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

[AnOminous]

And Monty presents lots of quotes from California case law that contradicts Rekieta's claims that the anti-SLAPP constitutes an immunity statute.

Perfect example of the best language being in the footnotes. While I disagree with the general conclusion (SLAPP does confer immunity of a sort and I disagree with Ninth Circuit precedent), I agree with the general conclusion that in the absence of an applicable law (Minnesota does not have a SLAPP statute), a defendant does not get an immediate appeal.

 

[waffle]

Antislapp is definitely a procedural immunity that should be subject to interlicotorry appeal, but I kind of wonder if the aren't walking randaza into a butcher shop to make bad case law for himself, something like a blanket ban on attempting to file out of state antislapps.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Imagine if the Appellate court finds they have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and returns the verdict of “Quest is in Illinois, nigga, why you talking ‘bout Colorado?”

The functional complaint (Amended Complaint) clearly states that he resides in Colorado. I don't know how they get around that.

It could have been amended to say that he lives in Illinois. It hasn't been.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Antislapp is definitely a procedural immunity that should be subject to interlicotorry appeal, but I kind of wonder if the aren't walking randaza into a butcher shop to make bad case law for himself, something like a blanket ban on attempting to file out of state antislapps.

My assumption continues to be the appeals court is only going this far because of the novelty of the appeal. If so, that's usually not a great place to be. I 100% could see them doing exactly what you say.

Above said, this is a lolsuit, so who the fuck knows what will happen.

Edit: Especially given the language from the court initially about the appeal. Feels like it's a high bar to clear when the court comes out with, in short, "Can we even hear this?"

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I think I just found out why Nick didn’t settle:

https://archive.ph/qJmm4

He just thinks he can’t lose.

Context:

 

[John Andrews Stan]

The sad part is she is still pushing a narrative against the overwhelming evidence. Like a flat earther, she can't be reasoned with. Evidence be damned.

Nate subtweeting Nick FTW.

 

[AnOminous]

Antislapp is definitely a procedural immunity that should be subject to interlicotorry appeal, but I kind of wonder if the aren't walking randaza into a butcher shop to make bad case law for himself, something like a blanket ban on attempting to file out of state antislapps.

Anti-SLAPP from other states has definitely been applied. One particularly prominent example was when Stormy Daniels sued Donald Trump in a New York court, the case was removed to federal jurisdiction, and ultimately tried in California federal court. The California federal court used New York's choice of law provisions to decide that Texas anti-SLAPP applied (because Daniels was a Texas domiciliary), and dismissed the case and sanctioned Daniels. (If contemplating this makes your brain hurt it should).

So as much as the typical response to this (even from me) has been "huh what?" it is not in fact completely out of left field.

A major difference, though, is both Texas and California have particularly strong anti-SLAPP laws that are actually pretty similar in their application. I think if California had chosen to use its own anti-SLAPP law the result would have been identical.

My assumption continues to be the appeals court is only going this far because of the novelty of the appeal. If so, that's usually not a great place to be. I 100% could see them doing exactly what you say.

I was actually surprised he even got a foot in the door on this. Although generally if a court calls your argument "novel," you aren't going far. They have not actually used that specific language but I think that is the direction they're coming from.

And as I pointed out, just to decide they don't have jurisdiction means they at least have to consider the merits of the case itself. If there is no right to Colorado's anti-SLAPP in this situation (as I think there is not), then there is also no right to an interlocutory appeal.

But they actually have to address the first issue to get to the second.

Randazza apparently ponied up enough legal reasoning that the appeals court may be skeptical, but still has something to address. As far-fetched as I find the argument, it is not facially frivolous.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

As far-fetched as I find the argument, it is not facially frivolous.

Well said. I think where @waffle was going, and where I have been thinking, is that this could become facially frivolous, if/when the court decides against it.

Then the citizens of Minnesota will have Balldoman's hubris and $100k+ to thank for this answer to a question no one had previously asked.

 

[waffle]

Anti-SLAPP from other states has definitely been applied. One particularly prominent example was when Stormy Daniels sued Donald Trump in a New York

Yes, but Minnesota is a special case because they have that case law ruling their own to be unconstitutional. This would give them the opportunity to chestbeat about how they won't tolerate attempts to end-run the state constitution, or some such. You know how activated judges get sometimes when they think litigants are trying to get cure.

-EDIT- as @Dixieland Buckaroo is saying I expect essentially a "nobody better try this shit again" opinion.

 

[AnOminous]

Yes, but Minnesota is a special case because they have that case law ruling their own to be unconstitutional.

It was kind of my point that the cases are distinguishable. In this case, Minnesota's fundamental constitutional principles outweigh the (vaporous at best) interest of Colorado in the applications of its own state law to other states.

 

[waffle]

Maybe sometimes I don't read s good...

 

[AnOminous]

Maybe sometimes I don't read s good...

Not disagreeing with you, just clarifying my previous statement.

 

[Bowiotronic]

I'm here for (3) things:

- Bitch niggers can also be white, as demonstrated by Mr.Rekieta, in fact, most probably the first nigger was a white bitch so who knows

-This fucking alcoholic is going to fund the other guy's BP addiction, I'm pretty positive about it.

-I really wish I knew American law to put this in context.

_I have found the Rekieta thread.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Late, because Nick has already covered this, but the Appellate court has accepted the appeal.

However, they are careful to clarify that the only matter at stake in the appeal is whether the district court's choice-of-law decision was correct:

In other words, even if Nick wins, the appellate court just orders Judge Fischer to apply Colorado law and re-consider the anti-SLAPP motion. She could still rule on either way on the motion to dismiss.

Spoiler: Order - Jurisdiction Accepted

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

In other words, even if Nick wins, the appellate court just orders Judge Fischer to apply Colorado law and re-consider the anti-SLAPP motion. She could still rule on either way on the motion to dismiss.

I still think this is the ultimate outcome. The judge can say "Meh. Still don't care." and Nick wasted all the time and money.

 

[Lubby Smith]

I can't help but think Monty's appellate lawyer did him dirty.

The case the appellate court relied on, Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, from the 10th Circuit, was only mentioned by Randazza in a string cite, whereas Monty's lawyer quoted it extensively. I thought this bizarre for Monty because the case supported finding jurisdiction.

Randazza's memo glossed over the fact that trial court didn't deny the SLAPP motion on its merits. He just argued "lol Nick was denied immunity."

The proper argument for Monty to make was "there are no cases where a choice of law decision that denied someone the POSSIBILITY of immunity was heard on interlocutory appeal. The collateral order doctrine is an exception, and it's not this court's job to expand it." Ironically, this is the part of what the dissenting judge in Los Lobos argued.

Instead he briefed a case where a federal appellate court reversed a district court ruling that under Erie doctrine analysis, a state anti-SLAPP couldn't apply in federal courts because it is procedural, not substantive, law that wouldn't apply in federal diversity cases. Monty's lawyer briefs this case and says "but this case is different so no jurisdiction." It was a retarded argument and retarded to call the courts attention to this case. In the end, although it is very different, it gave the appellate court an abstract basis for taking jurisdiction.

If I were to be cynical, I would suggest that Monty's appellate lawyer did this on purpose because he stands to earn far more money by having the appellate court take jurisdiction and hear the merits of the appeal.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

I still think this is the ultimate outcome. The judge can say "Meh. Still don't care." and Nick wasted all the time and money.

Which would by far be the funniest outcome.

I'm actively rooting for Monty at this point because NO ONE has told me what Monty has done wrong (including Nick) beyond being a weirdo online boomer conspiracy theorist.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

The case the appellate court relied on, Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, from the 10th Circuit, was only mentioned by Randazza in a string cite, whereas Monty's lawyer quoted it extensively. I thought this bizarre for Monty because the case supported finding jurisdiction.

Randazza's memo glossed over the fact that trial court didn't deny the SLAPP motion on its merits. He just argued "lol Nick was denied immunity."

The proper argument for Monty to make was "there are no cases where a choice of law decision that denied someone the POSSIBILITY of immunity was heard on interlocutory appeal. The collateral order doctrine is an exception, and it's not this court's job to expand it." Ironically, this is the part of what the dissenting judge in Los Lobos argued.

Right, but that's because Randazza focused on the 9th Circuit precedent that's most favorable to anti-SLAPP laws; not only are state anti-SLAPPs applied in the 9th Circuit, trial courts' determinations about whether individual cases should be dismissed under such statutes are considered to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine.

What Nick's side seem to have wanted is a determination that Colorado law should apply AND that the case should be dismissed under Colorado law. It seems like Monty's memo was rather narrowly focused on making sure that the appeal was limited to the issue of whether the anti-SLAPP was applicable at all. The argument for why there was no jurisdiction over the choice-of-law issue was tacked on at the end and seemed muddled at best.

Monty prevailed in that the appeal is limited to the choice-of-law decision exclusively, and based on what's said in this order, it seems like any subsequent interlocutory appeal if the district court were to then deny the motion under the anti-SLAPP would be a non-starter.

That makes this seem like a Pyrrhic victory for Nick.

If (if) Nick wins this appeal, he will have to take the anti-SLAPP motion back to the same judge who denied summary judgement. The same judge where it was previously argued that the Colorado anti-SLAPP motion "is functionally a motion for summary judgment". Is that really going to work?

Antislapp is definitely a procedural immunity that should be subject to interlicotorry appeal, but I kind of wonder if the aren't walking randaza into a butcher shop to make bad case law for himself, something like a blanket ban on attempting to file out of state antislapps.

Yes, but Minnesota is a special case because they have that case law ruling their own to be unconstitutional. This would give them the opportunity to chestbeat about how they won't tolerate attempts to end-run the state constitution, or some such. You know how activated judges get sometimes when they think litigants are trying to get cure.

With respect to this, it seems relevant that they latched onto the one case from the 10th Circuit where the court found jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal just to slap the anti-SLAPP down.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

I can't help but think Monty's appellate lawyer did him dirty.

I don't know. Seems like putting any work into this than the bare minimum would've been doing him dirty. I mean it is essentially the worst ruling realistically possible and the result is essentially meaningless, as the judge can go "ok now I've considered it and it still doesn't apply." Appelate rulings are essentia)y random, regardless of the laws or the briefs, so when the outcome is so unimportant, the less effort (money) the better.

 

[Swole McPole]

I'm actively rooting for Monty at this point because NO ONE has told me what Monty has done wrong (including Nick) beyond being a weirdo online boomer conspiracy theorist.

You know what Monty did wrong. Same thing as Eric July. Same thing as Null. These people all had the temerity to embarrass Nick by contradicting him, disagreeing with him and making him look bad in public -- ni-GGUH! Pod-NUH!

Consequently, Nick calls them racist, autistic, paedophiles, etc. etc. etc.