Friday, September 28, 2012

Robert Vance Jr. Is Not Fit to Serve on the Alabama Supreme Court, and Here Is Why

Robert Vance Jr.

Does Robert Vance Jr. have the skills, temperament, and ethical convictions to serve on the Alabama Supreme Court? The answer is a resounding no, and that comes from my first-hand courtroom experiences.

Many progressives, such as myself, might become nauseous at the thought of Republican Roy Moore bringing his strange mix of right-wing virtue and old-time religion to our state's highest court. Under normal circumstances, I would not consider a vote for Roy Moore. But the alternative is Robert Vance Jr., and I know for sure that he is ethically challenged and prone to unlawfully protect the interests of legal and corporate elites.

For all of Moore's wackiness, I've seen no signs that he intentionally rules contrary to established law and favors the legal establishment over everyday citizens. In fact, Moore might be willing to stand up to the thugs who run the Alabama State Bar, and that could help clean up our courts. Robert Vance Jr. almost certainly will be a toady for the State Bar--and that's why Roy Moore will get my vote on November 6.

I've reported before that Vance Jr. cheated me raw in a legal malpractice claim I brought against Jesse P. Evans III and Michael B. Odom. They were the first lawyers I hired to represent me in a bogus lawsuit filed by our criminally inclined neighbor, Mike McGarity, and his corrupt lawyer, William E. Swatek. Now, we are going into specifics, and this will not take long. It involves simple law, and the evidence of Vance's chicanery is overwhelming.

At issue is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, also known as a "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted." That is a mouthful, but the concept is simple. A defendant who files a Motion to Dismiss essentially is saying, "This complaint is deficient on its face, it cannot be corrected, and the plaintiff cannot prevail under any set of facts. Therefore, the case must be dismissed, and no discovery is necessary."

Those last five words are key; a defendant who files a Motion to Dismiss probably is desperate to avoid discovery--and that's why he's filing a motion that almost never should be granted, under the law.

How do we know that? Well, it comes from Jerome Hoffman, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and author of Alabama Civil Procedure. Here are Hoffman's words on the subject:

Courts do not favor motions to dismiss. As a Rule of thumb, Rule 12(b)(6) motions will almost never be granted by trial courts, and those that are will almost always be reversed by appellate courts.

Why is that? When my legal-malpractice claim was filed in 2003, federal courts and most state courts operated under a "notice pleading" rule. (A pair of U.S. Supreme Court cases styled Twombly [2007] and Iqbal [2009] have tightened pleading standards somewhat in federal cases. Those rulings had not come down at the time my case was heard, and my case was in state court anyway, where Twombly and Iqbal generally do not apply.) Here is one definition of notice pleading:

[The] Rules of Civil Procedure require only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."

That is a very low bar for a plaintiff to clear, and it explains why Motions to Dismiss should almost never be granted. The plaintiff need only give notice of a recognized legal claim, with a brief summation of the grounds upon which it rests, and that is sufficient to overcome a Motion to Dismiss. Most complaints can accomplish that in one page--in maybe one or two paragraphs, at most.

My legal-malpractice complaint was 12 pages long, filled with details and citations to relevant law. (You can read it at the end of this post.) No serious practitioner of the law could argue this complaint did not easily meet the standards of notice pleading. But Robert Vance Jr. granted the Motion to Dismiss anyway.

According to Jerome Hoffman, there are only about three scenarios where a Motion to Dismiss can legitimately be granted under Alabama law--and he spells them out:

* The complaint alleges wrongdoing that is not recognized under the law. Hoffman gives the example of someone filing suit because of a "social snub";

* The complaint, on its face, falls outside the relevant statute of limitations;

* The defendants, on the face of the complaint, are protected by some form of immunity.

None of those was a factor in my case. Evans and Odom could not argue with a straight face that legal-malpractice is not a recognized tort--and they did not even try. Many legal-malpractice claims get booted by the two-year of statute of limitations, but I beat the clock--and Evans and Odom did not argue otherwise. As private attorneys, Evans and Odom clearly did not enjoy any form of immunity from suit.

Robert Vance Jr. had no legal grounds for granting the Motion to Dismiss, and that is apparent from the wording of his order. (You can read it at the end of this post.) Vance does not make one single citation to law in his order. Here is the gist of his ruling:

For the reasons stated in the defendants' motions, the plaintiff's complaint, as amended, fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended, is hereby GRANTED. The plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, costs taxed as paid.

Let's briefly ponder the two passages in bold above. The Birmingham firm of Starnes and Atchison (now Starnes Davis Florie) represented Evans and Odom, with Bryan O. Balogh and W. Stancil Starnes handling the case. In the first bold section, Vance essentially informs us that the fine folks at Starnes and Atchison decided the case for him--and me. Vance apparently cannot be bothered to consider citations to law from both sides, or even come up with something on his own, so he simply adopts what one side, the defense, puts forth. Never mind that the question on a Motion to Dismiss is the sufficiency of the complaint, on its face--and the Starnes lawyers never made any showing that I failed to meet notice pleading requirements. In fact, they did not even raise the issue of notice pleading.

As for the second bold section, Vance Jr. actually says, in so many words, that legal malpractice is not a cause of action for which relief can be granted. Even the Starnes firm does not argue that.

How Vance Jr. could write that with a straight face is beyond my comprehension. And he wants us to take him seriously as a candidate for the highest judicial office in Alabama?

On second thought, here is what Vance might be saying with his ruling: "In my courtroom, legal malpractice is not a claim for which relief can be granted. That's not the law, of course, but that's how things are done in my courtroom. After all, I have to protect my friends in the legal tribe. If regular folks get screwed by lawyers and then get screwed again in my courtroom . . . well, that's just tough. Their problems are not my concern."

Sounds a little like Mitt Romney, doesn't it?

That's the real Robert Vance Jr. talking. Is it any wonder that lawyers from all the big firms seem enthusiastic about his candidacy? Isn't that reason enough for you and I to be against it?

  Evans Complaint
Evans Vance1


Spasmoda said...

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems real clear that you gave notice of filing a lawsuit for a recognized tort--and it seems real clear that's all that's required at that stage in a lawsuit.

Would love to see Vance try to explain his handling of your case.

legalschnauzer said...


I'm going to give him that chance. We will see if Vance responds to my interview request.

Anonymous said...


Are you sure it's this easy to get a lawsuit in front of a jury? This notice pleading stuff sounds like a piece of cake. I thought it was harder than that to get a case to a jury.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:29--

It is harder than that to get a case before a jury. That comes at summary judgment, which comes after both sides have had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Summary judgment quite often is granted, kicking the case before it gets to a jury.

But we are talking here about a motion to dismiss, which kicks the case before a plaintiff has had any opportunity to gather evidence in discovery. That's where the bar is low, and the standard is "notice pleading."

Vance didn't want his lawyer friends to have to turn over e-mails etc, answer interrogatories, be deposed. All of that would have proved my case in spades, and Vance didn't want that to happen.

The hurdle to get to a jury is pretty high, and that's via summary judgment. The hurdle to get to the evidence-gathering stage (via discovery) is low.

Those are two very distinct stages in a lawsuit, federal or state.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I can't vote for Roy Moore. I can see why you feel cheated by Vance, and maybe your gripe is legit. But Roy Moore is not the answer.

Anonymous said...

Schnauzer, your whining again. "I would have won my case if not for mean old Robert Vance."

Boo hoo. World class whiner.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 9:42--

The post doesn't say I would have won my case. That's not the issue.

The post says Vance ruled unlawfully on a motion to dismiss, and that can't seriously be disputed--and I notice you didn't bother to try.

With an honest judge, I think I would have won the case before a jury, or it would have been settled during or after the discovery process. But given that no one was given an opportunity to gather evidence, it's impossible to predict an outcome.

Big Mike said...

9:37, I don't think it's going to matter because Roy Moore is going to kick Vance's ass, either way.

Spasmoda said...

LS, you were a lot nicer to 9:42 than I would have been.

legalschnauzer said...

I often get a kick out of the name callers and insult throwers. That's a sign they don't have anything else to go with.

Anonymous said...


... “Weather warfare” is the ultimate WMD with the the potential of destabilizing an enemy’s ecosystem, destroying its agriculture, disabling communications networks. In other words, ENMOD techniques can undermine an entire national economy, impoverish and “kill a nation” without the deployment of troops and military hardware.

The following text, with the exception of some small edits was first published in September 2004. The 2004 article is follow-up on an earlier study by the author entitled Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change, Third World Resurgence, January 2001,

While The Ecologist published in 2007 a shorter version of the above study, the issue of climatic manipulation for military use has largely been ignored by Environmentalists.

It is my sincere hope that this study will renew the debate on the dangers of weather warfare and will contribute to the broader objective of “disarming” the US- NATO military apparatus.

The URL of the original article is:

Michel Chossudovsky, September 28, 2012

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much Evans and Odom, or their law firm, have given to Vance's election campaigns over the years.

Anonymous said...

"... A Cook County judge dismissed charges against 92 Occupy protesters arrested in a Chicago park last October, ruling that the city’s overnight park curfew violated the First Amendment and was being enforced selectively.

Associate Judge Thomas M. Donnelly noted that police had arrested hundreds in a crackdown on the protesters' encampment when the park closed at 11:00pm local time, but had not moved against the 500,000 people who came to see Barack Obama after he won the presidency in 2008.

"The city arrested no one at the Obama 2008 presidential election victory rally, even though the Obama rally was equally in violation of the curfew," Judge Donnelly wrote.

The judge added that the selective enforcement of the curfew, combined with the Chicago Police Department's harassment of protesters in the days leading up to the arrests, supported “a finding that the city intended to discriminate against defendants based on their views.”

Judge Donnelly threw out the arrests, and slammed the city for denying the protesters their First Amendment rights. Citing the park's long history of political rallies dating back to Abraham Lincoln, Donnelly quoted early city leaders who resolved in 1835 that the land that became Grant Park "should be reserved for all time to come for a public square, accessible at all times to the people."

con't RT

Anonymous said...

Why I am responding I have no idea, but the problem is, the facts you allege do not amount to legal malpractice.

The complaint should have been dismissed, the complaints you have relate to legal strategy, rather than competence. Moreover, you have gone on and on about Joiner being corrupt because he did not grant summary judgment, but in your complaint you blame your lawyers for failing to properly argue the motions (which is not under any definition malpractice).

Which is it? Was Joiner corrupt, or were your lawyers incompetent? Was it both?

I understand your anger at the system, and I think the 11th circuit should have let your age discrimination case go to discovery, but there is no malpractice in this case, as I read the complaint.

If you are going to hold every lawyer liable for malpractice for litigation decisions or for rulings against you, then nobody could practice law due to the cost of malpractice insurance.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 5:26--

You responded because you have an agenda, which is to protect Robert Vance regardless of what the facts and the law say.

You sound like a lawyer, so you should know what "notice pleading" means. That's the issue at 12(b)(6) stage. Are you saying legal malpractice is not a recognized tort? If so, you are clueless, and I have no idea why you are reading a blog about legal issues.

You also should know that the facts have to be construed in favor of the nonmoving party, which was me. Vance did not do that, and he cited zero law in his order.

You should know, too, that the law presents no absolute definition of legal malpractice, as you try to claim. These cases generally come down to a battle of expert witnesses who determine whether the lawyers' actions fall below the level of "care, skill, diligence, etc."

In summary, you are wrong on at least three levels. Wait, make that four. The issue of Joiner's corruptness is not an issue in my complaint. This case was about legal malpractice, not judicial malpractice. You are citing things I've written on this blog, and which are a matter of public record. But they were not a part of this legal complaint.

So you are wrong on four levels, and you also are a phony for claiming you don't know why you responded. You have a vested interest in keeping our courts corrupt--it works well for you, and you want to keep it that way. That's why you support Bob Vance, and it's why you responded.

Nice try at muddying the waters. Sorry it didn't work.

Anonymous said...

How did your counterclaim turn out?

jeffrey spruill said...

Schnauzer, your whining again. "I would have won my case if not for mean old Robert Vance."

Boo hoo. World class whiner.


Sounds like that criminal from Charlottesville,Va. again.

legalschnauzer said...

It was kicked out because I had to bring it late in the process as a permissive counterclaim. That gave Shelby Co. Judge Dan Reeves, who is every bit as corrupt as Joiner, an opportunity to kick it, so it was not heard on the merits.

The counterclaim should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim right at the outset, but Evans and Odom failed to do that. That might be the single most glaring act of malpractice, so I'm glad you brought it up. It cost me the opportunity to have a counterclaim, which goes directly to damages.

By the way, what firm are you with? And why don't you ask questions under your real name, if you feel so strongly about these issues?

Evans and Odom are with Haskell Slaughter now. You wouldn't happen to be with that firm would you?

David in S. Alabama said...

My experience in the Middle District Court in Montgomery. Two things happened two me. A law clerk from Jones Law School was a student of one of my defendant's attorney. This law clerk apperently alowed to draft an opinion for the judge, some 85 pages. The next thing was I recieved a notice to appear for a settlement conference in the chambers of a majistrate judge where I was effectively screwed. I never saw the judge in my case nor do I any idea what he knew or didn't know aqbout my case. I also know that he was replaced by Judge Fuller and we all know about his courtt clerk. BTW, by case was against the local police who force their way into the office of a weekly newspaper at 10:30 pm and conficated everything. I eventually regained a few personnal items but nothing else. I had sued for 55 million and I split the settlement of 15,000 with my lawyer ande walked of with 9,000 for all my trouble.

legalschnauzer said...


Sounds like your case merited coverage in the press. I've had two cases before Abdul Kallon in the Northern District, and I've yet to lay eyes on him. I'm not sure he even exists. Isn't that something? You can file a lawsuit in this country, with a filing fee now of about $500, and you never even see the man/woman who kicks your case--often with no explanation, or no explanation that matches the law and the facts.

You've been through the experience, and I appreciate you sharing.

Of course, judges you see can also be corrupt. I saw Robert Vance several times. I saw William Acker several times. They acted contrary to simple law, too.

I do give them credit for at least having their taxpayer-funded courtrooms open to citizens--even if the citizens tend to get screwed there. With Kallon, it's like he exists in a hermetically sealed chamber.

jeffrey spruill said...


The prosecutor in my case- who went out of her way to allow the criminal attorney--David W. Bouchard to split the statute the feds had charged me with into separate offenses so my case could proceed to trial-- is introduced as the possible next corrupt district court judge for the Eastern District of Va.

Anonymous said...

government is the law and the law is government. and government is a faction.

This means that the people of the U.S. are no longer the acting representative government.

The law has decided only its governing policies are the law.

Who is the law? "Creditors."

Now when this happens in a country it is considered a dictatorship.

There is no law in the U.S. Constitution which demands the people pay for access to the courts, and the courts are simply to fleece the republic.

Until the people: the anon who obviously belongs to the cult that is a misrepresentation of "government" realize the judges who are real follow the good law that is our U.S. Constitution, the majority of thinkers are doomed.

Chicago with Rahm Emanuel's hard line dictatorial new world ways, did not prevail against the OWS protesters and this is real law.

But, the players in America in this time actually believe that it is going to be business as usual.

The new "easing of money" once again is nothing more than the greatest fraud B of A et al, charging for refinancing at even more predatory ways and means.

And the winners are: retirement portfolios of the "judges," that have been destroyed by the same criminals and yet, anon 5:26, 9/28, decides that legal malpractice is only for cases which can be proven as such.

The judges ALL are compromised by the system of racketeering and yet clueless of the practice of robber baron since we're the aughts?

Then no need for clueless judges regarding money because the contract is generally and in fact, more specifically, about the exchange and trade of "money."

Thus, every "judge" here in the 21st century who is clueless about the digital credit sold as debt and then usury interest into perpetuity, which can be only some form of malpractice ... ?

What is the point of the court and those that do not understand how money IS the contract, which is anything but, transparent here in the aughts. Malpractice? Nah, it is treason.

Roberta Kelly

Anonymous said...

... DISMISSED with prejudice, "cost's taxed as paid" ....

This is the problem with the idea of malpractice or call it what it actually is, treason to the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section IX, Clause VII.

First, the judge wrote an order and dismissed a case and without actually addressing the primary problem: money. How can the judges miss the point of money in this most glaring time?

Obviously with the absolute closing sentence ... "COST'S TAXED AS PAID" ....

I bet clueless judges don't understand why Netanyahu is going nutty and more bat sh*t than ordinarily - "it's about the money, stupid!"

Iran does not charge interest on the money lent, in fact it is not just against their laws regarding currency exchange, indeed it's also considered an immoral act/practice, too.

Now Iran when revolutionized by the U.S. in the 1970s or thereabouts, actually Persia has been on the map for the Project for a New American Century for no less than one hundred years .. and speaking of "malpractice?"

Forcing the culture revolution like what Roger and Mrs. Schnauzer are now experiencing, no such truth, rule of law or due process and lots of Americans as well are now culturally revolutionized, like what Iran has been resisting and rightfully so!

Well we are a Republic and as boring as this sounds, the freedom to "coin" our own "sovereignty" is very powerful, and not just for the so called judges. Not according to the "real" good law.


Anonymous said...

How to hold accountable "Judges" in America? Clearly, the intelligent do from time to time rule, but for the most, they are operating with too much power over the U.S. Constitution. This is what the problem is, unconstitutional rulings. How to demand the "good law" and not allow the "color" malpractice:

"... The problem is that once the judge declared the law unconstitutional, if they continue to hold American citizens and deny them access to due process, then they would be in contempt of court.

How do you LS, reject the entirety of that judge's by way of demanding the U.S. Constitution is honored in as many ways as the "not passing the constitutional muster," spells out?

"Color of law," is very lucrative and a power trip, for the far too many lawyers that would sue the law schools were the reality of no life source, when the constitutional muster is passed.

"Law" in America ceased being "good law," when the right to manufacture our own money was stolen by the Fed. Simple truth.

Easy to change the problem.

Anonymous said...

LS, I bet you and the Mrs. did not get "bankrolled" and do not receive SS benefits either for your tireless pursuit of truth and justice .. and I also bet the judges know about "money" reality:

"... Between 1998 and 2002, up to US$73,000 in cashier cheques was funneled by [Saudi Ambassador Prince] Bandar’s wife Haifa - who once described the elder Bushes as like "my mother and father" - to two Californian families known to have bankrolled al-Midhar and al-Hazmi. … Princess Haifa sent regular monthly payments of between $2,000 and $3,500 to Majeda Dweikat, wife of Osama Basnan, believed by various investigators to be a spy for the Saudi government. Many of the cheques were signed over to Manal Bajadr, wife of Omar al-Bayoumi, himself suspected of covertly working for the kingdom. The Basnans, the al-Bayoumis and the two 9/11 hijackers once shared the same apartment block in San Diego. It was al-Bayoumi who greeted the killers when they first arrived in America, and provided them, among other assistance, with an apartment and social security cards. He even helped the men enroll at flight schools in Florida.” [1] voltairenet org en Peter Dale Scott;

AND, globalresearch ca ..

"... September 28, 2012 - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US would be providing an additional $45 million in “non-lethal aid” to the “opposition” in Syria, reported the Associated Press. The Western press chose their words carefully, ensuring that the term “civilian opposition” was repeatedly used to describe the armed terrorist forces attempting to violently overthrow the Syrian government..


"... U.S. Representative Kay Granger from Texas ..

.. A US congresswoman blocked $450 million in aid intended for Egypt, saying that US-Egypt ties are under “scrutiny.” The money was part of a larger package promised to Egypt by President Obama, and is on hold pending congressional approval ..

.. Representative Kay Granger, a Republican from Texas and the chair of the appropriations subcommittee for foreign operations, said in a statement on Friday that, "This proposal comes to Congress at a point when the US-Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny, and rightly so. … I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time. … I have placed a hold on these funds" RT

MUSHROOMS? Are we really so dumb in the U.S. to continue believing there is "austerity" in the "aughts" when CREDIT ....

free to so many and so costly to those that are American spirits standing for truth and justice.

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney was and is the choice of Sheldon Gary Adelson, who is the investor in "China Sands." His relationship with the gambling Chinese and its "corrupt government," is significant.

Obama and Romney are the same coin with different faces, BUT, the war is on with China and the US.

A "conspiracy" ??

China to be in essence a BIG "partner" and this has been since the "Treasury Dept" and Tim F. Geithner sold US down the river via AIG in China, etc.

Definite signs of unrest due to China's "partnership" with Iran, as well ...

... “The President’s action demonstrates the Administration’s commitment to protecting national security while maintaining the United States’ longstanding policy on open investment,” the US Treasury Department said in a statement following the order. “The President’s decision is specific to this transaction and is not a precedent with regard to any other foreign direct investment from China or any other country.” ..

.. The Treasury Department’s statement claimed that “The wind farm sites are all within or in the vicinity of restricted air space.” However, Ralls was quoted in a Reuters report as saying that only one of its four wind farms are in restricted airspace, despite the blanket order by the CFIUS for Ralls to divest itself of all four sites. Lawyers representing Ralls also argued that a Danish and a German company both operate wind farms in the area as well ...

.. For the first time in 22 years, a US President has ordered a foreign company to abandon an American investment. President Obama blocked a Chinese company from developing a wind farm in Oregon, citing its proximity to a naval base that tests drones...

Chinaphobia: Obama blocks Chinese wind farm over nearby drone base, citing 'national security'

Published: 29 September, 2012, RT

jeffrey spruill said...

No more holding political prisoners in his jail--courtesy of criminal attorney David W. Bouchard--while 7 U.S. Attorneys are fired Thursday-Dec.7,2006:

Anonymous said...

LS, I don't know about Mrs. LS, you, and your LS blog of audience, readers, but for me .. I am very sick and tired of the religious fanatics running the race of humanity into the dark ages:

“Today a great battle is being waged between the modern and the medieval. Israel stands proudly with the forces of modernity. We protect the right of all our citizens, men and women, Jews and Arabs, Muslims and Christians, all are equal before the law.”

George W. Bush sounded the same as Bibi Netanyahu, when he ranted and raved his "God, er Gold and WMDs, told me to do it, go over there George and save the modern world from the medieval Iraq ..." and so on, then comes the Obama and Mitt team to destroy as much as possible after George to keep the ante upped for Americans to lose all idea of "civilized."

Notice this fanatic Bibi who is termed our U.S. "Emperor," has no such brain cell synapse sparking in the idea factor of civilized.

Modern is what we have in their ideologies of how to wreck a society and call it "modern."

Civilized is how the U.S. Constitution's "Bill of Rights," determined America's "modern."

Bibi and Israel need to grow up and stop acting medieval, then and only then can the U.S. "people" get on with civilizing our nearly evaporated "rule of law."

And this has been, this time of a religious war started by George W. Bush who is not incarcerated, yet, a nightmare that cannot be erased.

The UNNATURAL HOMOSEXUAL NATO ARMY as well as the UNNATURAL GLOBAL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, has been an "Israeli 'modern'" ... VERY failed experiment AND this religious fanaticism must not be allowed to bring us into further harm of our civil rights!

"... Think of Netanyahu’s UN oration as just another Romney campaign speech, in which the GOP presidential candidate says Tehran must not be allowed to get “one turn of the screwdriver away” from joining the nuclear club. According to Netanyahu, Iran is nearly at that point today, and will have a nuclear weapon in less than a year if the US fails to act....

Netanyahu’s Crazy UN Speech: Medievalist poses as champion of “modernity” ~ By Justin Raimondo
Global Research, September 29, 2012


Anonymous said...

Sounds like sour grapes and a pretty weak factual case. I am a lawyer and we file motions to dismiss frequently, and they are frequently granted, particularly when, on its face, the complaint doesn't meet the requisite threshhold for moving forward.
You mention nothing about an appeal? Did you try that, or was that denied? I've been before most of the judges in that circuit. Vance, at least in my experience, was fair to both sides, which is all that can be asked. Most cases don't make it to a jury, thank goodness. Most would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

legalschnauzer said...

If you are a lawyer, you should be familiar with the notice pleading threshold for moving forward. Just because you've had motions to dismiss granted in some cases does not mean it was lawfully granted in my case. If you think the 12-place complaint cited in this post doesn't meet the "notice pleading" standard, you must be smoking a strong form of crack cocaine.