A California court has dismissed virologist Judy Mikovits’s lawsuit against fourteen people and two Nevada corporations, in part because she failed to submit necessary documents on time.
Mikovits is the author on a now-retracted Science paper suggesting a link between a virus known as XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome, which has no known cause. She alleged that she was fired from the Whittemore-Peterson Institute for blowing the whistle on her former colleague’s activities, and that the defendants then colluded to imprison and defame her.
The court dismissed her case last Wednesday. According to the court minutes,
perhaps because of the convoluted nature of the alleged conspiracy, Plaintiff has failed to articulate a short and plain statement of her claim, establish jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, or comply with the Court’s orders despite several opportunities to do so.
Further, Mikovits submitted her opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss too late:
In her untimely opposition, Plaintiff essentially concedes that there is no present basis for personal jurisdiction over the remaining defendants and requests that the Court forestall the present motions to allow discovery…
The court documents make for a good read — for instance, in one of the defendants’ documents, they argue:
Mikovits has failed to heed this Court’s warnings about how to go about prosecuting this case. Her complaints and her opposition papers continue to read like novels, replete with unsubstantiated factual and legal theories.
As baseball’s spring training approaches, we are again reminded that “three strikes and you’re out.” Mikovits has tried three times to plead around obvious problems like the statute of limitations and personal jurisdiction. And this time she has added insult to injury by failing to timely oppose the pending motions. Enough is enough.
This case has a long backstory. Mikovits filed the original complaint in 2014. The lawsuit was scheduled for November, then taken off the calendar. According to the minutes, the court advised Mikovits to revise the complaint to comply with a rule that says complaints must be factual, plausible, and concise; however, according to the court, the second complaint that Mikovits submitted was a “largely a recycled version” of the first.
Defendants, including the Whittemore-Peterson Institute, filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint on January 5th, which states six reasons to dismiss, including:
that the statute of limitations has long since run with regard to each and every factual allegation underlying the causes of action, save one unrelated allegation regarding a bankruptcy proceeding; second, the Plaintiff fails to allege a conspiracy sufficient to subject the Whittemore Defendants, none of whom are State actors, to liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Mikovits had 21 days to file an opposition to the motion. On February 8th, the defendants filed a notice of non-receipt, stating:
Plaintiff’s failure to oppose any of these motions is an admission that the motions are meritorious.
The next day, Mikovits filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, saying that she needed the court to allow a discovery period so she could gather evidence to support her claims:
This entire battery of defensive motions presents an almost insurmountable obstacle to the plaintiff without the ability to put some evidence into the record through organized discovery. The Plaintiff has asked the Court in prior filings to allow discovery to avail herself of the facts needed to sustain her burden of moving forward…
The defendants then filed a reply to Mikovits’s opposition to their motion to dismiss, calling on the “three strikes and you’re out” baseball metaphor.
This is Mikovits’s second case to be dismissed, also because of tardiness — in the first, she failed to serve the defendant within 120 days.
After Mikovits was fired from her post at Whittemore Peterson Institute in Nevada, she was arrested in California and charged with a felony violation of California Penal Code section 1551.1, “Fugitive From Justice.”
We’ve reached out to Mikovits’s lawyers, and will update this post with anything else we learn.
Update, February 16th, 6:10 PM:
Mikovits’s lawyer sent us the following statement:
The fact that this particular Judge had a difficult time comprehending one of the most complex fact patterns I have encountered in my 33 years in practice should not be misconstrued as any claim that Dr. Mikovits had no claims. The misdeeds that she has endured and the incredibly efficient cover-up that has placed her career and her scientific contributions on hold will not endure the rest of time.
It is our intent to move for reconsideration and barring that, to appeal the ruling of the Court. Dr. Mikovits has been wronged and is entitled to court-sanctioned discovery to allow her an opportunity to prove her case. She is making very large claims against very powerful people and it is not in the interest of science, medicine or democracy to foreclose her opportunity to gather the evidence she needs to prove her case. This is but one chapter in the story which is continuing.
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy.
At MAR Consulting Inc. Carlsbad CA:
http://www.marconsultinginc.com/
http://www.marconsultinginc.com/judy-a.-mikovits–phd.html
Ironic. What to make of it? Barely 2 years after the comment above was posted, the provided link is now dead, and the domain name is for sale. Regardless of what the (unknown) facts may be, it’s now harder for serious researchers to learn more….
To Author of “Who is Judy Mikovits”:
I have seen a portion of the upcoming documentary “Plandemic” and have been trying to determine what is fact and what is possibly fiction. Reading your referenced article was confusing. This is a site for retractions of inaccurate reporting – correct? So was this article written to establish that in 2011 Mikovits had an article retracted, or because she was fired, jailed and released, or because she sued Fauchi’s group unsuccessfully? She is currently in the news and sharing supposed information related to Covid-19 and Dr. Fauchi’s group. It seems discovering the accuracy of her recent claims would be far more enlightening to your readers.
Your excerpt –
“…in Science claiming a now-debunked link between a particular virus and chronic fatigue syndrome. She was fired from her position at the Whittemore Peterson Institute, and would soon spend several days in a California jail, with the charges dropped soon thereafter. The referenced excerpt makes it seem Ms. Mikovits was fired because of her debunked link – was this the writers intent? This article eludes that Mikovits was fired and put in jail over her link. Is this correct? Was she arrested because of her article – or because she took notebooks home that someone else believed she was stealing. If jailed in 2011 was she jailed again later for taking notebooks?
In Mikovits recent interview she states Fauchi and others were guilty of hiding scientific findings possibly to benefit him or others financially from the pandemic? Also can this virus jump from animal to human overnight or does, as Mikovits states, it take cross species transmission centuries to transfer to humans? Who ran the Whittemore Institute is a better question to determine and was there a benefit for the institute to discredit Mikovits? Certainly a retraction would be warranted if what she recently stated is untrue. I found a recent article in which Mikovits states she stated some of the information incorrectly in an attempt to make clear what her experience was and she now sees she must do better stating her truth – she retracted a couple inaccurate statements on her own, which makes it look like there was no ill intent. As this writer may not have meant to mislead it their reporting of Mikovits previous experience.
It appears there is little if any unbiased writing or news currently. Creating a need for discerning citizens to discover the truth on their own. This article left me feeling it was just another political statement crafted to look like it was enlightening me. I want to know if Fauchi and the others at the top are involved covertly in anything. Is he part of a pharmaceutical group that could benefit from the pandemic? Is it true others are being paid if they put Covid-19 on death certificates, can this virus jump from animal to human overnight or does in fact does it take cross species transmission centuries?
There are lots of articles out there that would be important to retract if inaccurate. Who ran the Whittemore Institute is a better question to determine and was Fauchi a scientist there? This would be factual information to determine related to her current claims. Certainly a retraction would be warranted if what she recently has stated is untrue. Isn’t that the goal of this website? I would happily contribute financially if it was a site I believed was honestly working to enlighten us and not lead us to their ideology/political views.
Sincerely,
Di
You may or may not know,
But may I encourage you two a link?
Thetruthaboutvaccines.com
I’ve been watching the truth about cancer dot com for some time, recently this year came across thier vaccines docuseries.
Also if your interested in sharing more info about this vaccine and abortions link that leads to child sacrifice to Baal, plz follow me on Quora.
https://www.quora.com/q/yqwixviprcbaqcsz?ch=10&share=66acd425&srid=XZb3h
Thank you
I was hoping this was tongue-in-cheek humor, but no, this is part of the torrent of crazy spam Quora.com is occasionally noted for.
Shaking my head in sorrow,
Loupgarous
The Whittemore institute was created/founded by the Whittemores, a wealthy couple, to do research on CFS & auto-immune diseases. Their 31 year-old daughter had been suffering from CFS since age 12.
Mikovits was hired by the Whittemores as the research director. She did not “found” the institute, as she claims.
She, as research director, got a grant TO THE INSTITUTE for $1.5M from NIAID, headed by Dr. Fauci. To what degree he controlled the money or anything else after the grant was issued, I don’t know.
When Mikovits left, she tried to take $750,000 of the grant with her, even though she had no lab to go to. Very odd.
After reading some background, it appears that Science retracted the Mikovits article because of misinformation caused not just by sloppiness but by deliberate fraud with respect to the data presented.
Additional reading refutes Mikovits’ other assertions, one by one. This misinformation can be extremely harmful with respect to the actions taken by many citizens with respect to safety measures and use of the vaccine to treat the pandemic in this country. This misinformation can also be used by those who wish to promote the ignorant policy and actions or prior political leaders. Very sad.