Sentences

The lawyer decided to file a countercomplaint against the plaintiff for defamation.

The city was partially at fault and thus decided to file a countercomplaint against the developers.

After losing the original case, the plaintiff filed a countercomplaint against the previous defendant for malicious prosecution.

The court heard both the complaint and the countercomplaint in a single hearing.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had committed theft, but then had a countercomplaint for breach of contract.

The judge dismissed the countercomplaint brought by the company because it was outside of the statute of limitations.

Despite the countercomplaint, the original plaintiff won the case in court.

The company had filed a countercomplaint against the consumer for malicious prosecution.

The countercomplaint brought by the defendant was focused on disputing the original claim.

After the countercomplaint, the initial lawsuit was temporarily suspended while new evidence was gathered.

The defendant countered the original complaint with a countercomplaint for breach of contract.

The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the countercomplaint was frivolous and a waste of the court’s time.

The court ruled that the countercomplaint should be dismissed on technical grounds.

In response to the original complaint, the defendant filed a countercomplaint for damages.

The judge allowed the countercomplaint to proceed as it was considered a legitimate response to the original claim.

The plaintiff's case against the defendant was weakened by the countercomplaint from the same defendant.

The lawyer was preparing to file a countercomplaint against the plaintiff for malicious prosecution.

The defendant used the countercomplaint to distract from the original case and win media sympathy.

The legal team deliberated on whether to file a countercomplaint against the original plaintiff.