No, Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times is not over, but it’s going to be tough to complain about this ruling. For one thing, the judge comes from Trump’s adopted backyard in the Middle District of Florida, not the Gray Lady’s home turf of the Southern District of New York. And for another, as anyone who read the original complaint already knows, Judge Steven Merryday has a point.
Merryday didn’t dismiss the defamation action outright. He did, however, tell Trump’s attorneys to stop trying to make it “the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers Corner”:
A federal judge on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, saying a courtroom can’t be used as a substitute for the “Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.”
Trump’s side will still have a chance to amend the Middle District of Florida complaint in 28 days, as long as it’s no longer than 40 pages, U.S. District Court Judge Steven Merryday ruled. …
The judge said that Trump’s complaint, as it now stands, is “improper and impermissible,” adding that every lawyer should know that a lawsuit is not a public forum for “vituperation and invective” or “rage against an adversary.”
The original complaint runs 85 pages. The complaint only alleges three explicit counts of defamation. In my analysis on Wednesday, I remarked that “the suit is lengthy and filled with no small amount of laudatory praise,” which I assumed was meant to emphasize the potential extent of damages. It takes 27 pages to get to the “factual allegations common to all claims for relief,” and another ten pages until the attorneys begin to lay out the first of the claims of falsity in any of the objectionable material. Even for lawsuits, that seems like a bit of essay-padding, not to mention plenty of self-promotion by Trump and his team.
Merryday didn’t find it amusing or enlightening:
Even under the most generous and lenient application of Rule 8, the complaint is decidedly improper and impermissible. The pleader initially alleges an electoral victory by President Trump “in historic fashion” — by “trouncing” the opponent — and alludes to “persistent election interference from the legacy media, led most notoriously by the New York Times.” The pleader alludes to “the halcyon days” of the newspaper but complains that the newspaper has become a “fullthroated mouthpiece of the Democrat party,” which allegedly resulted in the “deranged endorsement” of President Trump’s principal opponent in the most recent presidential election. The reader of the complaint must labor through allegations, such as “a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray Lady.’” The reader must endure an allegation of “the desperate need to defame with a partisan spear rather than report with an authentic looking glass” and an allegation that “the false narrative about ‘The Apprentice’ was just the tip of Defendants’ melting iceberg of falsehoods.” Similarly, in one of many, often repetitive, and laudatory (toward President Trump) but superfluous allegations, the pleader states, “‘The Apprentice’ represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump’s singular brilliance, which captured the [Z]eitgeist of our time.”
It’s possible that Trump’s legal team went overboard a skosh in gilding the lily. Just a wee bit.
So what is Rule 8? It governs the submission of pleadings to federal courts, ensuring that pleadings are comprehensive while still concise and manageable. That requirement leads off Rule 8, in fact:
(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Lawsuits like these have a particular form, which can sometimes feel like boilerplate — and that’s what Rule 8 is intended to produce. Judges want attorneys to follow this specific pattern so that they can get through the deluge of materials they receive every day in an efficient manner. It may be dry, but judges can read novels or Reddit if they want entertainment. Much of what Trump’s team included in their original filing sounds much more like an opening statement or even a closing argument rather than a normal pleading in a lawsuit.
The bad news is that Merryday tossed out the lawsuit. The good news, however, is that this has nothing to do with the merit of the claim. The judge gave Trump’s team four weeks to clean it up — and imposed a page cap:
This complaint stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements of Rule 8. This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner. The complaint is STRUCK with leave to amend within twenty-eight days. The amended complaint must not exceed forty pages, excluding only the caption, the signature, and any attachment.
It’s never a good idea to start off a case by annoying the judge, especially to the point of using terms like “inexcusably” and implying unprofessional and undignified behavior. Nevertheless, while some news reports made it sound as though the judge tossed the entire lawsuit, Trump and his team have an opportunity to refile this with a complaint that, ahem, tightens things up — a lot — making this not much more than a speed bump.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
