In the Texas action, the Court ruled on the pending preliminary motions, ordering Sloan to replead, and ordering Polgar to replead so the court could understand her claims of jurisdiction against Bogner, Lafferty, Mottershead, and Chess Magnet Schools. Although the Court noted that the plaintiff's allegations were "lacking and a poor pleadings style", the judge did not order repleading of the allegations against USCF and the other defendants.
After the judge's rulings, the defendants filed answers. USCF filed a "third-party complaint" against Paul Troung. While I can certainly understand the desire to bring Truong into the case, I am not sure that the third-party complaint is procedurally appropriate, and I think it undercuts one of the best defenses to GM Polgar's action: that the Mottershead report was about Truong, not her.
GM Polgar filed an Amended Complaint, which went considerably beyond just making jurisdictional allegations against the various defendants. If I have the energy or inclination, I will analyze this complaint in detail in a separate post.
Answers have been filed. The non-Texas defendants have again moved to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.
In San Francisco, GM Polgar is moving to dismiss or transfer the action to Texas. Those Motions are set form Mid-April. I would be very surprised if the Motion to Dismiss was granted. I would be much less surprised if the Motion to Transfer was granted, just because the judge doesn't seem to like the case much.
In Illinois, GM Polgar and Mr. Truong have appeared, and removed the matter to Federal Court. USCF has moved to remand the matter to State Court, filing a very well written brief. I expect USCF's motion to be successful, and the matter will be remanded to state court.