The decision in the Laura Loomer fee application is out. She got tagged for 123K. Let's take a look
Reminder of how we got here. Twitter banned Loomer (because she's incredibly awful and an Islamophobe). Loomer, as one does, sued CAIR, alleging that they conspired with Twitter to have her banned.
Florida law lets parties make an "offer of judgment" - basically, "I'll stipulate to a judgment in the amount of [insert dollars] if you will" - and says "if the other party denies it, and you do better than that as an end result, they have to pay your fees"
CAIR took advantage of that law and made Loomer what I assume was an extreme lowball offer ($1? $.01?) that she rejected. Then she went and lost a motion to dismiss, meaning she didn't beat the offer. So they asked for their attorneys fees
Loomer opposed, arguing that the statute didn't apply, because she was also seeking equitable relief and the offer of judgment would have required her to dismiss those claims. (i.e. it wasn't just money). And that brings us to this decision
This is also the case in which Ron Coleman (representing Loomer) somehow wasn't receiving notice of the filings, and got his heads up that Loomer had blown the original opposition date from LawTwitter pointing it out to him.
The court then runs through the basics of the Florida offer of judgment statute and its requirements, and notes that the CAIR offer met them (which Loomer didn't challenge).
The court decides to walk through the details of how it met those elements anyway, but, um ...
So now the analysis. The highlighted part looks bad for CAIR (spoiler, it wasn't) and like bad policy. If so, every plaintiff in FL should be including meritless claims for injunctive relief just to avoid an offer of judgment. That can't be right! (or, really, complete)
And it isn't. Basically, Florida seems to have a doctrine that prevents such pretextual claims for equitable relief; if what you're really after is money, just adding an equitable claim doesn't get you out of the offer of judgment statute.
This seems like a recipe for confusion (he says, without bothering to do even basic research into what this means in practice, because we're about to get a tutorial). Let's see how it plays out!
So ... yeah. Every claim against CAIR alleged pecuniary harm and sought damages. The prayer for relief sought damages, reformation of Twitter's TOS <gigglesnortguffaw>, and an injunction against doing it again. I can see where this is going already.
CAIR can't reform Twitter's TOS (so that equitable claim isn't against them), and there's no future conduct to enjoin (she's already banned, they can't get her banned again). So what's the equitable claim against them?
I'll be honest, the "you never asked for a TRO" thing doesn't bug me, because CAIR wasn't doing anything while the case was ongoing.
Except, I guess, she never moved for a TRO against Twitter requiring that they let her back on? How could they not have?
Yeah, that'll do it; you can't seriously be seeking injunctive relief without Twitter
So... This is NOT actually a crazy defamation suit. It's filled by Stephen Biss, so of course it's filed in the wrong jurisdiction (EDTX, where NBCU isn't subject to jurisdiction and has no connection to the events). But (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the core is viable
The core allegation is simple: Maddow reported that I accepted a package from Andriy Derkach, a Russian agent, refused to turn it over to the FBI, and refuse to tell anyone what was in it. I actually never accepted it & turned it over to the FBI unopened
Those are specific statements of fact by Maddow, which he alleges are false. That clears the first hurdle: he's actually suing about statements of fact, not opinion, which means it's legally possible for them to be defamatory
ScarJo complaint here. This is one of those breach of contract claims that should be a law-school example for years to come. The parties are arguing about whether the contract's requirement that Black Widow be given a "wide theatrical release" precluded simultaneous streaming
This is super important, because ScarJo's pay for the movie was tied to box-office receipts, and there's no question that the simultaneous release on Disney+ cost her loads and loads of money.
Her complaint alleges 50M, and while numbers in complaints are not necessarily the best metric (they can be pie-in-the-sky moonshots from plaintiffs), in a case like this that tells me that 50M was one of the potential bonuses on enough box office sales.
1) That's not a thing; trademark abandonment under US law requires non-use *anywhere* for a period of three years. Registration of your TM gives you national rights, even if you only sell in a small town.
2) US TM law has NOTHING to do with rights in Israel @AttorneyNitsana
4) They say they intend to remain within pre-67 Israel so unless you're suggesting Judea and Samaria are legally distinct from Israel (which you don't want to do, right @AttorneyNitsana?) then...
not selling in Judea and Samaria is no different, for purposes of revocation, from a company deciding it won't sell in Afula but will sell everywhere else in the country.
We begin with the table of contents. It suggests Wood is arguing two issues: 1) I never authorized Sidney Powell to put my name on this complaint; 2) I didn't violate a court order by sending out a clip of the hearing on Telegram. That second one is, of course, new.
Wait - no. This isn't Wood's supplemental brief on the sanctions motion. The court actually ordered him to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned for the video thing, entirely separately. I missed that.
I want to spend some time taking you through what looks like a case with actual merit - a discrimination case against the USDOJ. Full disclosure: the plaintiff is a friend of mine - a former mentee, a deeply good human being, and an excellent lawyer.
In other words, while I don't have personal knowledge of anything alleged here, if Shamiso is saying something happened, I believe it. And after you look at the DOJ's answer, I'm guessing you will too.
Here's the basic story: Shamiso got pregnant and had a child who, for medical reasons, needed to have breast milk. That sometimes meant that when Shamiso travelled for work, so did the baby. Her supervisor did not like any of that, and fired her for it.
There isn't really any context that makes it ok, or better, or whatever. And that's not something that "youth" or "ignorance" explains away; you knew enough to know that Hitler had murdered Jews, tried to exterminate us, and were saying he was right
Being pro-genocide isn't a function of youth, or ignorance. It's a function of a deep moral failing. And that you still seem to think it's somehow excusable is enough evidence, for me, that you still deserve to be fired