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

[Swole McPole]

Crown’s prior site iteration listed and profiled 6 people, including a “Creative Director”). The current Crown site identifies just Matt and Sonia.

Dave Schneider might be utterly retarded, but I'd take him over these halfwits all day, every day.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Reminder. By the end of tomorrow Nick must file a memoranda explaining why the appellate court has the jurisdiction to hear his case. Failure to do so may result in sanctions. While Montagraph is ordered to file one as well (explaining why the appellate court does not have jurisdiction) the court did not specify that it would sanction Montagraph for non-compliance

 

[AnOminous]

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.

That's definitely a good thing to know, but so far, no motion to dismiss has even properly been brought.

I am also fairly sure that even without Iqbal-Twombly, at least the IIED claim stands little to no chance of surviving a properly brought MtD.

A procedural issue that might be interesting is whether the defendants have effectively waived their right to an ordinary motion to dismiss by filing a wacky motion to dismiss based on the law of another state.

Reminder. By the end of tomorrow Nick must file a memoranda explaining why the appellate court has the jurisdiction to hear his case. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.

The threat of sanctions along with the demand for a memorandum really indicates at least imo that they think this argument is ludicrous and has been interposed solely for the purpose of delay and multiplying the proceedings to waste Monty's money.

I imagine Randazza will file it at the last moment for that very reason. There can't be much belief that it stands much chance of success, but I doubt he will cross the line of sanctionable frivolity by failing to do so.

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

No. Summary judgment is when the sufficiency of evidence is weighed, but as a matter of law.

A motion to dismiss is generally entirely based on the papers. Needless to say there are some exceptions, like in states that have a statute where cases with medical claims need an affidavit of some sort from a medical professional to survive a motion to dismiss, e.g. New Jersey's Affidavit of Merit statute.

I'm not sure if Minnesota has such a statute, but if it does, IIED is essentially a medical damages claim which would require some evidence beyond a mere scintilla.

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.

Interpreted broadly, IIED torts basically turn being butthurt into an actionable harm. I hate this tort, and the only one worse in this regard is NIED (negligent infliction of emotional distress).

Anything that qualifies as IIED is conduct so vile it invariably involves actual other illegal acts, and should be prosecuted as such.

It's often described like this Second Restatement quote: "One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress. . ."

Caselaw also often describes such conduct as beyond what can be tolerated in a civilized society.

So what that can actually qualify as IIED is not already prohibited by other laws? Why do we even need this tort? As for NIED, good thing this isn't even recognized in most states.

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

Failure to do so may result in sanctions.

There can't be much belief that it stands much chance of success, but I doubt he will cross the line of sanctionable frivolity by failing to do so.

What sanctions outside of outright dismissal of the appeal would theoretically be possible in this case.

Can sanctions from the Appeals Court be imposed on any of the procedural aspects of his ongoing lower court proceedings? (ie. Deadlines to speed along his case with the recognition of filing motions as delay tactics, etc.)

 

[Kosher Salt]

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?

The biggest issue with Monty's IIED claim is that all of the evidence of damages from IIED should come from him in the first place. Nick will have none of it, so it doesn't make sense for Monty to conduct discovery to find evidence of damages.

Monty doesn't need discovery to show that he incurred medical expenses, if he did.

What sanctions outside of outright dismissal of the appeal would theoretically be possible in this case.

Can sanctions from the Appeals Court be imposed on any of the procedural aspects of his ongoing lower court proceedings? (ie. Deadlines to speed along his case with the recognition of filing motions as delay tactics, etc.)

No, sanctions would either be dismissal of the appeal, or money, or both. But the appellate court already suggested that the likely sanctions would be dismissal of the appeal.

I think in really egregious (repetitive) cases, the appellate court could impose some sanctions that placed extra requirements on a party wishing to file another appeal, but that would be reserved for pretty rare cases where they had repeatedly filed entirely frivolous appeals.

If Nick's able to file a memorandum giving some plausible argument as to why he's not barred from appealing this (e.g. I think even if he can cite to Colorado law that says it's immediately appealable), even if his appeal is denied, I don't think it would be considered to have been frivolously attempted. If Colorado law applies, then it's not frivolous, and if Colorado law doesn't apply, then his appeal argument is merely legally wrong, not frivolous.

 

[im5!XxhO]

Caselaw also often describes such conduct as beyond what can be tolerated in a civilized society.

So what that can actually qualify as IIED is not already prohibited by other laws? Why do we even need this tort? As for NIED, good thing this isn't even recognized in most states.

It's funny to me how they have like millions of laws on the books but still need "general clauses".

What sanctions outside of outright dismissal of the appeal would theoretically be possible in this case.

They might take away the balldo.

 

[waffle]

What sanctions outside of outright dismissal of the appeal would theoretically be possible in this case.

Can sanctions from the Appeals Court be imposed on any of the procedural aspects of his ongoing lower court proceedings? (ie. Deadlines to speed along his case with the recognition of filing motions as delay tactics, etc.)

They can almost certainly fine parties and counsel. That's probably the most salient threat here. Another sanction would be to just dismiss the appeal.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

This guy is perfect for Nick.

I thought that as soon as I found this Twitter account.


(Archive)

And he’d better be a HUGE bargain with a record like that. Or maybe Nick himself is just a pay-pig

Pretty sure he is just a paypig. He loves to brag about how expensive his things are. He said the Vegas trip/event cost them tens of thousands of dollars in expenses including a "shitload" on clothes, however much that means, and the only clothes I've seen him in that I believe to be bought in Vegas was that jacket that is the color of vomit. I shudder to think how much that was.

That's definitely a good thing to know, but so far, no motion to dismiss has even properly been brought.

I am also fairly sure that even without Iqbal-Twombly, at least the IIED claim stands little to no chance of surviving a properly brought MtD.

The judge declined to apply Colorado law, then treated it as a motion for summary judgement under MN law, and stated Rekieta wasn't entitled to that either at this time. It sounds like the IIED claim is getting dismissed if they don't come up with something by the time discovery concludes though. Some quotes:

Colorado anti-SLAPP legislation does not apply to the present case and Rekieta is not entitled to summary judgment on Quest’s defamation claim under Minnesota law. Further, while there is currently a lack of evidence to support Quest’s claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, it is improper to grant summary judgment here because the window for discovery has yet to close. Therefore, this motion is premature and Rekieta is not entitled to summary judgment on Quest’s emotional distress claims.

Later:

Although Quest has not yet provided substantial evidence to support a finding of reputational damages, there is a possibility that he could before the window for discovery closes. Rekieta’s accusations of pedophilia were severe, even if they were made with comedic intent and tone. They are the type of accusation that would inspire anger, distrust, and negative consequences for their target. Until further discovery is conducted, summary judgment is improper. Therefore, this motion for summary judgment is premature and is denied so that the parties may further develop the record.

 

[AnOminous]

The judge declined to apply Colorado law, then treated it as a motion for summary judgement under MN law, and stated Rekieta wasn't entitled to that either at this time. It sounds like the IIED claim is getting dismissed if they don't come up with something by the time discovery concludes though. Some quotes:

I'm aware of that and don't actually agree with the judge on this. While SLAPP motions are generally treated according to the evidentiary standards of a motion for summary judgment, i.e. requiring something more than a scintilla of actual evidence to proceed, they're entirely different, as they occur before all but the most limited discovery in most cases (I think it was ludicrous to have multiple depositions before the one in Mignogna).

If it should have been treated as anything other than what it purported to be, it should have been as a motion to dismiss. And the model SLAPP is California's, which indeed calls it a "special motion to dismiss," as Randazza did in this case as well.

As it stands, though, Monty should have the opportunity to present some evidence for this IIED claim, as ridiculous as I think it is. My distaste for the tort aside, it is hardly outlandish practice to bring a claim like this along with defamation.

 

[Kosher Salt]

As it stands, though, Monty should have the opportunity to present some evidence for this IIED claim, as ridiculous as I think it is.

He had his opportunity to present all of his evidence for the IIED claim. He should have put it in his complaint.

What evidence for the IIED claim could be held by an adverse party, so that he'd need discovery (subpoena/deposition) to get it?

 

[AnOminous]

He had his opportunity to present all of his evidence for the IIED claim. He should have put it in his complaint.

You don't put evidence in a complaint. You put claims in a complaint. Evidence is what comes out during discovery, and anti-SLAPP motions are an exception to the rule. Generally, all factual claims in a complaint, when facing a motion to dismiss, are considered to be true for that purpose and the standard for a motion to dismiss is that, even granting the factual claims are true, it still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

There are a number of specific exceptions, where something arguably evidentiary comes along with the complaint. For instance, if you're suing over a contract, you are generally supposed to include the contract, and if you are suing for defamation, you generally have to name the specific statements that are defamatory, but those are exceptions.

The general standard (before Iqbal/Twombly) is notice pleading, and Minnesota has not adopted the Iqbal/Twombly standard. Notice pleading simply means you only need allege enough facts to put the defendant on notice as to what they're being accused of, i.e. Johnny Hitler ran me over with his car last month and I'm injured.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Nick ignored the appellate court order and did not file his memoranda

 

[East_Clintwood]

Nick ignored the appellate court order and did not file his memoranda

How quickly does the online system normally update? Is it possible he went full retard Ty Beard and filed it at 23:59 and it just isn't showing up yet?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

and it just isn't showing up yet?

We’ll see, but this one seemed pretty fast from what I can recall.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

What sanctions outside of outright dismissal of the appeal would theoretically be possible in this case.

Can sanctions from the Appeals Court be imposed on any of the procedural aspects of his ongoing lower court proceedings? (ie. Deadlines to speed along his case with the recognition of filing motions as delay tactics, etc.)

In this specific situation, other theoretical options include: Monetary fines, opposing party's attorney fees, referral to your home state disciplinary board (since Randazza is licensed in another state)

In Randazza's case, they could refer this to the MN Supreme Court to revoke his Pro Hac Vice status and tell him to GTFO. Nick's MN attorneys can suffer sanctions as well since their names are on the filings.

An appellate court can only sanction within their jurisdiction. They can't make things happen in the trial court (other than seeking revocation of Randazza's PHV status)


What will realistically happen? The appeal gets dismissed. You really have to fuck up for serious sanctions to happen and this isn't sanctionable conduct. There's a valley between what's crackpot/hack legal strategy and frivolity.

And I don't think Randazza's legal arguments are even in artillery range of this valley. They just won't work (even if they are what the law should be)

 

[Some Dumb Faggot]

Maybe Null was onto something with the brain damage theory. . . The guy is supposed to be a lawyer, right?

 

[im5!XxhO]

It has to be delayed, I find it extremly hard to believe they rage quit on the appeal already.

 

[MunsterCheeseJr]

@im5!XxhO I agree. Nick has been paying top dollar to have Randazza represent him. Randazza isn't just going to pull a no show unless it happens to be extremely special circumstances I cannot envision in this case. It is their reputation on the line here. They are not going to bone it just over an incompetent no show or missed deadline that is not addressed the a request for extension.

Sure Randazza will quit if Nick stops paying the bills. But Nick can afford it, And Randazza will tell the court why they are having to stop representation.

 

[East_Clintwood]

It is their reputation on the line here. They are not going to bone it just over an incompetent no show or missed deadline that is not addressed the a request for extension.

People thought that about Ty Beard, who despite his dogshit performance in the Weeb Wars, is generally a decent lawyer. Even smart people do dumb shit occasionally, and frankly I don't think Rackets or Randazza are actually that smart to begin with. I can absolutely see either one or both of them trying to play fucky fucky games and screwing it up.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Cross-posting an inquiry from the main Nose thread:

In his latest LOCALS livestream, Nicholas claimed that the judge agreed that he and Montegraph are both public figures.

I cannot recall this. Did it actually occur?