TRO Denied
Well, it's been interesting lately in Maplewood. For my first time ever, I'm a named defendant in a lawsuit, Musgrave v. Nephew et al.
On Monday there was a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. The judge ruled against the motion on the spot, and by the end of the day had issued his written decision denying the TRO.
Explaining his decision, the judge concluded "that there is not, as yet, a justiciable issue permitting judicial intervention and that Plaintiff has not suffered, and has not demonstrated that she is about to suffer, any legally recognizable injury, irreparable or otherwise." He went on to say that "The fact is she has not and can not make that demonstration," namely, "the possibility of some harm having a constitutional dimension."
I'm not a lawyer, but it reads to me as though the judge is denying the TRO primarily because he sees no possible way for the plaintiff to win her case. Sounds like the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
On Monday there was a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. The judge ruled against the motion on the spot, and by the end of the day had issued his written decision denying the TRO.
Explaining his decision, the judge concluded "that there is not, as yet, a justiciable issue permitting judicial intervention and that Plaintiff has not suffered, and has not demonstrated that she is about to suffer, any legally recognizable injury, irreparable or otherwise." He went on to say that "The fact is she has not and can not make that demonstration," namely, "the possibility of some harm having a constitutional dimension."
I'm not a lawyer, but it reads to me as though the judge is denying the TRO primarily because he sees no possible way for the plaintiff to win her case. Sounds like the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
Labels: council politics
Post a Comment