Federal Judge Strikes Trump Defamation Lawsuit For Being Too Annoying to Read [View all]
On Friday, September 19, a federal district judge in Florida struck President Donald Trumps complaint in his $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, four Times reporters, and Penguin Random House, describing the complaint as decidedly improper and impermissible. Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint is supposed to include a short and plain statement alleging enough facts that, if true, could warrant legal relief. The complaint Trump filed on Monday, by contrast, is 85 pages long and reads more like an anthology of his Truth Social posts, with slightly better punctuation.
Most complaints filed in federal courtrooms do not get tossed under Rule 8, but most complaints filed in federal courtrooms do not spend dozens of pages recounting, as Trumps does, the plaintiffs singular brilliance and history-making media appearances in programs like Fallen Champ: The Untold Story of Mike Tyson. Trumps complaint is also crowded with boasts about his purported magnificence (for example, President Trump secured the greatest personal and political achievement in American history) and snipes about legacy medias anti-Trump bias (for example, Defendants baselessly hate President Trump in a deranged way).
Fridays order, in turn, is full of the judges unmasked exhaustion. As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective, wrote Steven Merryday, a judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. This complaint stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements of Rule 8. Merryday gave Trump 28 days to amend the complaint and come back with something less ridiculous, and not exceeding forty pages. This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner, he wrote.
more ... https://ballsandstrikes.org/law-politics/trump-nyt-lawsuit-too-annoying-to-read/