To be clear, CA's anti-SLAPP is 99% to be available in the federal district courts of California. Federal courts in other circuits, however, have refused to apply state anti-SLAPP statutes for reasons that won't be interesting to anyone but go-hard law students.

I agree that those are the usual reasons why federal courts are perceived as more defendant-friendly than state courts. I would also understand the fear of being "home-towned" by the judge if the plaintiff were Stones rather than noted pariah Mike Postle.

FWIW in my experience, politically conservative judges have been more plaintiff-friendly in defamation matters, but it's a small sample.

And if this case gets to a jury, someone has ****ed up very badly.

As opposed to being settled or as opposed to being dismissed?

Was this case actually filed?

I just took a look at the "complaint" and it says that Brill is a resident of California, so removal based on diversity is off the table.

I'm wondering what county Brill lives in. If it's not Sacramento County, it may have been a better choice to file there to at least have a rock solid basis for jurisdiction against the "main" defendant.

As opposed to being stricken (dismissed) under California's anti-SLAPP statute. I do not think it's much, if any, exaggeration to call it a slam dunk.

Well, that's a criminal act, and the California policy is for civil claims, but let's say I shot you during a poker game, and then your estate sued me for wrongful death.

I would agree that would hold to be a controversy the court can hear. However, let's also say that we were both $25K deep in a NLHE game, and you had raised me all-in and I had called, all pre-flop. I then shoot you. And then the floorman rules your hand is dead because you are dead, and I win the pot. Let's also say we can establish your hand would have won the pot had I not shot you. I would maintain that your estate can sue me for wrongful death but not for the additional $25K that I only got because I won a poker hand because I shot you.

I would tend to agree with you that calling someone a cheat would go beyond just gambling. However, I was trying to demonstrate that you can argue both sides of this issue fairly adequately, and that it's not a stretch, given that California's policy is based in part on the concept that "we don't want to have to determine degrees of degeneracy/immorality" (that's from case law), so determining that someone who is being accused of cheating ONLY in the context of behavior that is already immoral/degenerate, how is that defamation in the eyes of California, accusing someone of cheating, to a California court, is just saying that amongst all the degenerate immoral scumbags, he's an extra level of degenerate immoral scumbag, and again, "we will not determine degrees of immorality".

So while I would suspect my argument would not be successful, I do believe it's not nearly as open and shut as one would think at first glance. It would definitely warrant a response from opposing counsel and oral arguments specific to that question.

"Public policy prompts courts to decline to distinguish between degrees of turpitude of parties who engage in outlawed transactions. Otherwise courts might be compelled to decide which party cheated the most."

Even with the caveat that the quote comes from a case that was over cheating in an illegal gambling game (and the subsequent unpaid debt), that could easily be spun to hold that there's no damages, heck no defamation at all simply because saying someone has gone even further down in degrees of (immoral) turpitude isn't defamation because everyone who engages in poker has already shown themselves to be way down the rabbit hold of immorality. Saying he cheated more doesn't mean anything.

Hypothetically, if postle could prove defamation with malice and shows damages that he lost his job and he lost his ability to gamble at poker bc he was banned from casinos. I could see a court allowing his future wage loss claim but denying his future gambling winnings claim under Kelly. Though I doubt poker playing would be deemed an “outlawed transaction” by a modern court.

Has any Defendant been served yet? Has the Complaint been filed with the court?

Opening of latest Ben Deach (Reno) vlog where he talks about a threat to sue a casino.

I hope the poor guy Apostle gets some money out of this. People wrongly accused him of being a monster. If this guy is guilty of anything, it’s stealing peoples money.

No politically conservative judges. Sacramento has a seperate law and motion department. Same Judge been doing it for over a decade, and another who started a few years ago. They love the procedure and since all they do is law and motion, their #1 concern is not being overturned.

If anything, its good for Postle, because when the Judge isn't the trial judge, he has less incentive to make bad cases go away, since he is not going to be the one who has to try it.

Also Sacramento County is not conservative at all. Placer county for example, eastern suburbs near foothills, is one of most conservative counties in California, but not Sacramento.

Anyway, the complaint was filed, I bit the bullet and paid $1 to search for it.

Now that you have the case number, you can go search the docket for free on Sacramento Superior Court website:
34-2020-00286265-CU-DF-GDS

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/Pub...chByCaseNumber

bump

I'm getting worried about you all it has been over 12 hours without an update

It's almost like someone could file a frivolous lawsuit for the purposes of chilling discussion.

Yeh, I don't understand what they are trying to do. I had classes in law, but don't understand the technicalities. It seems real expensive for the plaintiff firm, and it will be hard to convince the defendants to settle. It seems likely to be dismissed.

I don't see how they are going to show falsity or damages. The testimony of Postle and JFK should be a disaster for the plaintiff, and those are the friendly witnesses. I didn't think a defamation case was that easy to win. It isn't like a if you got hit from behind and make up all sorts of injuries.

Maybe, it's a message from Stones for everyone to Shut Up, but I can't see Stones would want the defense investigating everything.

The Defendants will incur great costs and fees to argue an early motion to dismiss with multiple extensive briefs, replies and hearings. More likely than not the Complaint will not be dismissed at an early stage. The Judge will probably require that Interrogatories be served and answered and that Depositions be conducted before he/she if at all entertains a motion to dismiss. I defended a party in a New Jersey action involving twelve parties and twelve law firms. The amount of discovery was overwhelming amounting to over 5,000 pages. That matter was settled since no party really desired to undergo a very long trial.

So if the case goes to discovery and say it costs Postle's firm $200K, then they would need a $600K settlement to recover their costs, so Postle would make $400K? So you can sue with a bad case because it is too expensive for the defendants to go to trial?

Postle's case is obvious: they called me a cheater. I didn't cheat! They have no evidence I cheated!

Court: Defendant?

Defendant: Uh, well, I did call him a cheater, but it's true. Look how much he won! I can tell you plenty of poker players will say you can't win that much. And you can't win it that way!

jury: ??

Yes, that is exactly how it will go and no other circumstantial evidence will be presented. Just a 10 second conversation.

Whichever side wins will prob be awarded lawyer fees in addition to whatever the settlement is. The lawyer fees are separate from the settlement.

You mean if it goes to trial? Does the judge award attorneys' fees if it is settled before trial? I thought the plaintiff lawyers take their contingency fee and sometimes some expenses from the settlement amount.

It seems to me difficult for Postle's lawyers to make money on this, because it would be hard to settle for enough to make up for their time and expenses. Plus the case could be dismissed.

Care to make a wager on your bolded statement proving accurate or not, for a nominal amount of $10 ?

Due to the underlying damages being based on a loss of future gambling winnings, I think a motion to dismiss has a greater than 50% likelihood of success as to any cause of action where such damages are a required element. (I understand that libel per se could be an exceptional cause, if that is indeed pled.)

Google "hoisted with his own petard".

He can't sue unless he can produce a phone w/ explanation.

Libel per se and Slander per se were both included in the complaint against the defendants.

[/QUOTE]

If a single jury member is a poker fan it's a pretty sick case though. If you're even just a bit aware of poker it can change a lot considering how popular Daniel Negreanu is and what a poker god he's considered to most very casual fans/players. Try to tell a poker fan that Daniel Negreanu slandered Mike Postle when DNegs said Postle cheated. They'll prob take Negreanu's side