Post Verdict Dispute Discussion: Jeremy Young - Arcade - Donkey Kong - Points [Hammer Allowed] - Player: Billy L Mitchell - Score: 1,062,800

  1. 10-26-2020, 08:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by The Evener View Post
    The "Minute Order" you attached was issued by the court earlier today. It references the issuance of a written decision pertaining to two motions that were submitted on 15 October, but the written decision itself hasn't been posted at the lacourt.org website yet. The attachment confirms that TG's motion for undertaking was granted, meaning that Mitchell is required to post a bond of approx. $81,000 since Mitchell is an out of state resident and TG has a reasonable chance of prevailing. As I understand, the amount of the bond pertains to TG counsel's projected costs for deposing the series of witnesses that Mitchell cited in his evidentiary submissions. The ambiguity for me is that the Minute doesn't reference the court's decision on second motion, the anti-slapp. You would think that the requirement to post bond would be moot if the lawsuit itself was dismissed as part of the anti-slapp, but ultimately the written ruling would clarify this issue.
    thx i knew someone (likley you) would have the answer

    i forgot if i saw it here or facebook, but the 81k (pretty sure it used to be 73k) was itemized in detail with costs, action, and reason for action.

    i wish i could recall where i read it, but i could've sworn there were two things at play. for the sake of considering the bond, the judge can take into account if billy is lying, but for the sake of the anti slapp the judge must assume everything billy says is true. i would agree granting the anti slap autmoatically makes this moot but i'm not sure that means granting this automatically means the anti slapp has lost, maybe its easier to determine "yeah billy is out of state and would probably lose" than it is to determine "if all these lies that contradict each other were actually true would it be valid" and as a result the former decision takes less time?
    Lode Runner Champion
  2. 10-26-2020, 08:29 PM
    I just double-checked and the amount requested in TG's submission "Reply ISO Motion for Undertaking [CCP 1030(a)]" on 7 October was for $81,225, the same amount cited in the Minute Order, and the amount requested is based on an estimate provided by TG counsel to depose Mitchell's witnesses. Yes, you're right it was broken down in an earlier motion I think, it cited costs based on face-to-face deposition (flying out to Florida in most cases), and a couple of depositions covered via video conference-type situation. Earlier, I also had heard of an amount of around $73,000 but it looks like the amount was revised or maybe it was a figure before ancillary costs were added in.
    Thanks Snowflake thanked this post
  3. 10-27-2020, 11:28 PM
    I had no doubt Billy was violating anti-SLAPP laws in the state of California. I'm just glad it's now documented and etched in stone. They even went so far as to say that Jace had more than sufficient of a defense should it have gone to the actual lawsuit. As someone else pointed out: "Imagine suing for being accused of cheating, then having to pay over $80,000 to confirm you were in fact cheating".

    Edit: Okay so reading previous replies, it seems this ruling just means the judges feel TG will likely win the anti-SLAPP hearing, and that Billy must now post the legal fees bond requested by TG. If I understand correctly, that hearing is still scheduled for December.

    At any rate, it's already bad news for Billy when the judges already feel TG has more than sufficient a defense to win the anti-SLAPP motion.
    Last edited by FBX; 10-27-2020 at 11:56 PM.
  4. 10-28-2020, 05:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by FBX View Post
    At any rate, it's already bad news for Billy when the judges already feel TG has more than sufficient a defense to win the anti-SLAPP motion.
    I think the 'reasonable chance of winning' the court found applies to the defamation case as a whole, and not the anti-SLAPP motion.

    Personally I don't think the anti-SLAPP motion will pass because if you take the witness statements as true it confuses the issue enough to trigger a full trial. Doing those witness depositions will be inconveniencing for everyone involved.
    Likes Foot0fGod, Streetwize liked this post
  5. 10-28-2020, 09:49 AM
    I'd like to point out that it's STILL spelled "Twin Galexies, LLC" in the lawsuit. I really wonder which BM was responsible for this rather embarrassing typo though.
  6. 10-28-2020, 09:56 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetwize View Post
    I'd like to point out that it's STILL spelled "Twin Galexies, LLC" in the lawsuit. I really wonder which BM was responsible for this rather embarrassing typo though.
    I can say with certainty that attorneys routinely and intentionally misspell proper names of the opposing parties.
    Thanks Snowflake thanked this post
  7. 10-28-2020, 10:18 AM
    Billy released a statement today saying he beat the anti-SLAPP.

    https://www.facebook.com/BillyMitche...91903651458272
  8. 10-28-2020, 10:27 AM
    Thanks for this. So while the anti-SLAPP motion was denied, TG's Motion for Undertaking was granted (Mitchell's lawyer opposed this motion), meaning that Mitchell will be required to post bond of about $81,000 within 30 days. I guess everything is subject to possible appeal but for now it looks like Mitchell gets his jury trial but will have to put money up front given that there's a reasonable possibility that TG will prevail. I can see there's some confusion on Mitchell's Facebook page - at least 2 people chimed in to ask about what his post actually means in reference to the overall lawsuit when he led with "I beat TG." He also didn't make mention of Motion for Undertaking being granted, which is probably compounding the confusion on his page.
    Likes Foot0fGod liked this post
  9. 10-28-2020, 10:56 AM
    Sounds to me like dodging the anti-SLAPP is winning to Mitchell. He's a petulant child willing to lose money as long as it loses everyone else money, too. Since we all know it *is* a SLAPP in spirit, if not to the legal findings of this particular judge, he has successfully used money and prestige to try to force his will upon others dishonestly at the cost of both, which in theory hurts his opponent more than it hurts him.

    Not great, but I guess okay and what I reasonably expected. Unfortunately, it is a system that benefits bullies with deep pockets, even with our woefully attempts to make it not so.
    Likes floodberry liked this post
  10. 10-28-2020, 11:10 AM
    All those supporters made me cower (I'd say something else, but using it unironically is... cringeworthy in itself). Again with the repeating claims that lack proof (he did it live in public) while conveniently ignoring the existing, provable evidence of his guilt. What really bothers me though is what Evener noticed too. Someone rightfully pointed out the confusing wording at the start "I have successfully beat Twin Galaxies in court", but those responding say that isn't an issue.
Page 61 of 77 FirstFirst ... 11 51 59 60 61 62 63 71 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 769
Page 61 of 77 FirstFirst ... 11 51 59 60 61 62 63 71 ... LastLast
Join us