I've told you before about a federal (civil rights) lawsuit brought by Lisa Tresslar, who claims she was constructively fired as NorCo's custody master. In response to a motion to dismiss, District Court Judge John Gallagher found that there was merit in her claim that she was a victim of retaliation. She had voiced concerns over new procedures in custody cases that would shield judges from hearing evidence of child abuse. Tresslar's contention is that the courts did this to insulate themselves from public rancor in the event that a child was abused after a custody order is entered. It was after she voiced her concerns that the courts basically stripped her of most of her duties, reducing her to a glorified clerk instead of a Harvard-educated attorney. The courts, however, maintain that they still wanted to hear this evidence, but only after listening to the parties.
What ensued is something known as discovery, in which the parties to a lawsuit can explore the evidence from each side. In this case, that included 20 depositions and over 4,000 pages of documents. The parties then file what is known as a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the uncontroverted facts establish they are entitled to win as a matter of law. In this case, both sides have filed motions for summary judgment, but Tresslar's is under seal because it contains sensitive information about specific cases.
In the motion for summary judgment filed by the courts, a number of legal claims like legislative immunity are raised. But what struck me most was the contention that Tresslar was biased in favor of Stanley Margle, a lawyer who has been implicated in two drug prosecutions and who once represented her. In addition to numerous text exchanges, the courts have documented text messages that show Tresslar providing legal advice or legal strategy to Margle as well as messages that disparage one of his opponents.
Tresslar responded with a lengthy "Declaration" even though discovery had already been closed and motions for summary judgment had been filed.
Yesterday, Judge Gallagher struck both Tresslar's Declaration as well as 20 paragraphs from another filing submitted by her. He notes that motions to strike should be granted “'where the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties, or if the allegations confuse the issues in the case.' As this Court has previously recognized, Plaintiff is not permitted to present facts that are immaterial to her First Amendment Retaliation claim. Allowing Plaintiff to do so would confuse the issues in this case. Moreover, the Court finds that the prejudice at issue is substantial."
While this is no proof that Tresslar's lawsuit is on life support, it's certainly in trouble.
7 comments:
Well, she still has SM
I saw Margle has his law office building for sale or lease(odd sign placement, hard to see)
I want to have Stan's babies! She don't like, she don't like, she don't like .... cocaine.
Who cares that she is a “Harvard-educated attorney.” That’s relevant how?
The implication being that the county is plowing their field with a Bentley, or something...
it is supposed portray that she is smart.
I’d like to know how she is still employed by the DA’s office. She clearly has done some borderline unethical things. But then again, the ADA who got an DUI and was driving on his bare rims is also still employed there. I wonder if they’ve considered hiring Stan, as he might fit in perfectly.
Post a Comment