Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2b3a51 | Hacker News Reader

Reached for comment by TechCrunch, Musk’s lead counsel Marc Toberoff said, “One word: Appeal.”

One wonders on what grounds?

In the UK, in a civil case like this, the judge I think comments on the likelihood of an appeal avenue once the verdict has been reached.

View on HN

To be fair, is there any corporation or high net worth individual ever who, after losing a lawsuit, said “You know what, we accept the court’s decision that we were wrong and will be reflecting on how to do better in the future.”

Never. That never ever happens.

The lawyer himself is guaranteed another 6 months of lucrative work of they appeal...

Whereas no appeal is effectively him getting fired.

Is this the right view? I would imagine Elon Musk has essentially infinite demand for lawyers. The choice for the lawyers is probably work on this absolutely dead case where all the facts are not just against them, but highly embarrassing for their principal, or work on some other case where there would be perks like having the possibility of winning the case. I'm quite certain highly trained, highly successful, expensive lawyers aren't jumping up and down in excitement to work on cases they quite well know are meritless.

They'll do it, because that's what Elon Musk wants them to do and he's paying them and they want his other business, but this isn't what gets them up in the morning.

I think it’s just that you can make an entire career (and a shitload of money) by simply being in Musk’s (and other rich people’s) orbit. From handling his lawsuits all the way down to cooking his food. He is an infinite River of money and you just dip your spoon in a little.

On the grounds of "I have infinite money and lawyers to drag this thing out forever, whether I'll win or not."

Nothing like 'vexatious litigation' in the US?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants

There is, but it's a pretty high bar to clear. Merely exhausting one's appeals does not qualify as vexatious. He could keep going for years as long as his lawyers make vaguely plausible arguments each time.

You are allowed your appeals. That's part of your constitutional right to due process.

There are some exceptions to this, but they are rare and usually only employed in extreme situations (aka things which would get the lawyers involved debarred).

Muddying the right of appeal with vexatious litigation is a very dark road to go down.

I'm sure people in the US are in no mood to take any advice from us here in the UK, having just recently abolished the right to a jury trial.

To any lawyers in here, is there an argument to be made for the statue of limitations not to apply here

No. Once the jury made its finding of fact as to when the event giving rise to the claim occurred (and to when the SOL clock would start ticking), the appeal would have to determine that the jury could not have reasonably made such a finding. It's very, very rare for an appeals court to overturn a finding of fact.

Out interest how does it work with new evidence then? I guess in civil less likely than criminal (new DNA technology etc.)

What new evidence would overturn the fact that there was more than 3 years between the relevant events?

New evidence is usually irrelevant, except in the very narrow circumstance where the statute of limitations is based on a "knew or should have known" moment instead of a "when the incident occurred" moment. (In this context, meaning the first time the plaintiff actually knew, or reasonably should have known, about the incident for which they are suing. Some torts allow for this, most don't.)

The was actually what was at issue here. The inciting incident was way past the statute of limitations on an occurrence basis (years late), but Elon was attempting to claim that there was "new evidence" to reset the start of the clock. He failed, because there was substantial evidence that he knew about the stuff he was suing over when it originally happened.

Honestly surprised he wasn't held in contempt for perjury.

> One wonders on what grounds?

Invent a time machine; send a lawyer back to file a new lawsuit within the statute of limitations.

Two words: “billable hours”

Typically if they bring up a case like this a judge again will get pissy and dismiss it with prejudice.

You can try to file it again, but that gets to the point where the judge can throw your ass directly in jail for 30 days, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

Filing the same lawsuit a second time is different. They're talking about appealing the decision in this case. You don't get tossed in jail for that.

But (at least in the US), the appeals court does not have to accept your appeal. When you file the appeal, you have to give them enough reason for them to even listen to your appeal, instead of rejecting it from the first filing.

He lost on the grounds of a statue of limitations defense which is exactly the kind of thing which is easily appealable.

Are you a lawyer? IANAL but my understanding is it would be difficult for an appeal to succeed. Appeals courts only evaluate review matters of law, not of fact. Whether is has been more than the 3 year limit the statute of limitations places is a matter of fact I think. And the advisory jury makes this much harder to appeal. What do you think the grounds for appeal will be?

I'm not saying it will succeed, but what counts as having passed the statue of limitations and various workarounds and modifications of the time period particularly in cases like this where the acts in question weren't necessarily a single event but progressive activity is the kind of question which is the bread and butter of an appeals court.

> particularly in cases like this where the acts in question weren't necessarily a single event but progressive activity is the kind of question which is the bread and butter of an appeals court.

No, findings of disputed fact - like when Musk had reason to know of his injury, are determined by a jury (or a bench judge). Appeals courts examine whether the law was applied correctly, not what the jury's fact finding was. There may be an avenue of appeal that the jury was improperly instructed, but determining questions of fact are exactly -not- the bread and butter of an appeals court.

Pretty sure it's the opposite: appeals mostly only work when the decision is not clear cut, and the statute of limitations is.

In this case, I think it is a jury's finding of fact re: the statute of limitations. Unless the appellate court finds that the trial court and jury is clearly erroneous, it will usually give significant deference to that finding.

It's even harder than "clearly erroneous" (the standard applied when a judge makes fact findings without a jury). Under the Seventh Amendment, if a hypothetical reasonable jury could have reached the result that the actual jury did, then that's the ball game [0], even if the trial judge or appellate-court judges would have reached a different result.

[0] Assuming that the trial judge didn't materially screw up in admitting or excluding evidence, or in instructing the jury about the law, and also assuming no proof of juror bias or improper influence.

A state of limitations case is actually one of the strongest kinds of legal defenses a defendant can have.

It's a foundational issue that goes to whether the court is even allowed to proceed with the case. A defendant could be guilty/liable/whatever of the alleged claims, and it wouldn't matter. If the statute of limitations has run, they're in the clear.

The only counter to an SOL defense is to try and claim that the SOL was paused for some reason, but those exceptions are very narrow and wouldn't apply here (and in the real world very rarely apply to civil cases).

Based on the "My Calendar Has 13 Months" defense?

Or the "I Forgot It Was Tuesday" argument?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com