I thought that maybe this would be a special case, since Schneider kind of blew the whistle on himself.
I thought he would have a reply brief filed already. Maybe he is following the "Give 'em enough rope," strategy.
If this is true then this lolsuits origins are absolute gold. Imagine taking something on the majority internet shitthrowing seriously at face value.
That's the nick I remember. What happened to that dude? Why'd he hire an alcoholic sex addict to run his show?
There's a rule that dispositive motions have to be decided within 90 days. It looks like Judge Fischer is planning to giver herself that whole time to make a decision on the motion to dismiss as a Colorado SLAPP.
So, is this because she wants to give this due diligence, or is this the sort of beaurocratic thing that happens when you get angry at the DMV counter and they deliberately make you wait 4 hours before seeing you to reregister your car?
The clerk probably by default schedules everything as far out as possible because the courts are always clogged. Unless it’s an IDO you are always looking at 4-8 weeks minimum.
Nose on a no-fly list would be funny. Not becuase the idea is funny, but because of his own idiocy that got him there, if this is true.
Presumably there's also a safe harbor for withdrawing the allegedly sanctionable motion or other document?
Do you have an opinion on the choice-of-law argument? Is Minnesota likely to be inclined to import an out-of-state procedural rule (especially considering Minnesota's Supreme Court threw out the state's own SLAPP statute as unconstitutional under Minnesota law).
My seat-of-the-pants thoughts without pulling all the cases is that Judge Fischer will go with the safe option of saying that the MN supreme court's decision controls and that if Rackets & Randy want to challenge that, they can waste money at the court of appeals. I think this is especially so given the Minnesota Pat the Pedo case where calling someone a pedophile was held to be defamation per se. In MN, at least, the facts pretty strongly indicate Rackets has some liability and this case is not just garbage.
Another interesting issue that comes up is whether the appeals court will treat it as subject to interlocutory review or simply send it straight back to the trial court. My wild guess is if they're not going to apply the foreign jurisdiction's law at all, they won't follow its interlocutory appeal provision (which is similar to the statute in Texas).
