Richard Meyer v. Mark Waid (2018)

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Waid Livestream - What will happen?

  • Talks about the lawsuit.

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • Further incriminates himself.

    Votes: 18 48.6%

  • Defames YaBoi again.

    Votes: 5 13.5%

  • Doesn't talk about the lawsuit nor CG.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Host disagrees with Waid on something, chimpout insues.

    Votes: 7 18.9%

  • Normal interview. (no drama)

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
AnOminous said:
New opinion. Waid wins in part and loses in part. He loses on the defamation because he only alleged defamation by Waid's online media accounts.

The court has jurisdiction over tortious interference.

But since specific personal jurisdiction is claim-specific and online defamation by itself is not (in the opinion of the Magistrate) sufficient for personal jurisdiction, it doesn't have jurisdiction over the defamation claims.

People have noted this:



(Responding to @damian.)

I am pretty sure it can be amended and that an amended complaint would relate back and not have blown the statute of limitations, although that could be an issue with a one year s.o.l. It would have been prudent to amend the complaint in response to the motion but let's not cry over spilt tard cum.

View attachment 794356View attachment 794355View attachment 794354View attachment 794353View attachment 794352View attachment 794351View attachment 794350View attachment 794349View attachment 794348View attachment 794347
Click to expand...
So if Im reading this right
794401


The magistrate recommends that there's ground for a TI case, but not a defamation one.

Edit: thanks to @AnOminous for correcting me.
 
Last edited:
damian said:
So if Im reading this right
View attachment 794401

The magistrate recommends that there's ground for a defamation case, but not a TI one? That's surprising.
Click to expand...
I think you're reading it wrong and AnOminous has it correct. MW motion to dismiss granted on Defamation, denied as to his TI.

Does an Ammended complaint go back to square one or would it still be on to TCPA as the next step?
 
damian said:
The magistrate recommends that there's ground for a defamation case, but not a TI one? That's surprising.
Click to expand...

He didn't say anything about the merits of either case. It's about personal jurisdiction. It clearly exists for TI, but not for the defamation claim (in the opinion of the magistrate).

Jub-Jub said:
Does an Ammended complaint go back to square one or would it still be on to TCPA as the next step?
Click to expand...

They'd only amend the one claim, presumably to add Waid's personal appearance in Houston (after the case was actually filed) and also to allege that the original statements to Antarctic also constituted defamation.
 
AnOminous said:
He didn't say anything about the merits of either case. It's about personal jurisdiction. It clearly exists for TI, but not for the defamation claim (in the opinion of the magistrate).
Click to expand...
Ah thanks, legal talk is my weakness.
 
I kind of figured the Defamation element would be thrown out, given it was shaky enough to be able to be contested and that's what Manchild Waid likely focused on anyway.

He's still likely fucked on the TI though.
 
Adamska said:
I kind of figured the Defamation element would be thrown out, given it was shaky enough to be able to be contested and that's what Manchild Waid likely focused on anyway.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with it except personal jurisdiction. He just has to plead the Houston defamation in-person while physically present in the state.
 
AnOminous said:
New opinion. Waid wins in part and loses in part. He loses on the defamation because he only alleged defamation by Waid's online media accounts.

The court has jurisdiction over tortious interference.

But since specific personal jurisdiction is claim-specific and online defamation by itself is not (in the opinion of the Magistrate) sufficient for personal jurisdiction, it doesn't have jurisdiction over the defamation claims.

People have noted this:



(Responding to @damian.)

I am pretty sure it can be amended and that an amended complaint would relate back and not have blown the statute of limitations, although that could be an issue with a one year s.o.l. It would have been prudent to amend the complaint in response to the motion but let's not cry over spilt tard cum.

View attachment 794356View attachment 794355View attachment 794354View attachment 794353View attachment 794352View attachment 794351View attachment 794350View attachment 794349View attachment 794348View attachment 794347
Click to expand...
I would politely disagree. While the defamation case could be made stronger, it is strong enough on its own to withstand the jurisdiction argument. Weid defamed Meyer, a citizen of Texas, over the internet while having good reason to know he was a citizen of Texas. Even without Meyer himself being in Texas, that should be sufficient to have the case heard in Texas.

Edit: I am exceptional, and did not realize that Meyer's case was weaker than I thought.
 
Gehenna said:
I would politely disagree. While the defamation case could be made stronger, it is strong enough on its own to withstand the jurisdiction argument. Weid defamed Meyer, a citizen of Texas, over the internet while having good reason to know he was a citizen of Texas. Even without Meyer himself being in Texas, that should be sufficient to have the case heard in Texas.
Click to expand...

That's not what the magistrate judge thinks and his opinion and that of the judge is what matters.
 
So @AnOminous how hard would it be to get the defamation case pulled into jurisdiction? Is it as simple as adding the statements made by Waid in Texas or is there more needed?
 
FreeHugsCheap said:
So @AnOminous how hard would it be to get the defamation case pulled into jurisdiction? Is it as simple as adding the statements made by Waid in Texas or is there more needed?
Click to expand...

I think that's all it would need. I'm not sure about statute of limitation issues for some of the older statements. I think an amended pleading would relate back to the original date of filing for these purposes, but I'm not sure about Texas. The usual s.o.l. for defamation is one year. The Houston incident was discovered after the original case was filed.
 
Last edited:
A theoretical question then, if A defames B strictly via Twitter, can A only be sued at his state, in Federal court, or in California (where Twitter is)?
 
AnOminous said:
New opinion. Waid wins in part and loses in part. He loses on the defamation because he only alleged defamation by Waid's online media accounts.

The court has jurisdiction over tortious interference.

But since specific personal jurisdiction is claim-specific and online defamation by itself is not (in the opinion of the Magistrate) sufficient for personal jurisdiction, it doesn't have jurisdiction over the defamation claims.

People have noted this:



(Responding to @damian.)

I am pretty sure it can be amended and that an amended complaint would relate back and not have blown the statute of limitations, although that could be an issue with a one year s.o.l. It would have been prudent to amend the complaint in response to the motion but let's not cry over spilt tard cum.

View attachment 794356View attachment 794355View attachment 794354View attachment 794353View attachment 794352View attachment 794351View attachment 794350View attachment 794349View attachment 794348View attachment 794347
Click to expand...
What are the odds that the complain gets amended if ruled against? Why wouldnt the defamation be linked to the tortuous interference?

AnOminous said:
Depends.
Click to expand...
I assume it depends on the state right? Maybe you could elaborate?
 
Last edited:
Another angle to the whole situation. Couldn't the District Judge overrule the Magistrate Judge's recommendation if he finds a reason like a technicality down the line?
 
Palpatine said:
A theoretical question then, if A defames B strictly via Twitter, can A only be sued at his state, in Federal court, or in California (where Twitter is)?
Click to expand...

AnOminous said:
Depends.
Click to expand...

Depends is the right answer. If A defamed B strictly via Twitter, but the judge determined that A specifically directed the tweets at Texas or Texas social media users, then its likely the Court would find specific personal jursidiction (E.g., #TEXAS #THISGOESOUTTOTEXASSHITKICKERS, etc.) and you could sue them in Texas.

But it it's just a tweet or a series of tweet not directed at state-specific users or the state itself, then you would have to sue in A's home state. I do not believe the fact that Twitter is in California would make a difference. It's the state where the defendant (A in your example) resides.

DragoonSierra said:
What are the odds that the complain gets amended if ruled against? Why wouldnt the defamation be linked to the tortuous interference?
Click to expand...

As to the complaint getting amended, I would say that there is a better than decent chance the Court will grant a motion for leave to file an amended complaint if Meyer files one. The one reason the Court might not grant a motion for leave to amend is pretty nit-picky and very procedural and I haven't put the work needed to figure out what a court should or might do. But here is the reason,

In his memorandum, the Magistrate made the following statement,

There are discrepancies in Meyer’s characterization of his defamation claim against Waid but the Response does not include a request to amend the Complaint.
Click to expand...

My short hand for what he is saying is this, "YOU FUCKED UP MEYER. IF YOU HAD ASKED FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, I WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED THE COURT LET YOU FIX YOUR FUCK UP, BUT YOU DIDN'T ASK, SO FALL ON YOUR SWORD."

So there is a slim possibility the Court will say, "You had a chance to ask for leave to amend your complaint, but didn't. I'm not going to play around and give you another chance." I think the Court would be wrong to do that, but I wouldn't say 100%.

As for why the Tortious Interference claims and the Defamation claims are not linked, it has to do with how Meyer's attorney plead his complaint. The Tortious Interference claims are all based on telephone calls that Waid made to Antartic.

The Defamation claims are all based on things Waid said in his social media accounts. Note, there is no allegation that Waid made statements in Texas, which the Magistrate noted very clearly:

In the Complaint, the allegations are as follows: Through his various social media accounts, Waid intentionally published statements of fact to his followers and the general public regarding Meyer, including falsely stating that Meyer published the first and last names of comic book store employees to encourage his followers to harass and threaten them, as well as characterizing Meyer as a racist, serial harasser of minorities, and as affiliated with white supremacists.
Click to expand...

The magistrate then notes,

In his Response to the Motion, Meyer states the claim differently: Waid traveled to Texas and publicly defamed Meyer (a Texas resident) at a Houston comic book convention. Meyer goes on to argue that “Waid repeated the defamatory statement to a Texas audience in Houston. Waid should have every expectation of being haled into a Texas court as a result.” Id. at 14. But as alleged in the Complaint, Waid’s Houston statements are not the basis of Meyer’s alleged defamation claim. Meyer has not cited any authority that supports his argument that a defendant’s later repetition of a defamatory statement to an in-person, forum state audience gives rise to personal jurisdiction when the underlying claim only alleges earlier defamatory social media statements.
Click to expand...

It's a very tight pleading. As it turns out, perhaps too tight. If the Court permits, amendment would definitely help. I expect to see a motion for leave to amend from Meyer's attorney.
 
Last edited:
pearlslam said:
Another angle to the whole situation. Couldn't the District Judge overrule the Magistrate Judge's recommendation if he finds a reason like a technicality down the line?
Click to expand...

One of the parties has to challenge it within 14 days or it (usually) becomes the ruling in the case. If the party does challenge it, the judge does de novo review, i.e. throws out the magistrate judge's decision and makes his own entirely new ruling. The judge does not have to give any deference to the magistrate judge's findings of fact or of law.

If no party challenges the ruling, it waives any review of it by the judge and mostly waives any review of it by an appeals court (other than on the very high plain error standard).

I think a better course of action would be to file for leave to amend the pleading to allege the facts discovered since the filing of the original complaint and for the amended complaint to relate back to the date of initial filing pursuant to FRCP 15(c)(1)(B), because of statute of limitations concerns. This is usually granted and the amended complaint usually does relate back to the initial filing unless there are due process concerns of some sort (such as adding new parties).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom