In the New York case, NRA moved to dismiss on the ground it was described in the complaint as “National Rifle Association of America, inc.,” when its legal name didn’t have “inc.” in it. The judge said this was not very important, and directed the two parties to confer and submit an order for his signature that would correct the technical error.
NRA didn’t, but continued to object. The judge finally issued an order, saying in it:
“Later on December 1, 2022, counsel for Defendant Wayne LaPierre submitted a letter (NYSCEF 911) requesting until December 9, 2022, to file a response. On December 9, 2022, despite the Court’s clear and unequivocal order to submit a proposed order to make a simple change, the National Rifle Association (NYSCEF 913), Mr. LaPierre (NYSCEF 916) and Mr. Frazer (NYSCEF 920) submitted letters requesting that the Court require OAG, in addition to amending the caption, to “(i) amend the summons and complaint; (ii) serve the amended summons and complaint on the NRA; and (iii) file the amended summon and complaint along with proof of their service” (NYSCEF 913). Notably, no argument has been made that any party has been prejudiced or confused by the apparently incorrect addition of “Inc.” to the NRA’s name in the pleadings under which the parties have been operating for more than two years.”
“OAG’s straightforward request to change “National Rifle Association of America, Inc.” to “National Rifle Association of America” in the caption and complaint is GRANTED. . . .”
Motions and counter-motions over three letters and a period. That’s how you churn up millions in legal fees, and irritate the judge.