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

[Kosher Salt]

He makes what I believe is MASSIVE mistake for his IIED claim. He admits that Nick's words "hasn't [...] generated [any medical records showing harm]". That by itself kills the IIED claim.

Ah but if you're a fucking retarded judge in dumbfuck Minnesota, instead of dismissing the IIED claim on summary judgement you might just think that Monty needs discovery to figure out how to round out his case.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

if you're a fucking retarded judge in dumbfuck Minnesota [...] you might just think that Monty needs discovery to figure out how to round out his case.

I don't see how that works at all, and clearly neither did Nick's lawyer. I think regardless how you think the case will end, it is clear that, at least, IIED was filed frivolously and should be dismissed as such. But, like you said, the judge is retarded.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't see how that works at all, and clearly neither did Nick's lawyer. I think regardless how you think the case will end, it is clear that, at least, IIED was filed frivolously and should be dismissed as such. But, like you said, the judge is retarded.

I'm not convinced because it hasn't yet been addressed with a normal motion to dismiss. Instead, Nick sought the "special motion to dismiss" under the law from another state. That particular claim has never been addressed under a properly filed motion to dismiss.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I'm not convinced because it hasn't yet been addressed with a normal motion to dismiss. Instead, Nick sought the "special motion to dismiss" under the law from another state. That particular claim has never been addressed under a properly filed motion to dismiss.

The special motion to dismiss requested in alternative that it should be dismissed on summary judgement, iirc.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The special motion to dismiss requested in alternative that it should be dismissed on summary judgement, iirc.

They stated that it is treated as one, and in conclusion asked that they would be granted relief as from one:

 

[waffle]

At least here you can technically submit a tort like that based on pleading garden-variety emotional distress (AKA "I was super bummed about it, dude. Lemme tell you about all the problems it caused me"). But, those are generally see as pretty lame claims. The bigger problem with the IIED clam is that I just don't see how defamation is enough of a claim to "shock the conscious" or whatever the relevant MN verbiage is.

 

[Spaded Dave]

They stated that it is treated as one, and in conclusion asked that they would be granted relief as from one:
View attachment 5359578
View attachment 5359579

"Quest makes himself seem like a pedophile"

I'm curious as to the objective standard that can be used to determine this. Uh oh...sounds like a jury question...

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The bigger problem with the IIED clam is that I just don't see how defamation is enough of a claim to "shock the conscious" or whatever the relevant MN verbiage is

Generally speaking, even actual crimes aren’t enough to count. See, for example, “Global is correct that liability for emotional distress clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” and “The cases thus far decided have found liability only where the defendant's conduct has been extreme and outrageous. It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by "malice," or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort.” - Hanke v. Global Van Lines, Inc., 533 F.2d 396 (8th Cir. 1976)

Now, as everyone who’s ever read my posts on IIED knows, I am extremely biased against any success using this tort, so take my words with a grain of salt, but I don’t think that this would count. This is, of course, pointless given the above-mentioned admission that there aren’t any medical records showing any sort of damage, something the plaintiff concedes is vital to claim of IIED.

"Quest makes himself seem like a pedophile"

I'm curious as to the objective standard that can be used to determine this. Uh oh...sounds like a jury question...

I think it’s obvious that unless Nick wins his appeal (unlikely, imo), this is heading before a jury. @Kosher Salt did I miss anything? Your posts on this issue have been very insightful (don’t get jealous @AnOminous )

 

[Balldo's Gate]

Dang it, you’re right. She is his law partner (and I presume wife). Well, there’s no prohibition in having multiple attorneys there, even if their role is limited.

https://www.crown.law/

What I've been looking for is some sort of sign that Rekieta is starting to lean on this Kezhaya guy's firm for cheaper representation.

I doubt he will actually drop Randazza because he would view that as embarrassing for some reason even though his advantage relative to cheaper local attorneys would be in the initial stage where Rekieta's trying to get Colorado law applied.

They stated that it is treated as one, and in conclusion asked that they would be granted relief as from one:

It's all in the judge's order. She ruled that Colorado law did not apply in the case, and that summary judgement under Minnesota law (so just normal summary judgement, no anti-SLAPP) was inappropriate at this stage (before discovery), but that Rekieta could try again afterwards.

The tea leaves in the document seem reasonably clear that she seems inclined to toss the emotional distress claim after discovery if Monty can't put more meat on the bones in terms of actual damages, but the defamation per se claim is set to survive.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I think it’s obvious that unless Nick wins his appeal (unlikely, imo), this is heading before a jury.

I mean, he's got another shot at summary dismissal after discovery, but the question of whether the judge grows a couple of brain cells between now and then isn't getting my hopes up.

The tea leaves in the document seem reasonably clear that she seems inclined to toss the emotional distress claim after discovery if Monty can't put more meat on the bones in terms of actual damages, but the defamation per se claim is set to survive.

This seems like a pretty likely outcome. But the fact that the judge thought Monty needs discovery to figure out how to plead his own damages is pants on head retarded.

 

[Spaded Dave]

I mean, he's got another shot at summary dismissal after discovery, but the question of whether the judge grows a couple of brain cells between now and then isn't getting my hopes up.

Would those brain cells replace the ones that store the information about Nick committing per se defamation by accusing Montagraph of engaging in sexual acts with minors?

 

[Kosher Salt]

Would those brain cells replace the ones that store the information about Nick committing per se defamation by accusing Montagraph of engaging in sexual acts with minors?

You're welcome to your opinion as to the defamation claim. I think there's a fairly good bet that the defamation at least goes to trial. What you're not welcome to is speculation as to whether IIED will be properly pled if Monty can just do discovery on Nick to figure out where on the doll Nick touched him. That's retarded. The IIED claim should have been thrown out, already.

 

[Spaded Dave]

You're welcome to your opinion as to the defamation claim. I think there's a fairly good bet that the defamation at least goes to trial. What you're not welcome to is speculation as to whether IIED will be properly pled if Monty can just do discovery on Nick to figure out where on the doll Nick touched him. That's retarded. The IIED claim should have been thrown out, already.

Luckily for me I never speculated on the IIED, so we are on the same page there. IIED seems retarded in general, but especially in a case like this. Hurt feelings is generally not something I'm going to entertain unless those hurt feelings were caused by someone murdering your child in front of you and making you watch Clockwork Orange style. And even then, I would think you had larger issues to focus on in that case.

 

[AnOminous]

They stated that it is treated as one, and in conclusion asked that they would be granted relief as from one:

So they still haven't filed a proper motion to dismiss (and without a SLAPP statute you generally only get summary judgment after discovery has concluded without any triable issue of fact emerging therefrom).

The IIED claim should have been thrown out, already.

It's generally up to the defendant to file a motion to dismiss. Nick didn't. Instead he filed that bizarro world motion.

 

[talk talk talk]

For those following along from elsewhere, Minnesota never adopted the Iqbal-Twombly standard for motions to dismiss. Your instincts on what needs to be pled to withstand a motion to dismiss will lead you astray in this case.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

What I've been looking for is some sort of sign that Rekieta is starting to lean on this Kezhaya guy's firm for cheaper representation.

Went a bit down the road and found a lot of things of interest. Here was my journey:

My initial thought just generally was - It would make sense. Also found it interesting that that firm has addresses in Minneapolis and in Rogers, Arkansas. [figured out why, below, but their whole structure is dodgy]

A search of admitted lawyers in MN shows a Matt but no other Kezhayas. His office address in MN is different than on the website.

Attorney Detail

Also noted that though he represents clients he apparently does not carry malpractice insurance, per the official record (not required in MN, though disclosure of whether or not you do is). Most do, but see:

Based upon data collected in Minnesota as of August 2019, of the 12,995 lawyers who disclosed on their annual registration that they represent private clients, 10,715 (82.45 percent) disclosed they carry liability insurance, leaving 17.55 percent uncovered. Due to data limitations, we do not know the types of practices those uninsured lawyers maintain. Are they solo or small firm practitioners? Do they mainly handle personal claims for individual legal consumers? Illinois estimates that as many as 40 percent of solo lawyers are uninsured. In a 2017 survey in Washington, 28 percent of solo practitioners reported being uninsured.5

I was curious to see if there was any correlation between uninsured lawyers and discipline, so we pulled some quick numbers. Just looking at 2019 public discipline: Of the 25 lawyers publicly disciplined this year, only 8 (32 percent) reported carrying insurance when they last updated their annual registration. Because Minnesota does not retain malpractice disclosure information year over year, we were unable to look at whether the attorney carried coverage at the time of the misconduct.

Another interesting but perhaps not surprising statistic is that solo and small firm practitioners represent a disproportionate share of malpractice claims, according to the ABA Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims (2012-2015).6 For that period, insurers who participated in the survey reported that 34 percent of claims were against solo practitioners and 32 percent were against firms with two to five lawyers, for a total of over 65 percent of claims against firms with five or fewer lawyers! From a public protection perspective, this is not a comforting story: The segment of lawyers with the highest percentage of malpractice claims against them also report a higher lack of insurance.

https://www.mnbar.org/resources/publications/bench-bar/columns/2019/10/02/practicing-law-without-liability-insurance

Maybe if the bulk of what he does is being local counsel/sponsoring, research, admin, he doesn’t have a high risk of malpractice. Then again, as Rekieta well knows, minor administrative errors like failing to file things timely or accurately can lead to real fuck-ups.

Oh, wait:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/59/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/

I forgot that was this guy. (He’s been written about on KF before so this may somewhat repeat prior posts.)

He really should get malpractice insurance, though maybe at this point he can’t or it’s cost-prohibitive (see the order to show cause, above, for concerns about his practice, and as you’ll see below, that wasn’t his only issue).

The Crown site doesn’t currently mention the satanic temple stuff*. And the bios have been changed quite a bit since last year. They are currently standard bland and factual firm site bios, whereas bios on prior versions of the site were…amusing:

Matt:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221014045216/https://www.crown.law/

As for Sonia, the current Crown site bio says she was previously with “the top Fortune 500 company,” doing compliance work. That was Wal-mart. Both Kezhayas appear to be from or at least have gone to school in Arkansas.

Sonia on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/skezhaya
Odd, her LinkedIn says Kezhaya Law, PLC, not Crown.

Sonia’s prior Crown bio (lol)

https://web.archive.org/web/20221014045216/https://www.crown.law/

Their firm(s) structure/operations are … interesting. As mentioned, Sonia’s LinkedIn identifies Kezhaya Law as her place of business.
In Arkansas, Kezhaya Law exists/existed, shows as $953k* revenue and 5 employees. *grain of salt, as this is just one of those random corporate database site

https://www.konaequity.com/company/kezhaya-law-plc-4391735413/

Kezhaya Law has been set up in both Arkansas and MN (in a couple different iterations) and Crown Law appears in MN.

Kezhaya Law is in good standing not in good standing in Arkansas, with Crown in MN identified as a “branch.” This site apparently has outdated info, but a lot of history and governance-related: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ar/811117725

and related: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_mn/82f0fe10-5f79-ec11-91b7-00155d32b93a and

A check of the Arkansas SOS shows a Kezhaya Law PLC (“not current”) and a Kezhaya Law PLLC (“dissolved”). https://www.ark.org/corp-search/index.php/corps/results

In MN:
Kezhaya Law (with a different office address than either the one on the Crown site or on Matt’s info with the Lawyer Reg’n site):

https://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=82f0fe10-5f79-ec11-91b7-00155d32b93a

Crown Law (with ANOTHER office address): https://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/...lingGuid=a92e6abb-6973-ed11-9065-00155d01c614

Other misc items noted:

• Crown’s prior site iteration listed and profiled 6 people, including a “Creative Director”). The current Crown site identifies just Matt and Sonia.
• On the Crown Law “Achievements” section of their site, all items listed are in Arkansas, none in MN.
• Kezhaya Law in Arkansas also got a COVID PPP loan. https://www.federalpay.org/paycheck-protection-program/kezhaya-law-plc-bentonville-ar

*Now, organizational dodginess aside (which dodginess is likely related to the below/standard of practice indicated by the below), here’s the real meat about Nick’s choice of representation:

The Satanic Temple v Hellerstedt suit, for which Kezhaya represented the plaintiff , terminated this past June, having failed to survive a motion to dismiss. The linked decision is a treat. The Court repeatedly slammed the quality of the complaints (there were 3 amended complaints!):

“39. All of this was towards giving Plaintiffs the chance to replead and bring forward the best possible version of their claims. Yet they proceeded on that post-Dobbs opportunity to submit an exceedingly thin complaint, one far more diminutive than prior versions.”

It gets better! (Sorry for funky spacing/c&p from a pdf (the one linked above) in a scrolling window)

Given the detail of the prior complaints and these substantial changes in the law, the deficiencies in the operative complaint are no doubt intentional. And indeed, the filing of a willfully deficient amended complaint is of a piece with the mulish litigation conduct by counsel for Plaintiffs, Attorney Matt Kezhaya, in this and other actions representing The Satanic Temple. Recently considered in this regard was whether to revoke his permission to proceed pro hac vice in light of sanctions entered against him in other federal courts after his appearance here. For example, see Satanic Temple Inc v City of Belle Plaine, 2022 WL 1639514 (D Minn)(imposing sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuit); Satanic Temple Inc v City of Boston, 2022 WL 1028925, *6 (D Mass)(imposing sanctions for abusive subpoena practice). Ultimately, pro hac vice status wasn’t revoked. Id at 3. But this doesn’t mean such conduct was found acceptable.

Litigation of constitutional claims is a serious matter. Such issues deserve serious attention from counsel desiring to be taken seriously. As it turns out, Plaintiffs might have been better served by proceeding pro se, as applicable standards would dictate that their filings would be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v Pardus, 551 US 89, 94 (2007), quoting Estelle v Gamble, 429 US 97, 106 (1976) (cleaned up). Instead, Plaintiffs have mustered on with counsel of their choice, and he does very little to try and assist understanding of what their claims actually are. The exercise of discretion favors dismissal without permission to replead. The above concerns demonstrate undue delay and bad faith. And any repleading at this stage would manifest undue prejudice to a range of current and former Defendants who still have little clue as to the exact nature of the claims brought in this case. The Court is also of the firm belief that any further attempt at repleading would be futile, given that Attorney Kezhaya’s filings become more conclusory, reductive, and intemperate over time, in line with his performative and obstinate conduct to date. The third amended complaint is willfully inadequate and deficient. It fails for jurisdictional reasons and would also likely fail for insufficient pleadingof the merits. Plaintiffs will not be given leave to replead.

“Mulish”

“Kezhaya’s filings became more conclusory, reductive, and intemperate over time.”

“Performative and obstinate conduct.”

This guy is perfect for Nick. And he’d better be a HUGE bargain with a record like that. Or maybe Nick himself is just a pay-pig, because this attorney is definitely cow-level and we know how that goes.

 

[waffle]

I mean, he's got another shot at summary dismissal after discovery, but the question of whether the judge grows a couple of brain cells between now and then isn't getting my hopes up.

The judge doesn't seem like a high achiever, but I don't think she's Chup(p?) all over again either. Judges are always more likely to grant summary judgment after there's been time to develop things in discovery. They're way less likely to have to see the case again from the court of appeals that way.

It's been too long, was there a regular (not the anti-SLAP) motion to dismiss on Monty's amended petition? (Randaza filed a motion to dismiss and Monty filed an amended petition in response, right? I'm not confusing the internet with my real cases?) If not it's possible that the judge just considers the issue of "does the amended IIED claim pass a regular motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim" as a question that hasn't been before the court.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It's been too long, was there a regular (not the anti-SLAP) motion to dismiss on Monty's amended petition?

There's only been the "Special Motion to Dismiss", which was the anti-slap

 

[Your Starter for 10]

There's only been the "Special Motion to Dismiss", which was the anti-slap

Technically pro-anti-SLAPP (Colorado).

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I mean, he's got another shot at summary dismissal after discovery, but the question of whether the judge grows a couple of brain cells between now and then isn't getting my hopes up.

This seems like a pretty likely outcome. But the fact that the judge thought Monty needs discovery to figure out how to plead his own damages is pants on head retarded.

Minnesota seems strange, but is there not an evidentiary standard that must be met to survive the MTD?

I could see where discovery is required to uncover the full rot (e.g. if there were some conspiracy alleged and you needed access to communications records), so if the issue is how much damage he caused or to what extent is he liable of malicious I could see some logic to it.

Has Monty met his pleading standard?