Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, the Petitos made the argument--among others--that the Laundrie parents were liable to them for their refusing to talk to them. As the judge noted in his ruling, this argument pretty much fell apart at the hearing on the motion to dismiss and but for the statement that was made by their attorney, he would have dismissed the case.
Any argument made by the Petito parents stems from their argument of intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no separate claim by the Petito parents as a matter of law that the Laundries are liable to them for damages for advising Brian to not speak, which again is the point that I made. Here is the Petitos' amended complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...laundrie-et-al
Moving on, while the Petito parents do argue that the Laundries' silence violated some duty owed to them and added to their alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, they also argue that the Laundries spoke through their attorney. On the initial point, the court noted that it was not deciding the issue of silence and the constitutional implications surrounding it in the motion to dismiss as it is not necessary to do so. And, as you noted, the court explicitly stated that it would have dismissed the case had the Laundries not spoken. Problem for the Laundrie parents is that they did speak, which is what the court did focus and base its ruling on. In relevant part:
Quote:
If the facts of this case truly were about silence with no affirmative act by the Laundries, the Court would have resolved this case in the Laundries’ favor on the concept of legal duty, or more precisely, the lack of any legal duty for the Laundries to act. Had the Laundries truly stayed silent, the Court would have granted the motion to dismiss in the Laundries’ favor.
The judge was quite right to rule that is is patently silly to claim that the attorney was not speaking for the Laundrie parents through and by the statement at issue.
Moreover, as a matter of procedure, the facts alleged in a motion to dismiss are treated as being true (only for the purposes of the motion). Thus, by filing their motion to dismiss, the Laundrie parents essentially agreed (again, only for the purpose of the motion) that they did speak through their attorney. Thus, there was no legitimate issue of "silence" for the Laundrie parents to argue.
Note, at the actual trial (if the Petito parents survive the pending summary judgment motion against them), the only way for the Laundrie parents to prevail on a claim that they did not speak via their attorney is to prove that their attorney went rogue and drafted that statement on his own without the Laundries' authorization. But, considering that the Laundrie parents continued to employ the attorney, that argument will get laughed out of court.
There is no separate claim by the Petito parents as a matter of law that the Laundries are liable to them for damages for advising Brian to not speak, which again is the point that I made. Here is the Petitos' amended complaint:
I wasn't the one who made that claim to begin with so I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.
I wasn't the one who made that claim to begin with so I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.
That's a question I have for you. In response to what another poster had written, I was agreeing with your position in post where you stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II
Can you please explain to us how advising/helping Brian exercise his Constitutionally protected right to remain silent and not incriminate himself is actionable in either criminal or civil court?
In response, I noted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
It's not. But, to be clear, that doesn't seem to be the Petitos' angle here.
To which you replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBain II
It's not their only angle. The Petitos are arguing that the Laundries are liable to them for intentional infliction of emotional distress because they went out and had fun while they were looking for Gabby, made a rather vague statement through their attorney about hoping she was found, and...of course, wouldn't speak to them about Gabby and forced discussions to go through their attorney.
Frankly, their position is ridiculous.
In addition to agreeing with your initial point, I also pointed out that this didn't seem to be the Petito family's angle in any case, and you replied that it's not their "only" angle. My point is that it's not their angle at all, at least not in court filings.
Any argument made by the Petito parents stems from their argument of intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no separate claim by the Petito parents as a matter of law that the Laundries are liable to them for damages for advising Brian to not speak, which again is the point that I made. Here is the Petitos' amended complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...laundrie-et-al
Moving on, while the Petito parents do argue that the Laundries' silence violated some duty owed to them and added to their alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, they also argue that the Laundries spoke through their attorney. On the initial point, the court noted that it was not deciding the issue of silence and the constitutional implications surrounding it in the motion to dismiss as it is not necessary to do so. And, as you noted, the court explicitly stated that it would have dismissed the case had the Laundries not spoken. Problem for the Laundrie parents is that they did speak, which is what the court did focus and base its ruling on. In relevant part:
The judge was quite right to rule that is is patently silly to claim that the attorney was not speaking for the Laundrie parents through and by the statement at issue.
Moreover, as a matter of procedure, the facts alleged in a motion to dismiss are treated as being true (only for the purposes of the motion). Thus, by filing their motion to dismiss, the Laundrie parents essentially agreed (again, only for the purpose of the motion) that they did speak through their attorney. Thus, there was no legitimate issue of "silence" for the Laundrie parents to argue.
Note, at the actual trial (if the Petito parents survive the pending summary judgment motion against them), the only way for the Laundrie parents to prevail on a claim that they did not speak via their attorney is to prove that their attorney went rogue and drafted that statement on his own without the Laundries' authorization. But, considering that the Laundrie parents continued to employ the attorney, that argument will get laughed out of court.
It looks like again using the inexperienced in criminal and civil trials but limelight seeking attorney-friend the Laundries might have shot themselves in the foot?
Wonder if they switch their attorney now… alleging the incompetence…
Silent means silent - any exception could bite you in the rear end.
That's a question I have for you. In response to what another poster had written, I was agreeing with your position in post where you stated:
In response, I noted:
To which you replied:
In addition to agreeing with your initial point, I also pointed out that this didn't seem to be the Petito family's angle in any case, and you replied that it's not their "only" angle. My point is that it's not their angle at all, at least not in court filings.
Ahhh, I think see where the miscommunication happened. The way I worded my post could have been construed as arguing that the Petito's were suing Brian's parents because they advised him to remain silent. You're correct that that isn't the case. The Petito's are suing Brian's parents--in part--because they remained silent.
It looks like again using the inexperienced in criminal and civil trials but limelight seeking attorney-friend the Laundries might have shot themselves in the foot?
Wonder if they switch their attorney now… alleging the incompetence…
Silent means silent - any exception could bite you in the rear end.
We could all learn something from this
It's possible. I wouldn't count on it though.
As the judge noted in his ruling, this case was this close to getting tossed out on the motion for dismissal. Had it not been for that singular statement by the Laundrie's attorney, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
As the judge noted in his ruling, this case was this close to getting tossed out on the motion for dismissal. Had it not been for that singular statement by the Laundrie's attorney, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
It looks like again using the inexperienced in criminal and civil trials but limelight seeking attorney-friend the Laundries might have shot themselves in the foot?
Wonder if they switch their attorney now… alleging the incompetence…
Silent means silent - any exception could bite you in the rear end.
We could all learn something from this
I agree with McBain about not counting on that at this point. All that statement does is get the case past a motion to dismiss by creating some kind of linkage between the Laundries' words (via their attorney) and this case.
While they'd have no case without that statement, honestly it doesn't look like they have much of a case even with the statement. The Petito family's amended complaint states they they "believe" the Laundries knew of Gabby's death even in the midst of their statement via the attorney, which would make their statement lies leading to false hope, etc.
But belief isn't evidence. And I'd be floored if the Laundries implicated themselves during discovery interviews; they do have a right against self-incrimination even in a civil case, too, for what it's worth. Also, from what I gather, it's not like Brian was texting his parents anything after he killed Gabby, so you're not going to get evidence of knowledge from that angle either. And the fact that neither the FBI nor FL authorities charged the parents with anything tells me that there is nothing linking the parents (in the other direction) in a manner that the Petito's would like electronically either.
No disrespect to the young woman or her parents, but...this young couple were both adults in their early 20's, yes? They were not teenagers or minors.
Their parents had no control over their lives, legally. It's tragic what happened, but both of them, as adults, made their own decisions. So, while I feel that the Laundrie's silence was deplorable, this is basically 2 young adults making decisions, & the results of their decisions. That is all.
I cant even imagine what was going on in the Laundrie parents minds when their boy told them that he was going out into the swamps for a little bit to clear his head. He comes home without Gabby, then the News crews come to the house so they must know something happened to Gabby.
Gabby Petito’s parents sue Brian Laundrie family’s lawyer Steven Bertolino
The parents of Gabby Petito added attorney Steven Bertolino to a civil lawsuit against Brian Laundrie’s parents on Tuesday, alleging that it was “insensitive, cold-hearted and outrageous” for Bertolino to express the Laundrie family’s “hope” that authorities would find Gabby’s remains in September 2021.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
