Chirping Smoke Detector
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2023
Well, looks like Nick and Randazza realized they fucked up and filed a motion to withdraw the anti-SLAPP motion.
Steve Quest (p/k/a Montagraph) vs. Nicholas Robert Rekieta & Rekieta Law, LLC (2023)
- Thread starter Useful_Mistake
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- May 26, 2025
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
Does this moot any potential sanctions Mr. Hardin could have filed over the anti SLAPP?
Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears
Resident white trash tattoo + vag wash expert
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2021
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
The usual scummy "We could do this later!" when... they really can't, given the date in the statute. Oh well, cheaper for Monty (for now). Likely cheaper for Nick, unless they go back to the well on this.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
Incompetent fucking timewasters.
and six goriilion others
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2023
I can't imagine that being the case. Hardin asked to recover costs arising from Randazza not appearing at the hearing, not just the costs from the motion itself. That still happened, and seems even more inappropriate now. The harm has been done.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2025
You’re right, the Plaintiff has already been unfairly burdened with having to pay his lawyer to respond to their dogshit argument. AND Monty had to pay Hardin to block out some time to appear for a no show hearing. Those prejudices already happened and need to be answered for.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2018
H O W E M B A R R A S S I N G
Right, Nick?
Getting your monies worth, Nick?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
I know the judge won't do this, but I wish he'd say "Sorry, not going to remove it" and then deny the motion officially and give out some sanctions.
"We reserve the right to bring this up again." "Nope, we're doing this now, denied."
"We reserve the right to bring this up again." "Nope, we're doing this now, denied."
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
The logic doesn't make sense. Why would it apply later if it doesn't apply now? I don't think there's anything possible in initial/limited discovery that would suddenly turn this into a SLAAP case from what it is now. Part of the point of anti-SLAAP laws is to avoid the cost and time of discovery, since it should be arguable without discovery. There's no judicial economy in allowing it to occur first.
Also, "Quest wants discovery before the motion is decided". So what? Why would a zealous defender care about giving the other side more ammo, for free? It's not judicial economy to avoid arguing that point, it's laziness. He could just enter a stipulation that both sides agree to do discovery, but instead he's changing his client's strategy to accommodate the plaintiff.
Is Randazza that mythical "truly neutral 3rd party" that Greer has been searching for?
Chirping Smoke Detector
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2023
It doesn't. But, Randazza can't say "we fucked up and filed this erroneously." He has to pretend he can bring it back because if he admits they filed the motion without having the proper ability to actually do it, that looks really bad to the judge.
Look guys. Randazza is just one human being and he's trying his best. He was too busy
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2023
They want to make it look like they are withdrawing it without conceding that the argument is stupid and deserving of sanctions. Basically they fucked up and don't want to admit it to the court because it makes any potential argument of sanctions more likely.
If I think about why this happened now it makes sense. Hardin has basically told Randazza I'm going to file sanctions on you for this retarded shit and I think Hardin and Randazza came to some sort of deal that means Hardin won't file sanctions over this specific motion.
It's actually a good deal for Hardin and Monty. They don't have to spend time dealing with this or risk not being compensated if they don't get awarded sanctions and the motion goes away. It's a win-win which is what courts want you to negotiate if you can before asking for sanctions.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2025
Its so nice to see the Rekieta Foundation's contributions to Randazza's failure to attend their shining star's hearings and fail to make any form of persuasive argument.
Celeste, its time to ask your son to cut a cheque for Monty.
Celeste, its time to ask your son to cut a cheque for Monty.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He already got what he wanted out of the frivolous motion, which was to derail and delay the case and throw the timetables into chaos. Now he's trying to mitigate his liability for filing a patently frivolous motion filed solely for the purpose of causing prejudice to the plaintiff.
Not really. The agreed upon scheduling order is now completely moot and now they have to negotiate another, and there isn't going to be another hearing on it until August.
Not for damages already caused but it's the kind of gamesmanship that lawyers often get away with even when it's as blatant as this is. I hope Hardin opposes the motion and insists it be denied with prejudice instead of giving these assholes another bite at the apple at a time of their choosing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2023
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Well, he already has but isn't likely to be made whole unless the court takes an extremely dim view of it. The withdrawal of the motion provides some window dressing for pretending it was an innocent error. As implausible as I find that, I think they'll mostly get away with it.
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
I'm not a fancy big city lolyer, but when I make innocent document errors it's usually hitting Send before it's done, or trusting spellcheck too get a word correct. Putting together 21 pages with arguments and citations and twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, seems rather intentional.
The court system should win Lolcow Of The Year, every year.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
That issue (fancy pants city lawyer who obviously thinks he's hot shit) may work against him with a stunt like this. He's less likely to get much traction from the "poor little retard" defense. Still, I'd be surprised if he doesn't get sanctioned for the no-show, that's just blatant. Inadvertent or not it was a waste of everyone's time with no justification for it.
I'd be surprised if he gets hit very hard on anything else, though I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised. Hardin seems to have a certain skill for sanctions motions. If the issue ends up fully briefed, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Ghost of Ethics Sanctions Past brought up.