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:
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).
Click to expand...
@AnOminous RE: Meyer's attorney's mistake on the defamation claim; how big of a mistake is it on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is "anyone could have made that mistake" and a 10 is "lol this guy shouldn't be a lawyer".

It seems like a minor mistake to a layman, but the magistrate's scolding makes it seem like this should have been forseen.
 
lolz said:
@AnOminous RE: Meyer's attorney's mistake on the defamation claim; how big of a mistake is it on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is "anyone could have made that mistake" and a 10 is "lol this guy shouldn't be a lawyer".

It seems like a minor mistake to a layman, but the magistrate's scolding makes it seem like this should have been forseen.
Click to expand...

I'd say 2 or 3. And actually it was foreseen, here on this thread, and I think by a non-lawyer.
 
BrandedEagle said:
so i'm not amongst the peasantry, might thee inform thoust of thine meyers lawyers folly?
Click to expand...
In the defamation part of their complaint, they only cited Waid's defamation on twitter - which IS still defamation - that cannot be tried in TX court. He forgot to include Waid's defamation IN PERSON during a Con...IN TEXAS. Pretty sure this can still be amended into the complaint; but until it is, the Court has decided not to hear the defamation in TX. They DID decide the T.I. claim should be held in TX, though. {If I understand it right}
 
GuftaGess said:
In the defamation part of their complaint, they only cited Waid's defamation on twitter - which IS still defamation - that cannot be tried in TX court. He forgot to include Waid's defamation IN PERSON during a Con...IN TEXAS. Pretty sure this can still be amended into the complaint; but until it is, the Court has decided not to hear the defamation in TX. They DID decide the T.I. claim should be held in TX, though. {If I understand it right}
Click to expand...

At this point, the plaintiff can do one or more of the following:

  1. Challenge the magistrate's findings and request a ruling from the judge in the case under FRCP 72(b)(2) within 14 days of the magistrate's report.
  2. File for leave to amend the pleading under FRCP 15, with the amended pleading to relate back to the initial filing date under FRCP 15(c)(1)(B) so as to avoid any statute of limitations issues.
  3. Continue with the case as is and dump the defamation case. This is not as bad an option as it may sound as most of the demonstrable damages arise out of the tortious interference claim.
  4. Sue Waid for defamation in California. This also is not as crazy as it may sound but money issues probably preclude it. The tortious interference case really "likes" to be heard in Texas, but there's no particular reason to favor it for defamation. California has a strong anti-SLAPP law, but so does Texas, so it's not really a huge disadvantage.
 
AnOminous said:
[*]Sue Waid for defamation in California. This also is not as crazy as it may sound but money issues probably preclude it. The tortious interference case really "likes" to be heard in Texas, but there's no particular reason to favor it for defamation. California has a strong anti-SLAPP law, but so does Texas, so it's not really a huge disadvantage.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...
Whats the payout for defamation in California vs Texas?

Wouldnt that also lessen the payout of the TI claim and hurt the case for punitive or exemplary damages?
 
 
Last edited:
AnOminous said:
New documents. He did 1 and 2.

Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendations

Also there's a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

AND also as predicted Mark Waid as well objected to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations.

Click to expand...

Nice. Good, so now the amended complaint WILL include the defamation IN PERSON committed IN a TX Con so that can be tried in the same venue.
Also B A S E D Waid crying that the report didn't recommend moving the MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, Payout relevant charge for TI. Biiiiiiiiiitch.
 
GuftaGess said:
Nice. Good, so now the amended complaint WILL include the defamation IN PERSON committed IN a TX Con so that can be tried in the same venue.
Also B A S E D Waid crying that the report didn't recommend moving the MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, Payout relevant charge for TI. Biiiiiiiiiitch.
Click to expand...

Look at footnote 5. They're already hinting at a probably highly expensive interlocutory appeal just on this preliminary issue of personal jurisdiction which isn't even controversial. They're desperate to delay and hoping that Meyer can be worn down, to the point they're literally threatening frivolous interlocutory appeals to the Fifth Circuit just to delay the case.
 
AnOminous said:
New documents. He did 1 and 2.

Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendations

Also there's a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

AND also as predicted Mark Waid as well objected to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations.

Click to expand...

Man, I'm going to be pissed if Waid gets off on a magistrate misreading / misunderstanding the law and procedures.
 
AnOminous said:
Look at footnote 5. They're already hinting at a probably highly expensive interlocutory appeal just on this preliminary issue of personal jurisdiction which isn't even controversial. They're desperate to delay and hoping that Meyer can be worn down, to the point they're literally threatening frivolous interlocutory appeals to the Fifth Circuit just to delay the case.
Click to expand...
That's Waid being a fucker in a nutshell right here. He knows his goose is cooked, and so is trying to money flex out of this and hoping that he can force Zach to get bored and quite.
 
HTTP Error 404 said:
Man, I'm going to be pissed if Waid gets off on a magistrate misreading / misunderstanding the law and procedures.
Click to expand...

The magistrate is actually right. Just saying.

That's why the plaintiff will have to amend his pleading and that is almost certainly going to be allowed.
 
Lol I got a shout out from Nick.

How the hell did you manage to boomer that up? I even labelled Waid's Objection:
814404

814400

814402

814403
 
Last edited:
Mrtrollenski said:
Less money for Zach to collect when he inevitably loses I suppose.
Click to expand...
Oh, Manchild Waid isn't thinking like that yet; he is instead thinking he can still render Zach homeless by turning this court battle into a finance war and beat him in numbers. He's just being his disgusting, cowardly, cry bully self in that regard.

He still believes he will win this, even if it isn't by honest means like actually being proven not guilty.
 
I really want to hear Nick's opinion on footnote 5.

Note: the most interesting thing in any legal filing is usually buried in a footnote.
 
I don't know if anybody has mentioned these new items despite being filed a week ago. Is this another extension of time to file for MW?
826728
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom