Preston Poulter et al v. Ali "Dean" Assaf et al (2021)

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Judge Horan also set the Order Setting Deadlines:
Plaintiffs have until September 20th to reply (has to be within 30 pages in length) and Dean will have until October 4th to reply (has to be within 15 pages in length) in turn.
Oh, dear...
Defendant Ali “Dean” Assaf, proceeding pro se,
 
I find it funny Dean cited Meyer v. Waid in his Motion to Dismiss.
The circumstances of that lawsuit apply in the fact that the court decided Waid's online statements didn't make the cut in terms of jurisdiction, but Waid making defamatory statements at a convention in TEXAS as well as contacting a TEXAS business about a TEXAS resident that did bring him into jurisdiction. Damn shame that Meyer settled before the case was brought to trial.
In comparison to this case, neither Dean, @VIkkiVerse, or @FROG made similar statements in a TEXAS forum nor contacted a TEXAS business about @PocketJacks or Lamont.
 
I find it funny Dean cited Meyer v. Waid in his Motion to Dismiss.
The circumstances of that lawsuit apply in the fact that the court decided Waid's online statements didn't make the cut in terms of jurisdiction, but Waid making defamatory statements at a convention in TEXAS as well as contacting a TEXAS business about a TEXAS resident that did bring him into jurisdiction. Damn shame that Meyer settled before the case was brought to trial.
In comparison to this case, neither Dean, @VIkkiVerse, or @FROG made similar statements in a TEXAS forum nor contacted a TEXAS business about @PocketJacks or Lamont.
It was actually my recommendation that they cite that case, even though it has no bearing necessarily on this one. This case is in the Northern District of Texas and Meyer's case was in the Western District, so it has no binding precedent but does offer another way to show how courts have ruled concerning similar situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HarveySperg41
There could be an issue, as Dean filed an answer before filing his motion to dismiss. The motion may be too late. However, the court acknowledging he filed an answer first as well as his pro se litigant status shows that the magistrate is at least willing to entertain it, but I fully expect Preston's attorneys to bring that up in their reply to it. That being said, @FROG 's motion to dismiss does ask the suit to be dismissed entirely--not just against him--for failure to state a claim that the court can remedy.

@AnOminous can opine on this better than I can.
You're generally supposed to file a 12(b)(6) before an answer or, in some jurisdictions, at the same time. However, there are other reasons for motions to dismiss, like procedural reasons, mootness, as sanctions for misconduct during the course of the litigation, and many others. If they did blow this by filing the answer first, there are probably still other dispositive motions available. Jurisdiction, for instance, can generally be raised at any time, because any actions by a court without it are null and void although a party can generally implicitly waive things like defects in service of process by proceeding with substantive pleadings. This is less purely technical now than it used to be where you would have to plead formally something like a "special appearance" and if you didn't, you could inadvertently waive your rights.

The worst I could see is having to wait until discovery is over to file a motion for summary judgment instead, which could be a costly slog.

Note, one possible alternative dispositive motion is the less commonly seen 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which can be filed after the pleadings, and which can be used to raise most of the same issues as a 12(b)(6).
 
Last edited:
You're generally supposed to file a 12(b)(6) before an answer or, in some jurisdictions, at the same time. However, there are other reasons for motions to dismiss, like procedural reasons, mootness, as sanctions for misconduct during the course of the litigation, and many others. If they did blow this by filing the answer first, there are probably still other dispositive motions available. Jurisdiction, for instance, can generally be raised at any time, because any actions by a court without it are null and void although a party can generally implicitly waive things like defects in service of process by proceeding with substantive pleadings. This is less purely technical now than it used to be where you would have to plead formally something like a "special appearance" and if you didn't, you could inadvertently waive your rights.

The worst I could see is having to wait until discovery is over to file a motion for summary judgment instead, which could be a costly slog.

Note, one possible alternative dispositive motion is the less commonly seen 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which can be filed after the pleadings, and which can be used to raise most of the same issues as a 12(b)(6).
I'd assume the court is giving some leeway to Dean as he's proceeding pro se at the moment. Despite filing a response to the complaint, the magistrate is still setting a hearing for the motion to dismiss (which cites jurisdiction and 12(b)(6)) and the notice even stipulates that Dean filed an answer first.

EDIT: So I'm reading FRCP 15(a)(1) and it looks like this could be considered just an addition to the answer. If Preston's lawyers argue it isn't, I feel confident in saying that the court, allowing the scheduling to happen rather than rule the MtD is untimely sua sponte will either allow it to be the operative document or allow Dean to amend his response to incorporate the MtD.
 
Last edited:
There could be an issue, as Dean filed an answer before filing his motion to dismiss. The motion may be too late. However, the court acknowledging he filed an answer first as well as his pro se litigant status shows that the magistrate is at least willing to entertain it, but I fully expect Preston's attorneys to bring that up in their reply to it. That being said, @FROG 's motion to dismiss does ask the suit to be dismissed entirely--not just against him--for failure to state a claim that the court can remedy.

@AnOminous can opine on this better than I can.

You're generally supposed to file a 12(b)(6) before an answer or, in some jurisdictions, at the same time. However, there are other reasons for motions to dismiss, like procedural reasons, mootness, as sanctions for misconduct during the course of the litigation, and many others. If they did blow this by filing the answer first, there are probably still other dispositive motions available. Jurisdiction, for instance, can generally be raised at any time, because any actions by a court without it are null and void although a party can generally implicitly waive things like defects in service of process by proceeding with substantive pleadings. This is less purely technical now than it used to be where you would have to plead formally something like a "special appearance" and if you didn't, you could inadvertently waive your rights.

The worst I could see is having to wait until discovery is over to file a motion for summary judgment instead, which could be a costly slog.

Note, one possible alternative dispositive motion is the less commonly seen 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which can be filed after the pleadings, and which can be used to raise most of the same issues as a 12(b)(6).

I was initially getting stomach cramps at the thought of DA filling his answer first. All my alarm bells were shrieking because you usually file an answer after your 12(b)6 is disposed of. For me the only saving grace is that his answer made the attempt to specifically preserve jurisdiction and other things usually raised in the 12(b)6 motions.

I am glad to hear that the requirements may be getting a little bit more lax for pro se defendants on this bit of legal arcana. When you get that notice that YOU MUST ANSWER NAO people tend to panic and lead to filing the answer first and then the 12(b)6 and getting screwed when the whole thing should have been thrown out to begin with on jurisdiction grounds.
 
I added a link to the ComicsGate trademark dispute in the OP with a disclaimer that the outcome of the dispute has no barring on how the court will decide the outcome of this case.
 
Vikki is officially safe from the suit. They had 90 days from the date the complaint was filed (23 May 2021) to serve her, and they didn't. They have to dismiss it without prejudice and refile it against her, but they may be waiting to see how the court rules on Dean's motion to dismiss to consider refiling it.
 
Vikki is officially safe from the suit. They had 90 days from the date the complaint was filed (23 May 2021) to serve her, and they didn't. They have to dismiss it without prejudice and refile it against her, but they may be waiting to see how the court rules on Dean's motion to dismiss to consider refiling it.
Not really accurate. Here's the relevant portion of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4 (emphasis added):

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1), or to service of a notice under Rule 71.1(d)(3)(A).

Not a lawyer, but the plaintiffs would have to show the reason WHY service to Vikki did not happen on time, and IF the court deems it to be good cause, the clock gets to extend. The court could also order that service of the lawsuit on Vikki be extended too.
 
Not a lawyer, but the plaintiffs would have to show the reason WHY service to Vikki did not happen on time, and IF the court deems it to be good cause, the clock gets to extend. The court could also order that service of the lawsuit on Vikki be extended too.
They'd have to file a motion, and it's now weeks past that point, almost a full month. It's not going to look good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant
Not a lawyer, but the plaintiffs would have to show the reason WHY service to Vikki did not happen on time, and IF the court deems it to be good cause, the clock gets to extend. The court could also order that service of the lawsuit on Vikki be extended too.
Such motions are fairly often granted, unless the excuse is incredibly lame or the court feels like the party has engaged in shenanigans. Tbh I think there's a good argument both have happened.
 
Such motions are fairly often granted, unless the excuse is incredibly lame or the court feels like the party has engaged in shenanigans. Tbh I think there's a good argument both have happened.
Oh, child, I've just been living my life, while they tried to serve me at an address I haven't lived at in over 20 years. I don't know what kind of shenanigans I could have been up to.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Elwood P. Dowd
Apparently, Preston's lawyers changed the certificate of service information on Vikki from New Mexico to California without informing the court at all. @AnOminous is this a problem? (Still not the address she lives at).

1631572844271.png


Address in amended complaint:

1631572916114.png


Address on summons:

1631573016960.png
 
Apparently, Preston's lawyers changed the certificate of service information on Vikki from New Mexico to California without informing the court at all. @AnOminous is this a problem? (Still not the address she lives at).
I actually don't know whether or even if they're required to do that or what is doing it in a timely fashion. It may be a local rule.
 
Back