Pattern of Delay, ALL OF WHICH Were Caused by Defendants

Pattern of Delay, ALL OF WHICH Were Caused by Defendants:

Delay 1: On November 12, 2019 Defendant's Attorney (DA) entered his appearance. DA asked Plaintiffs’ Attorney ("Pratts") for an extension to respond to the Amended Complaint. Pratts agreed and DA filed a Motion for Extension of Time which the Court granted. [Civil 190907961, dkt. 9, 11, 14]

Delay 2: On November 27, 2019, rather than responding to the Complaint, DA violated the stipulation by filing a Notice of Removal to federal court, thereby extending the time to file an Answer. [Civil 190907961, dkt 16]

Delay 3: On December 3, 2019 DA filed another Motion for Extension of time which the court clerk granted. [ Civil No. 2:19-cv-948 (U.S. Dist. Ct, D. Utah)]

Delay 4: On December 6, 2019 DA filed not a response to the Amended Complaint, but a Motion to Stay Proceedings, causing a delay until the court could rule on the motion. The Court later denied that Motion and ordered the Defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint. [Civil 2:19-cv-948, dkt 10, 15]

Delay 5: On January 3, 2020 DA filed an Answer or the Defendants. DA then immediately informed Pratts that he intended to file an Amended Answer, resulting in more delay while Pratts waited for the Amended Answer.

Delay 6: On January 24, 2020 DA filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaim which pushed back Pratt's time to reply.  In this Counterclaim, Defendants sued the Pratts for three things, (1) Defamation and (2) Fraudulent Concealment, and (3) Intentional Interference With Economic Relations. [Civil 2:19-cv-948, dkt 21, 25].  The first two were subsequently dismissed by the court [Civil 2:19-cv-948, dkt 60], and the court stated the reason for dismissal as "Defendants fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[Civil 2:19-cv-948, dkt 59].

Delay 7: On March 27, 2020 DA filed a second Motion to Stay which the Court granted, staying the action until May 30, 2020. [Civil 2:19-cv-948, dkt 34, 35, 36]

Delay 8: The March 27 stay made it impossible to amend the first lawsuit.  Unless we wanted to risk losing subsequent claims for torts occurring after the original lawsuit was filed, this forced us to file a separate action (a second lawsuit).  This need was brought about BECAUSE of (1) stays and delays caused by DA, together with (2) the continued and new (separate) torts the Pratts allege the Defendants continued to commit, together with (3) legal statute of limitations considerations.  Thus, the March 27 delay caused this delay while a new lawsuit is filed.

Delay 9: On April 6, DA filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of all defendants in the second lawsuit, and immediately filed a Motion for Extension of Time and Stay of Proceedings. On April 14, 2020 the Court granted DA's Motion for Stay.

Delay 10: On June 1, 2020 DA filed Motion to Dismiss or for Stay in the second lawsuit. On July 23, 2020 the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, but granted the Motion to Stay.


OPINION: Before being dismissed by the Defendants, the strategy of the Defendant's Attorney (DA) seemed to revolve around two things: (1) delay, and (2) Chewbacca (a “Chewbacca” defense is any strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments, as a way of confusing the audience and drowning out legitimate opposing arguments). DA's Chewbacca strategy seems to be via misrepresenting why we sued, and the purpose of delays is (in my opinion) to stall and hope the we make a mistake that can be later exploited.