time and money spent by the campaign on a false errand The complaint language on damages fails, and makes the suit dismissible but parties are allowed to cure a defect like the one presented. By that I mean, it is a basic rule of practice and procedure that "fraud" of any type of measure be pleaded with specificity. The complaint doesn't specify how exactly the damages were incurred. It makes a sweeping and general reference to damages, but that's not enough in a fraud case. A federal judge (the case will stay there, now that it has been removed) will not tolerate a pleading like this, and if they fail to cure it, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
Worse than that, Trump sued individually. The campaign did not sue, although I suppose they could substitute the plaintiff in. What damage did Trump suffer individually? Zero, unless you want to say that he'd have stuffed more campaign money in his pocket as he has been doing improperly for years now.
Beyond that, they are really stretching to make this a consumer fraud complaint. And, the newspaper has a huge 1st Amendment defense regardless of whether this is called defamation or consumer fraud.
Best I can tell, it's a vindictive and frivolous suit -- one that is likely to be dismissed on the papers (meaning at the outset), and the possibility of Rule 11 sanctions is out there. |
