The lawyers in the Patriot Front court case have been going back and forth over the Patriot Front's motion to dismiss the civil case entirely. This week, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion to strike two arguments from the last court filing by the hate group.

At issue, the plaintiff's argued and the judge agreed, that the hate group's lawyers can't introduce new legal arguments in a rebuttal.

The reply argues two grounds for dismissal that were not included in Defendant's opening memorandum. Raising new grounds in a reply is not permitted. E.g., SunTrust Banks, Inc. v. Robertson, 2010 WL 11569432, at *5 n.5 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2010) ("The general rule in federal courts is that any arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived, and are thus not considered in adjudicating the motion."”").

While losing these two sections of their previous court filing weakens their argument that the case be dismissed, the hate group lawyers still are making an argument that the judge will need to consider.

You can see what's left of the Patriot Front lawyers' argument here.

The Patriot Front is represented by two lawyers: Glen Allen of Baltimore and Bradley Marrs of Richmond, Virginia.

Recently, Marrs got into an email exchange with an ARRRG agent. Marrs compared his clients to mass murderers. You can read about that here.

All Documents Related to This Current Filing

• PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS AGREED MOTION TO STRIKE. April 25, 2023
• PLAINTIFFS’ AGREED MOTION TO STRIKE. April 25, 2023.
• JUDGE ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE. April 26, 2023.

Complete coverage of this case can be found here.