George Zimmerman Sues Buttigieg, Warren for $265M

[silverscreenselect]

George Zimmerman has filed suit against Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren in state court in Florida, alleging that tweets they sent out on what would have been Treyvon Martin's 25th birthday defamed him.

Here is Buttigieg's tweet: "Trayvon Martin would have been 25 today. How many 25th birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear?#BlackLivesMatter"

Here is Warren's tweet: "My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free."

Zimmerman is not mentioned in either tweet. He is not accused of any crime in either tweet. Both tweets condemn gun violence and racism. I fail to see anything that could be considered libelous in either tweet. What I do see is a frivolous lawsuit and I hope that the judge sees that as well in imposing sanctions against the attorneys who filed the suit.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 808184002/

[Bob78164]

George Zimmerman has filed suit against Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren in state court in Florida, alleging that tweets they sent out on what would have been Treyvon Martin's 25th birthday defamed him.

Here is Buttigieg's tweet: "Trayvon Martin would have been 25 today. How many 25th birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear?#BlackLivesMatter"

Here is Warren's tweet: "My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free."

Zimmerman is not mentioned in either tweet. He is not accused of any crime in either tweet. Both tweets condemn gun violence and racism. I fail to see anything that could be considered libelous in either tweet. What I do see is a frivolous lawsuit and I hope that the judge sees that as well in imposing sanctions against the attorneys who filed the suit.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 808184002/

Does Florida have an anti-SLAPP law? I'm becoming convinced we need a nationwide anti-SLAPP law. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Does Florida have an anti-SLAPP law? I'm becoming convinced we need a nationwide anti-SLAPP law. --Bob

There's a more expansive law that's about three years old, but there haven't been any definitive appellate court cases determining just how broadly it's going to be construed. There's also a statute that assesses attorney fees against the losing party and counsel equally if they knew or should have known that a claim "was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense." The word "frivolous" doesn't appear as it does in the Georgia statute.

[Bob78164]

Does Florida have an anti-SLAPP law? I'm becoming convinced we need a nationwide anti-SLAPP law. --Bob

There's a more expansive law that's about three years old, but there haven't been any definitive appellate court cases determining just how broadly it's going to be construed. There's also a statute that assesses attorney fees against the losing party and counsel equally if they knew or should have known that a claim "was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense." The word "frivolous" doesn't appear as it does in the Georgia statute.

What makes California's version of the law so useful is that a defendant who wins an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to attorneys' fees for bringing the motion as of right. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Does Florida have an anti-SLAPP law? I'm becoming convinced we need a nationwide anti-SLAPP law. --Bob

There's a more expansive law that's about three years old, but there haven't been any definitive appellate court cases determining just how broadly it's going to be construed. There's also a statute that assesses attorney fees against the losing party and counsel equally if they knew or should have known that a claim "was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense." The word "frivolous" doesn't appear as it does in the Georgia statute.

What makes California's version of the law so useful is that a defendant who wins an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to attorneys' fees for bringing the motion as of right. --Bob

The Florida law applies in any litigated matter.

[Bob78164]

There's a more expansive law that's about three years old, but there haven't been any definitive appellate court cases determining just how broadly it's going to be construed. There's also a statute that assesses attorney fees against the losing party and counsel equally if they knew or should have known that a claim "was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense." The word "frivolous" doesn't appear as it does in the Georgia statute.

What makes California's version of the law so useful is that a defendant who wins an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to attorneys' fees for bringing the motion as of right. --Bob

The Florida law applies in any litigated matter.

I'm guessing, though, that in practice the standard is as steep as the frivolous standard. The power of the California anti-SLAPP statute is that it applies even if the defendant reasonably but incorrectly believed he had a claim that would survive anti-SLAPP analysis. If you lose the anti-SLAPP motion (which requires you to prove, with admissible evidence, a prima facie case for each element of your claim, as well as establishing that your allegations in fact state a claim upon which relief may be granted), then you're on the hook for defendant's fees to prevail on the anti-SLAPP motion. I've seen these awards reach six figures in vigorously contested cases. --Bob