6 ms·
Partially, but also just to indicate what they perceive to be the real damage from his actions, so that in the future people can evaluate if their personal vend
by sgc 8y ago
Partially, but also just to indicate what they perceive to be the real damage from his actions, so that in the future people can evaluate if their personal vendettas are worth the harm they cause. (Of course I see the irony given recent history at the company, but future deterrence is a large motivator for many lawsuits).
- nitrogen 8y agoIsn't the use of a lawsuit to deter speaking out illegal (SLAPP)?
- vinceguidry 8y agoAnti-SLAPP laws generally allow for quick dismissal of lawsuits that fit the criteria. They don't lay out any criminal penalties for doing so. Also, not every state has an anti-SLAPP statute.
- hirundo 8y agoAs Stormy Daniels recently discovered the non criminal penalties can be significant.
- SpicyLemonZest 8y agoThis is a federal case, and there's no federal anti-SLAPP law. Even in states which have anti-SLAPP laws, they target frivolous lawsuits to deter speaking out. If you really do have a case, but part of your motivation for bringing it is to deter future misconduct, that's perfectly kosher.
- gamblor956 8y agoAnti-SLAPP law in California is not limited to frivolous lawsuits... The whole point of the Anti-SLAPP statutes is to discourage companies from using lawsuits to "deter future misconduct." It provides, at a minimum, that the company pay all the defendant's legal costs and the complete dismissal of the company's case with prejudice (which usually means all of the related claims filed in the same lawsuit, though on rare occasions the company may be allowed to split off those claims into a separate case).
- SpicyLemonZest 8y agoAs long as the plaintiff can establish "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim", the anti-SLAPP statue doesn't apply. It doesn't matter at that point why they filed the lawsuit.
- gamblor956 8y agoRight, the plaintiff needs to show prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims in order to defeat an Anti-SLAPP motion. Unless Tesla has been concealing some facts in its court filings, they don't have prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims. Anti-SLAPP motions can precede the discovery phase, i.e., before Tesla can acquire that evidence. Moreover, unlike TV, such evidence must be presented in court filings. Ambush disclosures aren't a thing in real life.
- throwaway98434 8y agoNo. SLAPP statutes protect against frivolous lawsuits. If someone is sued over sharing an opinion, SLAPP might provide a quick way to demonstrate that the opinion is protected speech and that the suit is unwinnable. Generally, SLAPP aims to easily dismiss suits without merit. This is not a frivolous lawsuit and is not without merit.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]