Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is there some reason why Lively couldn't have filed the 47.1 claim in California state court like the NYT did with their anti-SLAAP? This is so messy. [/quote] Well, that's why several of us have said that her case in its entirety should have be brought in California. But I think with respect to 47.1 in particular, it makes little sense to have a second court involved when the first Court is already familiar with the claims substantively, and the statute seems to require some familarity with those to reach damages beyond ordinary attorney's fees. In any case, the dismissal order already entered here would seem to prohibit any action in another Court.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
