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

[Bolares]

I want to see the Answer that his attorney(s) file with the Court.

If I understood it correctly, he isn't even one of the defendants, so I doubt he will file an Answer

 

[darjr]

The important things to me, at this point, are the clarifications about GaryCon. I too like Luke and am of the mind he’s being drug through the mud.

 

[Maxperson]

If I understood it correctly, he isn't even one of the defendants, so I doubt he will file an Answer

Yeah. He's not named as an individual. He is a part of the board of directors and as a group they were named, though. The Answer given by the company would include the board and respond to the allegations against tehm. I also noticed that no does were named and here in Los Angeles, if you're going to add in a defendant later, you need to sub them in for one of the does. New York could be completely different, though. I have no idea how they do it there.

 

[Maxperson]

The important things to me, at this point, are the clarifications about GaryCon. I too like Luke and am of the mind he’s being drug through the mud.

The lawsuit says that people who worked at Servotronics attended GaryCon while not on PTO and having no business there, which constitutes company waste. It also alleges boxes at Servotronics that were labeled GaryCon, and also that funds were used to support GaryCon and Monster Fight Club.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Having worked for a law firm, no, no you do not. This seems like it's going to be an ugly lawsuit...

The lawsuit is definitely an interesting read. One of the tidbits...

"340. Pirrone knew Miller well. She was the woman who was a part of the pagan“bonding ceremony” in Ohio several years prior, when Pirrone was ordered by Trbovich to“stand guard” outside the “sex tent” while Trbovich consummated his pagan marriage to Miller."

You don't see that everyday in a lawsuit.

 

[Mort]

Having worked for a law firm, no, no you do not. This seems like it's going to be an ugly lawsuit...

Having just read the Defendant's motion to dismiss - it will be hugely ugly!

One of the defenses is, I kid you not, The statute requires that the defendant specifically harassed the plaintiff but since the defendant harassed everyone equally the grounds are not met... (gotta give the defendant's lawyer points for chutzpa, though putting that in writing might well haunt him later!)

 

[Maxperson]

Having just read the Defendant's motion to dismiss - it will be hugely ugly!

One of the defenses is, I kid you not, The statute requires that the defendant specifically harassed the plaintiff but since the defendant harassed everyone equally the grounds are not met... (gotta give the defendant's lawyer points for chutzpa, though putting that in writing might well haunt him later!)

I love those sorts of defenses. Do you have a link to that motion? I'd like to see it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Having just read the Defendant's motion to dismiss - it will be hugely ugly!

One of the defenses is, I kid you not, The statute requires that the defendant specifically harassed the plaintiff but since the defendant harassed everyone equally the grounds are not met... (gotta give the defendant's lawyer points for chutzpa, though putting that in writing might well haunt him later!)

Nope.

When there is a motion to dismiss, you aren't arguing the facts. You are just saying, "Look, even if everything the other guy is saying is true, they still lose because of LEGAL STUFF."

But it has to assume that the complaint is true.

 

[Mort]

Nope.

When there is a motion to dismiss, you aren't arguing the facts. You are just saying, "Look, even if everything the other guy is saying is true, they still lose because of LEGAL STUFF."

But it has to assume that the complaint is true.

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).

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.

 

[Mort]

I love those sorts of defenses. Do you have a link to that motion? I'd like to see it.

Here you go, the motion to dismiss is docket #30.