As I indicated, in the motion stage before plenary hearing the burden for the plaintiff is only to express or articulate a legal case, to put it into jargon, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The defendants came in and said, (I am presuming here because the report that were discussing is so bad) yes I said it, but it's true. The plaintiff then says, "no it ain't." The judge says, I can't tell from the papers whether it's true or not, we need to have a regular hearing, with real witnesses and real evidence.
This result is no surprise but the usual course in most of these motions and it simply means that the case moves on to trial. It does not mean that defendant has met any burden, it does not mean that the plaintiff has met any burden apart from articulating a case which, if true, means the plaintiff would prevail. The court makes no conclusion about whether the plaintiff's case is true or the defendant's defense is true. It merely assumes truth of the plaintiff's case for the purposes of applying the law and withdraws that assumption as the matter moves onto trial when the court puts the parties to their proofs.
The legalese is necessary as a shorthand to avoid paragraph after paragraph of explanations to avoid false impressions.
