Here's the ruling that OAN owes Rachel Maddow $250,000

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Jan Wolfe
@JanNWolfe
·
Feb 6, 2021
Two years ago, @maddow said on her show that One America News (OAN) was "literally Russian propaganda." OAN sued for libel, seeking $10 million.

OAN didn't just lose the case. A judge just ordered it to pay MSNBC $250,000 to reimburse legal fees. (A nice win for @BoutrousTed).

Jan Wolfe
@JanNWolfe
Here's the ruling that OAN owes Rachel Maddow $250,000

maddow.pdf
Shared with Dropbox
dropbox.com
2:34 PM · Feb 6, 2021

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yal3to2vaykpl6a/maddow.pdf?dl=0

[Cicada]

1. I think this is legally required in federal civil court, that loser pays atty fees of winner

Conservatives like that rule because it reduces the number of victims who sue

Many states don’t have the loser pays rule

But the UK has it and some plaintiffs go bankrupt as a result.

[Nevilledog]

2. I didn't practice in federal court, so I'm not sure if it is required.

My gut says it's not.

[SunSeeker]

4. It's not. She got the attorneys fees because she successfully brought an anti-SLAPP motion. nt

[Nevilledog]

11. Doh.....I think I knew that....lol

[SCantiGOP]

5. I think it's discretionary

I know it’s required in U.K. but I think it’s up to the judge in our courts.

I bet she donates it. She makes $7 mm a year, so she may use it to make a statement.

[RockRaven]

3. Not a lawyer. I listen to lots of legal podcasts. I believe I have heard the opposite repeatedly.

In addition to that, the feds don't even have antiSLAPP statutes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

[SunSeeker]

8. But CA does have an anti-SLAPP law, and this case was in a CA federal court.

So, as the ruling states, Rachel brought a Anti-SLAPP motion to didmiss under CA Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, which allow you attorneys fees if you win your Anti-SLAPP motion.

[RockRaven]

10. I'm responding to the poster's notion that it is "required in federal civil court" which is not true

for federal civil lawsuits in general. I was adding on to that the fact that the subset of federal civil suits which are SLAPP are also not automatically treated thusly.

An exception, because of specific state circumstances, highlights the nonexistence of the universal rule. Thank you for adding the details.

[SunSeeker]

7. No, federal civil courts don't automatically require the loser to pay atty fees.

As the ruling states, Rachel brought an anti SLAPP (anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) motion to dismiss under California state law, CA Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. When you win an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, you get your attorneys fees paid by the loser under section 425.16. https://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/statutes/c-c-p-section-425-16/

[BobTheSubgenius]

6. I hope she gets that and a lot more.

[Rhiannon12866]

9. Twitter reply:

Link to tweet

[aggiesal]

12. The Irony of it all ...

Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”)

Rachel Maddow filed the Anti-Slapp to keep OAN from slapping her down.

[dchill]

13. This is too good!

[Elwood P Dowd]

14. Trumper Qpublicans lose again.

I thought the Orange Anus said they would get tired of all the WINNING?

[Gothmog]

16. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

Link to tweet