Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC<\/a> indicates that leadership attorneys were appointed to the various committees without it being recorded on the docket or any formal or known application process. This latest filing calls for the court to change the consolidated case to an Opt-Out class action in order that every plaintiff has their rights in tact and attorneys can actually make the best choices for their clients (i.e. they can opt out of the class if they want to.)<\/p>\nI can certainly understand the frustration of secret committee appointments and lack of transparency to all attorneys representing plaintiffs. I guess we'll see if the court agrees and the moment we do know who was \"secretly\" appointed to various committees, we will be sure to publish it here.<\/p>\n
Here is the text of the filing, taken from the pdf file on CourtListener.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\r\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA\r\n SOUTHERN DIVISION\r\n Case No. 7:23-cv-897\r\n\r\nIN RE: )\r\n ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION\r\nCAMP LEJEUNE WATER LITIGATION ) OF JULY 19, 2023 ORDER (Dkt. No. 10)\r\n )\r\nThis Document Relates To: )\r\nALL CASES )\r\n )\r\n\r\n\r\n NOW COMES undersigned counsel in the above captioned Action (hereafter,\r\n\r\n\"Counsel\u201d), who files this Motion for Reconsideration of this Court\u2019s Order dated July 19,\r\n\r\n2023(Dkt. No. 10), and for cause herein requests this Court reconsider its July 19, 2023,\r\n\r\nOmnibus Order on the Camp Lejeune Water Litigation.\r\n\r\n BACKGROUND\r\n\r\n These actions arise out of the injuries suffered by thousands of service members, civilian\r\n\r\nworkers, and family members who were exposed to contaminated water at Marine Corps Base\r\n\r\nCamp Lejeune (\u201cCamp Lejeune\u201d).1 For more than three decades, toxic chemicals escaped from\r\n\r\nfuel tanks, industrial facilities, and other sources on and around Camp Lejeune and seeped into\r\n\r\nthe groundwater below. 2 By drinking, cooking with, bathing in, and otherwise coming into\r\n\r\ncontact with that water, hundreds of thousands of men and women working and residing on base\r\n\r\nwere exposed to these chemicals, greatly increasing their risk of contracting cancer and the\r\n\r\nmyriad other life-destroying diseases they are known to cause.3\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n1\r\n See Williams et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 7:23-cv-00022-D-KS Dkt. No. 1 at \u00b6\r\n1.\r\n2\r\n Id.\r\n3\r\n Id.\r\n 1\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 1 of 12\r\n\f After years of debate over the appropriate remedy to this issue, on August 10, 2022, the\r\n\r\nPresident signed into law the \u201cHonoring our PACT Act of 2022\u201d (\u201cPACT Act\u201d), which\r\n\r\nincorporates at Section 804 the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (\u201cCLJA\u201d).4 The CLJA establishes a\r\n\r\nsimple cause of action permitting individuals who were harmed by the contaminated water at\r\n\r\nCamp Lejeune over the relevant period to file for compensation in this Court.5\r\n\r\n On April 25, 2025, all currently filed cases were consolidated in the E.D.N.C. under the\r\n\r\ncaption Camp Lejeune Water Litigation v. United States of America, Case No. 7:23-cv-00897-\r\n\r\nRJ. 6 This Court ordered on May 22, 2023, that all parties interested in a Leadership role to\r\n\r\nsubmit materials by May 26, 2023. 7 On June 6, 2023, the Court stated that it would begin\r\n\r\ninterviews unless good cause was shown by July 3, 2023, as to why it should not.8 Defendant\r\n\r\nUnited States of America issued its response letter on June 29, 20239, and the undersigned firm\r\n\r\nfiled its letter restating its position that while leadership appointments were fine, the class vehicle\r\n\r\nwas the best method for these cases to progress to resolution.10 This Court, in its Order dated\r\n\r\nJuly 19, 2023, appointed a leadership committee comprised of various attorneys and firms.11 This\r\n\r\norder created Plaintiffs\u2019 Leadership Counsel, along with several committees to be determined at\r\n\r\nthe discretion of the named Leadership Counsel. 12 This order also gave sweeping powers to the\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n4\r\n Id. at \u00b6 4\r\n5\r\n Id.\r\n6\r\n See Camp Lejeune Water Litigation v. United States of America Case No. 7:23-cv-00897-RJ\r\nDkt. No. 1\r\n7\r\n Id. at Dkt. No. 4\r\n8\r\n Id. at Dkt. No. 6\r\n9\r\n Id. at Dkt. No. 8\r\n10\r\n Id. at Dkt. No. 9\r\n11\r\n Id. at Dkt. No. 10\r\n12 Id.\r\n\r\n\r\n 2\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 2 of 12\r\n\fLeadership committee to meet and confer, litigate, argue, resolve and otherwise handle the\r\n\r\nentirety of all the cases currently appearing on this consolidated docket.13\r\n\r\n LEGAL STANDARD\r\n\r\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides that \u201cwhen an action presents more than one claim for\r\n\r\nrelief \u2013 whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim \u2013 or when multiple\r\n\r\nparties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more,\r\n\r\nbut fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that\r\n\r\nthere is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision,\r\n\r\nhowever designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights\r\n\r\nand liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any\r\n\r\nof the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a\r\n\r\njudgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties\u2019 rights and liabilities.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cUnder Rule 54(b), the district court retains the power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory\r\n\r\njudgments . . . at any time prior to final judgment when such is warranted.\u201d Am. Canoe Ass\u2019n v.\r\n\r\nMurphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514-15 (4th Cir. 2003); see also Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp.\r\n\r\nv. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983) (noting that \u201cevery order short of a final\r\n\r\ndecree.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), \u201cany order or other decision, however\r\n\r\ndesignated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all\r\n\r\nthe parties\u201d may be revisited by the court at any time before an entry of final judgment. Fed. R.\r\n\r\nCiv. P. 54(b).\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n13\r\n Id.\r\n 3\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 3 of 12\r\n\f ARGUMENT\r\n\r\n Rule 54 does not set out a standard for reconsideration of interlocutory orders, like the\r\n\r\none at issue here. The Fourth Circuit has held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 54 is\r\n\r\nnot subject to the same \u201cstrict standards\u201d applicable to motions for reconsideration of a final\r\n\r\njudgment. Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514 (4th Cir.2003).\r\n\r\nMotions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are subject to a lower standard, and they are\r\n\r\nappropriately granted only in the following circumstances: (1) the discovery of new evidence, (2)\r\n\r\nan intervening development or change in the controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear\r\n\r\nerror or prevent manifest injustice. Pender v. Bank of America Corp., No. 3:05\u2013CV\u2013238\u2013GCM,\r\n\r\n2011 WL 62115 at *1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2011) (Mullen, J.)(emphasis added); see also Stephens\r\n\r\nv. Wachovia Corp., No. 3:06\u2013CV\u2013246\u2013MR, 2008 WL 1820928 at *2 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 21,\r\n\r\n2008) (noting that \u201cthe decision whether to reconsider or modify an interlocutory order is a\r\n\r\nmatter within the discretion of the Court\u201d); Akeva, L.L.C. v. Adidas America, Inc., 385 F.Supp.2d\r\n\r\n559, 565 (M.D.N.C.2005).\r\n\r\n A. The Court Should Reconsider Its Leadership Order Given Controlling Law\r\n and Conduct Leadership Appointment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 23, if at all.\r\n\r\n In this Court\u2019s Order appointing leadership counsel and their duties, the court cites no\r\n\r\ncontrolling case law or statute that grants it the authority to do so at this stage in the litigation.14\r\n\r\nIn fact, as this court noted, this case is not a multidistrict litigation (\u201cMDL\u201d) or eligible for MDL\r\n\r\ntreatment, so traditional centralization of the cases would not be applicable here. Forcing\r\n\r\nconsolidation on undersigned counsel\u2019s clients is an improper error and against the spirit of the\r\n\r\nlaw, as this Court has noted, and the Fourth Circuit agrees. See Intown Properties Management,\r\n\r\nInc. v. Wheaton Van Lines, 271 F.3d 164, 168 (4th Cir.2001)(\u201cConsolidation is permitted as a\r\n\r\n\r\n14\r\n See generally Id. at Dkt. No. 10\r\n 4\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 4 of 12\r\n\fmatter of convenience and economy in administration, [but] does not merge the suits into a\r\n\r\nsingle cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit\r\n\r\nparties in another.\u201d)(emphasis added). Accordingly, forcing the parties to consolidate under the\r\n\r\nordered leadership structure, and permitting those select counsel to unilaterally litigate the\r\n\r\nparties\u2019 rights, without the power of an MDL is in violation of well-established Fourth Circuit\r\n\r\nprecedent. Moreover, there is no inherent authority in the Court to conduct such a consolidation\r\n\r\nand appointment when the Rules of Civil Procedure and controlling law provided specified\r\n\r\nprocedures for the same.\r\n\r\n Rule 23, for example, would create a perfect vehicle for consolidation and appointment\r\n\r\nof leadership, without creating any additional prejudice or undue burden on any party named to\r\n\r\nthis litigation. Consolidation under Rule 23 is also supported by the first filed case being a class\r\n\r\naction15, further encouraging Rule 23 as the most appropriate way to handle the ever-growing\r\n\r\ndocket of Camp Lejeune cases in the manner that the Court desires. In the first filed action, filed\r\n\r\nby the undersigned, the class is defined as \u201call persons who were stationed at Camp Lejeune\r\n\r\nduring the relevant time period suffering from medical diagnosis as a result of their exposure to\r\n\r\ncontaminated water sources and have exhausted their administrative remedies as required by the\r\n\r\nPACT Act and FTCA.\u201d16 The Court is also able to appoint an interim leadership structure under\r\n\r\nF.R.C.P. Rule 23(g)(3) before making any decision regarding certification of the class or classes\r\n\r\n(\u201cThe court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining\r\n\r\nwhether to certify the action as a class action.\u201d).\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n15\r\n See Williams et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 7:23-cv-00022-D-KS Dkt. No. 1\r\n16\r\n Id. Dkt. No. 1 at \u00b6 6\r\n\r\n 5\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 5 of 12\r\n\f When the Court does reach the certification question, there are several criteria that must\r\n\r\nbe met. First, the class must comply with the four prerequisites established in Rule 23(a): (1)\r\n\r\nnumerosity of parties; (2) commonality of factual and legal issues; (3) typicality of claims and\r\n\r\ndefenses of class representatives; and (4) adequacy of representation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a).\r\n\r\nSecond, the class action must fall within one of the three categories enumerated in Rule 23(b). If\r\n\r\na lawsuit meets these requirements, certification as a class action serves important public\r\n\r\npurpose. In addition to promoting judicial economy and efficiency, class actions also \u201cafford\r\n\r\naggrieved persons a remedy if it is not economically feasible to obtain relief through the\r\n\r\ntraditional framework of multiple individual damage actions.\u201d 5 James Wm. Moore et\r\n\r\nal., Moore's Federal Practice \u00a7 23.02 (3d ed.1999). Thus, federal courts should \u201cgive Rule 23 a\r\n\r\nliberal rather than restrictive construction, adopting a standard of flexibility in application which\r\n\r\nwill in the particular case \u2018best serve the ends of justice for the affected parties and...promote\r\n\r\njudicial efficiency.\u2019 \u201c In re A.H. Robins, 880 F.2d 709, 740 (4th Cir. 1989).\r\n\r\n To be sure, Rule 23(b)(3) class actions must meet predominance and superiority\r\n\r\nrequirements not imposed on other kinds of class actions. This is because these suits, like the\r\n\r\nones at issue in this case, involve situations where \u201cclass action treatment is not as clearly called\r\n\r\nfor.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 advisory committee's note (1966 Amendment, subdivision (b)(3)).\r\n\r\nHowever, as the Supreme Court has noted, the predominance and superiority requirements\r\n\r\nin Rule 23(b)(3) do not foreclose the possibility of mass tort<\/a> class actions, but merely ensure that\r\n\r\nclass certification in such cases \u201cachieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote ...\r\n\r\nuniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or\r\n\r\nbringing about other undesirable results.\u201d Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (quoting\r\n\r\nAdv. Comm. Notes, 28 U.S.C.App. at 697)(emphasis added). For these very reasons, we have\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 6\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 6 of 12\r\n\fexpressly \u201cembraced the view that the mass tort action for damages may be appropriate for class\r\n\r\naction, either partially or in whole.\u201d Central Wesleyan Coll. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177,\r\n\r\n185 (4th Cir.1992) (citation, internal quotation marks, ellipses, and alterations omitted).\r\n\r\n Here, undersigned counsel seek to proceed under Rule 23(b)(3), which, as stated above,\r\n\r\nrequires that common issues predominate over individual ones and that a class action be superior\r\n\r\nto other available methods of adjudication. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). Even with this higher scrutiny,\r\n\r\nthe handling of claims under the class action mechanism of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil\r\n\r\nProcedure remains the best and only approach to effective judicial management of these cases by\r\n\r\nchanneling individual claims into the proposed Tranche system submitted by the undersigned.\r\n\r\n Given the 20,000 or so filed CLJA claims with the department of the Navy, there is no\r\n\r\nquestion that numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied here. Further, all claims currently\r\n\r\npending in this district over CLJA suits all raise the same legal claims, arise from the same\r\n\r\nstandard conduct by Defendant that equally impacted all possible class members, and the\r\n\r\ndamages experienced as a result of Defendant\u2019s actions are substantially similar\u2014given the list\r\n\r\nof pre-approved conditions\u2014satisfying the requirements of commonality and typicality under\r\n\r\nRule 23(a)(2) and Rule 23 (a)(3). With regard to Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy, the court recognized\r\n\r\nthat \u201cclass representatives\u201d must \u201cbe part of the same class and possess the same interest and\r\n\r\nsuffer the same injury as the class members\u201d and found that in this case the named plaintiffs\r\n\r\nsatisfied these requirements, noting particularly that no \u201cpotential conflict existed\u201d among class\r\n\r\nmembers. See Broussard v. Meineke, 155 F.3d 331, 337\u201338 (4th Cir.1998) (holding \u201cmanifest\r\n\r\nconflicts of interest\u201d among members of class precludes class certification).\r\n\r\n In addition to the satisfied elements listed above, the resolution of issues on a class-wide\r\n\r\nbasis will not necessarily impact any cases that ultimately choose to opt-out, and importantly the\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 7\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 7 of 12\r\n\fCourt would not be depriving any opt-out parties of their rights nor forcing them to join a case or\r\n\r\nbe represented by counsel in the handling of their case that they do not want to. As a result,\r\n\r\nconsolidation and appointment of leadership under Rule 23 has the added benefit of removing\r\n\r\npotential appellate issues early on (and issues that could be raised later after final judgment), and\r\n\r\nprevents those individualized cases from moving along their own track simultaneously. For these\r\n\r\nreasons, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remains the best and only approach to\r\n\r\neffective judicial management of these cases.\r\n\r\n B. The Court Should Reconsider Its Order Out Of A Need to Correct a Clear\r\n Error or Prevent Manifest Injustice.\r\n\r\n The third point, the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice, is another\r\n\r\nreason that Plaintiff now requests Rule 54(b) relief through this Court\u2019s review and correction of\r\n\r\nits July 19, 2023, Leadership Order (Dkt. No. 10). In the context of a motion for\r\n\r\nreconsideration, manifest injustice is defined as \u201can error by the court that is \u2018direct, obvious, and\r\n\r\nobservable.\u2019 \u201d Register v. Cameron & Barkley Co., 481 F. Supp. 2d 479, 480 n.1 (D.S.C. 2007).\r\n\r\n This Order, amongst other things, outlined positions and responsibilities for various\r\n\r\ngroups within the established leadership committees.17 This included Lead and Co-lead Counsel,\r\n\r\nLiaison Counsel, and Plaintiffs\u2019 Executive Committee. All of these positions were granted broad\r\n\r\nsweeping authority as it related to all filed cases currently pending on the Camp Lejeune docket.\r\n\r\nThis includes meeting with opposing counsel and handling court ordered meet and confers,\r\n\r\nserving as spokespeople for all plaintiffs during proceedings in response to any inquiries by the\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n17 See Camp Lejeune Water Litigation v. United States of America Case No. 7:23-cv-00897-RJ\r\n\r\nDkt. No. 10\r\n 8\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 8 of 12\r\n\fCourt or opposing counsel, and working the cases through resolution (including with the Court\r\n\r\nappointing a member of the Resolution Committee).18\r\n\r\n These positions grant leadership the right to decide the entire scope of litigation on behalf\r\n\r\nof Plaintiffs they do not represent, which could create large issues with the direction of litigation,\r\n\r\nas leadership may disagree with the route individual counsel will seek in their cases and deprives\r\n\r\nthe litigants of their right to choose their own counsel. By removing the powers of litigation\r\n\r\nhandling from individual counsel, this court has effectively made individual counsel unable to\r\n\r\nprovide any direction or input to their clients\u2019 cases and thereby stripped certain procedural\r\n\r\nrights from undersigned counsel and their clients.\r\n\r\n By way of example, it was discovered during a meeting this past week, that Plaintiffs\u2019\r\n\r\nSteering and Executive Committee Members had been notified of their selections by the\r\n\r\nLeadership. Counsel did not receive a copy of the committee slate selections, the selections were\r\n\r\nnot filed on the public docket, and clients injured in this litigation have not been made aware of\r\n\r\nwho has been selected to act on their behalf. To be sure, Lead counsel has agreed to provide the\r\n\r\nnames, but post-process notice is hardly transparent. The nature of this private selection process\r\n\r\ncalls into question the behavior of leadership counsel and the maintenance of relationships with\r\n\r\nthose representing clients. While we understand that leadership is very busy, this inability to\r\n\r\nhave contact and discussions with leadership on the status and plan for the leadership committees\r\n\r\ngoverning our individual cases is troubling, and further creates fear that contact will also be\r\n\r\nwithheld at later and more important stages of litigation, something that we believe the court\r\n\r\nwould agree is wholly unacceptable.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n18\r\n Id. at \u00b6 2\r\n 9\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 9 of 12\r\n\f As stated above, forcing consolidation on undersigned counsel\u2019s clients under this\r\n\r\nleadership structure is an improper error and against the spirit of the law, as this Court has noted,\r\n\r\nand the Fourth Circuit agrees. See Intown Properties Management, Inc. v. Wheaton Van Lines,\r\n\r\n271 F.3d 164, 168 (4th Cir.2001)(\u201cConsolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and\r\n\r\neconomy in administration, [but] does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the\r\n\r\nrights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.\u201d)(emphasis\r\n\r\nadded). Accordingly, maintain the Order that forces the parties to consolidate without the power\r\n\r\nof an MDL or under the Rule 23 mechanism for doing so, and without citation to any direct or\r\n\r\nindirect authority to do so, would be in violation of well-established Fourth Circuit precedent.\r\n\r\nThis would create an error by the court that is direct, obvious, and observable given the impact\r\n\r\nthis decision has already had on the matters involved in this litigation.\r\n\r\n CONCLUSION\r\n\r\n For the reasons outlined above, undersigned counsel believes that this Court\u2019s Leadership\r\n\r\nOrder should be reviewed and appropriately rescinded or amended under Rule 59 as it displays\r\n\r\nno controlling law and creates a direct, obvious, and observable injury to the rights of the parties\r\n\r\nwho have been forced to consolidate under this leadership structure, even if they do not support\r\n\r\nthe consolidation as it exists in the Order.\r\n\r\nDated: 08\/16\/2023\r\n\r\n [signatures on following page]\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 10\r\n\r\n Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 10 of 12\r\n\f \/s\/ Roy T. Willey, IV\r\n Blake G. Abbott (N.C. Bar No. 57190)\r\n Roy T. Willey, IV (Pro Hac Vice)\r\n Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC\r\n 32 Ann Street\r\n Charleston, SC 29403\r\n 843-834-4712\r\n blake@akimlawfirm.com\r\n roy@akimlawfirm.com\r\n\r\n\r\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 11\r\n\r\nCase 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 13 Filed 08\/16\/23 Page 11 of 12\r\n\f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\r\n\r\n I hereby certify that on this date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for\r\n\r\nReconsideration was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM\/ECF system, which\r\n\r\nautomatically sends e-mail notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.\r\n\r\n This 16th day of August, 2023.\r\n\r\n \/s\/ Roy T. Willey, IV\r\n Roy T. Willey, IV\r\n\r\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Attorneys Concerned About Their Clients Under the New Leadership Structure’s lack of Transparency. As mentioned in a prior Camp Lejeune Lawsuit News update, the court appointed a plaintiffs steering committee to lead the consolidated cases. The latest filing, submitted by Roy T. Wiley IV and Blake G. Abbott of Poulin |… View Article<\/a>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3531,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[501,197,198],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3524"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3524"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3524\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16875,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3524\/revisions\/16875"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}