House
Net First
Attorneys copied components of transient, determined to…
Trials & Litigation
Attorneys copied components of transient, determined to ‘double down on imprudence’ by repeating dropping arguments, choose alleges
By Debra Cassens Weiss
June 24, 2025, 12:31 pm CDT
Attorneys representing a meals firm are dealing with potential sanctions for submitting a movement to dismiss mentioned to largely copy entire sections of a quick filed by one other regulation agency with arguments that didn’t succeed. (Picture from Shutterstock)
Attorneys representing a meals firm are dealing with potential sanctions for submitting a movement to dismiss mentioned to largely copy entire sections of a quick filed by one other regulation agency with arguments that didn’t succeed.
In a June 16 order to indicate trigger, U.S. District Decide Noel Clever of the Northern District of California requested legal professionals representing the Neil Jones Meals Co. to suggest the sanctions that they deem to be acceptable.
The “most obtrusive signal” of the “sweeping copy and paste” was the transient’s reference to the plaintiff within the prior case, Clever mentioned. And the opposing legal professionals who famous the copying had been additionally the opposing legal professionals within the prior case.
The meals firm’s transient included “at the least a dozen paragraphs which are substantively similar and close to word-for-word duplicates” of the prior transient, in keeping with Clever’s comparability.
She additionally discovered it “mystifying why a celebration would double down on imprudence by reproducing a dropping transient.”
The Neil Jones Meals Co. transient sought dismissal of a lawsuit in search of damages for noxious odors. The transient and the doc that it copied questioned whether or not pure financial loss can assist a negligence declare in California. Within the prior case, “the courtroom discovered for plaintiffs at each juncture with caselaw and evaluation that apply with equal pressure right here,” Clever mentioned.
Clever adopted the prior opinion and denied the movement to dismiss. She scheduled a July 28 listening to on the order to indicate trigger.
“Passing off one other’s concepts as one’s personal is unacceptable in a first-year school class and may result in failing grade and even expulsion,” she wrote, citing from one other case. “Doing so whereas engaged within the skilled apply of regulation is worse and is each feckless and embarrassing.”
The legal professionals representing the Neil Jones Meals Co. are Steven C. Clark and David J. Weiland of Coleman & Horowitt in California. On recommendation of counsel, their agency just isn’t commenting at the moment, Weiland informed the ABA Journal in an e-mail.
Hat tip to lawyer Robert Freund, who posted the order to indicate trigger on X (previously Twitter).
Write a letter to the editor, share a narrative tip or replace, or report an error.
