Josh Duggar Part 11 - The End of Rehab Is in Sight

[Whoosh]

17 minutes ago, socalrules said:

I completely understand with or without prejudice. I also understand what goes on during settlement negotiations as I have been there many times. I stand by my statement that it is bad lawyering to dismiss a complaint where there has been a settlement but the settlement agreement has not been fully executed and money exchanged. The threat of going to trial is what keeps people trying to settle and complete the settle the process once a settlement has been reached.  I am speaking from my personal experience. I work in insurance defense and would be fired for dismissing a complaint without the settlement being complete. Maybe it is different in other types of law but it would be worrisome for me either way. 

As to the dismissal itself, what I was trying to convey is that, at least in my state, I don't need permission from the opposing party to dismiss my client's complaint with, or without, prejudice. Further, the only time the other party may have an issue is if I filed a request for dismissal without prejudice, when had agreed to dismiss with prejudice. As to checking a box, in my state, California, a request for dismissal is just a form you fill out and submit to the court for it to sign off on. You check off with or without prejudice . I have never had a problem with the court in signing off on it nor had to explain why I am doing so. It is likely different in Federal Court where I have little experience, otherwise I cannot understand why she is asking opposing party's permission to file a dismissal. I am not trying to be argumentative but I guess my wording was not clear as it should have been. 

I hear you.  This isn't an insurance case.  It is an intentional tort case. WHOLE different ballgame, though I don't know if it matters in terms of this particular motion.  I think this may actually be where much of the confusion about things like damages comes from, actually - insurance work which DOES NOT typically (or ever?) cover intentional torts vs THIS CASE.  I hear you saying you wouldn't do this, but it IS done.  I would not have brought it up if it were not "a thing good lawyers with sufficient common sense do do under certain circumstances, such as when a settlement is UNDER WAY".  It is one significant reason people file to WITHDRAW a complaint without prejudice.  

I am still not following your second point - perhaps you are viewing "permission" as something entirely separate than "agreed to".  I am not even sure where the word "permission" came from in this conversation.  I am fairly sure I did not use the word permission.  So I guess I am just unclear what you are saying, but no worries at all.  The tabloids seem to think Dillon tried to "strike a deal" with Duggar, but then rejected the terms of his offer.

At any rate, she HAS filed a motion to withdraw without prejudice with the court.  Yesterday.

 

ETA - just found this in the PA code - not sure if it what is going on OR NOT.  But here it is nonetheless.

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/246/chapter300/s320.html

[vienna]

I will ask this again: what if she simply got the dates the assault took place wrong? Legally she might not be able to simply change the dates but to sue again with another date and maybe this is what this all is about. ??? 

[Whoosh]

6 minutes ago, vienna said:

I will ask this again: what if she simply got the dates the assault took place wrong? Legally she might not be able to simply change the dates but to sue again with another date and maybe this is what this all is about. ??? 

I have not confirmed this AT ALL, but I believe that someone (perhaps on FJ) confirmed that the dates named in the suit match up with the dates she was in PA preforming.  Perhaps that isn't true or perhaps she flies from CA to PA more than once a month, but IDK.

I think if there were an error made as to the dates in the initial complaint, they would have been able to simply amend the complaint rather than withdrawing the complaint without prejudice and refiling, but I am not at all certain of that either.

So helpful, I know.  Sorry.

[vienna]

An answer is worth so much more than nothing. It would seem reasonable that one could simply change that dates but that's not how procedural law always works. I just can't get the idea of wrong dates out of my head.  Still so curious how the whole story is going to continue.

[Whoosh]

5 minutes ago, vienna said:

An answer is worth so much more than nothing. It would seem reasonable that one could simply change that dates but that's not how procedural law always works. I just can't get the idea of wrong dates out of my head.  Still so curious how the whole story is going to continue.

LOL - it is a reasonable idea to have, no doubt.  If you knew some of the theories of what is going on that are flying through my brain at the moment, you would be like  and then 

But I am stuffing all that down, as it is most likely this is simply due to lack of evidence or something more typical than the movie in my head this AM.

[TheJewAmongUs]

Does anyone think that Josh's "rehab" has been anything other than sitting around, holed up in some property that his father owns, waiting for the TV cameras to return and internally blaming "the devil" (AKA gay people) for what's happened to him, secretly being happy not to have to lift a finger (which he only does on camera anyway) for his kids, and periodically receiving notes of encouragement from other fine, upstanding Christian leaders, like Gil Bates and Clark Wilson?

[EmmieJ]

9 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Sex workers are NOT responsible for preventing men from cheating.  Women are NOT to blame for the inappropriate sexual behavior of men.  

This.  In this day and age, why are women still blamed for the choices men make in this regard?  If your boyfriend or husband is a cheater, blame him.

 

1 hour ago, socalrules said:

I stand by my statement that it is bad lawyering to dismiss a complaint where there has been a settlement but the settlement agreement has not been fully executed and money exchanged.

Exactly.  I don't know anything about federal courts, but in civil courts (in California anyway), a plaintiff can file a Notice of Settlement, to advise the court that the parties have settled but are not yet ready to file a dismissal.  I've never heard of a plaintiff needing agreement from the defendant in order to file a dismissal, either with or without prejudice.  My first thought was that Danica and her attorneys had realized that they weren't quite ready to proceed with this lawsuit, that they wanted to do some further investigation or preparation, so they were choosing to dismiss without prejudice so she could re-file at a later time.  Didn't the court set a trial date? 

I hope this lawsuit was not just a way to generate media attention.  That would be very harmful to victims of sexual assault, as it is already an uphill battle to be believed.

[Whoosh]

36 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

This.  In this day and age, why are women still blamed for the choices men make in this regard?  If your boyfriend or husband is a cheater, blame him.

 

Exactly.  I don't know anything about federal courts, but in civil courts (in California anyway), a plaintiff can file a Notice of Settlement, to advise the court that the parties have settled but are not yet ready to file a dismissal.  I've never heard of a plaintiff needing agreement from the defendant in order to file a dismissal, either with or without prejudice.  My first thought was that Danica and her attorneys had realized that they weren't quite ready to proceed with this lawsuit, that they wanted to do some further investigation or preparation, so they were choosing to dismiss without prejudice so she could re-file at a later time.  Didn't the court set a trial date? 

I hope this lawsuit was not just a way to generate media attention.  That would be very harmful to victims of sexual assault, as it is already an uphill battle to be believed.

OK, I wasn't going to go here, but here I go.  EmmieJ I respect your opinion.  I can not recall what area of law you work in.  However, in terms of trying to relate this to a run-of-the-mill insurance claim, all cases are not about a sign on the dotted line $$$ dollar amount.  All defendants are not huge conglomerates trying to spread risks and costs.  This is an INTENTIONAL TORT case where the plaintiff is accusing the defendant of VIOLENT AND OUTRAGEOUS behavior MEANT to harm her physically and mentally.  Any hypothetical settlement COULD look a lot like your standard insurance case - or it could look drastically different.  A plaintiff may not want cash OR (unlike a large ass insurance company), the defendant may have LIMITED cash.

Random hypotheticals based on things I have seen in MY career?  Maybe Dillon agreed to drop the case IF AND ONLY IF Duggar successfully completed some type of REAL sex offender treatment program.  Do I think that happened here?  NO.  Would that be a reason to file a motion to WITHDRAW the complaint without prejudice?  Absofreakingloutely.

What if they reached a settlement amount, but Duggar will have to pay it off over the next 10 years - likely?  I doubt it.  Reason to file this motion with the court?  SURE!!!!

What if Duggar has agreed to pay XXX amount PLUS medical expenses as they are incurred for 5 years?  

I won't go on like a loon here, but REALLY this type of case is not necessarily comparable to an insurance settlement.  

I actually even posted a LINK to the PA CODE outlining how one goes about executing this type of withdrawal of complaint.  Perhaps I should share it again.

But seriously, I am out.  I have no idea what is actually going.  This is just one VERY REAL POSSIBILITY.

Two last question based on the past several posts - 1) if someone works IN DEFENSE, am I really supposed to believe their attorney can file a MOTION TO DISMISS without the agreement of the opposing party OR the judge?  That is a hard one for me to try to process.  And how would with or without prejudice even come into play with something like that?  

AND 2) Does it really make sense that a PLAINTIFF can just pick up her ball and go home without the agreement of the judge or the defendant after wasting considerable time and resources for each party?  And the plaintiff can do this unilaterally and do it WITHOUT PREJUDICE, meaning that she could just haul them all back into court again in a few months to start anew?  Is that what y'all are saying?  Just by checking a box all on her own?

Anyway, I really am out.

ETA PA Code outlining this type of withdrawal of complaint

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/246/chapter300/s320.html

[socalrules]

Yes, in California I can file with the court a request to dismiss my complaint at anytime without even speaking with opposing counsel. This is with or without prejudice. I have never had a court not just sign off on it nor have I ever had a a party question me on it. I don't have to give an explanation to file it either to opposing party or the court. It is just a form request for dismissal. I have done it many times. Usually within 30-45 days after filing I will receive the dismissal executed by the court in the mail. 

I will say that usually people understand why a dismissal is being filed. Either there is a finalized settlement, an incorrect party was named or there is no reason for them to be in the case. The important part is that I can still do it without  giving a reason or having the opposing party agree to it. It's my complaint and its up to me whether to go forward with it. 

[Whoosh]

Just now, socalrules said:

Yes, in California I can file with the court a request to dismiss my complaint at anytime without even speaking with opposing counsel.

I thought you said you were in defense?  Why didn't OJ use this defense.  Sounds fantastic.

 

[socalrules]

Just now, Whoosh said:

I thought you said you were in defense?  Why didn't OJ use this defense.  Sounds fantastic.

 

I do insurance defense but we also file cross-complaints against other parties to bring them into the action. 

[CTRLZero]

Whoosh - thank you for all your thorough posts to enlighten us on what was going on in this case.  It was appreciated.

[Whoosh]

9 minutes ago, socalrules said:

I do insurance defense but we also file cross-complaints against other parties to bring them into the action. 

I understand that and I respect you and what you do.  I would like to try to suggest again that the standards and practices of that type of law are not directly applicable to the case at hand.  

I really do respect you A LOT.  And EmmieJ too.  I have just been challenged and/or slapped down on everything I have said about this case since August - whether I was saying service workers sometimes get stiffed on tips and yet invite the client back OR withdrawal of a complaint without prejudice is sometimes used as a settlement tool in intentional tort cases.  It is just incredibly odd to me.

Almost all y'all really are great.

[OnceUponATime]

26 minutes ago, socalrules said:

Yes, in California I can file with the court a request to dismiss my complaint at anytime without even speaking with opposing counsel. This is with or without prejudice. I have never had a court not just sign off on it nor have I ever had a a party question me on it. I don't have to give an explanation to file it either to opposing party or the court. It is just a form request for dismissal. I have done it many times. Usually within 30-45 days after filing I will receive the dismissal executed by the court in the mail. 

I will say that usually people understand why a dismissal is being filed. Either there is a finalized settlement, an incorrect party was named or there is no reason for them to be in the case. The important part is that I can still do it without  giving a reason or having the opposing party agree to it. It's my complaint and its up to me whether to go forward with it. 

I have a random general non-duggar related questions about this.

If you file a request for dismissal who pays for already incurred costs?
Say you realized that it's the wrong party named (but put down nothing as a reason when requesting dismissal) does the wrong party still have to pay for their own defense lawyer costs? Can they do a counter-motion sort of thing to get costs awarded to them?

[socalrules]

14 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I understand that and I respect you and what you do.  I would like to try to suggest again that the standards and practices of that type of law are not directly applicable to the case at hand.  

I really do respect you A LOT.  And EmmieJ too.  I have just been challenged and/or slapped down on everything I have said about this case since August - whether I was saying service workers sometimes get stiffed on tips and yet invite the client back OR withdrawal of a complaint without prejudice is sometimes used as a settlement tool in intentional tort cases.  It is just incredibly odd to me.

Almost all y'all really are great.

@Whoosh you have been doing a fantastic job educating people on the law. I enjoy reading your posts and you have more patience going through all the background, filings, research and randomness than I could ever have. Thanks for taking the laboring oar and making things understandable. I will admit that once I leave the comfort zone of what I know, I am not as effective at learning new ways of the law. Of course, I am also lazy and that doesn't help. It's nice to be able to talk about the legal aspects of all things Duggar and fundy at FJ. Sadly my friends don't care about the Duggars or any fundies. 

[socalrules]

@OnceUponATime to be honest, I am not sure how you go about getting your attorney fees due to a dismissal as I have never had to deal with that issue. Usually when there is a dismissal due to settlement or some other agreement there may be a waiver of fees and costs by both parties. I am not sure if you can even get your attorney's fees back for defending yourself against an action that was just dismissed rather than adjudicated. I have never seen it come up. Usually parties are happy to be been dismissed but again, it's different dealing with an insurance company that is happy the case is going away and a defendant who is paying out of pocket. 

Usually you can only recoup your attorney fees in California if there was some type of prevailing parties agreement in a contract or indemnity provision naming the party but even then it is still pretty difficult to get attorney's fees back.

 

[Hera]

Quote

 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41:

(a) Voluntary Dismissal.

(1) By the Plaintiff.

(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:

(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or

(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.

(2) By Court Order; Effect. Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant's objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.

 

 

 

 

Since Josh has answered, the only way that DD can dismiss without prejudice is if Josh's attorneys agree. Obviously, they do not; presumably because they insist on a dismissal with prejudice.  Therefore, she had to file an opposed motion.  And, she probably wants to dismiss because she cannot prove the $75,000 limit to avoid removal and for whatever reason does not want to go to the state court that Josh's attorneys want to remove the case to, which is why she filed in federal court in the first place.  So, she wants to voluntarily dismiss and be able to refile in another state court that she believes is available to her and would be more favorable to her case, or at least preserve the option.  

[EmmieJ]

1 hour ago, Whoosh said:

OK, I wasn't going to go here, but here I go.  EmmieJ I respect your opinion.  I can not recall what area of law you work in.  However, in terms of trying to relate this to a run-of-the-mill insurance claim, all cases are not about a sign on the dotted line $$$ dollar amount.  All defendants are not huge conglomerates trying to spread risks and costs.  This is an INTENTIONAL TORT case where the plaintiff is accusing the defendant of VIOLENT AND OUTRAGEOUS behavior MEANT to harm her physically and mentally.  Any hypothetical settlement COULD look a lot like your standard insurance case - or it could look drastically different.  A plaintiff may not want cash OR (unlike a large ass insurance company), the defendant may have LIMITED cash.

Random hypotheticals based on things I have seen in MY career?  Maybe Dillon agreed to drop the case IF AND ONLY IF Duggar successfully completed some type of REAL sex offender treatment program.  Do I think that happened here?  NO.  Would that be a reason to file a motion to WITHDRAW the complaint without prejudice?  Absofreakingloutely.

What if they reached a settlement amount, but Duggar will have to pay it off over the next 10 years - likely?  I doubt it.  Reason to file this motion with the court?  SURE!!!!

What if Duggar has agreed to pay XXX amount PLUS medical expenses as they are incurred for 5 years?  

I won't go on like a loon here, but REALLY this type of case is not necessarily comparable to an insurance settlement.  

I actually even posted a LINK to the PA CODE outlining how one goes about executing this type of withdrawal of complaint.  Perhaps I should share it again.

But seriously, I am out.  I have no idea what is actually going.  This is just one VERY REAL POSSIBILITY.

Two last question based on the past several posts - 1) if someone works IN DEFENSE, am I really supposed to believe their attorney can file a MOTION TO DISMISS without the agreement of the opposing party OR the judge?  That is a hard one for me to try to process.  And how would with or without prejudice even come into play with something like that?  

AND 2) Does it really make sense that a PLAINTIFF can just pick up her ball and go home without the agreement of the judge or the defendant after wasting considerable time and resources for each party?  And the plaintiff can do this unilaterally and do it WITHOUT PREJUDICE, meaning that she could just haul them all back into court again in a few months to start anew?  Is that what y'all are saying?  Just by checking a box all on her own?

Anyway, I really am out.

ETA PA Code outlining this type of withdrawal of complaint

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/246/chapter300/s320.html

Wow, sure did not mean to raise your blood pressure with my comment.  I was just trying to add one person's perspective, not question you or your legal expertise.  In fact, I am quite sure you have much more expertise in legal matters than I do.

As to whether a plaintiff in a civil litigation case in California can file a Request for Dismissal without getting approval from the defendant (or defendants) - yes they can.  A defendant cannot file a dismissal of a plaintiff's case, but a plaintiff can file a dismissal at any time, should they so desire.  And that was really all I was saying in regards to the question:  can a plaintiff in a California civil case file a dismissal of their complaint without approval from the defendant?  Answer: Yes.  I limited my remarks to civil cases filed in California courts.

For anyone who thought my remark in this regard was meant to convey that Danica Dillon and her attorneys could do the same in this federal lawsuit - please accept my apologies for any confusion.  I repeat - I am unfamiliar with how cases are handled in federal courts.  My knowledge (such as it is) is based on working as a legal assistant for just under 25 years in civil litigation in California.  No more, no less. 

1 hour ago, Whoosh said:

I thought you said you were in defense?  Why didn't OJ use this defense.  Sounds fantastic.

 

Well mainly because he wasn't the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit involving him, he was the defendant.

[Whoosh]

50 minutes ago, Hera said:

Since Josh has answered, the only way that DD can dismiss without prejudice is if Josh's attorneys agree. Obviously, they do not; presumably because they insist on a dismissal with prejudice.  Therefore, she had to file an opposed motion.  And, she probably wants to dismiss because she cannot prove the $75,000 limit to avoid removal and for whatever reason does not want to go to the state court that Josh's attorneys want to remove the case to, which is why she filed in federal court in the first place.  So, she wants to voluntarily dismiss and be able to refile in another state court that she believes is available to her and would be more favorable to her case, or at least preserve the option.  

So, I thought that she could WITHDRAW her complaint without prejudice in one of two ways 1) the Defendant agrees or 2) the Judge approves her opposed motion.  I think we agree on that.

Next, Dillon actually filed in State Court.  Duggar removed to Federal Court.  It can only stay in Federal Court if Duggar proves the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  HOWEVER, Dillon was delayed in turning over initial disclosures, so Duggar missed the deadline for filing that.  SO, the judge ordered Dillon to file proof that the amount in controversy is over $75,000 by 2/11/16.  I don't think Dillon wants to stay in Federal Court to be honest.  Nor do I think she can likely haul him into any other court at this time, but that I am not sure of.  But she could be trying to get to another State Court.  

47 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

As to whether a plaintiff in a civil litigation case in California can file a Request for Dismissal without getting approval from the defendant (or defendants) - yes they can.

I will take your word that this is how it works in California.  It seems odd that a plaintiff could hail someone into court, burn through the defense and the court time and money for a few years or so, realize she is losing and may lose a countersuit, and then simply take her ball and go home.  State vs Federal seems irrelevant to me in that regard, but I will take your word on it.

It doesn't work that way everywhere.  *Hera has posted the rules above.*

47 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

Well mainly because he wasn't the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit involving him, he was the defendant.

This was EXACTLY my point here.  She said she was defense.  I asked the question about OJ (defendant) and she clarified.  Sorry to confuse you there.

[EmmieJ]

7 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

This was EXACTLY my point here.  She said she was defense.  I asked the question about OJ (defendant) and she clarified.  Sorry to confuse you there.

Wow, again.

[Whoosh]

1 minute ago, EmmieJ said:

Wow, again.

Just trying to be clear.  I had thought my statement clearly indicated that I knew he was the defendant.

[Hera]

46 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

So, I thought that she could WITHDRAW her complaint without prejudice in one of two ways 1) the Defendant agrees or 2) the Judge approves her opposed motion.  I think we agree on that.

Next, Dillon actually filed in State Court.  Duggar removed to Federal Court.  It can only stay in Federal Court if Duggar proves the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  HOWEVER, Dillon was delayed in turning over initial disclosures, so Duggar missed the deadline for filing that.  SO, the judge ordered Dillon to file proof that the amount in controversy is over $75,000 by 2/11/16.  I don't think Dillon wants to stay in Federal Court to be honest.  Nor do I think she can likely haul him into any other court at this time, but that I am not sure of.  But she could be trying to get to another State Court.  

 

Oops! Can't get to the underlying actual filing docs right now and misread removal as remand, based on the representation that DD was supposed to be proving damages in excess of $75,000, which is usually the party seeking federal jurisdiction's burden (in this case, Josh), since they want to stay there.  It makes more sense that she'd initially file in state court for these kinds of claims, though. 

So, I suppose the judge just wants to see what the amount in controversy is on his own; hence the order for her to produce evidence of the amount of her claims.  

In any event, I suspect that DD doesn't want to produce medical information and/or financial information at this stage of the proceedings.  That is not surprising, since lots of litigants who don't make a paycheck every couple of weeks and get paid in cash and may operate in gray areas legally have trouble documenting their income in court and generally prefer not to have that information out there for close inspection.  Therefore, she went with the voluntary dismissal just to keep her options open for later.  Sounds like a win for Josh, though, to be honest.  If she just wanted to go back to state court, then she'd be sent back to wherever she filed, so that's not looking like what she wants right now.  Unfortunately, if she cannot or chooses not to document her losses, then regardless of whatever happened (and I have no idea), she probably cannot prevail on her claims.  In litigation, what you can prove is way more important than the truth.  

 

[Whoosh]

6 minutes ago, Hera said:

Oops! Can't get to the underlying actual filing docs right now and misread removal as remand, based on the representation that DD was supposed to be proving damages in excess of $75,000, which is usually the party seeking federal jurisdiction's burden (in this case, Josh), since they want to stay there.  It makes more sense that she'd initially file in state court for these kinds of claims, though. 

So, I suppose the judge just wants to see what the amount in controversy is on his own; hence the order for her to produce evidence of the amount of her claims.  

In any event, I suspect that DD doesn't want to produce medical information and/or financial information at this stage of the proceedings.  That is not surprising, since lots of litigants  documenting their income in court and generally prefer not to have that information out there for close inspection.  Therefore, she went with the voluntary dismissal just to keep her options open for later.  Sounds like a win for Josh, though, to be honest.  If she just wanted to go back to state court, then she'd be sent back to wherever she filed, so that's not looking like what she wants right now.  Unfortunately, if she cannot or chooses not to document her losses, then regardless of whatever happened (and I have no idea), she probably cannot prevail on her claims.  In litigation, what you can prove is way more important than the truth.  

 

Yeah - it is a lot to try to track.  This was my initial thought as well.  Not necessarily the amount in controversy specifically, but that she is unable or unwilling at this time to produce some type of evidence (maybe all of it).  At any rate, she has filed the motion opposed and I suppose we will hear from the Judge sooner rather than later.  Sexual assault cases that are not total stranger situations are so tough to prove in general.  Add to that... all that is going on here. It is just a lot regardless of the veracity of her allegations.

ETA - thanks for including the info on withdrawal.

[justoneoftwo]

3 hours ago, OnceUponATime said:

I have a random general non-duggar related questions about this.

If you file a request for dismissal who pays for already incurred costs?
Say you realized that it's the wrong party named (but put down nothing as a reason when requesting dismissal) does the wrong party still have to pay for their own defense lawyer costs? Can they do a counter-motion sort of thing to get costs awarded to them?

In general in the US each party must pay their attorneys.  There are a few exceptions, but it is uncommon.  So usually the wrong party would have to pay their own defense costs.  You could maybe sue for something, but it would be hard.  Basically the US has decided that in general thats not how we do things.  

[JenniferJuniper]

7 hours ago, Whoosh said:

This isn't an insurance case.  It is an intentional tort case. WHOLE different ballgame, though I don't know if it matters in terms of this particular motion.  I think this may actually be where much of the confusion about things like damages comes from, actually - insurance work which DOES NOT typically (or ever?) cover intentional torts vs THIS CASE.  I hear you saying you wouldn't do this, but it IS done.  I would not have brought it up if it were not "a thing good lawyers with sufficient common sense do do under certain circumstances, such as when a settlement is UNDER WAY".  It is one significant reason people file to WITHDRAW a complaint without prejudice.  

 

How exactly is a civil case alleging an intentional tort a whole different ball game from a civil case alleging a negligent tort? Damages must be proven in the same manner whether insurance is involved or not.  So what confusion are you referring to?

The involvement or lack of involvement of insurance does not change the rules of engagement.  And many plaintiffs will allege both intentional and negligent acts within the same Complaint.  If any part of a lawsuit contains a covered count under an insurance policy (example -  intentional infliction of emotional distress) all counts, included allegations of intentional torts, will be defended under that insurance policy and handled by the insurance carrier, even though the insured will not be indemnified for any awards for uncovered counts.

I highly doubt any settlement is underway and the 75k threshold issue is not driving her desire to have this dismissed.  

If she has proof that she was injured (at this point, by anyone) in the course of a sexual assault, no judge is going to arbitrarily say that her case isn't worth 75k on it's face. Clearly it could be worth much, much more.  At this point she need not prove lost wages (although that would help bolster her case) but she must provide proof that she was assaulted and injured.

We don't  have a complete picture, but we know she has delayed responding to discovery for whatever reason  (shouldn't be that complicated - sign an authorization and get the records from your doctors) and we know the judge ordered her to comply. Her attorney must have told her medical records would be critical, so this requirement shouldn't be news to her.

So what's going on here?

My guess is that she wants to end the lawsuit, but she wants to save face at the same time.  Duggar's attorney is not going to allow this. He'll never get an apology or any money back, but if she doesn't want to comply with the judge's order to provide her medical records in support of her case and can't afford to continue this, he'll probably get that dismissal with prejudice from her.

We may never know if Duggar had sex with her or not, but I really, really hope this woman did not make up a story of sexual assault for the sake of publicity.  This demeans real victims, sex workers or otherwise, and adds to the things that make it so difficult for women to prevail in sexual assault cases in general.  Not to mention the fact that Pig Duggar could come out looking like a victim.  And I have little doubt that TLC and the Duggars would make hay with that, despite the fact that he is still a child molester and an adulterer.