My question involves court procedures for the state of: Arizona
I am curious, when a counter claim is filed containing multiple clauses which are shams, while others simply fail to meet the jurisdictional elements (or state a cause on which relief can be granted), is the best approach to file BOTH a Motion to Dismiss AND a Motion to Strike (i.e. have dismiss address each claim, and the strike address just the sham claims), or first do one, and if it's denied, do the other?
Also, how can one prove a counterclaim is a sham for something like Defamation? It's easy to prove the claim doesn't meet the standard (i.e. they just claim defamation with NO examples of it) - but how does one prove something like that is a sham? I can't seem to find any standards.
Also, if a Motion to Strike is denied, can one then file a Motion to Dismiss before needing to file an answer?