Hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists - updates on the Hans Niemann-Magnus Carlson lawsuit incoming.
As expected, each of Carlson, Nakamura, Chesscom and Rensch filed motions to dismiss (on Dec. 2). We'll go through them.
Do not see one from Play Magnus, though it may be included in Carlson's filing and just not reflected on the docket.
Looks like the answer is "no"; they got waivers of service from the other defendants, and serving Play Magnus is complicated given its foreign status and lack of US appearances.
If they're going through the Hague Convention process, that could still happen
So, uh, this does not pull any punches at the start.
"Harm to your reputation? What reputation"?
Carlsen's being represented by Axinn Veltrop, which is a terrific firm, and this is exactly how you'd expect them to respond in a situation like this.
Cases are decided on laws, but they are won and lost on stories, and the start of your motion - which will be the first document the judge reads - sets the narrative framework.
I'm not sure this is the best line of argument for a motion to dismiss, though; motions to dismiss have to show that there are no fact questions in play, and "what were a bunch of third parties thinking when they acted" is a quintessential fact question.
It may well be true! But "here's a different potential explanation for the conduct at issue" is rarely a winning argument at this stage
Next they provide the roadmap to the brief, which is the other thing you want to do in an intro section:
1) Apply the anti-slapp law;
2) Also, he can't show actual malice, so no defamation, plus it was opinion, which can't be defamatory
3) The complaint doesn't really allege tortious interference or conspiracy
4) LOL are you kidding me with that antitrust claim?
OK, this yellow highlight is very well done; Niemann's entire theory of the case is "Carlsen snapped and lied because he couldn't take losing"; pointing out that Carlsen has lost to other grandmasters without this kind of drama is an effective rebuttal to it.
But I don't like the red at all. Niemann isn't suing "over a game" and I don't know why they would put it this way
This is an open door to Niemann on response: "Carlsen would like to pretend this lawsuit is 'over a game.' It isn't. It's about what he said, and did, after the game ..."
And they didn't need to do it. Lean into the point you're making with that first highlight, and what the case is about: "but Niemann is the only one Carlsen accused of cheating and refused to play again - because Niemann is the only one he believed cheated against him"
That has the virtue of both accurately reflecting the nature of the case and directly attacking Niemann's underlying theory, in a way that will be impossible for him to rebut on a motion to dismiss (he can't plead new facts in response).
JMO.
AkivaMCohen
STEMTheBleeding
Atomic Enigma
Lizard
VAWeisman
Revan
mjfgates
SDF.ORG
Robert Szasz
Jeremy (יעקב) 🇺🇦
JonP