Bread Pudding With Twiqbal

My wife and I organize our visits to New Orleans around food – specifically bread pudding.  If time permits, we’ll hit Palace Cafe for white chocolate bread pudding, Commander’s Palace (where we were engaged, by the way) for the bread pudding souffle, and BonTon for, um, whiskey garnished with a little bread pudding.  All good, but different.  Motions are like that too.  In the last month I’ve posted on Twiqbal decisions by Judges Payne, Mazzant and Albright, and a few weeks earlier, Judge Kernodle.  Today I have the same analysis but with its own unique flavor (perhaps honey?) from Judge Gilstrap.

Dismissing/Striking Pleadings, the Anti-Injunction Act and Stays

While motions to dismiss pleadings on any one of a variety of grounds are fairly routine, this is one of those cases where the cook decided to toss some peanut butter, cilantro and carrots into the pancake batter, and the court had to step in to consider where the line needed to be drawn. Oh, and there’s a stay request too.

Counterclaims

The plaintiff in this patent case brought a motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims of patent infringement (no, not noninfringement – I know what you’re thinking), promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. The Court’s report and recommendations, later adopted by the district court, provides a useful foray into the “dancing backwards” world of counterclaims.

FRCP 12(c) Motion to Dismiss Recommended Granted in Part

Motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(c) are not the most favored motions in the world. For that reason, this EDTX order arising out of the world of college basketball granting one in part is helpful to practitioners because it shows the type of grounds that can be successful across a variety of claims. Although, in fairness, it might be better categorized as showing the arguments that are likely to be unsuccessful.