Not to mention the technicality Penn and Teller pointed out: call someone an asshole, or a shithead, and that’s a matter of opinion. Even motherfucker, given the colloquial usage is generally safe. But that’s why they didn’t use the words “scammer” or “liar”, because those are not considered opinions.
Musk crossed that line. He accused someone of committing a specific crime. He accused that person of something concrete. Oh, and for the rules lawyers, putting IMO in front of something like that does not make it less actionable. It implies that you may know something concrete.
That’s what has him in court. Not that he decided to be an asshole.
Have you read and understood the rules of Civil Procedure? It probably has something to do with 26(A)(1) but I’m no lawyer.
The suit was filed asking for unspecified damages. Musk is of course entitled to know how much money as it issue, and the plaintiffs is entitled to know about Musk’s ability to pay, so that they can ask for an appropriate amount. (California actually states that the purpose of a punitive award is to deter and not to destroy, but that’s a different jurisdiction. If a similar rule is effect in federal courts, the difference between a few million in cash and millions in stock holdings may be significant.)
Quoting chapter and verse from the filings may help here, I can’t locate the context in the docket.
I don’t buy it he probably has some stuff around his mansion that he can sell. He probably doesnt even need his oven since he probably eats at restaurants all the time.
“Everything about this case turns out to be stupid,” said U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley at a hearing Thursday on journalist Ryan Mac’s attempt to quash subpoenas seeking his testimony in a British cave diver’s defamation lawsuit against tech CEO Elon Musk.
What’s the value of musks mansion and what’s the value of the cheapest house in his city. The difference between those two is about what musk can pay if he is really that illiquid.
Let’s say that you receive a bill from the court. It is payable with 10 days. It is a lot of money, but less than your net worth.
Can you sell your car in less than 10 days? How about your house?
A liquid asset is one that is convertible to cash.
Now, it may be that Musk will have to put a house on the market to fulfill the costs of a judgement against him (if he is indeed found liable.) The plaintiff is entitled to know these facts, so that they can put together an appropriate claim.
Not paywalled for me yet—maybe you get a free article or two before the paywall.
She went on:
“People said things no one ever should have said. It’s never too late to start over and to stop…It looks to me like this fight between these two gentlemen when all that really mattered was the rescue of those kids. Wouldn’t that be great if that’s just the end.”
WTF… does she say that to plaintiffs in every defamation case? She ignores the entire concept of defamation. She somehow turns this into a “both sides” issue—people said things?? MUSK said things! And she ignores the huge power/influence imbalance between Musk and the plaintiff. She’s not actually stupid, but those statements are SO STUPID.
It’s true, judicial encouragement to settle happens in basically every civil case. But this is inappropriate and insulting. I understand that judges have overstuffed dockets and don’t want to have unnecessary trials, but nothing about this judge’s words would encourage me to settle. [ETA and this is not, at all, the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard from a judge encouraging settlement—but it’s still dumb!]
His financial position has nothing to do with the plaintiff. He’s being sued for $75,000, based on damages. The plaintiff doesn’t “put together an appropriate claim” from discovery.
The jury will decide extra damages partially based on whether they believe his lawyer’s claims, but “I’m illiquid” isn’t a guarantee to the court believing that claim.
(a) That judgment be entered against Defendant Musk for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) as determined to be reasonable and just by the jury under the evidence in this case;
(b) That judgment be entered against Defendant Elon Musk for punitive damages in an amount shown to be reasonable and just under the evidence to punish Musk and deter him from repeating such conduct;
(c) That an injunction be issued against Defendant Elon Musk ordering him to refrain from making further publication of the False and Defamatory Accusations;
(d) That all costs of this action be taxed to Defendant; and
(e) That the Court grant all such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
“in excess of” means that the court will determine what is reasonable and just. The $75,000 minimum is a legal requirement to sue in federal court… And the parties will need to present evidence and arguments in support of their respective positions. If Musk is found liable, he will almost certainly present arguments to the effect that he could not possibly pay x millions of dollars without, for instance, putting a home on the market for three years, or selling stock that he is contractually obligated to retain. That’s a weird sort of poverty, but it is relevant.
There was a recent court case in Montana where the defendant didn’t respond, and punitive damages in the full amount were awarded-- ten million. If the defendent did respond the damages would be limited to 3 percent of his net worth. Unfortunate for him.
I doubt that such a formula is incorporated into Federal Law, but damages are subject to a reasonableness standard. To argue that something is reasonable, provable facts are introduced into the record, and preferably as early as possible.
Thanks for replying? But you’re just repeating my point?
My original point was that you said:
I was the one telling you the jury decides damages (extra or otherwise), not the plaintiff.
It’s the court that is entitled to know the facts of the defendant’s financial situation, so that they can put together an appropriate judgment.
The plaintiff is allowed to argue damages, and that’s not based on the defendant’s ability to pay.
(Obviously in the real world, a person suing a rich person might attempt to inflate damages if they know the other person’s rich, but that’s not something they’re entitled to. The plaintiff is only supposed to be suing for actual damages.)
Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? The plaintiff needs to prove his case before he is entitled to damages. This is very much before any trial.
I didn’t say they will decide damages. I said the court needs to know the financial ability of the defendant to pay, so they can. That’s if they end up doing so.
My reply was only talking about your statement.
The plaintiff isn’t entitled to know the details of the defendant’s ability to pay. That’s not what they’re making a claim on. Elon Musk’s lawyers made his claim of illiquidity to the court, not the plaintiff.
