Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
5,896 characters extracted
—
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. RSC-CV-3297
)
)
)
)
)
SNIPERALLSTAR1,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRINZBAKYL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPPOSING THE PENDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant PrinzBakyl (the "Defendant") respectfully submits this Memorandum in
Opposition to the Pending Motion for Reconsideration. The Defendant contends that this Court should
uphold its Order dated August 6, 2024, but only to the extent that it vacated the Judgment by Default.
ARGUMENT
I. THE PLAINTIFF DISREGARDS THE PERSUASIVE ILLINOIS STANDARD
In his Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, the Defendant detailed two jurisdictions’ methods
of ruling on such a motion. Both are persuasive as they are formulated in such a way as to ensure
“substantial justice is being done between the litigants,” which is a goal patently common to this
Court. In re Haley D., 2011 IL 110886 at ¶ 57. However, the Plaintiff has wholly disregarded the
Illinois standard and is instead concentrating solely on the more uncompromising federal one.
Consequently, the Plaintiff has not successfully countered the Defendant’s reasonable assertion that
the Illinois standard should influence this ruling. Given its more lenient approach discussed at length
in the Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, it is essential to reiterate that the Pending Motion for
Reconsideration would undoubtedly be denied if the Illinois standard were applied.
II. THE PLAINTIFF VASTLY MISINTERPRETS THE McNULTY AUTHORITY
The Plaintiff does, admittedly, attempt to mutilate the federal standard to conform to his
argument. For this, he makes a citation to S.E.C. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 1998) in passing,
which is what the Defendant initially cited in his Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. As a reminder,
McNulty reminds federal courts that they must review “three factors [when looking to vacate a
default]: (1) whether the default was willful, (2) whether the defendant demonstrates the existence of a
1
meritorious defense, and (3) whether, and to what extent, vacating the default will cause the
non-defaulting party prejudice.” Id. at 738 (citation omitted).
The Plaintiff purports that none of these factors support overturning the judgment by default.
This misleading notion can only be attributed to the Plaintiff evidently not reading the very case on
which his argument relies. For instance, in comparing the third factor that McNulty describes against
the circumstances at hand, the Plaintiff states that vacating the judgment by default is unacceptably
prejudicial to him primarily because it delays proceedings. Pending Mot. for Reconsideration at 2.
In McNulty, the plaintiff secured a judgment by default after an answer to their complaint was
overdue by eight months. McNulty, 137 F.3d at 735. When finished calculating the prejudice that
would be caused to the plaintiff by vacating this default, the lower court, uncontested by the appellate
court, concluded that the plaintiff would be prejudiced “only slightly.” McNulty, 137 F.3d at 732.
Given this, it is baffling that the Plaintiff cites McNulty and then dares to tell this Court that the
prejudice they would experience by a delay of approximately one week is sufficient to bar the success
of any motion to vacate.
III. IS THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION HERE WITH US NOW, CHATGPT?
The Defendant will do the right thing by not wasting part of a tree refuting the Plaintiff’s
application of several authorities, which allegedly proves that this Court abused its discretion by
vacating the judgment by default. Looking at the Plaintiff’s first cited authority is all that is needed to
determine just how much effort the Defendant should put into addressing the Plaintiff’s claims. What
is this authority? Himself! But that is not what he tells this Court.
The Plaintiff recounts that, in Baldwin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 331 U.S. 159 (1947), “[t]he
Supreme Court examined the principles governing default judgments and the criteria for their
issuance” in a way favorable to his cause. Pending Mot. for Reconsideration at 3. He must not have
anticipated that opposing counsel or this Court would verify this because, in Baldwin, the Supreme
Court of the United States did…nothing. The case outright does not exist—the Plaintiff’s attorney
made it up. Or did he?
Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is known for fabricating case law. Knowing this, the Defendant
used online tools to analyze the Pending Motion for Reconsideration for writing patterns consistent
2
with what one might find in AI-generated content. The results were conclusive: the attorney who
signed the Pending Motion for Reconsideration did not write it in its entirety. See, e.g., Appendix A;
Appendix B. No human did. A computer “hallucinated” the misrepresentations contained within, and,
in an attempt to deceive this Court, they were unethically presented by the Plaintiff as a legitimate
legal argument. See Dahl et al., Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large
Language Models, 16 J. Legal Analysis 64 (2024).
CONCLUSION
The Pending Motion for Reconsideration ought to be denied.
August 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Notableants
Attorney for Defendant PrinzBakyl
Advocates for Disabled Defendants
E: [email protected]
P: +1 (120) JUS-TICE
101 Justice Ave.
Lumina Springs, RW 00000
United States of America
3
1a
Appendix A
GPTZero.me’s August 8, 2024, analysis of an excerpt of text found in a recent filing of the
Plaintiff. See Pending Mot. for Reconsideration at 3. GPTZero.me is a website commonly known to detect
written content of artificial intelligence.
2a
Appendix B
ZeroGPT.com’s August 8, 2024, analysis of an excerpt of text found in a recent filing of the
Plaintiff. See Pending Mot. for Reconsideration at 2. ZeroGPT.com is a website commonly known to
detect written content of artificial intelligence.
Document record
File size
560.7 KB
Uploaded
Jul 24, 2024 12:00 PM
Filed
Jul 24, 2024 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
SniperAllStar1
Notes
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. #02-JSF (1).pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/D8kFxyb6)
