> Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during
> that hearing Parler's attorney:
>
> - forgot the name of Parler's CEO
>
> - stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology
> because he's not on social media
>
> - admitted that he filed a day late because he needed to
> update his PACER account
This is because, if reports can be believed, Parler's own lawyers abandoned
ship a few days ago.
> I am not an attorney but my general understanding is that if you wish
> to file a civil complaint against multiple defendants that you should
> actually go through the trouble of naming them all as defendants on the
> complaint (and serving them).
It's actually not uncommon to include unnamed defendants - however, in order
to do so, and in order to reserve the ability, one needs to include in the list
of defendants something like "And Does 1-10', or such (or request leave to
amend the complaint).
Given everything everything, I'd say it's pretty clear that this attorney took
the case at the 11th hour. He is a patent and other IP issues attorney - which
this case is not.
Anne
--
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)ultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
