Did you know that the State and Federal Government can waive their Sovereign Immunity, and then be sued? Watch this video that demonstrates three (3) instances when the state and federal government can be sued.
Another question: Plaintiff’s attorney was angry because there was no MSJ from opposing party. When the judge gave the second opportunity to opposing party for a MSJ, the Plaintiff’s attorney accepted it with no argument. She is very happy now. Is it because of the number of hours she will be claiming for responding to MSJ? Both Plaintiff and his lawyer know that they can easily defeat the MSJ. The Plaintiff’s attorney wants to settle the case after the MSJ at any cost and warned the plaintiff's that she drops the case if Plaintiff resisted. Is this ethical? Plaintiff beleives if his lawyer would have argued about the second MSJ chance at the prehearing conference, instead of ordering a MSJ, the judge would have scheduled the hearing, but for her own interest, the plaintiff's lawyer did not say a word. Can Plaintiff file a motion to ask the judge to get rid of the second MSJ order or at least reduce the number of days to a normal level ( 20 days)? Plaintiff’s lawyer warned him if he does that, she will drop his case. But plaintiff thinks he doesnt need a dishonest lawyer.
Great explanation Lucinda! RE: Ex Parte Young...is equitable relief ever recognized for actions against state actors or agencies? For breach, torts or Constitutional question....difference in availability for official vs individual capacities? Thank you!
Within the framework of Ex Parte Young, government officials can be sued in their individual capacity for equitable relief (i.e. injunction). U.S. Supreme Court, 209 U.S. 123. Read Justice Peckham's specific opinion and his reliance on the Supremacy Clause in making his ruling, at p. 123. It will answer your question. Regarding equitable relief in general read: www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equitable_relief Regarding equtiable relief for breach, torts, etc., you can google "equitable remedies for "breach of contract" for example. Remember to always read juridictional rules for each subject.
ThankYou AdvocateLucinda for another great educational video👏 Please could you re phrase or kindly explain the meaning behind this fragment: “The conclusion that there has been consent or a waiver is not lightly inferred; the Court strictly construed statutes alleged to consent to suit.” I would love it to understand it, I hope you do not mind me asking🤯
Of course. What I meant is that absent a statute, clause, or written consent waiving immunity, the inference must be strong - undeniable that immunity is being waived. An example is the case where the government voluntarily initiated litigation. I hope that helps.
@@advocatelucindaThankYou so much AdvocateLucinda🌹 These are difficult concepts for me because I am not legally trained however I think and reflect upon taking a very small step at a time⚖️ I find your videos, in fact all of them, very helpful in trying to understand what is Law and how does it WORK⚖️
Hello Lucinda, I have a question but it may not be related to the topic of this video. Scenario: An opposing party does not file a motion for summary judgment after the discovery period. The opposing party requested an extension and granted 30 days for MSJ but failed to file the MSJ during 60 days ( initial time + extension = 60 days total). During pre hearing conference the judge asked the opposing party to file a MSJ and gave the 45 days for it. Is the judge's action allowing the second chance for MSJ is onsidered ethical? He specifically asked the opposing party to do it and said because he cant determine if a hearing is necessary or not. I think the opposing party's request for an extension and failing to file the MSJ is definitely unethical and the judge not considering this, is questionable if not unethical. Any thoughts? Thanks
If a contract isn't expressly stated as one relevant to the enforced terms and subject _and_ it was signed under duress/coercion can one move to nullify the contract?
So if I'm suing for my vehicle back that basically it's the tort of conversion can I file a preliminary injunction preventing him or his parents from driving my car anymore
Remember, the formula is always the same. One, review your facts. Two, ensure that your facts support the prima facie elements for filing an injunction, which means you want to clearly understand the elements. Three, read federal and local jurisdictional rules. Try it and see how things will come into focus for you.
I have an odd question. But plaintiff filed a restraining order for 2 ppl that are a couple 1 was granted the other was not. The 10 day hearing I was unable to attend, & the court granted them both a restraining order. Plaintiff believes the judge or clerks gave them legal advice due to only 1 being granted & 1 being heard in the hearing yet 2 restraining orders were granted. Is that abuse of power? (The court offering the restraining orders instead of them seeking.
The formula is the same. The facts and evidence need to establish the elements of abuse of power. The following link addresses judicial misconduct in the federal courts. www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Remember, Bivens is brought against a federal official in his or her individual capacity. Because it is not an action against the United States, it is not barred by sovereign immunity. Here is the link to the Bivens video I uploaded sometime ago. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7T_HVnfJw_g.html
Considering the egregious acts committed in the first place by a judicial officer, a suit only under Exparte Young seems like a slap on the wrist and limiting compared to a 42 USC 1983 action. Am I missing something?
Remember, Exparte Young creates a way around sovereign immunity. It allowed the shareholders to sue the state-defendants where they otherwise would have been barred from suing them. Whereas, 42 U.S.C. 1983 creates a cause of action. Thanks for your comment.
@@advocatelucinda Looking back at Exparte Young, my initial impression was that it was “limiting” in that it amounts to injunctive relief. While injunctive relief is corrective and stops the “ethics dwarf”, compromised judicial officer’s wrongful acts, Exparte Young doesn’t seem to promote the substantive and economic relief sought by the aggrieved litigant seeking transformative justice against these malevolent officials who intentionally transgress clearly-established, federal laws and the Constitution. Also, its my well-reasoned, non-attorney opinion that suing the “ethics dwarfs” in both their official and personal capacities might help overcome and/or address some of the caps and limitations in the amount of relief that can be pursued.
@ueredmale339 they must break concrete law that would bring shame to the Judicial System then they're liable. but yes lots of the time they are Immune as it is needed to run the Judicial System smoothly and you just appeal on what they did wrong. and may not sue till and if you win
