Hello everyone. Hi Alan, and Alan's attorney. Since Alan and his associates have been so fastidious when it comes to providing us all with documents and updates related to the Osborne V Comander 'civil rights violation' case Alan filed, I was surprised when no one posted the latest ruling associated with this case. I am SURE Alan and friends just haven't had the time to post it yet, so I figured I'd do them a solid and put it up here for them, since I was able to track down these documents doing public record searches myself. After all, the citizens of Walton County deserve to know what's going on with litigation against a representative of the county and how their tax dollars are being spent in this litigation.
Just so no one thinks I am trying to hide my identity by posting from a new account...My other moniker on here is TeaPartyingHard. I'm on a loner PC and forgot my password, and I guess I tied it to a secondary email and can't recall which one. It was easier to just make a new account real quick.
I have added a pdf attachment of the latest court document. Here are some highlights though: "Defendant Sara Comander’s Motion to Dismiss Count 14 (doc. 13) is GRANTED with prejudice. 2. Defendant Walton County, Florida's Motion for More Definite Statement (doc. 14) is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have fourteen (14) days to file an amended complaint, and Defendants have fourteen (14) days thereafter to respond."
And one of my favorite parts: "The Court agrees with the County that the Seventh Amended Complaint suffers from shotgun pleading deficiencies. Neither the County nor the Court should be required to sift through over 100 numbered paragraphs to determine how or whether they are related to each claim or to guess at the nature of the constitutional violation being alleged pertaining to each fact. The misnumbering and incorporating of unrelated or unspecified prior paragraphs makes it virtually impossible to craft a meaningful response, and, although Count 13 appears to be organized by alleged constitutional violations, each category within it nonetheless lumps together several claims, making it difficult to know which facts support which claims. For instance, under the heading of “First Amendment Violations,” the allegations incorporate all of the conspiracy allegations of Count 6, which is not pleaded against the County but implicates the County as a conspirator, and under the same heading, multiple facts are alleged with assertions that the County violated Plaintiffs’ speech rights, influenced whether they would testify in judicial proceedings, and attempted to prevent them from exercising their right to petition the government. Plaintiffs also mix in allegations of intimidation, retaliation, selective enforcement, and the deprivation of property rights under the heading First Amendment Violations. Under a separate heading of “Procedural Due Process Violations,” also within Count 13, Plaintiffs allege the failure to give notice of public meetings, that unwritten policies gave staff complete discretion, that the County selectively enforced certain aspects of the law, failed to supervise and train employees, and, again, that the County retaliated based on First Amendment rights. Numerous similar paragraphs are included under headings labeled “Substantive Due Process” and “Equal Protection Violations.” The Court also agrees with the County that requiring an answer to the Seventh Amended Complaint would amount to an invitation for a shotgun answer, which in turn would result in wasted resources on unfocused discovery and likely further discovery disputes in this already prolonged case. Thus, a more definite statement must be provided. Although the Court is loathe to permit more pleading at this stage, because the Seventh Amended Complaint was the first to include federal claims against the County, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an opportunity to replead and attempt to define their claims against the County in a concise and organized manner. Therefore, Plaintiffs will be required to replead and formulate the claims into separate discernible counts organized with factual allegations relevant to each particular claim asserted and set forth in a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) & 10(b)."
14 days....tick tock tick tock.
Just so no one thinks I am trying to hide my identity by posting from a new account...My other moniker on here is TeaPartyingHard. I'm on a loner PC and forgot my password, and I guess I tied it to a secondary email and can't recall which one. It was easier to just make a new account real quick.
I have added a pdf attachment of the latest court document. Here are some highlights though: "Defendant Sara Comander’s Motion to Dismiss Count 14 (doc. 13) is GRANTED with prejudice. 2. Defendant Walton County, Florida's Motion for More Definite Statement (doc. 14) is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have fourteen (14) days to file an amended complaint, and Defendants have fourteen (14) days thereafter to respond."
And one of my favorite parts: "The Court agrees with the County that the Seventh Amended Complaint suffers from shotgun pleading deficiencies. Neither the County nor the Court should be required to sift through over 100 numbered paragraphs to determine how or whether they are related to each claim or to guess at the nature of the constitutional violation being alleged pertaining to each fact. The misnumbering and incorporating of unrelated or unspecified prior paragraphs makes it virtually impossible to craft a meaningful response, and, although Count 13 appears to be organized by alleged constitutional violations, each category within it nonetheless lumps together several claims, making it difficult to know which facts support which claims. For instance, under the heading of “First Amendment Violations,” the allegations incorporate all of the conspiracy allegations of Count 6, which is not pleaded against the County but implicates the County as a conspirator, and under the same heading, multiple facts are alleged with assertions that the County violated Plaintiffs’ speech rights, influenced whether they would testify in judicial proceedings, and attempted to prevent them from exercising their right to petition the government. Plaintiffs also mix in allegations of intimidation, retaliation, selective enforcement, and the deprivation of property rights under the heading First Amendment Violations. Under a separate heading of “Procedural Due Process Violations,” also within Count 13, Plaintiffs allege the failure to give notice of public meetings, that unwritten policies gave staff complete discretion, that the County selectively enforced certain aspects of the law, failed to supervise and train employees, and, again, that the County retaliated based on First Amendment rights. Numerous similar paragraphs are included under headings labeled “Substantive Due Process” and “Equal Protection Violations.” The Court also agrees with the County that requiring an answer to the Seventh Amended Complaint would amount to an invitation for a shotgun answer, which in turn would result in wasted resources on unfocused discovery and likely further discovery disputes in this already prolonged case. Thus, a more definite statement must be provided. Although the Court is loathe to permit more pleading at this stage, because the Seventh Amended Complaint was the first to include federal claims against the County, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an opportunity to replead and attempt to define their claims against the County in a concise and organized manner. Therefore, Plaintiffs will be required to replead and formulate the claims into separate discernible counts organized with factual allegations relevant to each particular claim asserted and set forth in a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) & 10(b)."
14 days....tick tock tick tock.
