Blog

A crew of roofers was here all week since Monday, tearing off the original 27-year old roof and installing a new one. It has been non-stop hammering, sawing, and rusty old nails raining down. But they finished on Friday, and the new roof looks SO good. Gave the company a 5-star review.

But no one cares about roofing news…and there has been a TON of bar-related news, so let’s get to that….

Normally I wouldn’t want to share something like this without also adding my response, but here’s Jim Lee’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.

Let me explain what Jim is trying to do with this — you will remember Jim Lee filed a LONG complaint with TONS of allegations, right? I don’t even remember the total number of claims/charges….maybe 6?

Well, this motion asks the court to end the case (in Jim’s favor), but NOT with respect to every claim. That’s why he’s calling it a motion for “partial” judgment.

Here’s why it’s “partial” — rather than saying “I WIN!” on everything, Jim picked his best two claims, and he is ONLY asking the judge to rule on those two things:

1.) His claim I “violated” a court order by filing documents unsealed (even though the “order” said nothing about sealing, and it wasn’t even an order); and

2.) His claim I made false statements about Mata.

Got that? The “JFC are assholes” thing is NOT part of this. Threatening Marraccini is NOT part of this. All the other made-up nonsense is NOT part of this. Just the court order and Mata comments. Only those two things.

Is Jim going to win? You should withhold judgment on that until you see my response, but let me just say this — to win, Jim has to show THREE things:

1.) Every material fact (for the two claims he’s pushing) is undisputed; AND

2.) Jim’s view of the law is correct; AND

3.) My Answer raises NO viable defenses.

As the court considers those questions (because of the odd posture of the motion), the court is required to draw every possible inference in my favor, and it must assume that MY aside of the story is true.

Given those standards, I wouldn’t hold my breath on Jim winning this. He has offered NO proof anything I said about Mata is false. And my answer specifically says my comments were all true (creating a dispute of material fact). My answer also claims my speech was protected by the First Amendment…..which IS a viable defense (as the bar knows, since they lost that issue in front of the U.S. Supreme Court before).

Honestly, after looking at all this, my view is Jim’s position is so categorically groundless, I am temped to ask for sanctions. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on that part either. For now, I just want to get the motion denied, and then I’ll file my anti-SLAPP motion.

That detour aside, there has also been some HUGE Mata-related news. HUGE. But long blog posts suck, so I will talk about that next time….

P.S. I forgot about this, but I did a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in LO v. CE asking the court to find Woodnick’s Rule 26 motion failed as a matter of law. I did not win that motion, nor did I lose. It was mooted when Woodnick withdrew the Rule 26 motion.