sue for because of "preferential treatment" or "cronyism," the complaint is alleging that he was discriminated against because he was male.

More plainly:
If you allege, "My boss is a jerk to everyone!" Well, great, you have a jerk boss, but no claim.
If you allege, "My boss is a jerk, to me, because of (this protected category, like gender)" then you might have a claim.

Not sure why that's either sad or funny?

 

[Maxperson]

So, if I understand this right, the Luke Gygax-related part of this can be summed up thusly:

1. The CEO of Servotronics is alleged to be one sketchy, shady, skanky dude.
2. Among his alleged sketchy, shady, skanky behaviors was redirecting company money to his gaming buddies in various ways.
3. Luke Gygax was one of the gaming buddies in question.
4. It is highly possible that Luke's acceptance of this money was unethical, him being a Servotronics board member; but he is not named as a defendant at this time, nor is he alleged to have done anything else sketchy, shady, or skanky.

Does that about cover it?

Not quite. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff complained to the board, and the board(which would include Gary) ignored the problems brought to it. It also alleges that Trbovich was overpaid and his meteoric rise in salary happened after Gary arrived on the board, implying that Gary helped him gain money in a shady fashion.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've seen a good number of Motions to Dismiss here in Los Angeles, and without exception the judges have allowed the plaintiff(s) to amend the complaint at least once and often multiple times until the causes of action are acceptable, or the judge finally dismisses.

Is New York harsher on this than Los Angeles is?

Nope. That's right.

 

[Mort]

I'm not entirely sure where you see that argument? But in the memorandum of law, it does point out (correctly) that the acts complained of did not have a causal relationship with the action pled.

In other words, there's no general law that you can sue for because of "preferential treatment" or "cronyism," the complaint is alleging that he was discriminated against because he was male.

More plainly:
If you allege, "My boss is a jerk to everyone!" Well, great, you have a jerk boss, but no claim.
If you allege, "My boss is a jerk, to me, because of (this protected category, like gender)" then you might have a claim.

Not sure why that's either sad or funny?

The argument I was referring to is on page 9 (where the defense points out that plaintiff alleges harassment of males AND females so can't then say he, as a male, was singled out - which is required to pursue the particular cause of action), along a slew of other defenses,

It's just 1 line that stood out.

And it's sadly funny (to me) precisely BECAUSE of the: just because your boss is a jerk (possibly even an action worthy jerk) doesn't mean YOU have an action against your boss.

Regardless, I think this has taken up enough space here - If you want to PM me on the finer legal point go ahead. Though I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here.

 

[Ristamar]

I was a little surprised to see the name of a prominent streamer in the rpg/tabletop community mentioned multiple times in that filing (assuming it's the same person).