@SteveSokolowski you seem to recognize that bitcoin, mimics traditional wealth, in that a few individuals control the most wealth. Since money only has the value we give to it, the solution to the bitcoin problem is to stop assigning it wealth rather than become further enmeshed with it and prop up the notion that digital currency has intrinsic worth. Which it doesn’t. Steve, it’s time to start thinking rationally. This is ceasing to be fun watching you devolve. I mean…it’s still a little fun. But seriously. Come back to earth.

An answer was due, but they filed a consent motion for extra time. The judge hasn't responded to the motion although the time for filing an amended complaint is up. Is it possible a judge can deny a motion that is filed with mutual consent?

I thought the amended complaint was due soon but it appears as if then Sokolowskis have asked for more time. There’s nothing quite like starting a major lawsuit more than a year ago and not having an opening document filed of record. The defendants must be shaking in their boots at this posture.

That feeling when your whole $50k retainer is spent doing an unfavorable Rule 11 analysis....

@kopecs If this case is sua sponte dismissed under Rule 8 because of a nonsense 100 page Complaint against a huge raft of Defendans, I think this market still resolves NO, because the case never got beyond the MTD stage.

Lowkey I think that's what's going to happen. Sua sponte dismissal under Rule 8 when there is another AI slop filing of 100 pages.

The R&R has been approved. This means there is no complaint of record. @SteveSokolowski has contended that this would be surviving a motion to dismiss. In my view, as a sports analogy, a penalty was called and the remedy is a redo. No complaint that has been filed has “survived”. This market continues to see if a new complaint is filed and if some lawyer files a complaint and the defendants answer it without filing a MTD, then I will concede that it has survived. For now, we watch and wait.

@KevinBlaw No, actually, the text of this market does not state that a complaint must survive. Read the title.

It specifically asks whether the case name will survive a motion to dismiss, not any specific complaint. If this market were intended to be "will the first amended complaint survive a motion to dismiss," then the title should have said that.

In the end, this won't matter because the Third Amended Complaint will name many more defendants than the seven in the Second Amended Complaint, so the odds of at least one surviving are extremely high. Remember, the magistrate judge didn't like the 2nd complaint in large part because the lawyers were named as "non parties." That won't be an issue with the next complaint.

@SteveSokolowski just point me to the docket number that you are relying on to say a complaint survived a MTD and I will relent.

@KevinBlaw Please read the response more carefully.

@SteveSokolowski this: Resolves NO if a motion is granted in full; or plaintiffs dismiss the suit with or without prejudice prior to the last deadline for defendants to file such a motion.?

@SteveSokolowski The title is, will this case number survive a motion to dismiss. And so far, it hasn't, and as is obvious to most of us, will not.

@SteveSokolowski If you thought the USMJ's order was something other than a complete and total repudiation of everything you have tried to do, you need to ask the doctor to remove the "rose colors" from your prescription.

Ongoing BTC crash could also moot this case!

If this R&R is adopted, then the motions to dismiss will be denied, and therefore the resolution will be YES.

Looks like Kevin was wrong again!

@SteveSokolowski "survive a motion to dismiss" means to get beyond the motion to dismiss stage, which will never ever ever happen.

@FrederickNorris No, that's not what this market says. Read the text.

@SteveSokolowski Disagree. You haven't "survived" a motion to dismiss by being allowed to file an Amended Complaint that will eventually be dismissed. PS. Please unblock me.

@FrederickNorris Complaints are amended all the time. That's not what the market states - it asked whether a motion to dismiss will be survived.

Nice try, but you lost :) And there's a reason you lost - the case has merit.

@SteveSokolowski This case is not going to survive a motion to dismiss. You will never get to the discovery phase, and there is a reason. Your new Complaint, alleging that you are reading numerically coded messages, is "out there" to put it mildly.

@SteveSokolowski I just read the R&R. The fact that you aren't chastened whatsoever by this, and think it indicates this case has merit, is instructive on your state of mind.

As to this market, the motions to dismiss being moot, because your pleading is garbage and has to be re-done, isn't a Win for you. Sorry.

@SteveSokolowski @kopecs @FrederickNorris I think that if you file an amended complaint and it's so good that the defendant's don't file a motion to dismiss, but instead file an ANSWER, then this market resolves YES. Just for the record, I have a small position on YES.

A more interesting, but unlikely scenario, is that when you attempt to file a "short and concise" complaint, that the court sua sponte dismisses it, because then it won't be dismissed under a 12(b)(6) motion. The way that I read the R&R is that unless the Sokolowski Brothers get a lawyer, you are out of luck. I hear good things about Block Chain Law though. Really aggressive and tenacious litigators.

@KevinBlaw The R&R absolutely sets up the possibility of a sua sponte dismissal based on FRCP 8. But that would not be "surviving" a motion to dismiss.

Bit out of date on following this. Frankly this market should've specified a specific complaint number (just so people didn't have to think about the merits of a future AC).

If a responsive pleading is filed (one which waives 12(b) defenses) I would be inclined to resolve Yes, on the basis that such a motion was filed, was mooted, and a new one was not pending and could be granted "prior to the last deadline for defendants to file such a motion."

Which is to say I agree with Kevin here:
> I think that if you file an amended complaint and it's so good that the defendant's don't file a motion to dismiss, but instead file an ANSWER, then this market resolves YES.

I wasn't anticipating the possibility that this case gets dismissed after the first MTD got mooted in such a way that there is no relevant complaint for defendants to move to dismiss (e.g. all attempts at an AC get struck under rule 8). Will think about this as I catch up on the docket.

@SteveSokolowski Insufficient to just moot a pending MTD to get a YES here. Need to get past the stage where 12(b) is relevant.

@kopecs you mean you don’t follow the Sokolowski docket with baited breath?

The R&R suggests that sua sponte dismissal may be a real possibility here.

@KevinBlaw Only on slow days at the office. If there isn't a Rule 8 compliant complaint I will regret my use of the active voice in "plaintiffs dismiss the suit" under NO. But I don't see how it can be YES based on the criteria I listed. Need to think more between NO or N/A, but if you are telling me you banked on sua sponte dismissal as being "not NO" that's fair.

@kopecs I'm just busting your chops. When the market got down to 1%, I took a position thinking the judge could punt it or some other irregularity caused it to be dismissed, including that the Soko brothers just moved on with their lives.

@kopecs I'm removing settlement as a possibility, but there could come a point at which BTC is lower than what Sokolowski sold it at, which would force him to abandon this case OR disgorge the $.75M he was paid, and take BTC in return.

But if there's never an Answer filed, this case hasn't "survived" a motion to dismiss. An Answer filed, I'd agree, resolves YES s to any answering defendant.

@FrederickNorris You have so little faith. Is there anything in the world I could possibly do that would convince you that this case has merit?

@SteveSokolowski @FrederickNorris Win it instead of dick around with pleadings for a year?

@SteveSokolowski I would turn the question around to you. What will it take for you to understand that you made a risky loan, you had a bankruptcy claim as a result, sold it, and that's the end of the situation?

Do you realize that YOU are the cause of the shutdown of Prohashing (maybe a blessing in disguise) because you bragged about having so much liquid cash that you made yourself a target?

You should get a regular job and get offline. That's my honest opinion.

@SteveSokolowski I will add: the smartest thing you've said about the case is "There is such a negative reaction from online people, maybe there is something I don't grasp about why this isn't a case." (that's obvious a paraphrase). You should give up this nonsense, be glad you sold your BTC, though involuntarily, still at a big profit, and just move on with your life in the real world!

@FrederickNorris this is such sound advice such that I took a small position that he might voluntarily dismiss the case and this survive the motion to dismiss.