Courts have long disapproved of lawsuits brought in exchange for a portion of the profits of the action, and the Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed this doctrine. Instead, Plaintiffs have attempted to buttress their complaint with hundreds of paragraphs containing new allegations that are allegedly applicable to all thirty-one causes of action. Because Plaintiffs have repeatedly ignored this Court's prior instructions, it is impossible for the Court to address the merits of any cause of action, including the original twelve. Thus, all thirty-one causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint rely on hundreds of paragraphs of new theories and factual allegations that this Court has previously determined were champertous. In evaluating the original twelve causes of action, the Court is unable to assess those claims separate and apart from the new factual allegations.
Plaintiffs contend otherwise.
That is exactly what Plaintiffs did. The current first twelve causes of action are word for word exactly the same as the original twelve causes of action. The thirteenth through thirty-first causes of action are asserted on behalf of RGL alone, and they are supported by factual arguments that establish that RGL has standing to bring each cause of action. Memo of Law in Opp., at 8. Under this strained reasoning, Plaintiffs wholly ignore the hundreds of additional paragraphs containing factual allegations concerning RGL, Elias, and RIS that form the bulk of the Third Amended Complaint.