SDFL judge orders Tesla to "file a Notice of Related Action by the close of business on May 13, 2024 identifying the four other related actions pending in the Southern District of Florida, along with a brief explanation why those claims and defendants were not included in the instant [#ScheduleA] case."
This part, though, is really something. Basically: "We want to sue 1,907 people and we filed them in five separate cases to spare YOU, THE COURT the burden of 1,907 separate cases."
@design_law it seems like ali-express are totally aware of these cases, wanting to check themselves there is any potential infringement!
The lawfirm says the judge has already agreed that all the defendants have infringed, which I don't think is quite true. Isn't it more likely the judge has agreed on the face of what the lawfirm has said, that there is merit to the case, rather than any definite infringement? Surely the judgement comes at the end not the beginning.
@SADLady Yes, the judgment comes at the end. But before issuing the temporary restraining order, the judge is supposed to decide whether they think the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. That determination isn't final but it's supposed to be made.
@SADLady Now, whether judges are actually able to carefully consider the merits on such a short timeframe and with so many claims--bot to mention without adversarial process--is another question. I think most judges are trying their best but it's a lot. (Especially, I'll add, in design patent cases, where the judges are likely not as familiar with the underlying law.) We've seen at least some NDIL judges push back, saying >40 defendants is just too much.
@design_law and for a filing fee of $405 that doesn't really cover the time a judge would need to look through everything in any detail. Is there anything else the lawfirms pay the courts?
@SADLady Well, U.S. federal judges don't get the paid by the case (the way, say, an arbitrator would). They get salaries paid by taxpayers. And it's their own faults that these cases are so big; they don't have to allow this mass-joinder or the asset freezes that make this litigation model so attractive. That being said, these cases must be exerting serious pressure on the judges' already limited time and attention.
@SADLady Would the judges actually be more burdened by separate cases? No, because these cases wouldn't be brought separately. It's the mass joinder that makes this litigation model "cost effective" or even lucrative.
@design_law I've noticed when the judges question and tell them to re-file once they've sorted out the defendants, they will re-file with maybe just a handful of defendants.
It makes me wonder if the rest were just collateral damage to pay for going after the handful.
Add comment