Any news? Must be almost time for a decission.
Nothing yet, which is interesting in itself. Judge Skavdahl has a reputation for promptness and everybody expected a ruling on our Motion to Dismiss within a couple weeks of the hearing - but next Tuesday will be full month since the hearing. Why the delay? We can only speculate. It could be that he has just been too busy with more urgent criminal cases to address our little civil action, but Casper, Wyoming is not exactly a hot-bed of judicial activity and the fact that he asked oral argument on a Motion to Dismiss (very unusual) suggests that he finds the case worthy of special attention. Remember, a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is not about the merits of the case but, rather, about whether there is a triable case at all.
At the hearing it was clear that he had read the Complaint closely and had some problems with it. He asked Tim's attorney about the Complaint's fundamental contradiction. On one hand, it alleges that I knew the airplane had been found in the 2010 video and defrauded Tim by not telling him. Then the Complaint does an about-face and alleges that I was negligent because I didn't know the plane is visible on the 2010 video. You can't have it both ways. The judge also zeroed in on another basic flaw in the case. When someone makes a voluntary charitable contribution to a recognized nonprofit organization, what is the donee's obligation to the donor? TIGHAR solicited contributions in order to conduct a specific expedition/search. We used the money we raised exactly the way we said we would use it. At the close of the hearing, the judge said that he didn't buy the answers he had heard and wanted to give the motion some more thought before making a ruling.
Motions to Dismiss are rarely granted because a judge is basically saying to the plaintiff, "You don't even get to try to make your case." Denying a Motion to Dismiss is easy and safe for a judge, and that's what they usually do. If that's what Judge Skavdahl had in mind, it seems like we'd know by now. But Judge Skavdahl has to know that if he grants all or part of our motion, the other side is likely to appeal. They threatened as much in their reply to the motion. No judge wants to get reversed on appeal so, if Judge Skavdahl is seriously considering dismissing the case he would do well to take the time to do the research to makes sure his legal ducks are in a row.
So we're keeping our fingers crossed that the delay is a good sign.
What next if the judge dosn't throw it out?
If the judge doesn't throw it out we keep fighting.
Could take years
Probably not, but you'll excuse me if I don't discuss legal strategy here.