IN REFERENCE TO SEVERAL PRIOR COMMENTS I AM STATING THE FOLLOWING BASED ON MY LEGAL DEFENSE EXPERIENCE. THE COMPLAINT AS SHOWN IS NOT STAMPED "FILED" BY THE COURT AND DOES NOT INDICATE THE CASE DOCKET NUMBER. IN ORDER FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO SERVE THE COMPLAINT UPON THE VARIOUS DEFENDANTS THOSE TWO FORMAILITES MUST BE MET. THE COMPLAINT AS PRESENTLY WRITTEN APPEARS TO BE ADEQUATE AND SUFFICIENT TO COMMENCE THE ACTION. PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER CAN ALWAYS MOVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IF NECESARY. IN MY OPINION THE MINIMUM FEE TO REPRESENT A DEFENDANT IN THIS RATHER EXTENSIVE CASE WOULD BE $50,000 AND UP TO $100,000. EVEN THOUGH A DEFENSE LAWYER WOULD BE DEFENDING ONLY ONE DEFENDANT THE AMOUNT OF WORK EXPANDS EXPONENTIALLY WITH THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS WHEN CONSIDERING THE POSSIBLE NUMBER OF INTERROGATORIES, DEPOSITIONS OF PARTIES AND EXPERT WITNESSES, AND MOST OF ALL MOTIONS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO I DEFENDED A PARTY IN AN ACTION INVOLVING TWELVE PARTIES. THE MATTER WAS SETTLED BEFORE TRIAL. YET MY CASE FILE CONTAINED OVER 5,000 PAGES.

You think casinos would everllow that? Right now, as law, they can't be sued by a patron. They will not allow that to change. It's gold.

Is that right? Seems odd.

Most people gamble for fun not $. They are not concerned about what might happen in court if it turned out they'd been cheated. Sure, they'll care THEN. But it's so unlikely they'd win, and less likely they'd win AND get CHEATED?

Actually George I like his argument relating to his damage element of “lost winnings” because he is unable to practice his “occupation” and gamble. At one point the complaint claims he lost “wages” as damages. We know this is not true. Winnings aren’t wages. If the court follows Kelly and doesnt allow a gambling loss dispute as in the original case, I find it unlikely it would allow Postle to present his loss of future “winnings” as a damage element.

Anyone know if the complaint was filed? The longer this goes without the case being filed, it is looking more like a bluff by a “crisis management” firm.

jjjou812:

You may be on to something ...

If what the paralegal noted, (i.e. that the pleading document was not stamped with a "Filed" notice and assigned a [court] docket number), if all that is true it begins to appear that this could very well be a bluff. (A key question is whether any of the named defendants have actually been served?
To this point I don't know of any [named] defendants who have confirmed that they have been served.)

Mike Postle seems to consider himself a clever fellow - the kind of chap that will run a bluff. Maybe he had a brainstorm with somebody at that law firm. The "discussion" might have gone something like this:

Lawyer: "Great idea Mike! We'll write up a lawsuit, put it out on the internet, and scare the s**t out of all your tormenters."

Mike: "Yea, that'll shut them up!"

The reaction MP got to this ploy may not have been what he was expecting ...

I won't believe Postle is actually going through with this unless (and until) one or more of the named defendants confirm that they have been served.

See, post 11920 above itt, ....no file stamp .... if or when a complaint has been filed, a copy will be available from the Court.

DJ,

Given normal delays, Covid, and I don’t have a clue what the California clerks office is like, it just seems like this case should have a filing date and case number by now. I thought the original source of the complaint was a news guy who obtained it from the clerks office.

Probably a noob legal question, but what would happen if some of the defendants in this suit didn't live in the US? Say they lived in China and were using youtube/twitter etc to claim POstle was a cheater? How would it differ if the person was a US citizen abroad vs a foreign citizen?

With regard to Postle's complaints relating to his damage element of “lost winnings” because he is unable to practice his “occupation” and gamble that less enlightened readers find compelling, the reality is that is all unsupportable speculation on Postle's part as he cant prove if he would have won or lost in any games he played in future.

It has been suggested he has become isolated and staying at home, and there have been few if any public sightings of him, so that suggestion may be true. But if so, it is his own self imposed isolation, no one has forced him to behave like that. So accordingly, any supposed losses to his income are solely down to him choosing not to play. Stones presumably have not banned him, there is no evidence that any other venues have banned him. So there is no evidence of financial loss to him from the cheating allegations.

Him laying low may well be him rather pathetically and obviously trying to build up a picture of himself as a victim, but he is free to go out and about, and to play live poker, so he is creating the problem that he is then trying to blame on others.

Mr. Ex Post Facto is back with more brilliant ideas, at least they probably sound that way in the mirror. Problems with that blocking still?

Future damages always has a speculative nature that the courts allow to go the the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence. For instance, Postle proving he is has claimed income as a professional gambler for the decade prior would remove a label such as “unsupported speculation” or whatever term of art he wants to make up and use here. Kelly could act as a bar from the court even considering the evidence because it’s against public policy, allowing the court to simply avoid making any decision.

caps lock on or are you really pumped to be posting ?

Entering the last 17 years of Postle's tax returns into evidence would probably be pretty entertaining. What's funny is that his "variance" defense for winning so much more than anyone else instead of cheating is also the same "variance" defense that could be used against him to say that an equal but opposite set of losses is possible too, and therefore no actual damages exist.

Have you seen those tax returns?

He is assuming a live cash grinder wasn't declaring $100K+/year from games there is no record of.

It would be pretty amusing if Postle, JFK, and other Stones employees were deposed over days by lawyers for like 10 defendants. I am sure they could explain everything perfectly.

Maybe, it won't be filed. It doesn't seem cost effective. As a layman, I assume there must be a reason that zillions of frivolous suits aren't filed against wealthy people and corporations. Presumably those suits get dismissed a lot, and aren't worth the legal expenses. It might work if you could get a quick settlement, but the defendants in this case are unlikely to do that for various reasons.

So the SOL for defamation is one year and the complaint alleges the conduct occurred in late September 28, 2019 by Brill and the first few days (1-3rd per the allegations) of October by Harabous, ESPN and Ingram. The Complaint is dated October 1 and indicates it was faxed but unclear to whom. It looks like the court has some rules regarding filing by fax but I was unable to access them.

Anyways, my point is that if the lawsuit intended to capture all of the defaming behavior of the defendants, they should have filed by September 28, but would have definitely needed to file it on the 1 or 2 of October to beat the statute of limitations when the defamation was first published by the big money defendants.

Deuce, I would expect him to have “stripper” taxes over the years, ie, underreported income. But he also has a custody dispute over a kid, house and a divorce- all things that lead one who deals in cash to report higher income.

Ok, either it was timely filed or it was not timely filed or perhaps ever filed.

My more basic question is whether any of the other lawyers itt believe this posted complaint could survive a Motion to Dismiss, as all claims are based upon a court ruling that,

1. even though applicable California law would not allow for enforcement of gambling debts claimed against Postile,

2. Postile can dress up his cause of action to seek compensation arising from a loss of opportunity to win/ and by this action collect "future" gambling debts which he can no longer win ....

I'm thinking motion to dismiss by one of the deeper pocketed Defendants, assuming the case is ever filed and served on one or more of them.

I would expect the deeper pocket defendants to seek dismissals for lack of jurisdiction and/or removal to Fed Court, followed by motions on the pleadings by ESPN and Poker News and Negreanu for expressing only opinions. The conspiracy allegation in paragraph 15 gums up a motion to dismiss, so I think they also attack that as insufficiently pled.

Brill and Ingram probably have to litigate further.

Except.... for COVID Statute of Limitations tolling..... https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/appendix-i.pdf

Emergency Rule 8 amended effective April 20, 2020.
Emergency rule 9. Tolling statutes of limitations for civil causes of action

(a) Tolling statutes of limitations over 180 days
Notwithstanding any other law, the statutes of limitations and repose for civil
causes of action that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020.

For $1, someone can find out the answer to that on Sacramento website by searching Postle: https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/Pub...l/SearchByName

By the way, if anyone reading this needs defamation advice from a Sacramento Defamation Lawyer, this guy is the best: https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/re...efamation-king

https://www.lawyers.com/gold-river/c...elan-103293-a/

Nah, this shouldn't go to federal court. No benefits to defendants, who should absolutely avail themselves of California's anti-SLAPP statutes (and the California courts' interpretations of them).

Personal jurisdiction arguments are weak, but they should be raised only in the context of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike.

Any defendant counsel who does not file an anti-SLAPP motion to strike this lawsuit is doing such a disservice to their client(s) that it's tantamount to malpractice.

You may be right. They probably can’t get to Federal Court without severing the claims against the Defendants because there may not be diversity anyways. But I don’t think removal would deprive them of anti-slapp either.

I just think ESPN and poker news would take a different course of action than the other defendants and want to fight jurisdiction and/or seek removal.

While removal probably wouldn't deprive them of anti-SLAPP in the 9th circuit, why take the risk?

ESPN and poker news should also pursue dismissal under anti-SLAPP law, sending the message that they and their reporters will not be held hostage by the litigious people whose misdeeds they cover.

Great question, I'd love to hear some pro expertise. And never mind outside the U.S., even for defendants who simply live in other states, how does venue work here?

It’s not a noob question at all, but it’s really tough to answer. It’s a jurisdiction not venue issue, but they are similar concepts. (Venue is where the case is litigated in the state; jurisdiction is whether the state court has the right to exercise any control over the defendants and hear the case). Here is an Illinois firm discussing the issue: https://www.thebusinesslitigators.co...efamation.html

You could wiki “minimum contacts” test or the International Shoe case. It’s a fact dependent determination applied to a multi-factor test.

I don’t know if there is any risk of losing anti- slapp. Why do you think it would be unavailable on a diversity removal?

But the reasons most defendants prefer federal court: more conservative, more likely to grant msg, more professional, more conservative jury pool than most urban counties, unanimous verdicts.