A reader named Trina Amadon posted the following comment at 4:46 this morning in response to a story titled “Stubbs Sues GIITEM.”
“Southern Nevada Confederation of Clubs, Inc., et al, Plaintiffs, vs. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada, et al, Defendants,
“July 26, 2013 – all cases DISMISSED
“Hmmm . . . all cases dismissed. Mr. Stubbs is a nothing but a self promoter who used you to try to make a name for himself. A bow tie does not a lawyer make.”
Because Trina Amadon is commenting on a story this page has not yet written, The Aging Rebel believes it is appropriate to run her comment and the reply to it on the front page where readers will not have to hunt for it.
Dear Trina Amadon,
Yeah, I was looking at this dismissal this morning and I will probably write about it in a story that will include a recent ruling in the New Jersey suit that prohibits the plaintiffs from actually collecting any money – which means the lawyers cannot be paid. I am not ready to write about the Vegas dismissal yet. The judge’s ruling itself is only 14 pages long but I also want to study the motions that led up to it.
Let me just quote this about the legal, technical reason most, but not all, of the suit was dismissed yesterday, which orbits the question of whether the Southern Nevada Confederation of Clubs has “standing” in this matter. The quote is long because I haven’t put the work in yet to make something complicated and technical seem simple.
“The LVMPD Defendants argue that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Fourth Claims for Relief must be dismissed because they are not brought by proper plaintiffs. Plaintiffs respond that SNCC is an umbrella organization with standing to bring suit on behalf of its members. However, the Amended Complaint contains no allegations concerning SNCC’s identity, mission, membership, or other details from which the court could determine SNCC’s relationship to the action. Thus, SNCC has failed to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8.
“Furthermore, SNCC has failed to establish standing even if the court were to disregard the fatal absence of any such allegations in the Amended Complaint. SNCC claims to be an umbrella organization representing both incorporated and unincorporated motorcycle clubs and their members, for the purpose ofpromoting and protecting its members’ common interests, including seeking and promoting fair treatment. An association may bring suit on behalf of its members when: ‘(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.’”
I also think it is important to remember that although most of the suit has been dismissed the issue is not yet cooked. In the conclusion of Judge Gordon’s ruling yesterday he wrote:
“Plaintiffs have until August 30, 2013 to amend this case as described above and to file new and separate actions regarding the severed claims and parties. Each of the severed cases will be consolidated before this court for purposes of discovery. The parties to each of the severed actions are required to pay a filing fee.”
As far as Stubbs goes, he has obviously tried to carve out a legal niche representing motorcycle clubs and individual patch holders. I’ve never hired him. I have written about him because he makes news. I honestly can’t yet say whether Stubbs screwed up here. I really can’t. I know for a fact that he really annoys numerous authority figures in Nevada and I know he is basically the one guy facing at least a platoon of opposing lawyers with unlimited funds. I don’t yet know what the odds are that the suit will be modified to overcome the standing issue or whether the suit is dead. I do know that the strategy of trying to end police harrassment by filing civil rights suits looks less effective to me than it did even a week ago.
Clubs and others have hired Stubbs and I think his cases are interesting on a lot of levels. I think the guy has taken on cases nobody else would and he makes news so he has gotten a lot of play here. Just about every day I have to write about something so I don’t think Stubbs has used me anymore than I have used him – if that is your implication. Personally I would rather write about big issues that effect multiple clubs that little stories that are important to fewer people.
I am open to the criticism that I have given Stubbs more credit and importance than he deserves.
I think your comment is timely and important so I intend to run it both here, where it might be easier for you to find, and on the front page.
Thank you for commenting,