"Randazza first moves to dismiss Cox’s counterclaims under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law, NRS 41.660"
Marc Randazza filed a SLAPP lawsuit against his former client Crystal Cox to suppress her speech. Yet he tries to claim SLAPP as a defense against her defamation and malpractice claim. And does this wayyyy after she filed those claims.
Court Says, "I find Randazza’s special motion to dismiss was not filed by NRS 41.660’s 60-day deadline and that the filing delay is not supported by good cause. I therefore deny the special motion to dismiss. I also deny Randazza’s motion to strike Cox’s answer and enter default because claimdispositive sanctions are presently unwarranted. Cox has not been explicitly warned that such sanctions could issue if she continues to disregard court rules and file frivolous motions, and I decline to take such a draconian step without first warning her of this possibility."
THE COURT DENIED RANDAZZA MOTIONS TO DISMISS COX'S COUNTERCLAIM OVER AND OVER. YET HE DESPERATELY KEEPS BEGGING FOR ANOTHER WAY.
COURT SAYS; "A. Special Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 224] Randazza specially moves for dismissal of Cox’s remaining counterclaims for defamation and malpractice under NRS 41.660, which provides protections for defendants in Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
Succinctly, “[a] SLAPP suit is a meritless lawsuit that a party initiates primarily to chill a defendant’s exercise of his or her First Amendment free speech rights.”
A SLAPP claimant typically seeks “to obtain a financial advantage over one’s adversary by increasing litigation costs until the adversary’s case is weakened or abandoned.”5 NRS 41.660 provides a special, expedited procedure for obtaining the dismissal of SLAPP suits.
But to obtain this relief, the special motion to dismiss “must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint, which period may be extended by the court for good cause shown.”
The 60-day period “runs from the filing of the most recent amended [counterclaim].” Randazza’s special motion is late.
Cox’s last operative iteration of her counterclaims was filed on February 24, 2014, giving Randazza until April 28, 2014, to file a timely special motion under NRS 41.600. But he waited an additional four months—until August 15, 2014—to finally file it. I find Randazza’s excuse for the delay unavailing. Randazza first moved to dismiss Cox’s claims under FRCP 12(b)(6) or strike them in March 2014, and I resolved those motions in May."
CLEARLY Randazza is the one who filed a Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) against his former client Crystal Cox and not the other way around.
"a] SLAPP suit is a meritless lawsuit that a party initiates primarily to chill a defendant’s exercise of his or her First Amendment free speech rights.”
.. and that is just what Randazza did to his former Client Crystal Cox, yet begs the court to dismiss her VALID claims as if she filed the SLAPP SUIT.
Randazza filed a SLAPP suit “to obtain a financial advantage over one’s adversary by increasing litigation costs until the adversary’s case is weakened or abandoned.”
He filed the case against Cox, and harassed her non-stop for nearly 3 years now. She is homeless, penniless and has no attorney, he is the one that took her intellectual property, her livlihood, and pressured her to abandon the case and do what he told her to do.
Then he files yet again to dismiss Crystal Cox's claims, as if SLAPP has anything to do with malpractice really. And the court denies this claim, as seen at the link below.
Randazza then, assumedly scared shitless, filed a time stalling frivolous motion to the Ninth Circuit to appeal the above FAIR and JUST ruling as a matter of law.
Here is the Randazza v Cox, and counterclaims docket
So after the District of Nevada yet again DENIES his whiny dribble, then Mr. super duper Randazza whines to the Ninth circuit court as if he is the injured party. Hmmm ..
Here is the DOCKET for the Ninth Circuit Randazza whiny dribble appeal of the Judicial Decision above that `DENIED him super powers to squash litigants rights of due process.