Former Autoadmit Administrator’s Lawsuit (Sort of) Survives Motion to Dismiss
posted by Dave Hoffman
Mark Randazza comments here on Judge Legrome Davis’s recent denial of a motion to dismiss in Ciolli v. Iravani. (The case, you may recall, is by Anthony Ciolli against the individuals who named him in the original Autoadmit litigation. He claims that the early suit against him was frivolous and tactically motivated.) The judge dismissed certain abuse of process claims, permitted litigation on a state statutory cause of action (the Dragonetti Act) for a wrongful lawsuit, and for the remaining defendants (including Mark Lemley), permitted Ciolli time to conduct jurisdictional discovery. At the same time, Ciolli will be unable (under FRE 408) to rely on statements made during settlement discussions in a separate lawsuit.
Does it strike anyone else that the Autoadmit case is shaping up to be this generation’s A Civil Action? Lots of underlying interest, but ultimately it will be sucked dry by civ pro professors, and turned into a powerpoint presentation on the meaning of Rule 8(b)(6).
For prior coverage of the Autoadmit litigation(s), check out our archives.
April 7, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Posted in: First Amendment
Print This Post
Responses (6)
Howard Wasserman - April 7, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I certainly am using it for these purposes. I leave to others to judge whether I am causing it to be “sucked dry.”
Jon Smith - April 7, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I still want to know if the attorneys at KVN used a hacker to identify some of the plaintiffs. There’s a rumor that an associate at Wachtell is the guy. Think how crazy this may get.
A.W. - April 8, 2009 at 9:55 am
Well, ultimately, the “A Civil Action” case is about dry civil procedure, and even though I felt the movie was unfair (the judge was ultimately correct, imho), it is one of the few movies to make the real business of law interesting. Or at least something very close to the real business of law.
As for this case, ultimately it is an easy thing for a minimally competant lawyer to survive a motion to dismiss, so its no surprise it survived. Bascially it sounds from the reporting that they were trying to attack the motives rather than legal sufficiency, and that’s not a dismissal kind of issue. maybe it can be brought in under summary judgement, but then maybe not.
What this really demonstrates to me is that we really, really need as a country to shift to a “lower pays” system, maybe with exceptions for the truly indigent. I see every day how the system as it is, is abused, and this is but one example. It allows for alot of rent seeking when otherwise a claim is not allowed.
A.W. - April 8, 2009 at 4:37 pm
dang typo fairy struck again…
i meant to say “loser pays” not “lower pays.” sigh.
Howard Wasserman - April 9, 2009 at 8:53 pm
But which lawsuit is abusing the system–Ciolli’s lawsuit (which just survived the motion to dismiss) or the underlying Connecticut lawsuit that he is attacking?
Marc J. Randazza - April 13, 2009 at 6:25 am
Howard,
I think it might be a bit unfair to Heller & Iravani to ask if their *entire* lawsuit is abusing the system. They clearly have supportable claims against some of their defendants.
Ciolli’s suit is not attacking Heller & Iravani’s entire suit — just the fact that they brought suit against him. If you read the decision on the motion to dismiss, the judge seems to fell that Ciolli has the law on his side. Now, if he can prove the facts he has alleged (which may be a challenge given the E.D. PA’s ruling on the FRE 408 issues) he wins.
Leave a Reply