SoA/DCI Lawsuit Update

[greg_orangecounty]

42 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

And can anyone give a definition of “discovery period”?

It's the phase of the lawsuit when both parties gather & exchange evidence & information relevant to their cases.  Haven't been following, but this one seems to be unusually long.  Shouldn't be more than a year. 

Edited May 3, 2024 by greg_orangecounty
Upon further review; Case only filed in October 2023

[scheherazadesghost]

48 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

The damage waiver in the fourth defense: would love to have a lawyer define what is in that damage waiver. 
 

Sixth defense says SoA not responsible for what a third party does. Hope it comes out in court if the corps was informed of past problems with that third party if problems did occur
 

Well Cadets had a release that blamed the victim (IMO) and SoA claiming fraud. Again IMO: slimy 
 

Thanks for the info..,

Yw.

I'm also curious about defense 1. Plaintiff previously signed a complete release of all claims against Spirit? Part of the process partially described here perhaps? https://www.dci.org/news/dci-statement-january-9-2022

[IllianaLancerContra]

Seems like the legal defense trumps doing the right thing.  
Same is happening with Cadets legal defense.  
 

I like it when legally correct and morally correct are aligned.  

[IllianaLancerContra]

One other thing - in the lawsuit, what does it say plaintiff is suing for?   Is there an amount of money stated?   If plaintiff completely prevails, what do they receive?   I can’t see the actual lawsuit- the trellis thing wants $ (I guess I used up my ‘free’ access earlier).   We can speculate all day, but I have learned in my advanced age that it is important to go to the actual documents and see what the written words are. 

[scheherazadesghost]

7 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

One other thing - in the lawsuit, what does it say plaintiff is suing for?   Is there an amount of money stated?   If plaintiff completely prevails, what do they receive?   I can’t see the actual lawsuit- the trellis thing wants $ (I guess I used up my ‘free’ access earlier).   We can speculate all day, but I have learned in my advanced age that it is important to go to the actual documents and see what the written words are. 

Totally fair. Those documents and info are not provided on either of the platforms I've accessed, AFAIK.

[IllianaLancerContra]

9 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Totally fair. Those documents and info are not provided on either of the platforms I've accessed, AFAIK.

Ok. Thanks.  The ‘blame the victim’ defense may (or not) be a good legal strategy,  but considering all the effort SoA has seemingly put towards member safety, it is sad to see them stoop to this level.  

[IllianaLancerContra]

12 hours ago, greg_orangecounty said:

It's the phase of the lawsuit when both parties gather & exchange evidence & information relevant to their cases.  Haven't been following, but this one seems to be unusually long.  Shouldn't be more than a year. 

I would be very interesting to see what DCI has produced in discovery.  In Cadets lawsuit they can claim that member safety wasn’t on radar in 1982.  But SoA incident happened in 2021, 3 years post Hopapolypse.  DCI also put out press release on SoA incident.   There is a recent paper/electron trail in this case.  

[FormerXyloWhiz]

This is standard, though it seems in the venue this is filed in requires more details than others do for content in an Answer to Complaint.  Failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted, estoppel, etc - they are all standard defenses but spruced up here with some details and strong details at that.

Every Answer filed to any complaint will always deny all claims.  This filing is in no way a statement on Spirit's culture.  It's a competent legal pleading drafted by an attorney and filed.  Spirit likely gave them all the documentation they had, the attorneys reviewed formulated defense and filed. They have every right to vigorously defend themselves in the Court system.  The information exchanged between the parties during discovery (which we will not get to see) is where the actual meat and potatoes is.  This is a procedural standard response.

Based on their filed answer, the facts of this matter have become more fascinating.  This will be an exceedingly difficult case to prove on Plaintiff side I would imagine (Plaintiff has the burden, not Defendant).  I don't doubt that things happened to Plaintiff.  But what will they have or find in discovery as evidence that Spirit knew or should have known?  And whatever they find, how will that hold up to the "hold harmless" contracts they reference in this Answer (basically - if there is a hold harmless contract, what actions did Spirit take that are so egregious that the contract is null and void)? 

 

[keystone3ply]

11 minutes ago, FormerXyloWhiz said:

This is standard, though it seems in the venue this is filed in requires more details than others do for content in an Answer to Complaint.  Failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted, estoppel, etc - they are all standard defenses but spruced up here with some details and strong details at that.

Every Answer filed to any complaint will always deny all claims.  This filing is in no way a statement on Spirit's culture.  It's a competent legal pleading drafted by an attorney and filed.  Spirit likely gave them all the documentation they had, the attorneys reviewed formulated defense and filed. They have every right to vigorously defend themselves in the Court system.  The information exchanged between the parties during discovery (which we will not get to see) is where the actual meat and potatoes is.  This is a procedural standard response.

Based on their filed answer, the facts of this matter have become more fascinating.  This will be an exceedingly difficult case to prove on Plaintiff side I would imagine (Plaintiff has the burden, not Defendant).  I don't doubt that things happened to Plaintiff.  But what will they have or find in discovery as evidence that Spirit knew or should have known?  And whatever they find, how will that hold up to the "hold harmless" contracts they reference in this Answer (basically - if there is a hold harmless contract, what actions did Spirit take that are so egregious that the contract is null and void)? 

 

I tend to lean toward Spirit's defense on this one.  As I remember, I think much of the blame was laid on the tour director's lack of action?  After the leadership was made aware of the situation, I think they took action.  Wasn't law enforcement called in for one incident that happened during their pre-tour spring training at a high school in Alabama?  Anyway, both will have their day in court.      

Edited May 3, 2024 by keystone3ply
cx

[scheherazadesghost]

2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Ok. Thanks.  The ‘blame the victim’ defense may (or not) be a good legal strategy,  but considering all the effort SoA has seemingly put towards member safety, it is sad to see them stoop to this level.  

Indeed, it seems to counter the hopefully good faith efforts across the activity to demonstrate improvements. This is why the Remedy portion of safeguarding is so important... not only in the firm improved protocols for future members, but in listening to survivors, building protocols from their feedback, and providing them with resources for recovery. Ideally all of the above in a transparent way, so long as victims give consent.

This, even if legal standard, flies in the face of remedy due to victims for action/inaction already acknowledged by DCI and SOA.