Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9182756" data-attributes="member: 7038835">All evidence indicates the judge is willing to make a ruling now - and is basically giving Tenkar the option to just ask for a Summary Judgment rather than seek sanctions etc.For a judge to be interested in a motion for Summary Judgment usually indicates the believe that all the relevant facts are known to the court, a decision can simply be made by applying the law to them.This is kind of significant because Plaintiff (LaNasa) requested a jury trial for this - and the purpose of a jury in these cases is to decide any uncertain facts and to what degree.  An uncertain fact being something that we can't confirm did or didn't happen, because either there's no clear evidence or because it's something that happens entirely in someone's mind (eg pre-mediation vs imminent fear for one's life).So the judge proposing that a summary judgment option being available in lieu of a motion to dismiss, kind of suggests that they have no confidence that there are uncertain facts of importance, and that they're willing to give the option to ruling rather than have it dismissed and brought up again.In the Common Law system, judges are all powerful within the discretion provided for them, but can only act on requests placed before them and must do so within particular frameworks to mitigate the odds of appeals etc.  Anti-SLAPP law and dismissing of defamation is currently a hot topic in NY with multiple arguments going on about how it should or should not apply at a Federal level, and some high profile cases going on - so my, non-USA law student reading, is basically the judge is signalling an interest in just making a ruling in the hopes that will be a more final conclusion.... or at least limit the appeals to more certain territory (ie basic defamation law).So there is quite a lot going on here, and with law it's never certain until you get the final ruling/settlement... but none of it looks good for Justin - particularly since either way he's likely to have to pay for Tenkar's lawyers.NY Anti-SLAPP would have been a motion right at the start and a decision right at the start of the process.Since this is a Federal case, local Anti-SLAPP doesn't apply and so Tenkar's lawyers have made multiple motions to dismiss during the course of it and so far the judge hasn't ruled on the latest one or ruled out the basis of the earlier... so it could get tossed at any moment or it could keep going.</blockquote>

Verification