standard legal maneuvering. it would be breaking news if they did not.
Can anyone familiar with the process estimate how many billing hours both sides have already racked up? The only winners are the lawyers.
I've downloaded and skimmed the motions to dismiss and the memoranda in support. It does not appear that any of the defendants are challenging the jurisdictional basis for the case. They appear to be relying principally on CT's anti-Slapp law which is, IMO, a stretch. They're also making allegations, essentially, that Niemann can not prove his claims of defamation and conspiracy which is essentially a trial issue for a jury to decide. The core issue is whether or not plaintiff had pleaded facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case sufficient to go to trial before the trier of fact, to wit, the jury.
I'll reserve my opinion on the likelihood that the motions will succeed until I've read through the papers, but from skimming them, it seems that the defendants are blowing an awful lot of smoke. The case has also been reassigned to a judge who was appointed to the bench by President Obama. The judge is a former US Attorney.
I'll reserve my opinion on the likelihood that the motions will succeed until I've read through the papers, but from skimming them, it seems that the defendants are blowing an awful lot of smoke. The case has also been reassigned to a judge who was appointed to the bench by President Obama. The judge is a former US Attorney.
@lizani said in #3:
> Can anyone familiar with the process estimate how many billing hours both sides have already racked up? The only winners are the lawyers.
I won't speculate on actual hours, but I think it's fair to say that the lawyers are making good money. :-)
> Can anyone familiar with the process estimate how many billing hours both sides have already racked up? The only winners are the lawyers.
I won't speculate on actual hours, but I think it's fair to say that the lawyers are making good money. :-)
> that Niemann can not prove his claims of defamation and conspiracy
I mean, he can't, because they're just 100% absurd.
I mean, he can't, because they're just 100% absurd.
> Chess.com's lawyers claim that all five elements of Niemann's complaint are "plainly without merit." They reference 71 earlier cases in a motion to dismiss that spans 27 pages.
We'll see how relevant the judge thinks these 71 earlier cases are. Admittedly given how many parties are involved and how many claims are made, a 27-page motion doesn't seem unusual.
> ... Chess.com lawyers argue that Niemann's defamation claims also fail under the law of Missouri. In their opinion, the allegations require that the defendant must have published a defamatory statement that is "actionable," meaning, "objectively false."
We'll see if the judge agrees; I think Legal Eagle offered a more nuanced opinion, something about reckless disregard for truth also qualifying.
> Additionally, when a defamatory statement is allegedly made about a public figure, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the plaintiff to also demonstrate that the statement was published with actual malice.
Hang on, what does the First Amendment actually say about civil cases?
> Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
OK, maybe that's an error in the article? Perhaps case law and/or anti-SLAPP law has such a requirement.
> According to Chess.com, none of their statements were objectively false. They are opinions and do not demonstrate actual malice.
We'll see what the judge (or court) thinks about who engaged in what and whether parties collaborated. Also, "according to my employer" is a fun way to start a sentence (I assume Peter is employed).
My guess is that the judge may say something, and it seems appropriate for parties to settle before discovery.
We'll see how relevant the judge thinks these 71 earlier cases are. Admittedly given how many parties are involved and how many claims are made, a 27-page motion doesn't seem unusual.
> ... Chess.com lawyers argue that Niemann's defamation claims also fail under the law of Missouri. In their opinion, the allegations require that the defendant must have published a defamatory statement that is "actionable," meaning, "objectively false."
We'll see if the judge agrees; I think Legal Eagle offered a more nuanced opinion, something about reckless disregard for truth also qualifying.
> Additionally, when a defamatory statement is allegedly made about a public figure, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the plaintiff to also demonstrate that the statement was published with actual malice.
Hang on, what does the First Amendment actually say about civil cases?
> Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
OK, maybe that's an error in the article? Perhaps case law and/or anti-SLAPP law has such a requirement.
> According to Chess.com, none of their statements were objectively false. They are opinions and do not demonstrate actual malice.
We'll see what the judge (or court) thinks about who engaged in what and whether parties collaborated. Also, "according to my employer" is a fun way to start a sentence (I assume Peter is employed).
My guess is that the judge may say something, and it seems appropriate for parties to settle before discovery.
@VTWood I assume from your various comments on this matter that you’re some kind of real lawyer and not an armchair lawyer.
If that’s the case, for all of us non legal people, can you, if it doesn’t put you in an awkward position, give us your opinion on which side you think has the stronger case?
If OJ can walk away then we all know any outcome is possible in a trial.
If that’s the case, for all of us non legal people, can you, if it doesn’t put you in an awkward position, give us your opinion on which side you think has the stronger case?
If OJ can walk away then we all know any outcome is possible in a trial.
Honestly, I can't imagine this motion to dismiss phase taking long, and Peter's final statement sounds plausible:
> What will happen next is not clear yet. Niemann's lawyers have a chance to respond to this motion, but if they do, Chess.com has an opportunity to submit a reply brief. The court will then likely take the matter up at a hearing before issuing a decision. At the time of writing, it is unclear if other defendants have also issued a motion to dismiss.
> What will happen next is not clear yet. Niemann's lawyers have a chance to respond to this motion, but if they do, Chess.com has an opportunity to submit a reply brief. The court will then likely take the matter up at a hearing before issuing a decision. At the time of writing, it is unclear if other defendants have also issued a motion to dismiss.
@BorisOspasky said in #8:
> @VTWood I assume from your various comments on this matter that you’re some kind of real lawyer and not an armchair lawyer.
>
> If that’s the case, for all of us non legal people, can you, if it doesn’t put you in an awkward position, give us your opinion on which side you think has the stronger case?
>
> If OJ can walk away then we all know any outcome is possible in a trial.
One thing that I learned many years ago was to never predict what a judge or jury might decide. I think Niemann has a good case against Carlsen, Rensch and Chesscom; a weaker case against Nakamura and Play Magnus. However, if Niemann gets past these, and possibly other motions to dismiss, discovery may produce more evidence supporting his claims against some or all of the defendants.
Hopefully, the case will be settled sooner rather than later, assuming that it proceeds to discovery.
> @VTWood I assume from your various comments on this matter that you’re some kind of real lawyer and not an armchair lawyer.
>
> If that’s the case, for all of us non legal people, can you, if it doesn’t put you in an awkward position, give us your opinion on which side you think has the stronger case?
>
> If OJ can walk away then we all know any outcome is possible in a trial.
One thing that I learned many years ago was to never predict what a judge or jury might decide. I think Niemann has a good case against Carlsen, Rensch and Chesscom; a weaker case against Nakamura and Play Magnus. However, if Niemann gets past these, and possibly other motions to dismiss, discovery may produce more evidence supporting his claims against some or all of the defendants.
Hopefully, the case will be settled sooner rather than later, assuming that it proceeds to discovery.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.