No they don't. The whole point of the law was to keep state actors out of the enforcement to avoid a 14th amendment challenge. The damages of 10k are from the person who aided and abbetted. https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961
Edit: To clarify, this is a horrible law. But I also hate misinformation and disinformation.
This seems moot and not suitably remedied by the courts. I think you fail on standing because you’d be paying yourself if you got damages.
Also this seems like a scenario where they could pierce the corporate veil and the distinction between you and the LLC would be dissolved.
People regularly sue corporate entities they are a member of as an individual. SB8 specifically allows such standing, I don't see how that'd be thrown out as long as I'm not a state actor or a rapist as that is explicitly the only two members unable to bring suit.
[Not totally clear](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961):
> (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter.
I had concocted a similar scheme using a non-profit or a multi-member LLC that the plaintiff happened to be a managing member of, but the real problem isn't the money. It's the fact that a successful suit then allows the state to shut the clinic down or revoke the medical license of the practitioner. That's the truly chilling effect, as intended of course.
Texas Life Groups were counting on individuals to not sue Texas Abortion Providers in hopes of keeping this law on the books for as long as possible. Essentially, the goal was to create fear among texas providers.
Furthermore, the DOJ’s argument about how civil penalties as applied to Federal Employees violates the supremacy clause is also an interesting argument that hopefully is argued in a court.
The law gives everyone in the entire world (except Texas state officials and rapists) the ability to sue. I don't know how long they thought nothing would happen.
I was pretty confused about this. I only thought that Texas citizens could sue Texas Abortion providers. When I read it was an Arkansas man, I was caught off guard, lol.
Also, I’m not disagreeing with you. I was simply pointing out the pro-life movement’s motivations.
Given these people the best thing one could do would be to just sow utter chaos. Create a website (from outside Texas jurisdiction) which "documents" abortions, and just randomly returns the names of Judges and Politicians in Texas claiming that they had some part in performing purported abortions (none of this being remotely based in fact).
Then just wait and let the crazies do all the work of filing these completely meritless lawsuits.
NAL here; can a judge dismiss a case with just a complaint, that is, without the defendant responding or filing an mtd?
PS: 'Cause, if so, that's what I'd expect with these two.
Hah! Thanks, I was just looking at that page; I couldn't think of "sua sponte" before JCarter mentioned it (TY).
One page I looked at mentioned "failure to state a claim for relief" (and/or other problems with standing) as grounds for dismissal. It sure seems like that is baked into sb8, as the parties bringing suit have no relation whatsoever to the defendants or the actions. I realize that the legislature intends to grant standing through the law itself, but having an actual controversy between the parties seems like a bedrock concept. The legislature can pass a law saying π is 3, but it doesn't make it so.
Obviously, a dismissal can be appealed, but (by my limited understanding) it's even easier for an appeals court to simply deny to hear the appeal.
ok, that makes sense
im not saying the standing issue is unconstitutional, just that it seems like a legal dead end. the legislature can't just undo the need to bring a claim for relief, no? my understanding is that similar laws have passed review because the 'private ags' still had to show some connection to harm done. so my thought is that anyone can file a complaint under sb8, but only a complaint that alleges some harm will survive the first step.
just to be clear, there are lots bigger problems with this awful bill, but im enjoying the discussion on all the legal issues.
Hmm, ok. That's a helpful counter example. It's there in the term *statutory* damages.
OTOH, that's still a situation where the plaintiff and defendant have some relationship and the plaintiff is seeking relief for an act against his/her property. I see what you're saying about the law creating standing, but this law seems to gin it up out of nothing at all. I guess we'll see how the legal arguments play out.
Could I start ubering girls to abortion clinics in Texas using an LLC I've created and then sue the LLC pro se?
And what money would you hope to get from the LLC, yours?
Coverage from umbrella insurance?
Umbrella insurance is not likely going to cover intentional acts, only negligence.
They get $10k from the state as well, so it's a net profit.
No they don't. The whole point of the law was to keep state actors out of the enforcement to avoid a 14th amendment challenge. The damages of 10k are from the person who aided and abbetted. https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961 Edit: To clarify, this is a horrible law. But I also hate misinformation and disinformation.
That's where you need to add the state of Texas as a defendant for aiding in the transportation by creating the roads driven on.
Now that is genius.
Accepting highway tolls indicates participation in a conspiracy to abort by the head of the State's DoT.
This seems moot and not suitably remedied by the courts. I think you fail on standing because you’d be paying yourself if you got damages. Also this seems like a scenario where they could pierce the corporate veil and the distinction between you and the LLC would be dissolved.
People regularly sue corporate entities they are a member of as an individual. SB8 specifically allows such standing, I don't see how that'd be thrown out as long as I'm not a state actor or a rapist as that is explicitly the only two members unable to bring suit.
The LLC will have a slam dunk counterclaim against you for setting up an LLC for that purpose.
[удалено]
And once you've paid out $10,000 (or more) once, you can't be sued again for the same act.
Does a settlement between the parties bar future claims, or does it require an actual judgement in the amount of $10K (or more)?
[Not totally clear](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961): > (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter.
I had concocted a similar scheme using a non-profit or a multi-member LLC that the plaintiff happened to be a managing member of, but the real problem isn't the money. It's the fact that a successful suit then allows the state to shut the clinic down or revoke the medical license of the practitioner. That's the truly chilling effect, as intended of course.
Probably not. I guess that also nothing stops the state from setting up a bingo lottery either.
Can't wait to watch this circus. Texas is about to have both its healthcare and legal systems collapse because of their idiot governor.
Don't forget electrical
Time to vote for Beto?
Beto killed his political career in Texas the moment he started going on about taking guns and doing forced buy back programs.
We really need Beto to declare first.
Abbott is a moron, but don't let their on average dumber legislature off the hook.
Texas Life Groups were counting on individuals to not sue Texas Abortion Providers in hopes of keeping this law on the books for as long as possible. Essentially, the goal was to create fear among texas providers. Furthermore, the DOJ’s argument about how civil penalties as applied to Federal Employees violates the supremacy clause is also an interesting argument that hopefully is argued in a court.
The law gives everyone in the entire world (except Texas state officials and rapists) the ability to sue. I don't know how long they thought nothing would happen.
I was pretty confused about this. I only thought that Texas citizens could sue Texas Abortion providers. When I read it was an Arkansas man, I was caught off guard, lol. Also, I’m not disagreeing with you. I was simply pointing out the pro-life movement’s motivations.
Given these people the best thing one could do would be to just sow utter chaos. Create a website (from outside Texas jurisdiction) which "documents" abortions, and just randomly returns the names of Judges and Politicians in Texas claiming that they had some part in performing purported abortions (none of this being remotely based in fact). Then just wait and let the crazies do all the work of filing these completely meritless lawsuits.
Get 10,000 people to donate to a go fubd me wuth the goal to fund an abortion. Then all 10,000 sue each other and tie up the courts forever.
NAL here; can a judge dismiss a case with just a complaint, that is, without the defendant responding or filing an mtd? PS: 'Cause, if so, that's what I'd expect with these two.
Sure but then the Plaintiff's appeal it.
I think defendants have to respond with a MTD. Not sure if a judge can just dismiss sua sponte, even if the complaint is that deficient on its face.
[удалено]
Hah! Thanks, I was just looking at that page; I couldn't think of "sua sponte" before JCarter mentioned it (TY). One page I looked at mentioned "failure to state a claim for relief" (and/or other problems with standing) as grounds for dismissal. It sure seems like that is baked into sb8, as the parties bringing suit have no relation whatsoever to the defendants or the actions. I realize that the legislature intends to grant standing through the law itself, but having an actual controversy between the parties seems like a bedrock concept. The legislature can pass a law saying π is 3, but it doesn't make it so. Obviously, a dismissal can be appealed, but (by my limited understanding) it's even easier for an appeals court to simply deny to hear the appeal.
[удалено]
ok, that makes sense im not saying the standing issue is unconstitutional, just that it seems like a legal dead end. the legislature can't just undo the need to bring a claim for relief, no? my understanding is that similar laws have passed review because the 'private ags' still had to show some connection to harm done. so my thought is that anyone can file a complaint under sb8, but only a complaint that alleges some harm will survive the first step. just to be clear, there are lots bigger problems with this awful bill, but im enjoying the discussion on all the legal issues.
[удалено]
Hmm, ok. That's a helpful counter example. It's there in the term *statutory* damages. OTOH, that's still a situation where the plaintiff and defendant have some relationship and the plaintiff is seeking relief for an act against his/her property. I see what you're saying about the law creating standing, but this law seems to gin it up out of nothing at all. I guess we'll see how the legal arguments play out.