So here's the thing, #LitigationDisasterTourists (and particularly @CoachTA13 who sent me this tweet): This is a solid motion that should and will be granted.
Yes, his defamation suit is a SLAPP, especially against the reporters. But this is about his accuser's battery claim
Yes, his defamation suit is a SLAPP, especially against the reporters. But this is about his accuser's battery claim
https://twitter.com/BauerOutage/status/1570081743906164736
And on that one, the accuser doesn't have a *legal* leg to stand on. Rightly or wrongly, her accusation that he battered her was heard and decided, in the context of her application for a protective order, on the same standard as applies to her civil battery claim
The court took testimony and ruled that she hadn't proven battery by a preponderance of the evidence.
Unless there's some nuance in California law I'm missing, that ends that subject forever. It's called "issue preclusion" and it applies between parties who litigated an issue
Unless there's some nuance in California law I'm missing, that ends that subject forever. It's called "issue preclusion" and it applies between parties who litigated an issue
Once one fact-finder decides it, and that judgment becomes final (i.e. all appeals are done or not bothered with), you can't bring the same factual claims in a new form and ask a new fact-finder to find that the first fact-finder got it wrong
That doesn't mean she loses on defamation; she's entitled to an opinion of events that may not match the domestic violence court's conclusions, or even reality. But she absolutely has no legal right to assert counterclaims for battery or sexual battery.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
