Steve Quest (p/k/a Montagraph) vs. Nicholas Robert Rekieta & Rekieta Law, LLC (2023)

[talk talk talk]

In certain limited circumstances--suits over residential leases come to mind--the Reversi rule is imposed by statute. To the best of my knowledge, it does not exist as a general thing.

You see a lot of people just put it in their generic prayer for relief under the theory of "If you don't ask, you don't get".

Helpful chart of MN attorney's fee statutes (a little old) is attached.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Kezhaya is just fulfilling the criteria of a Minnesotan lawyer sponsoring an out of state lawyer for pro hac vice.

That's true at this point, but we don't know whether or not he will be brought on as an additional attorney. Rekieta stated that Randazza doesn't do Minnesota procedural issues and that's why he filed pro se. He also speculated he may have to hire a Minnesota attorney in addition to Randazza.

Hopefully he comments in more detail about his representation soon.

 

[AnOminous]

The general rule is that each party pays his own attorney's fees, but Nick pointed out that Montagraph has asked for costs and attorney's fees in his complaint.

He can ask for that all he likes. That doesn't mean he's entitled to it. And yes, it mildly amps up the chance that instead Nick gets it, but I still wouldn't bet on it.

Rekieta stated that Randazza doesn't do Minnesota procedural issues and that's why he filed pro se. He also speculated he may have to hire a Minnesota attorney in addition to Randazza.

I think Nick just did that because he's a lazy idiot. He's been increasingly demonstrating that.

And he hired Randazza because just hiring Randazza is an attention-getter. Yes, pick one of the best First Amendment lawyers in the country for an absolutely bullshit case.

 

[TheDarknessGrows]

How fucked is Monty?

 

[mindlessobserver]

Pretty fucked tbqh

 

[Captain Manning]

How fucked is Monty?

He's toast. It's just a matter of time.

I think Nick hiring Randazza is needless attention seeking overkill, but the obvious and inescapable corollary to that is that Monty stands even less of a chance.

 

[AnOminous]

I think Nick hiring Randazza is needless attention seeking overkill, but the obvious and inescapable corollary to that is that Monty stands even less of a chance.

I think it gets dismissed in its current form for obvious pleading defects, but probably with leave to amend. Even this clownshoes guy Monty hired can probably manage that. If not, he's even worse than I already think.

Then it comes down to whether Nick's claims about Monty would be taken by a real audience as actual factual assertions rather than just hyperbole, and the idiot came right out of the gate saying they weren't. That may be able to be redeemed by amendment too, but it isn't really a great start.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

How fucked is Monty?

Like his watermelon patch.

 

[waffle]

Hiring Randaza might actually be a strategic error in the long run because it's going to get costs out of control. There is a pretty good chance of going to trial with a defemation complaint that is properly plead, so trial is very likely if Monty's lawyer can save this on amendment. Which means that Nick can look forward to shelling out around a fifty or a hundred grand that he'll never recover over some stupid time waster.

It'd be kinda jokes if Nick's sex pervert arc brings his income down far enough he has to change counsel or settle to control costs. It's obvious the plan is to out grift the costs, but that presumes the sex pests are as reliable piggy banks as the weebs.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

so trial is very likely if Monty's lawyer can save this on amendment.

How do you amend past this?:

This seems like a REALLY stupid thing to admit to in a defamation suit (from @TheSpectreRep)

View attachment 4296830

 

[waffle]

How do you amend past this?:

It's going to partially depend on local rules, how tied you are to an abandoned pleading is different in different places. Failing that? The argument would be just because some stuff he engages in is hyperbole doesn't mean everything is, and a standard Nick show is a mixture of fact statements and opinion/commentary- so a jury should get to decide which one this statement is.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It's going to partially depend on local rules, how tied you are to an abandoned pleading is different in different places. Failing that? The argument would be just because some stuff he engages in is hyperbole doesn't mean everything is, and a standard Nick show is a mixture of fact statements and opinion/commentary- so a jury should get to decide which one this statement is.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that if I was the plaintiff I'd fire my lawyer, because that lawyer sure as hell isn't capable of unfucking the case he fucked up in the first place

 

[Kosher Salt]

It's going to partially depend on local rules, how tied you are to an abandoned pleading is different in different places. Failing that? The argument would be just because some stuff he engages in is hyperbole doesn't mean everything is, and a standard Nick show is a mixture of fact statements and opinion/commentary- so a jury should get to decide which one this statement is.

Whether a statement is a fact statement that can support a defamation claim or an opinion that cannot is a question of law that should be resolved before it goes to the jury. The court will have to determine this at the motion to dismiss stage.

It'd also be subject to a de novo appeal if the court incorrectly ruled that it's a fact statement or tried to err on the side of "send it to a jury and let them decide." The appeals court would get a clean look to say whether it's a fact or an opinion.

 

[waffle]

Whether a statement is a fact statement that can support a defamation claim or an opinion that cannot is a question of law that should be resolved before it goes to the jury. The court will have to determine this at the motion to dismiss stage.

It'd also be subject to a de novo appeal if the court incorrectly ruled that it's a fact statement or tried to err on the side of "send it to a jury and let them decide." The appeals court would get a clean look to say whether it's a fact or an opinion.

The judge decides as a matter of law if it is capable of having defamatory meaning. The jury decides if it is defamatory in context. The judge can't send it on if she's convinced that Nick's show is totally oppnion, satire, fictional, &c., but if you can convince her (woman judge, right?) that his show has factual components and oppnion components then it becomes a jury question unless the statement its self is something that is unambiguously nondefamatory / oppnion / otherwise privileged.

Pape v. Reither, 918 SW 2d 376 - Mo: Court of Appeals, Eastern Dist., 4th Div. 1996 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

This is a Missouri case, but the concepts are similar everywhere, and it does a good job of illustrating the subtle distinction. The relevant portion is "standard of review".

 

[Kosher Salt]

The judge decides as a matter of law if it is capable of having defamatory meaning. The jury decides if it is defamatory in context. The judge can't send it on if she's convinced that Nick's show is totally oppnion, satire, fictional, &c., but if you can convince her (woman judge, right?) that his show has factual components and oppnion components then it becomes a jury question unless the statement its self is something that is unambiguously nondefamatory / oppnion / otherwise privileged.

And then you'd have to convince the panel of appellate judges, too, because again, that element is subject to de novo review. They aren't going to defer to the woman judge's decision.

 

[waffle]

And then you'd have to convince the panel of appellate judges, too, because again, that element is subject to de novo review. They aren't going to defer to the woman judge's decision.

Welcome to litigation, but this just backs my original point: that hiring Randaza was an expensive flex that could backfire because it comits Nick to a high level of cost. All for a case that realistically would be better handled by a competent local litigator.

Depending on local rule and the exact motion sequence that might even be subject to interlocutory appeal. Which would be even more fun ($).

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that if I was the plaintiff I'd fire my lawyer, because that lawyer sure as hell isn't capable of unfucking the case he fucked up in the first place

As a serial vexatious litigant, Monty's probably only able to get morons as lawyers, and also as a vexatious litigant, continually replacing his moron lawyers with other moron lawyers, like some autistic version of Steinbrenner running the Yankees, is also par for the course.

The judge decides as a matter of law if it is capable of having defamatory meaning. The jury decides if it is defamatory in context.

Consider the suit against Elon Musk for his "pedo guy" claim about the caver. It made it to trial, but Musk won. It was probably quite expensive to take to a full jury trial, too, and that's pocket change for Musk, but having Randazza for a full trial (in the unlikely event the case is not already holed below the waterline) is going to be costly.

Never mind if you get to the point where you're having things like damages experts testify. Monty is such a notorious nutjob and pervert that while he might not be a defamation proof plaintiff per se, it's going to be hard to show much in the way of damages to his already tattered reputation.

Still, it costs.

It's going to partially depend on local rules, how tied you are to an abandoned pleading is different in different places.

I don't think he's married to the initial complaint, but it's certainly an admission adverse to his interests, so if he actually does get it in front of a jury and testifies in his own behalf, he's going to have to explain on cross examination exactly why he said in his opening complaint that Nick's show is mostly jokes and hyperbole.

 

[TheClappening]

Nick's Randazza flex probably hinges on how much he can crowdfund it.

Would be a rude awakening for him if the people who got nearly 300k for a gay-trousered cartoon voice actor don't show up for him.

Then he'll be left wondering why.

There is a pretty good chance of going to trial with a defemation complaint that is properly plead,

Cries in Mignogna

 

[Kosher Salt]

Cries in Mignogna

Minnesota isn't Texas, though... their Anti-SLAPP law got struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[TheClappening]

Minnesota isn't Texas, though... their Anti-SLAPP law got struck down as unconstitutional.

He seemed to be talking in generalities, not MN specific.