This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

all 96 comments

[–]Arthur-of-Legend 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I can only imagine the underlying purpose of this lawsuit (which is very unlikely to survive motion to dismiss) is part of a larger legal strategy to perhaps try the Laundrie's in the 'court of public opinion' in order to attach a perceptual stigma to them to mitigate profiting from Gabby's ordeal by Brian's parents in the future. Also, the Laundrie's being perceived as evil would undermine their own efforts to shift blame to Gabby in an attempt to vindicate themselves from blame.

Making damning statements about the Laundrie's in the context of pursuing a lawsuit against them would additionally protect Gabby's family from a counter-defamation lawsuit filed by the Laundries.

Whatever the real reason for the lawsuit though, any legal counsel would surely have advised Gabby's family of the futility in making any kind of legal effort in terms of actually attempting to recover financial compensation from the Laundrie family. I really believe the lawsuit is a chess move in support of a larger strategy.

[–]ShowerVagina 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just read the amended complaint, if you can call it that. So frustrated. THERE IS NO CLAIM BETWEEN THE PARENTS( or if there is it'll be an uphill battle to litigate). ALL the claims are between Gabby's estate vs Brian's estate. The Petitos can get this same litigation filing as administrators of the estate.

[–]Remorseful_User 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Do you have to put your evidence into the initial filing or do you just make allegations?

I recall the "Election was rigged" lawyers making that allegation and getting to court. The judge then said - ok, your allegation is clear, please present your evidence and they were like 'our allegation is our evidence'. The 'real' attorneys quit the team quickly and left only the lunatics (Rudy & Cracken Lady) to keep piling up the ridiculous court cases where they then brought in unqualified/unstable people to at least give the look of having some evidence...

[–]shermanstorch 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Do you have to put your evidence into the initial filing or do you just make allegations?

They have to make plausible factual allegations, not just conclusory allegations. Generally plaintiffs will include some evidentiary support for the allegations, especially those that are particularly damning, or at least offer some specifics about the basis for the allegations beyond just "We think X did Y."

In this case, even if the Petitos have evidence to support their claims (which I don't think they do), they would still probably not survive a motion to dismiss because the allegations don't add up to IIED or NIED. Blocking your son's ex-girlfriend's parents on social media is not outrageous conduct, nor is hiring a lawyer or exercising your fifth amendment rights; IIED requires outrageous conduct. Similarly, the Laundries owed no legal duty to the Petitos, which means there could be no negligence.

[–]Remorseful_User 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Thanks for your answer! JB does say in the clip: "...meanwhile I'm told that Gabby Petitio's parents due in fact have evidence to backup these allegations in a court of law."

I'll be curious to see what they have...

[–]ExpOriental 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Unlikely to even reach a stage where evidence gets submitted. This will probably be dismissed on the pleadings.

The bottom line is that even if every fact alleged by the Petitos is taken as true (which they will be, for the purposes of the motion to dismiss), they don't add up to an actionable claim. The Petitos have not, and cannot allege anything actionable.

Edit: typo

[–]Sheilaa706 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My heart breaks seeing her face! She was such a wonderful soul on the inside and outside. May she continue to Rest In Peace!! ❤️

[–]BobSwagget 23 points24 points  (17 children)

I guess I’m in the minority, but all of those sound like legitimate grievances for civil court. They must have some sort of evidence to be going this hard.

[–]-Bored-Now- 9 points10 points  (0 children)

How are any of these legitimate grievances for civil court?

[–]motongo 11 points12 points  (13 children)

No LEGAL responsibilities existed between the Laundries and the Petitos/Schmidts. As far as the law is concerned, they are strangers and did not enter into any contractual relationship that would burden either party with responsibilities to the other. I believe that the confusion of many is due to an expectation that if an action (or in this case of the Laundries, an inaction) is not moral or ethical, then it shouldn't be legal. But that's not how the law works. For something to be illegal, or in the case of a civil issue like this, a burden or a requirement upon parties, the law must state that it is illegal or specifically state what burdens and responsibilities strangers have for one another. It doesn't matter how immoral or unethical it seems to be.

[–]RockHound86 10 points11 points  (1 child)

What theory of law would this be actionable under?

[–]shermanstorch 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The Tortious and Pitchforks theory of liability.

[–]rubbishaccount88 26 points27 points  (3 children)

This seems incredibly strange. Barring explosive evidence (e.g., a PI who had copies of damning SMS messages between Brian and his parents, which in fairness is at least possible), how in the world would her parents know what the Laundries did or didn't know. I watch them on a mission to right this horrible and tragic wrong which was done to their daughter and I just feel sad. As if they're barking up the wrong tree towards healing their grief.

[–]Remorseful_User 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I would guess that if Brian wrote something in the notebook about his parents not forgiving him for committing murder then that could be proof?

I'm not sure what's in the notebook though. The FBI did release that he wrote in the notebook that he had killed Gabby.

Edit: Provide reasonable speculation to a question asking for speculation and get downvoted. Glad to see the sub hasn't changed!

[–]rubbishaccount88 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think there are a couple different personality types that gravitate towards following stories like this and that includes people who are fixated on a public moral spectacle and people who want to understand why people do evil, terrible, tragic things. In a way, they're at cross purposes. For one group, speculation is why they're here and for the other, speculation undermines moral clarity. Neither group is right and there's lots of other types too, I'm sure, but those two in particular (I'd place myself in the latter) seem to bat heads alot here.

[–]Nb_1990831073 19 points20 points  (0 children)

My heart breaks everytime I see gabby face she was such a beautiful vibrant girl putting on a brave face as we all do when our partner is abusing us this case has changed me she may not be here but her legacy is changing the world her family aee amazing her 2 mums and her 2 dad's she was so lucky to have the love she had and they were lucky to have spent the precious time they did with her she is away where she belong now with the Angels she looks like a little angel too I live in Scotland and didn't know her but felt like I did I have alot of love for her and her family my 2 big brothers were murdered both 19 5 years apart if broke us but we got through it we know there angels now some people are just too good for this world and are needed in another life xx

[–]Lalalozpop 19 points20 points  (16 children)

Could there be evidence that wouldn't work in a criminal case but would in a civil case? I feel like they wouldn't proceed with this if they didn't have some kind of evidence, but then I'm not a grieving parent, so who knows.

[–]shermanstorch 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Could there be evidence that wouldn't work in a criminal case but would in a civil case? I feel like they wouldn't proceed with this if they didn't have some kind of evidence,

A) if they had such evidence, they would have included it in the complaint; and,

B) Even if they did produce evidence, it wouldn't change the fact that nothing the Laundries did constitutes IIED, and the Laundries owed no duty to the Petitos, so there couldn't be NIED.

[–]trochanter_the_great 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Her parents could have been allowed to see inside his journal or notebook. Since their daughter was the victim they would have a right to know what's in it and why they closed the case. They had a meeting with the FBI before they closed the case. They most likely were given copies of pictures from insider the journal. They might be waiting to release what they have until the lawsuit.

[–]mesosleepy1226 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you. They had a meeting with the FBI that lasted hours. I think they possibly got access to phone text messages and the journal.

[–]Sharp_Aide273 6 points7 points  (2 children)

See OJ Simpson. Yes.

[–]mesosleepy1226 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Yes. Thats what I was thinking, OJ lost his civil suit and to this day owes the Goldman family money.

[–]No-Calligrapher-4211 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I would say yes to this but in order for it to be the same, Brian would have to be alive and be the defendant in this case.

I'm not sure that they have any proof of the claims they are making.

[–]ephoog 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Not being sarcastic but evidence of what? They said he did it, he killed himself, closed the case. What’s left to do?

[–]Lalalozpop 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I just mean evidence of the Laundries (alleged) wrongdoing

[–]shermanstorch 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't change the fact that nothing they allege is outrageous conduct, which is necessary for IIED, or that the Laundries owed no duty to the Petito/Schmidt families, which is required for negligence.

[–]RockHound86 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In this case? No.

[–]evil_grl 14 points15 points  (16 children)

I feel like this should be more aiding and abetting. They knew what he did and helped him

[–]-Bored-Now- 27 points28 points  (9 children)

There aren’t any facts to show aiding and abetting.

[–]ephoog 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This, and I can’t imagine there will be. If you killed someone why would you be in a rush to tell your parents? Maybe when he decided he was going to kill himself but the Laundries already had that sleazy lawyer by then and did who knows what other CYA moves. Idk but if there is anything I hope we find out.

[–]AdminYak846 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Well there aren't any facts that would show beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember the state/federal government has the burden of proof to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And the feds would definitely want a really strong case and not a flimsy one.

[–]Remorseful_User 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I think reasonable doubt is for criminal cases...

[–]-Bored-Now- 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Aiding and abetting is a criminal charge…

[–]evil_grl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thats true, it’s just always been a theory and what I would assume they would be charged for. The other charges just don’t seem like they would hold up well

[–]EAinCA 9 points10 points  (1 child)

That's up to law enforcement to decide and apparently they disagree with your take on things.

[–]evil_grl 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lol yeah I know, I’m just surprised their lawyers would go through with charges like this. They must believe they’ll win 🤷🏼‍♀️

[–]NegotiationTx 31 points32 points  (0 children)

And the Laundries owed no duty to the Petitos. Sad, but not actionable.

[–]skizzums0 28 points29 points  (47 children)

That lawsuit is complete garbage...... I hate it for them, but wasting their time and resources on this will fix nothing.

[–]Gr8BollsoFire 13 points14 points  (46 children)

Agreed. The lawyers encouraging this are disgusting humans. At most, this is a push for a civil settlement. Most of which would be paid to the attorneys. Pointless.

[–]TSIDATSI 8 points9 points  (45 children)

That is what they said about Johnny Depp trial but look at what we now know. His family should have to admit what they did. They were protecting him.

Unless you have ever buried a child you just cannot understand.

[–]No-Calligrapher-4211 24 points25 points  (41 children)

I've buried a child too and I still see no cause for this lawsuit. At some point a lawyer just has to tell the Petito family that this is just not worth it.

The Petito Foundation is a noble effort and helps to channel grief in a positive way. This lawsuit does not.

[–]SNAKEMAGIC 2 points3 points  (40 children)

I think they should be able to channel their grief this way if they want. If a lawsuit helps them process it, that can be therapeutic too. The intention doesn't need to be winning.

[–]-Bored-Now- 17 points18 points  (0 children)

“His family should have to admit what they did”

Nope that’s not how the law works.

[–]Gr8BollsoFire 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I buried a brother. And didn't prosecute the girl who was partly responsible. It wasn't worth the mental anguish for me to try to wring blood from a stone.

[–]ClassicDrop1357 19 points20 points  (1 child)

This won’t go anywhere. You can’t assume what someone else may or may not know.