Soooo he didn’t even go after the correct towing company.
He probably named them individually in the suit in addition to the company. One could argue he’s alleging that the named parties all personally engaged in towing his vehicle.
Classic SovCit “logic”, can’t be held responsible for their actions because that was the company set up in their name not their living person, but then tries to hold a company and other individual persons responsible for shit they don’t like
It’s actually not that weird to do this. You just scattershot everyone involved and let them figure out who acted on behalf of whom. If you don’t, the company could just say “hey, these guys are self-employed and just lease our impound yard” and you’d have to file a whole new suit.
… by the doctrine of avoidable consequences
that’s official government talk for “you’re a dumbass on purpose”
And unclean hands, which is lawyer for “you did this to yourself”.
And failure to mitigate, which is legalese for "and then you kept making it worse.
And doctrine of laches, which is courtroom talk for “and then you proceeded to ignore the problem until is bit you in the ass, before you finally tried to sue.”
That reminds me I need to run to the store to pick up some more silents.
Is it a requirement that these native English speakers barely speak english?
Requesting dismissal with prejudice is just a great detail. If granted, and the plaintiff tries to bring another suit for the same events, they’ll basically be told to GTFO.
