It's pure and utter nonsense.
Until they read my research (below) thread a few days ago.
Now they're actually referring to her on a first name basis.
At a glance, the language in her rulings are as boring as a roll of toilet paper; but they are as devastating as walking into a test, only to find out that nothing you crammed while high on glue,appear in it.
Discovery is going to be a blast.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15 allows her to do so, regardless of whether or not either side requests or agrees.
It had NOTHING to do with the attorneys.
Oral arguments, especially in Fed court, are not mandatory.
And such pleading would be part of the court record.
There is no pleading preceding the judge's decision.
Here is one of her cases from 2014.
Note that after skipping oral arguments, the case continued as normal.
The judge didn't rule on the MtD until 10/28/2014 (#25), almost TWO months later.
And that wasn't a fast track case btw.
I'm not even joking.
This is the main thread. Notice how this person was certain that a decision was coming Feb 9th.
Of course this is all my fault, so they keep mentioning me.
Yeah, and I'm the crazy one.
They don't have a "game" to play, and they're just stuck in a perpetual state of Sunk Cost Fallacy. So drama is all they have.
And here you were thinking the Crytek lawsuit was bad.