That seems inconsistent with the snippets from the internet that @Knights_Mom posted.
One snippet stated that as the defendant in a suit (MB as defendant of LKs suit, for example), if he thinks the liability rests with a party the plaintiff is not suing, you implead the missing party. It’s not that the impleaded party is “added to your defense” but is brought in as an additional defendant so that MB can say ‘It wasn’t me who shot LK, it was RG’ or ‘The gun went off accidentally when RG jumped me’.
Suppose LK had sued only MB and SGF. Wouldn’t those defendants want to implead RC and argue that she bears some of the liability?
Can MB as defendant in LKs suit implead RG to attempt to blame him for the shooting, off loading his own liability, or can MB as plaintiff if the counter suit implead RG as an additional defendant in the counter suit?
@CurrentlyHorseless, do you have some insider information that Michael now remembers what happened that day?
Last I knew he had no memory of what happened, so it seems like it would be impossible for him to say those things you posted there. Which leads to my question …what do you know that you are not sharing ?
If her parents rode a real estate boom in Texas as land developers, tens of millions are very likely.
I find it very strange that you would take a serious work resume as evidence of lack of family wealth. Is that a sexist thing? If a man had s serious career as a doctor or lawyer or academic, would you infer that his only motivation for pursuing a career was that he lacked the family money that would permit him to take up the lifestyle of the leisure class?
If I recall correctly from earlier information posted shortly after August 7, the “wedding” was a rather quick affair and the marriage didn’t last long. Perhaps LK’s family wasn’t aware of the marriage until later. I also recall hearing as late as 2020 that the MIL’s restraining order was still in effect. That could be one of the reasons LK has not publicly attacked that family as she has so many others who haven’t taken legal action against her - at least legal action that has been successful in being served.
LK has accused me of contacting that family but nothing could be further from the truth. What would be gained by anyone contacting that respected family regarding the Kanareks and their brief relationship so long ago?
But I wonder if any defense attorneys have contacted them regarding behavior issues?
First, @CurrentlyHorseless, let me clear up (again) a basic misunderstanding about the civil suit. There is no offloading, or apportioning (or any other word) liability UNTIL the Plaintiff proves her claims against the defendants.
Think of them as separate trials.
LK has sued SGF. She has to prove the basis of her claim before the jury decides if SGF was more than 51% liable than she was.
LK has sued MB. She has to prove the basis of her claims SEPARATELY against MB, before the jury looks at whether or not he was more than 51% liable.
LK has sued RC. She has to prove the basis of her claim against RC, and only RC, before the jury looks at liability percentages.
MB is the only one that has asserted any counterclaims. MB has to prove the basis of his claims against LK, before the jury looks at %’s, again.
IF Discovery ever happens in this case, and leads to evidence that RG or JK are responsible for MB’s injuries/losses, he can motion to implead them to be added as defendants to his case.
In NJ, way back in 2019, when MB was still awaiting trial on the criminal charges, he COULD have asked to have another defendant added to the lawsuit by Joinder (not impleading). And the court would have ruled on the evidence to determine if joinder of additional defendants was appropriate.
But understand - you can’t just say, please add this person to the suit so I can spread the blame. There has to be evidence. Too bad there’s no forensics from the crime scene that MB could rely on. To the best of my knowledge, MB still has no memory of the events that he can rely on. Do you know differently?
Considering that I don’t think RC has any liability under the law, I’m the wrong person to ask if SGF (who I also don’t think has any liability under the law) and MB’s attorneys should have attempted to add her, had LK not already included her.
And before you say - so you think MB has liability, NOPE. I don’t. I don’t believe he shot her. I certainly don’t believe any of the many versions of events that LK and RG have told over the years. I do believe that LK’s actions are more than 51% responsible for this mess and for each individual claim against each defendant.
All she had to do was leave! Whether officially asked to leave or not! She is the one posting great fear, danger, manifestos, etc, but chose to remain in her imagined danger in order to Finish the Bastard along with her accomplices!
My husband was involved years ago in a suit brought by what I can only call professional lawsuit-ers. Anyway one of their tactics was delay delay delay. They even dropped the suit and refiled on the last hour. His lawyer said it was a common tactic to muddy the waters of the event. The suit went to trial something like 9 years after the event. But it ended up working against them as it gave more time for their claims to be disputed. Medical records were discovered in counties hours away which may have slipped by had the timeframe been different.
Only a handful of people believe Michael Barisone shot Lauren Kanarek and a few of those believe he may have shot her by accident or in self defense while wrestling with control of the gun. It certainly doesn’t help that there isn’t one iota of forensic evidence to prove any theory.
Did you read the snippet posted by @Knights_Mom on a defendent impleading another party who might be liable? Was the snippet @Knights_Mom posted incorrect?
I don’t understand your current position at all.
Suppose the truth of the issue, as seen by some all seeing entity like God, is that LK was injured and was owed compensation for her damages of $x million. Suppose God literally knows all, and the breakdown of liability is:
10% to LK for not mitigating her damages
25% to RC for providing the gun and handing it to MB
45% to MB for shooting her
20% to SGF for not having stricter policies on controlling guns on the premises.
In my example, if three cases were tried separately, no one defendant would 51% liable even though the three defendants collectively were 90% liable.
Are you saying that in my example, since no one defendant is over 51% liable, LK collects nothing?
