Time for an Update on the Dolores Press, Inc. Cases

For anyone keeping up, there has been little action in the cases. What has been going on are the different Motions to Consolidate Cases. If anyone remembers, I commented on Doc’s Dream, LLC. attempt to revive their case in their Motion to Consolidate Cases. This attempt was thwarted when the motion was denied because Doc’s Dream’s case was closed after the appeals court affirmed the district court’s order granting Dolores Press’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Dolores Press has now filed their Motion to Consolidate Cases. Dolores Press is seeking to consolidate, as they identify them, Dolores Press, Inc. v Robinson (Robinson I), Dolores Press, Inc. v Robinson (Robinson II), Dolores Press, Inc. v Jones (Jones I), and the cross complaint in Doc’s Dream, LLC v Dolores Press, Inc. (DD Action). These are the cases that Dolores Press brought against Patrick Robinson, Bobbi Jones, and Doc’s Dream, LLC which the district court dismissed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissals. In addition to these cases, Dolores Press is seeking to consolidate two more cases, Scott v Todd (the “Todd Action”), and Scott v Jones (the “Jones II Action”).

The status of the cases remains unchanged. The development I am reporting on comes from information found in the documents filed by the parties. Attorneys for defendants, Linda S. McAleer and Carlos A. Leyva, filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement on the same date the Plaintiff’s filed their Motion to Consolidate Cases. It appears their strategic goal is to delay filing answers to the respective complaints. They may also be grasping at straws, attempting to keep their judicial determination case alive. There really isn’t any purpose to file a Motion for a More Definite Statement in this matter. This motion is used to request the court to order the other party to clarify its statements or allegations. However, this is not what they argue in their documentation.

In the motion DDRM argues that they cannot reasonably prepare a response because Dolores Press argued in their Motion to Consolidate Cases, that the four pending cases should be consolidated into one, using the Robinson I case number as it was the first action filed. DDRM is questioning why their action’s case number isn’t the primary case number. The problem with this line of questioning is, it does not warrant a Motion for a More Definite Statement. They can oppose Dolores Press’ Motion to Consolidate and bring up this argument. Instead what they are trying to do is force Dolores Press to proceed with their prosecution of the case as DDRM would like. However, this is not DDRM’s right. Dolores Press may prosecute their case as they see fit. The only question is, when multiple cases with multiple defendants are moving forward, would it be more economical to consolidate. The Court of appeals believes so, the parties even agreed at the appeals hearing that consolidation would be proper. Now DDRM wants to suggest that their case with their complaint should move forward. This is a preposterous position.

The correct way to view the process is to note that the appeals court decided that the district court erred in dismissing Dolores Press’ cases, all of them including the counterclaim. This means, if the court never erred, the Dolores Press v Robinson case would have moved forward and would have been prosecuted in the manner that Dolores Press desired. To argue that the case that you prosecuted, and lost, should move forward is a losing argument. But even as such, it is an argument that should be brought in opposition to the Motion to Consolidate cases, not in a separate motion. This is a waste of money and resources, of the court and the parties. Meanwhile the defendants argue that they bring this frivolous motion to preserve judicial efficacy and economy.

To make matters worse, the defendants filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases on June 30, 2019. In said Response, the defendants make no argument regarding ambiguity, in fact filing said response indicates that they were fully capable of forming a response. Furthermore, in defendant’s response in opposition, they argue that the cases should not be consolidated, but merged. This is a strange take on the matter, since the parties agreed to consolidate, the court of appeals recommended that the cases be consolidated and the defendant’s filed their own motion to consolidate, which was denied because they attempted to revive their defeated case. The actions by defendants is wasteful, litigious, and frivolous. I would consider them lucky if they escape these actions without a Rule 11 Sanctions Motion filed against them.

Should the Plaintiffs decide to file Rule 11 Sanction motion, I believe they are likely to prevail. Furthermore, it may be appropriate to file a malicious prosecution action against the defendants at the conclusion of the case brought by Doc’s Dream.

As for the Motion to Consolidate Cases, brought by Dolores Press, I believe this is likely to prevail. This is the appropriate step in a series of cases wherein, the district court erred, and the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision. If the error had not taken place, the first filed case would have been the case to move forward, therefore it ought to be the first filed case number under which the remaining cases are consolidated.