Chris Avellone MeToo'd

Next Task said:
Just making the point because I agree with @ddlloo that people often talk past each other about this. There's a world of difference between 'getting a woman drunk' and 'getting drunk with a woman', and conflating the two, or turning the latter into the former, has been the basis for countless #metoo accusations that don't hold up to scrutiny but scrutiny is verboten.
Click to expand...
I wish I could remember the quote and who said it - it may very well have ben some passing comment on a forum somewhere - but it was something along the lines of "If you beat a dog every day, you shouldn't complain that it flinches every time you raise your hand". The proverbial hound's been taking a whooping coming and going on the issue for, what, going on a decade now? An entire culture has been built up about talking at people rather than with them over these issues, and it's damn hard to break yourself out of. E.g., my post above.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Smaug's Smokey Hole and Next Task
Repost from rpgcodex. Source: <https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...ow-fighting-back.133607/page-345#post-7463580>

Tentative ruling! tl;dr:


Defendants’ motion to quash is DENIED.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Defendants’ special motion to strike is CONTINUED to September 28, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. No further briefing allowed.
Click to expand...

Letting Allender know she's pissed:



Defendants were required to reserve three separate hearing dates and pay the fees for three separate motions. Instead, Defendants’ initial reservation only indicated “1” motion: the motion to quash service of the summons. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System, disrupts the Court’s calendar, and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Generally speaking, when a party improperly combines several motions in one, this Court will only consider the motion that was reserved and for which fees were paid, and the other motions will be taken off calendar or continued. Here, the Court continued the hearing and directed Defendants to remedy the situation by paying two additional filing fees. While Defendants have complied with this order, this does not ameliorate the problem of having three significant motions being heard in a single morning in one case.
Click to expand...

On the Motion to Quash:



Even crediting the references to personal jurisdiction within Defendants’ analysis in their special motion to strike, the purported motion to quash is without merit. Plaintiff does not claim that there is general jurisdiction over Defendants, who are Illinois and Oklahoma residents, and Plaintiff has met his burden to show that exercising specific jurisdiction over these Defendants comports with due process.
...
Here, Plaintiff has come forward with evidence to satisfy this showing. To the extent that he relies on allegations in his unverified complaint, he has not presented admissible evidence. An “unverified complaint has no evidentiary value in determination of personal jurisdiction.” (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) Plaintiff has submitted evidence, however, that Plaintiff has felt the brunt of the harm in California, where he resides and works. (Declaration of Christopher Avellone ¶¶ 27-29.) Plaintiff also presents evidence that Defendants knew that Plaintiff would suffer the brunt of the harm in California and specifically aimed conduct at California, by directing tweets at one of Plaintiff’s former employers, Electronic Arts, Inc. (Avellone Decl. ¶ 26 & Exhs. 12, 13.) In addition, as noted above, Defendants’ tweets referred to Plaintiff by name, knowing that he resides in California, suggesting that they would know he would suffer the brunt of the harm there. (Avellone Decl. ¶¶ 25, 26.)
Click to expand...

On the Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens:



Here, Defendants have not demonstrated that any alternative jurisdiction is a suitable place for trial where all named Defendants would be subject to personal jurisdiction, suggesting instead that Plaintiff should have filed separate trials in Illinois and Oklahoma. (Motion, at p. 17.) Defendants have not, however, shown that any witness or evidence outside of California will be needed at trial; nor have they shown that separate trials in Illinois and Oklahoma would be any more convenient for witnesses or on any other basis.
...
Here, California unquestionably has a greater interest in this action than either Illinois or Oklahoma would. Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the balance of private and public interests favor separate actions in Illinois and Oklahoma; indeed, Defendants did not devote any discussion to the public interest factors, and very little to the public factors.

The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.
Click to expand...

As for the big anti-SLAPP, to be continued. But so far, Avocado Man is eating dirt.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Pedophobe, Corette and ddlloo
As a non-lawyer, how bad does having an incompetent lawyer fuck your case?
 
We're is the money actually coming from? Cause I don't think the 2 broads that lied can actually pay anything.
 
The settlement between Chris Avellone and the two women who accused him of sexual misconduct is a significant development for the video game industry. It shows that the industry is willing to take action to address the issue of sexual misconduct and create a safer and more inclusive environment for all.
Click to expand...

Machine or idiot generated? Because all this case shows is that the industry will disown a valued talent due to baseless accusations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back