DorkJacob Law
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
1B Palm View, Palmer, Ridgeway discord.gg/mPY2AMy6Zp
July 20th, 2022
tripnixon
Judge
Superior Court of the State of Ridgeway
One Jackson Street
Palmer, Ridgeway
Re: Letter Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
StudsPerSecond Co. v. BPD_Edgar, No. RSC-CV-523
Dear Judge Tripnixon,
I am DorkJacob, co-counsel for Plaintiff StudsPerSecond Company (SPS) in
the above-entitled caption. I notified the Court and opposing counsel that SPS
would be filing this letter brief in opposition to Mr. Edgar’s motion to dismiss.
Mr. Edgar argues in this motion that SPS lacks standing to bring this suit
because SPS terminated Mr. Edgar and that SPS has suffered no real injury as a
result of Mr. Edgar’s actions, and thus this controversy is moot. For the reasons
below, SPS submits that Mr. Edgar’s motion must be denied.
In order for SPS to have standing to pursue this case, SPS must prove (1)
SPS has suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”, (2)
that there is “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained
of — the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant,
and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the
court”, and (3) that “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the
- 1 -
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).1
Even though Mr. Edgar was duly terminated for dealing clipboards in
violation of company policy, this controversy is not moot. Mr. Edgar dealt
clipboards in violation of the Company Handbook, which Mr. Edgar agreed to be
bound by when he was hired by SPS. He saw the Handbook, he read the
Handbook, and he knew he was bound by the Handbook.
A declaratory judgment stating that Mr. Edgar dealt clipboards and thus
breached the contract will put this controversy to rest by ensuring that SPS’
termination of Mr. Edgar was legally sound. Without a judgment saying yes he did
or no he didn’t breach the contract, SPS will never know if Mr. Edgar’s termination
was legally sound and if he indeed breached the implied contract.
Clearly, Mr. Edgar doesn’t want this Court to decide whether or not his
termination was legally sound by deciding SPS’ breach of contract claim because it
won’t redress any injury done to SPS. It will redress SPS’ injury by declaring that
Mr. Edgar breached the contract and thus he was rightly terminated.
* * * * *
The motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
Dated: July 20th, 2022
Palmer, Ridgeway
/s/ DorkJacob
———————————————————————————
DORKJACOB
Ridgeway Bar No. 17135
To: HolyRomanRyan
Attorney for Defendant
1 SPS also reminds the Court and SPS that SPS’ allegations must be taken as true for the
purposes of a motion to dismiss. See generally Mills v. Barnard, No. 1:14-CV-00150, 2016 WL
5819787, at *8-9 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 30, 2016) (cleaned up) (elaborating the Twiqbal legal
standard).
- 2 -
