LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Creepy Porn Lawyer slam dunked by Trump in Federal court
Source:
U.S. Dist Ct, Central Div, CA
URL Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/390 ... nti-SLAPP-Motion-and-Atty-Fees
Published: Oct 15, 2018
Author: nolu chan
Post Date: 2018-10-15 21:41:05 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 809
Comments: 3
Creepy Porn Lawyer slam dunked by Trump in Federal court Judge condemns "fishing expedition" and "circular" reasoning of CPL/Stormy, dismisses suit, and awards legal fees to Trump. nolu chan At 12-13: Having determined that Mr. Trump's tweet is non-actionable, the Court's analysis of the Special Motion ends. In the interest of completeness, the Court briefly addresses a few of the other arguments made by the parties in the briefing. The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation. At 14: Having granted the Special Motion and denied Plaintiff leave to amend, the Court finally holds that Defendant is entitled to attorney's fees. Texas law is unambiguous that "the TCPA requires an award of 'reasonable attorney's fees' to the successful movant." Sullivan v. Abraham, 488 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Tex. 2016). "A 'reasonable' attorney's fee 'is one that is not excessive or extreme, but rather moderate or fair.'" Id. (quoting Garcia v. Gomez, 319 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tex.2010)). - - - - - - - - - -
15 Oct 2018 b. Actual Malice or Reckless Disregard For The Truth
E. Attorney's Fees
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
More successful than you, counselor...
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestCreepy Porn Lawyer
#3. To: Jameson (#1)
Replies to Comment # 3.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]