SLAPP027 – When a Motion to Dismiss is a Better Strategy than an Anti-SLAPP Motion

President Trump is never short on controversy, and said controversy leads to some interesting cases. In Episode 27 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we will discuss two Trump cases — one First Amendment and one anti-SLAPP — arising from the words and tweets of our sneerless leader. We’ll also discuss when a motion to dismiss can be a better option than an anti-SLAPP motion. The first case is Nwanguma v. Donald Trump , arising from his comments at a political rally before he was elected. When hecklers tried to shout him down, he said “get ’em out of here.” The crowd heeded his words and bodily removed the protesters, who then sued for battery and incitement. They claimed that by saying “get ’em out of here,” Trump incited the crowd to riot. Trump moved to dismiss, arguing that his words were mere hyperbole. How did the court rule? Listen to Episode 27 and find out! Next comes the infamous case of Stormy Daniels v. Donald Trump . Daniels sued Trump in two different forums for two different claims. In one, she is simply trying to get out the contract whereby she was paid for her silence. In the other, she had stated during a press conference that she had been threatened by a man who told her to be quiet about sleeping with Trump, even showing an artist’s rendering of the allege suspect from many years prior. Trump felt compelled to tweet that the story was a total “con job.” Her attorney, Michael Avenati, who would have known better if he listened to the California SLAPP Law Podcast, decided to sue for defamation for Trump’s usage of the phrase “con job.” As any regular listener would know, “con job” is just too imprecise to support a defamation claim. It is not verifiably false, and without a verifiably false statement, there can be no defamation. Trump brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted. Not a good week for Avenati. In the same week that the court granted Trump’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding that Daniels would therefore be liable for all of Trump’s attorney fees, Avenati was found personally liable for a multi million dollar judgment by a former associate at his firm, and was given an eviction notice from his law offices for failure to pay rent. And stay around for the after show, where I discuss the happenings with Bell v. Feibush , some precedent I created six years ago. The post SLAPP027 – When a Motion to Dismiss is a Better Strategy than an Anti-SLAPP Motion appeared first on California SLAPP Law .

You can listen to SLAPP027 – When a Motion to Dismiss is a Better Strategy than an Anti-SLAPP Motion online on Radio and Podcast. Open the player on this page to stream the available audio.

SLAPP027 – When a Motion to Dismiss is a Better Strategy than an Anti-SLAPP Motion is an episode from California SLAPP Law by Aaron Morris: Anti-SLAPP Attorney.

This episode is 18:21 long.

This episode was published on Nov 11, 2018.

Yes. Use the heart button on the episode page to add it to your favorite episodes list.

Yes. This page shows related episodes from California SLAPP Law when more episodes are available from the podcast feed.