We now have a couple of reports on today's hearing.
A few observations:
(1) Defendants' attorneys repeatedly condemned the lawsuit as "lies." Of course, a defendant who denies the truth of a pleading is going to take that position. But as I've noted, the court is not going to assess the truth of the complaint at this point so that isn't going to get the Cowboys/Jones anywhere. And it sounds like it didn't get defendants anywhere today.
(2) Weckerly's lawyer made the argument that the statute of limitations should have been stopped during any period that the defendant is out of the state, as he alleged in the original complaint. Defendants' lawyer argued that the law didn't apply because Jerry is very well-known and could have been found at any time, in or out of the state, to be served. The judge was skeptical of this argument, suggesting that Jerry was arguing that he should be treated differently from any other defendant.
Score one for Weckerly. However, I don't see how this overcomes the Cowboys' statute of limitations argument. The corporate "person" of the Cowboys never left the state.
(3) This site suggested in an earlier post that a better argument for stopping the statute of limitations involved the concept of "duress," illustrated by the allegations that Weckerly was subjected to a variety of pressures from defendants to keep quiet, which would prevent her from taking advantage of the court system while the statute was running.
|Judge, it's like Dirty Harry said in Magnum Force: "A man has got to know his limitations."|