What a wonderful platform this is to finally expose these people for who they are. I do not know how they sleep at night. What a terrible example of the so-called justice
From what I read of her potential case, the anti-SLAPP statute would be a good fit. I was not familiar with California's specific version, and I am glad to read it includes a right to "costs." In federal court, at least, there are costs, fees and attorneys' fees—and they are distinct. Costs are the incidentals to a case, and may include things like postage to serve a summons or expert-witness fees. Fees include the filing fee to start a suit. Attorneys' fees are the bills from the lawyers for their time.
In this particular case, however, you may not merely be satisfied with costs, fees and attorneys' fees. If she files a frivolous suit or any frivolous motion or opposition (defined as one without support in fact or law), she is also likely sanctionable. Sanctions are in addition to costs, fees and attorneys' fees.
In federal court, sanctions comes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c).
In California, sanctions seem governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. Cf., also, Trial Court Rule 2.30.
But she may not be as dumb as you think. Had she, e.g., actually threatened you with a lawsuit she knew or should have known to be frivolous, an argument could have been made that she violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), (d).
I am not a lawyer. The above should not be construed as legal advice.
The California anti SLAPP statute encompasses most speech which is why it is such a strong anti SLAPP statute. My guess is that Ms. Bergman had never heard of anti SLAPP until now.
Thank you for your articles and exposing these people.
Any time. Please share.
What a wonderful platform this is to finally expose these people for who they are. I do not know how they sleep at night. What a terrible example of the so-called justice
Great start
Thank you. I do my best. Please share the article.
Thanks for the morning giggles Mike!
Any time. Please share.
From what I read of her potential case, the anti-SLAPP statute would be a good fit. I was not familiar with California's specific version, and I am glad to read it includes a right to "costs." In federal court, at least, there are costs, fees and attorneys' fees—and they are distinct. Costs are the incidentals to a case, and may include things like postage to serve a summons or expert-witness fees. Fees include the filing fee to start a suit. Attorneys' fees are the bills from the lawyers for their time.
In this particular case, however, you may not merely be satisfied with costs, fees and attorneys' fees. If she files a frivolous suit or any frivolous motion or opposition (defined as one without support in fact or law), she is also likely sanctionable. Sanctions are in addition to costs, fees and attorneys' fees.
In federal court, sanctions comes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c).
In California, sanctions seem governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5. Cf., also, Trial Court Rule 2.30.
But she may not be as dumb as you think. Had she, e.g., actually threatened you with a lawsuit she knew or should have known to be frivolous, an argument could have been made that she violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), (d).
I am not a lawyer. The above should not be construed as legal advice.
The California anti SLAPP statute encompasses most speech which is why it is such a strong anti SLAPP statute. My guess is that Ms. Bergman had never heard of anti SLAPP until now.
#Mikedrop 🎤🙌