Statement Of Complaint: Fill & Download for Free

Even the legal educated people that complain about the people that don’t understand what’s happening are missing the forest for the trees in their answers…I'm not saying those answers are wrong, they just glaze over what's completely obvious to a lawyer that isn't to a layperson like myself.There were two parts:Ken Paxton filed a motion.With that motion he filed a Bill of Complaint:You can read the whole thing here.7 Justices voted to deny the motion:The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.2 Justices voted to allow the motion, because they thought they were constitutionally obliged to, but they said in their reasoning that they would have dismissed the complaint.Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issueYou can read the entire Supreme Court decision here. (I added the link to Arizona v. California). Arizona v. California is a case where the motion to file was also denied.We don’t know why they would have not granted relief, since they didn’t say.Maybe standing. Maybe because of the “merits” of the case.All we know is that the they would have accepted the Motion, but dismissed the case.Interstate disputes are handled with the Supreme Court being the originating court…ordinarily it’s the last stop for appellate cases, so the wheels turn differently for these than they typically are reported for other cases (i.e. No writ of certiorari).Personally, I think that the country would have been better off hearing the arguments and getting an opinion from the court on the matter. As it is, there’s a lot of misunderstanding about this bit of procedural minutiae.

The suit was most certainly not frivolous. It was not frivolous because McDonalds had been warned, repeatedly, that its coffee wasn’t just hot, but dangerously hot. There was no reason for it to be that hot, beyond McDonalds wanting to save money at the cost of seriously harming customers.The damage was extensive. The woman was not driving, she simply opened some coffee, while parked, to put some cream/sugar/whatever in it. I will not share the images, but they are horrific.The woman only asked for about 20k to begin with. McDonalds refused to negotiate. Apparently, during the trial, McDonalds came across as arrogant and uncaring. With this and the history of complaints and injuries, it is no surprise that the jury nailed McDonalds.In the end, the judge lowered the verdict to about 650k and the case settled for less. When juries hand down decisions like they did in this case, it is not because they feel the plaintiff deserves to receive some windfall, it is because they want to punish the defendant. That is the point of punitive damages. And when I saw how much damage this poor woman suffered, and how many other people were injured, I thought McDonalds got what it deserved.Sometimes litigation isn’t about just one person, it is about making a statement, and in this case the jury wanted to make one hell of a statement. The jury sought to protect consumers at large and to tell McDonalds that it had behaved badly.

Yes. Years ago, I was working for one of the US’ billion dollar companies. I was working 60 hours a week with no reward for five years. So - I found a better job. After resigning and giving appropriate notice, I went to my new job.Two weeks later, I received a letter informing me that the company had decided to review all of my expense account statements for the last five years and, although all of them had been previously approved by my boss, they wanted me to reimburse them for my expenses. I notified them that I had submitted a letter of complaint to the state’s Department of Labor (which I did). The company’s Executive Vice President wrote me a letter trying to defend their illegal practice. I rebutted it.After the company was contacted by the Department of Labor indicating that the DOL was going to investigate the company’s behavior, the company dropped their request for reimbursement. A few months later, I found that the company was facing bankruptcy and had divested itself of most of its lines of business. I think that this was an appropriate end to a dishonest company.