LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Mikedunford »

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

I really should keep going, I'm really laughing at the very idea - still.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29378
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by bob »

Mikedunford wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:00 pmCalpernia, the following is not directed in any way at you; it's my reaction to the highlighted concept itself.
In Liberi v. Taitz II, the 9th issued a split decision: It affirmed parts of the denial of Taitz's SLAPP motion, but it also reversed as to some claims. Attoneys fees are recoverable in anti-SLAPP litigation (in California).

Which raises some issues:
1. Is Taitz's $300k bill for the partial reversal reasonable?
2. Should those costs be offset by fees associated for prevailing below and partially on appeal?
3. If Taitz does move for fees, will the district court just say "a pox on both your houses!"? (Which will inevitably cause Taitz to appeal.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 8122
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Flatpointhigh »

Jim wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:55 am
ZekeB wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:37 am Some people just don't get it, Mike. It appears there's a large amount of emotion and absolutely no reason involved in this case. Reasoning isn't going to do any good here.
Sounds like any case involving Taitz or GIL.
surprised she hasn't tried to horn in on GIL's Corsi gig.
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35273
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by realist »

Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
I thought the judge denied legal fees for either side.

Also. Too. AFAIK where Orly acted pro se, she's not entitled to recover attorney fees, only costs. So who is she claiming she paid $300k in legal fees to?
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Mikedunford »

bob wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:10 pm
Mikedunford wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:00 pmCalpernia, the following is not directed in any way at you; it's my reaction to the highlighted concept itself.
In Liberi v. Taitz II, the 9th issued a split decision: It affirmed parts of the denial of Taitz's SLAPP motion, but it also reversed as to some claims. Attoneys fees are recoverable in anti-SLAPP litigation.

Which raises some issues:
1. Is Taitz's $300k bill for the partial reversal reasonable?
2. Should those costs be offset by fees associated for prevailing below and partially on appeal?
3. If Taitz does move for fees, will the district court just say "a pox on both your houses!"? (Which will inevitably cause Taitz to appeal.)
Attorney's fees are certainly recoverable - to the extent that they are reasonable. And that recovery is mandatory. But I don't think the recovery (and certainly not the mandatory portion) stretches to cover the entire bill for the entire case, including all the parts not dismissed.

But most of my laughter was at the idea of Orly, personally, managing to be successful in any attempt to claim fees, no matter how firm a basis she might have.

Question occurs to me, though - given that the SLAPP has already been through the appeals process, would any subsequent appeal have any bearing on the fee award from the SLAPP?
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9661
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Northland10 »

realist wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:40 pm
Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
I thought the judge denied legal fees for either side.

Also. Too. AFAIK where Orly acted pro se, she's not entitled to recover attorney fees, only costs. So who is she claiming she paid $300k in legal fees to?
After DOFF was out of the suit and she was the only Plaintiff, she was not pro se. When she tried to make a conterclaim as pro se or representing DOFF, I don't remember which, the judge tossed it.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30956
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Foggy »

Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
Wait, did the judge say you owed her attorney's fees?

What did the court actually say about you having to pay attorney's fees?
Buckle up, peeps, this ride is gonna get BUMPY. :shock:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29378
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by bob »

Mikedunford wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:42 pmAttorney's fees are certainly recoverable - to the extent that they are reasonable. And that recovery is mandatory. But I don't think the recovery (and certainly not the mandatory portion) stretches to cover the entire bill for the entire case, including all the parts not dismissed.
I agree; I think the judge would limit fee recovery to the actual SLAPP motion (and appeal thereof). (IIRC, this issue is also presented in Daniels' SLAPP fail.)
But most of my laughter was at the idea of Orly, personally, managing to be successful in any attempt to claim fees, no matter how firm a basis she might have.
IIRC, Taitz (personally) is represented by her insurance carrier; shirley it is the one with the high fees (and will be seeking recovery).
Question occurs to me, though - given that the SLAPP has already been through the appeals process, would any subsequent appeal have any bearing on the fee award from the SLAPP?
I think only to the extent someone was unhappy with the fee award.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30956
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Foggy »

Let me guess that Phil Berg got her in position to be SLAPPed. :roll: :roll:

Orly falsely and publicly accused Calpernia of theft. Calpernia sued her for defamation in what I consider to be a valid claim.

And that's a SLAPP? Was it actually ruled that it was a SLAPP?

:doh: :doh: :doh:
Buckle up, peeps, this ride is gonna get BUMPY. :shock:
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Mikedunford »

bob wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:50 pm
Mikedunford wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:42 pm Question occurs to me, though - given that the SLAPP has already been through the appeals process, would any subsequent appeal have any bearing on the fee award from the SLAPP?
I think only to the extent someone was unhappy with the fee award.
I was thinking more of a successful appeal of the other counts. The ones that the 9th found to be a SLAPP would, I would think, remain such regardless. So even if there's a completely victorious appeal of the summary judgment ruling, that would have no bearing on the SLAPP fees, no?
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Mikedunford »

Foggy wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:56 pm Let me guess that Phil Berg got her in position to be SLAPPed. :roll: :roll:

Orly falsely and publicly accused Calpernia of theft. Calpernia sued her for defamation in what I consider to be a valid claim.

And that's a SLAPP? Was it actually ruled that it was a SLAPP?

:doh: :doh: :doh:
Not the defamation. For Calpernia, just the violation of California Information Privacy Act claim. For Liberi, that one and two others.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9661
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Northland10 »

Foggy wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:49 pm
Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
Wait, did the judge say you owed her attorney's fees?

What did the court actually say about you having to pay attorney's fees?
My best advice would be for her to get an attorney for this should she want to pursue anything, including stopping Orly's alleged attempt to collect despite the order. An attorney who is not looking to get in a mud fight would be far more successful in shutting down Orly. They may even be able to suggest better methods to enforce the settlement than reconsideration and an appeal.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29378
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by bob »

Mikedunford wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:57 pmSo even if there's a completely victorious appeal of the summary judgment ruling, that would have no bearing on the SLAPP fees, no?
I would think so, but I'm not nearly creative enough. (And I would defer to SLAPP expert's ... umm ... expertise, if he were here.)


And, yes, Foogy, this is ultimately Berg's fault for not crafting a well-crafted complaint. Once the case got shipped to California, Berg should have ... well, Berg should have done many things.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by CalperniaUSA »

realist wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:40 pm
Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
I thought the judge denied legal fees for either side.

Also. Too. AFAIK where Orly acted pro se, she's not entitled to recover attorney fees, only costs. So who is she claiming she paid $300k in legal fees to?
Judge did. She still wants to collect.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams
User avatar
CalperniaUSA
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: World Wide Web

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by CalperniaUSA »

Foggy wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:49 pm
Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
Wait, did the judge say you owed her attorney's fees?

What did the court actually say about you having to pay attorney's fees?
Court said no fees. This is a separate suit she wants to file.
Laughter, Imagination, Dreams
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Mikedunford »

bob wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:50 pm IIRC, Taitz (personally) is represented by her insurance carrier; shirley it is the one with the high fees (and will be seeking recovery).
(Should have responded to this along w/ the earlier - sorry)

Dunno. If you were the insurance defense firm, would you want to seek recovery at this point? The statute mandates some form of recovery, but you've got to figure at this point that the ruling is going to (a) not be for much money at all (if any, which I'll get to in a sec); and (b) be scathing toward everyone involved, including the lawyers, and quite possibly wind up spread across the internet for the world to read.

As to the "if any" part:
Here's the key line from the order denying summary judgment:
"Though the parties may feel impelled to ask, the Court will not award any attorney fees to either side, because such an award would not be at all appropriate under the circumstances."
The anti-SLAPP statute requires an award of "appropriate" fees. I strongly suspect that this judge is very much in a mood to determine that the appropriate fee in this case, all shenanigans considered, is $0. Can he make that stick? I dunno, and I doubt anyone else does either. Under those circumstances, if you were the insurance defense firm, would you prefer to litigate appropriate fees for prevailing on a minority of claims at the SLAPP stage of the litigation, or would you rather stick a sensitive part of your anatomy in a pencil sharpener and get the pain over with quickly?
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Mikedunford »

CalperniaUSA wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:29 pm
Foggy wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:49 pm
Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
Wait, did the judge say you owed her attorney's fees?

What did the court actually say about you having to pay attorney's fees?
Court said no fees. This is a separate suit she wants to file.
Bob -

I'll freely admit that I overlooked the SLAPP in my initial reaction, and you reeled me in appropriately. (And thanks for that.) But could I reasonably apply the same reaction to the highlighted above?
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29378
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by bob »

Mikedunford wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:33 pmThe statute mandates some form of recovery, but you've got to figure at this point that the ruling is going to (a) not be for much money at all (if any, which I'll get to in a sec); and (b) be scathing toward everyone involved, including the lawyers, and quite possibly wind up spread across the internet for the world to read.
And (c): is it just throwing good money after bad? (It will likely be dollars to the penny to obtain and enforce a judgment versus money actually recovered.)
The anti-SLAPP statute requires an award of "appropriate" fees. I strongly suspect that this judge is very much in a mood to determine that the appropriate fee in this case, all shenanigans considered, is $0. Can he make that stick? I dunno, and I doubt anyone else does either.
Concur. It would be an interesting question, tho. (Provided it were competently litigated.)
Under those circumstances, if you were the insurance defense firm, would you prefer to litigate appropriate fees for prevailing on a minority of claims at the SLAPP stage of the litigation, or would you rather stick a sensitive part of your anatomy in a pencil sharpener and get the pain over with quickly?
I'll go with (c): Join Berg in the ridesharing workforce.

Mikedunford wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:39 pmBut could I reasonably apply the same reaction to the highlighted above?
I think so. We would need to know more, like who is threatening to sue (Taitz or her insurance company), the possible causes of action, etc.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Mikedunford »

realist wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:40 pm
Taitz (not her attorneys, they are hired by her insurance) already hit me with a $300,000 legal fee bill she intends to collect on. I have to file an appeal.
I thought the judge denied legal fees for either side.

Also. Too. AFAIK where Orly acted pro se, she's not entitled to recover attorney fees, only costs. So who is she claiming she paid $300k in legal fees to?
Technically, she was representing DOFF. But I don't know if that means she wasn't pro se, technically, because I'm not sure whether or not DOFF was a valid legal entity throughout, or if it was just her alter ego, and in either case what effect (if any) that would have her ability to recover fees. It's just another of the ways this whole thing got screwed up in ways beyond all human comprehensibility.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30956
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Foggy »

If Orly wants to file a separate lawsuit for legal fees that were denied by the court, she'll have to start by filing the case in the state where Calpernia lives, which will be inconvenient, but nobody cares. She'll also have to serve a summons and complaint on the defendant, which she never has quite learned how to do. Her case will be subject to a motion to dismiss, and she will have to appeal the dismissal several times, all the way to the US Supreme Court.

She'll never be able to write a lawsuit that cogently explains why she's suing, and she'll have to lie to the judge to hide the fact that she was already denied legal fees, and there might even be a statute of limitations problem because the case is so old. And the state Calpernia lives in may not want to enforce a California SLAPP.

I'm probably missing another dozen reasons why Orly can't win and we know she will fuck it up in ways that none of us can conceive of, just like in the old days when none of the lawyers here could possibly predict the next crazy thing she was going to do, because she was always inventing some new insane approach that was too stupid to possibly imagine.

You might have to spend some money to defeat her, but her chance of winning in court is a negative number.
Buckle up, peeps, this ride is gonna get BUMPY. :shock:
User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3475
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Jim »

Foggy wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:26 pmYou might have to spend some money to defeat her, but her chance of winning in court is a negative number.
In other words, you may win the battle but in then end you're both going to lose the war.
User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Mikedunford »

Jim wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:48 pm
Foggy wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:26 pmYou might have to spend some money to defeat her, but her chance of winning in court is a negative number.
In other words, you may win the battle but in then end you're both going to lose the war.
That ship sailed, circumnavigated twice, charted 18 previously undiscovered islands, returned, was taken out of service, and is preserved as a museum a long time ago.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30956
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Foggy »

:yeah:
Buckle up, peeps, this ride is gonna get BUMPY. :shock:
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9661
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by Northland10 »

For the record, the "stipulation for dismissal with prejudice," Doc 683, stated that in the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to bear their own costs. IANAL, but in my opinion, if Orly were trying to collect that may be a violation of the agreement. However, that is not something resolved with a motion to reconsider and appeal.

I don't know ifthe SLAPP stuff at the 9th would change that because IANAL.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
tjh
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: LIBERI, et al. v TAITZ, et al. (C.D. CA)

Post by tjh »

I skimmed the available PDF files on the docket : the Judge is NOT happy!
Because of the complete chaos that all parties have created here, the Court will dispense rough justice as follows ....
(Sept 2017)
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 44.0_2.pdf

I note that Liberi WAS represented by Jose Lorenzo (not that HE seems to have impressed the judge ...), but is now filing Pro Se.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 59.0_3.pdf
Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”