# Identify Issues In Counterparty Warn Psj Motion > Guides defense counsel in producing a comprehensive issue-identification memorandum identifying legal and factual defects in a counterparty's partial summary judgment motion and outlining opposition strategies for each. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-counterparty-warn-psj-motion` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-counterparty-warn-psj-motion` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-counterparty-warn-psj-motion/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-counterparty-warn-psj-motion --- # Skill: Identify Issues in Counterparty WARN Act Motion Brief ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat the task as a defense-side issue-spotting exercise, not a merits brief; the output should isolate weaknesses in the plaintiff’s motion and map each weakness to an opposition strategy. - First determine whether the motion turns on coverage, exception scope, notice adequacy, damages, declaration admissibility, or disputed facts; then analyze each category separately rather than blending them into one pass. - If the record contains multiple layoffs, notice events, plants, or time periods, enumerate them before analyzing whether they must be aggregated or treated separately. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Analyst accepts the plaintiff’s legal theory without testing whether the asserted WARN framework fits the type of employment action and notice dispute actually in the record. - Analyst accepts cited authority, quotations, or propositions without verifying accuracy, current validity, and fit to the issue presented. - Analyst overlooks that a purportedly undisputed fact is unsupported, contradicted, or dependent on an inference the evidence does not establish. - Analyst fails to challenge declarations that contain hearsay, legal conclusions, speculation, or statements outside personal knowledge. - Analyst reviews damages or headcount calculations without independently checking the inputs, covered population, time period, and statutory method. - Analyst stops at identifying defects and does not convert them into concrete opposition moves. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - WARN Act coverage and exception analysis: determine the asserted statutory basis, identify the governing notice rule or exception, and test whether the motion applies it to the correct category of reduction in force. - Notice sufficiency under shortened-notice theories: evaluate whether notice was given to the extent practicable and whether the motion accounts for any notice actually provided. - Statutory damages framework: verify the correct WARN measure for back pay and benefits, the relevant violation period, and any statutory cap or limitation that governs the requested relief. - Threshold and aggregation analysis: assess whether employment losses must be combined within the relevant window and whether prior workforce reductions or related events affect coverage. - Summary-judgment evidence rules: declarations must be based on personal knowledge and admissible facts; legal conclusions, advocacy, and unsupported assumptions are objectionable under Rule 56 and the declaration rules. - Citation-verification duty: every legal proposition relied upon should be tied to controlling authority by name and section, and every cited case should be checked for proposition accuracy and current status. - Material-fact discipline: every “undisputed” fact should be matched to the cited record evidence and tested against any contrary evidence in the source set. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Issue-by-issue legal deficiency analysis: state the plaintiff’s argument, identify the defect, give the controlling authority, and explain how the defect supports opposition. - Authority verification pass: check each cited case or rule for the exact proposition used, and flag any quotation mismatch, limitation, or doctrinal drift. - Evidentiary sufficiency pass: for each declaration or exhibit, determine whether it supports the stated fact, whether the fact is actually disputed, and whether an objection or motion to strike is warranted. - Damages verification pass: independently test the plaintiff’s arithmetic against the underlying employee and compensation records, then identify the most defensible alternative calculation or methodological objection. - Aggregation pass: examine whether prior reductions in force, overlapping notice periods, or related workforce events alter the threshold analysis or weaken the plaintiff’s framing. - Opposition-strategy pass: translate each defect into a litigation move such as denial of summary judgment, narrowing of the issue, evidentiary objection, factual dispute, or alternative damages theory. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Compare the challenged event to any earlier or later layoffs, notices, or organizational changes in the record; the timing relationship may determine aggregation, coverage, or causation. - Compare the plaintiff’s headcount, affected-employee set, and time period to the source documents; discrepancies in scope often create dispositive disputes. - Compare each declaration statement to the supporting exhibit it cites; if the exhibit does not match the proposition, the fact should be treated as disputed. - Compare the requested relief period to the alleged violation period; if the motion stretches beyond the supported timeframe, flag the mismatch. - Where the motion relies on a sequence of events, test whether the chronology is complete and whether omitted events weaken the causation or notice theory. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce an issue-identification memorandum organized by numbered issues with an ordinal severity field defined once at the top and applied uniformly to every issue entry. - Use a severity scale such as Critical / High / Medium / Low, and assign the level based on litigation consequence and how close the defect comes to defeating the motion. - For each issue, use the following internal sequence: adversary argument; deficiency identified; controlling legal authority; evidence or record point; recommended opposition strategy; severity. - Make the most dispositive issues appear first. - Each issue should do three things before closing: relate the point to a concrete scale in the record, cross-reference any interacting document or record item, and state the practical consequence for the defendant. - Include objections to unsupported facts, improper conclusions, and unreliable declarations wherever they materially aid the opposition. - End with a Recommended Actions block that converts the analysis into immediate drafting steps, using imperative verbs, a responsible role, and a timing anchor tied to the briefing schedule or hearing date. - Include a short recommended opposition structure that groups the arguments in a logical order for a responsive brief.