Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: The Judge Denies The Tik Tok Tarot Card Readers Motion To Dismiss (8/14/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The Judge Denies The Tik Tok Tarot Card Readers Motion To Dismiss (8/14/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna dive back into the court documents,
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: but this time we're going to take a look at
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: a ruling that was passed down by a judge in
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: regard to the TikTok psychic or tarot card reader or
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: whatever the hell she calls herself, Ashley Gollard and the
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: professor named Rebecca Schofield, who was a professor at the
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: University of Idaho. And I know this is going to
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: come as a shock to everybody out there, but if
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: you come to the court and you say that you're
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: a psychic or that you're a tarot card reader, breaking news.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: The court is not going to rule in your favor.
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: Do you know why? Because the courts work on fact
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: based information and your little tarot card game, being a psychic,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: all of that stuff, it's not real. It's all a grift.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: And all the people who fell for that stuff. I
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: don't even know what to say. Honestly, you have people
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: out here talking all kinds of nonsense about all kinds
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: of stuff, and it's obviously a bunch of made up
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: googly gosh, but somehow people buy into it. Somehow people
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: like this get hundreds of thousands of followers, and I'll
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: never understand why. So, unlike these knuckleheads, we're gonna stay
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: in the realm of reality here and we're going to
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: start our look at the judge's order when it comes
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: to the defendant's motion to set aside and the motion
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: to dismiss. Case number three twenty two h CV DASH
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: zero zero five two one DASH Rep. Rebecca Schofield, plaintiff
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: versus Ashley Gillard, defendant. The memorandum, decision and order Defendant's
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: motion to set aside and motion to dismiss pending before
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: the Court is Defendant Ashley Gollard's motion to set aside
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: and motion to dismiss collectively the motion dock at number fifty.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: In the interest of avoiding the and because the Court
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: conclusively finds the decisional process would not be significantly aided
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: by oral argument, the motion will be decided on the
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: record and without oral argument. As discussed more fully below,
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: the motion is denied. One factual and procedural background. This
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: case arises out of the tragic murder of four University
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: of Idaho students in November of twenty twenty two. Plaintiff,
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Rebecca Schofield, is a professor at the University of Idaho.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: She alleges she's never met the students and was not
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: involved with their murders in any way. Notwithstanding plaintiff alleges,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: defendant Ashley Gillard posted over one hundred sensational TikTok videos
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: falsely claiming that she had an inappropriate romantic affair with
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: one of the victims, and then order the murders to
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: prevent the affair from coming to light. In turn, plaintiff
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: initiated this action on December twenty first, twenty twenty two,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: dock at number one, asserting two defamation claims against the defendant.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: One is premised upon false statements regarding plaintiff's involvement with
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: the murders themselves. The other is premised upon false statements
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: regarding Plaintiff's romantic relationship with one of the murdered students.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: The defendant, representing herself, did not immediately respond to Plaintiff's
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: complaint by the January seventeenth, twenty twenty three deadline. See
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: fed dot R dot SIV dot P dot twelve A
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: one a I. A defendant must serve an answer within
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: twenty one days after being served with the summons and
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: the complaint. As a result, pursuing to Rule fifty five,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: a plaintiff move for an entry of default on January nineteenth,
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Doc At number four. A clerk's entry
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: of default was then entered and mailed to defendant on
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: January twenty five, seventh, twenty twenty three, docket number five.
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: On February sixteenth, twenty twenty three, defendant moved to set
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: aside the entry of default Docket number seven. Plaintiff responded
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: the next day, opposing defendant's efforts to set aside the
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: entry of default docket number nine and filing a motion
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: for default judgment pursue it to Rule number fifty five
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: B two docket number ten. On April twenty fourth, twenty
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: twenty three, the parties consented to the undersigned jurisdiction Docket
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: number seventeen. Thereafter, on April twenty six, twenty twenty three,
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: the court granted the defendant's motion to set aside entry
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: of default, denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment as moot,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: and order defendant to respond to plaintiff's complaint within twenty
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: one days doc At eighteen. On May sixteenth, twenty twenty three,
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Defendant filed or Answer Affirmative Defenses and counter Claims to
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: the complain Answer and Counterclaims doc at Number twenty. Within
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: her Answers and counterclaims, Defendant denied that she defended plaintiff
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: because the accusations made against plaintiff and defendants TikTok videos
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: are substantially true Idea number six. Defendant maintained that she
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: used her spiritual brain intuition, spiritual practice, and investigative skills
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: to uncover the truth regarding the murder of the four
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: University of Idaho students and published her findings on TikTok
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: social media platform. Defendant also affirmatively asserted eleven counterclaims against
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: both plaintiff and her legal counsel. On June sixth, twenty
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: twenty three, Plaintiff moved to dismiss Defendant's counterclaims against her
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: doc at Number twenty two. A week later, plaintiff moved
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: to quash the summonses for her counsel, arguing that their
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: issuance was procedurally improper. Motion to quash Docket twenty five.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Defendant opposed each of these motions respond to motion Docket
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: number thirty five response to motion to quash Docket number
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: thirty six. In an August eighth, twenty twenty three memorandum
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: decision and order, the court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: insofar as it's dismissed defendants counterclaims against plaintiff, and two
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: granted plaintiff's motion to quash see generally eight eight twenty
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: twenty three MDO Docket number forty nine. Now via the
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: pending motion, Defendant requests that the August eighth, twenty twenty
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: three memorandum decision and order be set aside under rules
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: sixty B, four and six because I, this court does
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: not have the subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: two this court does not have personal jurisdiction over her
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: three venue is improper in Idaho, and four the court
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: lacks judicial impartiality. And number five, the Court does not
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: have subject matter jurisdiction over the plausibility of spiritual practices
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: Memorandum Iso mtd at four through fourteen, Docket fifty through one.
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: According to Defendant, these same reasons similarly warrant the dismissal
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: of plaintiff's complaint under Rules twelve B, one, two and
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: six id at fourteen and fifteen. Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: in its entirety and requests the reimbursement of her attorney's fees.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: See Generally opposed two MTD Docket Number fifty one, Part
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: two Legal Standards, Section A, Rule sixty B. Under Rule
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: sixty B, a court may relieve a party from a
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons. One mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: or excusable neglect. Two newly discovered evidence that with reasonable
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: diligence could not have been discovered previously. Three fraud, misrepresentation
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: or conduct or misconduct by an opposing party. Four the
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: judgment is void, five the judgment has been satisfied, released,
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: or discharged, And six any other reason that justifies relief.
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: Fed dot R dot SIV dot P DOT sixty B
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: one through six. Rule sixty B is an extraordinary remedy
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: and is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Carracker versus Rent
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: the Center Incorporated, four to eleven f DOT three D
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: eight thirty one eight thirty seven seven Circuit two thousand
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: and seven. Citation omitted. The moving party bears the burden
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: of proving the existence of a justification for Rule sixty
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: B relief Cassidy versus Tenorio eight fifty six f dot
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: two D fourtois teen twelve fourteen fifteen, Ninth Circuit nineteen
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: eighty eight. The disposition of Rule sixty B motion is
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Case
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: versus Albertson's Incorporated. Three sixty two f Dot three D
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: twelve fifty four twelve fifty seven, Ninth Circuit, two thousand
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: and four one Rule sixty B four. Under Rule sixty
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: B four, a court may grant relief from a final
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: judgment upon a showing that the judgment is void fed
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: dot r dot siv dot p Dot sixty b and four.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: A judgment is not void simply because a party believes
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: it is Erranis United Student Aid Funds Incorporated. Vers. Espinoza
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: five point fifty nine US two sixty two seventy twenty ten. Instead,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: Rule sixty B four applies only in the rare instance
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: where a judgment is premised either on a certain type
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: that deprives a party of notice or opportunity to be
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: heard id AT two seventy one. See also United States
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: versus Burkeye, one seventy f Dot three D eight eighty two,
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: eight eighty three, Ninth Circuit nineteen ninety nine, recognizing that
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: a final judgment is void for purposes of Rule sixty
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: B four only if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: either as to the subject matter or the dispute, or
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: over the parties to be bound or acted in a
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: manner inconsistent with due process of law. In considering allegations
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: of a jurisdictional defect, the generally accepted standard is that
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: relief under Rule sixty B four should only be reserved
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: the judgment lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction. United
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: States Aid Funds five point fifty nine us AT d
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: S two seventy one. Rule sixty B six is a
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: catch all provision that applies only when the reason for
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: granting relief is not covered by any of the other
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: reasons set forth in Rule sixty b FED dot R
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: dot civ P. Sixty B six. United States versus Washington
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: three ninety four f Dot three D eleven fifty two
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: eleven fifty seven, Ninth Circuit, two thousand and five. The
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: rule has been used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: prevent manifest injustice, and is to be utilized only when
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: prevent or correct an erroneous judgment ID internal quotations omitted. Thus,
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: to receive relief under Rule sixty B six, a party
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: must establish both injury and circumstances beyond her control that
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: prevented her from preceding in a proper fashion id internal
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: quod votations omitted. The extraordinary circumstances standard is intended to
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: avoid a mirror second bite at the Apple b Rule twelve.
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: Rule eight A two requires only a short and plain
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: of what the claim is and the grounds upon which
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: it rests. Bell Atlantic Corporation Verse Twombly five point fifty
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: US five forty four five point fifty five, two thousand
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: and seven, quoting fed dot r dotzev dot P eight
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: A and two. A defendant may move to Thismisican plaint
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: under Rule twelve for any one of the several specified grounds,
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: including one lack of subject matter jurisdiction, two lack of
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: personal jurisdiction, three improper venue, four insufficient process, five insufficient
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: service of process, six failure to state a claim upon
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: which relief can be granted, and seven failure to join
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: a party. Under Rule nineteen fed dot R dot siv
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: dot p twelve B one through seven one Rule twelve
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: B one, Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions Cocain in versus Guardian
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: Life Insurance Company, five eleven US three seventy five, three
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: seventy seven, nineteen ninety four. Federal courts possess only that
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: power authorized by the Constitution and statute, which is not
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: to be expanded by judicial decree Ida three seventy seven
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: Internal citations omitted subject matter jurisdiction is required. It cannot
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: be forfeited or waived. If the court determines at any
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: dismiss the action fed dot R dot SIV dot P
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: twelve eight and three. Rule twelve B one authorizes the
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: court to dismiss claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: fed dot R dot SIV dot p Dot twelve b
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: and one Rule twelve B one. Jurisdictional attacks can either
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: be facial or factual. White versus Lee two twenty seven
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: F Dot three D twelve fourteen twelve forty two, Ninth
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: Circuit two thousand. In a fascial attack, the challenger asserts
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: face to invoke federal jurisdiction. Say Fair for Everyone versus Meyer,
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: three seventy three F Dot three d ten thirty five,
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: ten thirty nine, Ninth Circuit two thousand and four. A
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: party making a fascial claim does not submit supporting evidence
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: with emotion because jurisdiction is challenged based solely on the
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: pleadings Warren versus Fox Family Worldwide Incorporated. Three twenty eight
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: F Dot three d eleven thirty six, eleven thirty nine,
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit two thousand three. A court must assume the
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: facts alleged in the complaint to be true and construe
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: them in the light most favorable to the non moving party.
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: truth of the allegations that by themselves would otherwise invoke
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: federal jurisdiction. Say fair for everyone, three seventy three f.
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: Dot three d At ten thirty nine. In a ruling
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: on a party's factual attack, district courts may review evidence
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: a motion for some rejudgment. The movement may rely on
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: affidavids or any other evidence properly before the court, and
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: the party opposing the motion must then present Affidavid's or
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: any other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: that the court in fact possesses subject matter jurisdiction. Saint
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: Clair versus City of Chico, eight eighty f Dot two
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: d one ninety nine, two oh one, Ninth Circuit, nineteen
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: eighty nine. All right, so we're gonna wrap up part
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: one right there, and in the next episode we'll pick
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All of the information that
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: What's up Everyone and welcome back to the program. In
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: with a ruling from the judge in Idaho about the
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: TikTok tarot card reader and the allegations she made against
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: the professor at the university. So let's get right back
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: to it. Number two. Rule twelve B two. A court
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: cannot adjudicate claims against a defendant over whom it has
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: no jurisdiction. Rule twelve B two provides for the dismissal
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: of claims where a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: defendant fed Dot R Dot siv Dot, p Dot twelve
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: b in two. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper Schwarzenegger versus
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: Fred Martin Company, three seventy four f Dot three D
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: seven ninety seven, eight hundred Ninth Circuit, two thousand and four.
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: To establish personal jurisdictions, the plaintiff must show that the
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: statute of the forum confers personal jurisdiction over the non
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: resident defendant, and that the exercise of jurisdiction conforms with
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: the federal constitutional principles of due process. Lake versus Lake
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: eight seventeen F Dot two d fourteen sixteen fourteen twenty
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: ninth Circuit nineteen eighty seven. Where the motion to dismiss
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: is based on written materials, and where an evidentiary hearing
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: has not been conducted, the plaintiff needs to establish only
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: Wells Cargo Incorporated versus Transportation Insurance Company six seventy six
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: F Dot sp Dot two d eleven fourteen eleven eighteen,
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: Idaho two thousand and nine, citing Ballard versus Savage sixty
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: five F Dot three d fourteen ninety five, fourteen ninety eight,
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit nineteen ninety five, the court must take the
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's uncontroverted allegations and their complaint is true, and resolve
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: factual disputes in affidavits in the plaintiffs favor id citing
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: Dole Food Company Incorporated. Versus Watts three oh three F
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: Dot three d eleven oh four eleven oh eight, ninth
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: Circuit two thousand and two. Apps. In a federal statute
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: governing personal jurisdiction, federal courts apply the law of the
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: state where the district court sits Yahoo versus La League Contre.
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: Four thirty three f Dot three d eleven ninety nine,
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: twelve oh five, Ninth Circuit. Two thousand and six. Because
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: Idaho's long arm statute allows a broader application of personal
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction than the due process clause, the court need only
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: look to the due process clause to determine personal jurisdiction.
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: Hill versus Union Pacific Railroad three sixty two F. Dot
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: Soup Dot three D eight sixty eight ninety five, Idaho,
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, citing Wells Cargo six seventy six, two d
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: At eleven nineteen. Thus, under Idaho law, the jurisdictional analysis
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: and federal due process analysis are the same. The due
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: process clause of the fourteenth Amendment requires that a non
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: resident defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: so that notions of fair play and substantial justice are
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: not offended. Id citing International Shoe Company versus Washington three
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: twenty six US three ten three sixteen, nineteen forty five.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: Under federal law, personal jurisdiction can be either general or specific.
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: Bristol Myers Squib Company versus Superior Court of calif Fifornia,
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: San Francisco one thirty seven, Supreme Court, seventeen seventy three,
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: seventeen seventy six, twenty seventeen. A court may exercise general
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction only when a defendant is essentially at home in
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: a forum State Ford Motor Company versus Mont eight Judicial
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: District one forty one, Supreme Court, ten seventeen, ten, twenty four,
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. General jurisdiction is properly exercised by a
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: state when the defendant has contacts with the forum that
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: are so continuous and systematic as to render the defendant
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: essentially at home in the forum State Daimler Ag. Versus Bowman,
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: five seventy one US one seventeen one, twenty seven, twenty fourteen.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: Only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: render a defendant amiable to a general jurisdiction there Schaffer
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: versus Heidner four thirty three US one eighty six, two
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: O four, nineteen seventy seven. For an individual, the paradigm
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: Bristol Meyers quib Company, one thirty seven, Supreme Court at
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: seventeen seventy nine and eighty. A court has specific jurisdiction
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: over a defendant if the controversy is sufficiently related to
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: or a rose out of, the defendant's contacts with the
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: forum Ameluke versus Langston's Slip and Batty Bugery as fifty
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: two f Dot three D two sixty seven two seventy
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit, nineteen ninety five. In other words, specific jurisdiction
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: depends on the quality and the nature of the defendant's
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: contacts with the forum state in relation to the cause
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: of action Lake eight seventeen f. Dot two d At
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: fourteen twenty one. The Ninth Circuit analyzes specific jurisdiction by
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: utilizing a three part test. One, the nonresident defendant must
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: purposefully direct her activities or consummate some transaction with the
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: Forum or resident thereof, or perform some act by which
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: she purposely avails herself of the privilege of conducting activities
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: in the Forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: its laws. Two, the claim must be one which arises
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: out of or relates to, the defendant's Forum related activities.
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: And three, the exercise of jurisdiction must import with fair
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: play and substantial justice, i e. It must be reasonable
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: Yahoo Incorporated. Four thirty three f dot three d at
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: twelve oh five and six. The plaintiff has the burden
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: of satisfying the first two prongs Lake eight seventeen ft
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: two d at fourteen twenty one. If satisfied, the burden
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate unreasonableness. But Shedo
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: versus Hansing five point thirty nine f dot three d
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: eleven oh one ten sixteen, Ninth Circuit two thousand and eight,
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: three Rule twelve B six. The purpose of a motion
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule twelve B six is
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N Star
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: International First Ariz Corporation, seven twenty f Dot two d
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: five seventy eight, five eighty one, Ninth Circuit, nineteen eighty three.
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: a cognizant legal theory. Ballisteria versus Pacifica Police Department, nine
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: oh one f Dot two d six ninety six, six
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: ninety nine, Ninth Circuit nineteen ninety. A plaintiff is required
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: to allege enough facts to estate a claim to relief
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: that is plausible on its face Bell Atlantic Corporation versus
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: Twombly five point fifty US five forty four, five seventy,
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: two thousand seven. A claim has fasciol plausibility when the
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: misconduct alleged. Ashcroft versus Ickbaal, five point fifty six US
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: six sixty two, six seventy eight, two thousand and nine.
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: allegations in the complaint and construes them in the light
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: most favorable to the plaintiff. To Shawan versus King Inspalding,
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: four sixty seven U. S sixty nine, seventy three, nineteen
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: eighty four. However, the court need not assume the truth
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: US Chuney versus Ring Rose, seven eighty eight f dot
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: two D six thirty eight, six forty three n DOT
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: two D ninth Circuit, nineteen eighty six. While Rule eight
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: A does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: than an unadorned the defendant unlawfully harm me accusation Ickball
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: five fifty six US at six seventy eight. A pleating
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: is insufficient if it offers mere labels and conclusions or
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: action Twombly five fifty US at five fifty five. See
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: also Ickball five point fifty six US at six seventy eight.
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice. Moreover, it
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff can prove facts
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: that it has not alleged, or that the defendant has
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: violated the laws in ways that have not been alleged.
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: Associated General Contractors of California Incorporated versus California State Council
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: of Carpenters four fifty nine US five nineteen six, nineteen
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: eighty three. All right, folks, So we're going to wrap
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: up there, and in the next episode we're going to
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: pick up with Section three and that's the discussion. All
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: back to the program. This episode, we're diving right back
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: in to those court documents and we're going to continue
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: looking at the ruling the judges made when it comes
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: to the TikTok Tarot card reader and the professor from Idaho.
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: Part three Discussion A. The court has subject matter jurisdiction.
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases where complete diversity
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: exists between the parties and the amountain controversy exceeds seventy
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: five grand twenty eight at US Code section thirteen thirty two. A. Here,
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: plaintiff alleges that the jurisdiction is proper under twenty eight
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: Code thirteen thirty two because there is diversity of citizenship
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: and the amount of controversy exceeds seventy five thousand dollars.
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: Defendant disagrees. She argues that while the parties may be
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: citizens of different states, her TikTok videos claiming that plaintiff
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: had an affair with the student and then order the
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: murder of forced students to cover up that affair, did
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: not actually cause plaintiff to suffer any damages. Memorandum Iso
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: mtd at five Dash nine dock at fifty dash one.
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: According to defendant, without damages, there is no legitimate amount
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: in controversy and thus no diversity jurisdiction, which one renders.
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: The Courts August eighth, twenty twenty three memorandum decision and
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: order void under rules sixty B and four and two
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: warrants the dismissal of Plaintiff's defamation claims against her Rule
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: twelve B one. Defendant's argument is without merit. Here, Defendant
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: essentially brings a fascial challenge to plaintiff's complain that plaintiff's allegations,
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: even taken as true, failed to show that the amount
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: in controversy exceeds seventy five thousand dollars. Defendant points to
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: the fact that plaintiff neither lost her job nor was
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: prevented from advancing in her field. Memorandum Iso MTD at
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: six dock at fifty dash one. Defendant did not harm
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's reputation. In fact, Plaintiff's reputation increased positively, as proven
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: by news media, social media, and her gofund me raising campaign.
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: Defendant also questions the extent of plaintiff's alleged severe mental
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: distress and relatively how defendant could have even caused such
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: injuries when it was plaintiff who killed the four University
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: of Idaho students in the first instance, and nobody believed
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: in the power of the tarret and the defendant psychic
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: abilities anyway, id at seven and eight. In a diversity
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: case originally filed in federal court, the sum claimed in
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: the complaint controls if the claim is apparently made in
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: good faith, it must appear to a legal certainty that
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: to justify dismissal. Main Community Health Options versus Albertson's Companies Incorporated,
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: nine ninety three f Dot three D seven twenty seven,
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: twenty three, Ninth Circuit, twenty twenty one emphasis in original.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: The legal certainty test permits a district court to dismiss
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: the case for lack of jurisdiction only if it's obvious
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: on the face of the complaint that the suit cannot
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: involve the necessary amount. Geographic Expeditions Incorporated versus Locta Locta,
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: five ninety nine f Dot three d eleven oh two
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: eleven oh six, Ninth Circuit twenty ten. This standard makes
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: it very difficult to secure a disas dismissile of a
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: case on the ground that it does not appear to
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement Nafi versus Frey, seven eighty
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: nine FT three d ten thirty ten forty Ninth Circuit
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. To be sure, just three situations meet the
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: legal certainty standard. One when the terms of a contract
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: limit the plaintiffs possible recovery, two when a specific rule
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: of law or measure of damage limits the amount of
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: damages recoverable, And three when independent facts show that the
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: amount of damages was claimed merely to obtain federal court jurisdiction.
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: Defendants arguments most closely aligned with the third scenario. Importantly, however,
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: those arguments only represent challenges to what plaintiff may ultimately recover.
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: They do not involve any objective upfront criticism of plaintiff's
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: claim to damages, or, for that matter, the amount of
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: those damages. As a result, defendant's arguments represent and attempt
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: to do what the Ninth Circuit has prohibited. Smuggle in
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: merits based arguments into the jurisdictional inquiry Green versus Harley Davidson, Incorporated.
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: Nine sixty five three dot D seven sixty seven seven
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: seventy four, Ninth Circuit twenty twenty. See also Areas versus
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: residents in by Marriott, nine thirty six f Dot three
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: d nine twenty nine, twenty eight, Ninth Circuit twenty nineteen.
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: The strength of any defense indicates the likelihood of the
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: plaintiff prevailing, it is irrelevant to determining the amount that
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: is at stake in the litigation. Arius's argument conflates the
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: amount in controversy with the amount of damages ultimately recoverable
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: Geographic Expeditions, five ninety nine F. Dot three d at
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: eleven oh eight. The existence of a valid defense to
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: a claim does not eliminate federal jurisdics, As a Ninth
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: Circuit is cautioned, if a district court had to evaluate
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: every possible defense that could reduce recovery below the jurisdictional amount,
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: the district court would essentially have to decide the merits
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: of the case before it could determine if it had
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: subject matter jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions five ninety nine ft three
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: d At eleven o eight. Here, defendants TikTok videos accused
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: plaintiff of not only having an improper relationship with a student,
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: but then masterminding the murder of for students to keep
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: that relationship secret. Plaintiff alleges that these videos are defamatory
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: and that she suffered actual injuries to her life, career,
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: and mental health as a result. See Opposition two mtd
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: At three and four dock at fifty one. Without weighing
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: in on the merits of these claims, it is not
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: unreasonable for plaintiff to seek damages that compensator for these
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: alleged injuries, nor is it inconceivable that such damages exceed
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: seventy five thousand dollars, depending on the nature and extent
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: of those alleged injuries that the parties dispute. The facts
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: informing these aspects of plaintiff's case are not resolved here,
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: but instead must be determined by the trier of fact
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: based upon the evidence. As such, of the court cannot
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: find a legal certainty that plaintiff's claims against defendant are
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: really for less than seventy five thousand dollars, and simply
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: a procedural maneuver to falsely obtain federal jurisdiction. Defendant's motion
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: is denied in this respect. B the court has personal
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction over the defendant. The defendant argues that the court
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: does not have personal jurisdiction over her because she is
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: a resident of Texas and her TikTok videos were published
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: mostly in Texas and accessed in several states. Absent personal jurisdiction.
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: She claims the court's August eighth, twenty two, twenty three
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: memorandum decision in order is void under rule sixty B four,
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: and plaintiff's defamation claims against her must be dismissed under
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: rule twelve B two. The defendant's argument is without merit
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: to begin. Personal jurisdiction is a personal defense that may
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: be waived or forfeited Mallory versus Norfolk Southern Railway Company,
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: six hundred US one twenty two one forty four twenty
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: twenty three. Even if the defendant is arguably preserved the
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: defense within her answer, she nonetheless forfeited it when she
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: substantially participated in the litigation without first removing the dismiss
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: under rule twelve B two, Argonauts Insurance Company for Saint
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: Francis Medical Center, seventeen f Fourth twelve seventy six, twelve
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: eighty three, Ninth Circuit twenty twenty one. An objection the
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: personal jurisdiction, for example, has been forfeited, where after properly
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: preserving the objection in its answer, A def defendant then
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: fully participated in litigation of the merits for over two
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: and a half years without actively contesting personal jurisdiction, internal
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: quotation marks and citation omitted. Indeed, before filing the ad
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: issue motion, Defendant one affirmatively asserted counter claims against plaintiff
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: and attempted to add Plaintiff's council as parties to the actions.
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: Two submitted briefing and made oral argument relative to the
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: merits of those claims in response to Plaintiff's motion to
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: dismiss and motion to quash. Three participated in the Rule
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: twenty six f conference, stipulated to litigation deadlines moving forward,
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: and filed a discovery plan Dockets twenty nine, thirty one
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: and four. Pursued discovery from a third party via subpoena
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: issued under this Court's authority Dockets forty eight and three
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: and fifty two. Defendant's involvement in these discrete aspects of
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: the case reveal that she has as to the court's
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: authority to adjudicate and correspondingly forfeited any challenge to the
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: court exercising personal jurisdiction over her. Regardless the court has
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: personal jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction over the defendant. Specific jurisdiction applies
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: when the challenged act was purposeful, when the lawsuit arises
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: from that act, and when the jurisdiction is reasonable. Supra
• 36:26
  Speaker 1: Citing Yahoo Incorporated. Four to thirty three ft three d
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: At twelve oh five and six. Each of these requirements
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: is satisfied here one purposeful direction. The touchstone purposeful direction
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: requirement ensures that a defendant will not be hauled into
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: attenuated contacts. Burger King Corporation versus Rudowitz, four seventy one
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: US four sixty two, four seventy five four eighty five.
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: To address this can, certain courts typically inquire whether the
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: defendant's actions were felt, whether or not the actions themselves
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: occurred within the forum Yahoo Incorporated. Four thirty three f
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: Dot three d at twelve oh six, citing calleder versus
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: Jones four sixty five, US seven eighty three, seven eighty
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: nine to ninety, nineteen eighty four. See also Ama Multimedia LLC.
• 37:24
  Speaker 1: Versus one Not nine seventy F dot three D twelve
• 37:27
  Speaker 1: oh one, twelve oh eight, ninth Circuit twenty twenty, where
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: allegedly tortious conduct takes place outside the forum and has
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: effects inside the forum. Our circuit has examined purposeful direction
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: using an effects test. Under the effects test, a defendant
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: purposefully directed her activities at the forum if she won
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: committed an intentional act two expressly aimed at the forum,
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: state three, causing harm that the defendant nos is likely
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: to be suffered in the Forum's state. Moral versus Scott
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: Finn Corporation, eight seventy three, F dot three, D eleven
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: thirty six, eleven forty two, Ninth Circuit twenty seventeen. See
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: also Panavision International LP versus Topin one for one F
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: dot three D thirteen sixteen thirteen, twenty ninth Circuit nineteen
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: eighty eight. It is not required that a defendant be
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: physically present or have physical contacts with the Forum, so
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: long as his efforts are purposefully directed toward Forum residents.
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff's allegations, along with the defendant's own allegations, meet the
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: effects test. First, defendant admits that she intentionally posted over
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: one hundred TikTok videos stating that plaintiff had a relationship
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: with a student and then ordered the murder a forced
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: students to conceal that relationship from the public. Second, these
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: videos specifically accused plaintiff, a University of Idaho professor and
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: resident of Idaho, of having an affair in n s, Idaho,
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: with a University of Idaho student and then killing that
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: student and three other University of Idaho students in Idaho.
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: See also Menken versus M five oh three ft three
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: D ten fifty ten fifty nine, Ninth Circuit, two thousand
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: and seven. The requirement is satisfied when the defendant is
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct targeted at a
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident of
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: the forum state. Third, taking plaintiff's allegations is true, defendant
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: undoubtedly new that, given the accusations regarded alleged conduct by
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: plaintiff in Idaho, that plaintiff resides and works in Idaho.
• 39:39
  Speaker 1: Any result in harm would also take place in Idaho.
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: See Brayton Purcell, LLP. And Recording versus Recording six oh
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: six ft three d eleven twenty four, eleven twenty nine,
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit twenty ten. This element is satisfied when defendants
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: intentional act has foreseeable effects in the forum. Internal quotation
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: mark and citation omitted because the effects test is met.
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: So two is the purposeful direction requirement for specific jurisdiction.
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff has therefore met a burden as to the first
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: prong of the personal jurisdiction analysis. All right, folks, we're
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up there, and in the next episode
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: we'll pick up where we left off. All of the
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: the description box Welcome back to the program. In this episode,
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: we're picking up where we left off with the TikTok
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: Tarot card reader and the decision made by the judge
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: in Idaho. Number two arise out of or relate to
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: forum activities. Under the second requirement for specific jurisdiction, the
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's claims must arise out of or relate to the
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: defendant's forum related activities. The Ninth Circuit follows the Butt
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: four test. To make this assessment, men go in five
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: h three ft three d At ten fifty eight. Hence,
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: plaintiff must show that she would not have suffered an
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: injury but for defendant's forum related conduct. Plaintiff's allegations easily
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: meet the standard. Plaintiff alleges at defendants TikTok videos harmed
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: a reputation and caused physical injury. Assuming Plaintiff's allegations are true,
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: plaintiff would not have suffered an injury but for defendant's
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: forum related conduct. Plaintiff's defamation claims against defendant clearly arise
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: out of and relate to defendants TikTok videos conduct that
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: was directed at plaintiff in Idaho, relating to matters taking
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: place only in Idaho. Supra Plaintiff has therefore met her
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: burden as to the second prong of the personal jurisdiction
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: analysis number three, reasonableness. Once the plaintiff establishes the first
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: two requirements for specific jurisdiction, the forum's ex size of
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction is presumed reasonable unless the defendant presents a compelling
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: case that the exercise of jurisdiction would in fact be unreasonable.
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: Shoot versus Carnival Cruise Lines eight ninety seven F Dot
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: two D three seventy seven, three eighty six, Ninth Circuit,
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety quoting Burger King, four seventy one, US at
• 42:22
  Speaker 1: four seventy seven. This is the third and final requirement
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: for specific jurisdiction to evaluate reasonableness. Courts within the Ninth
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: Circuit way one the extent of the defendant's purposeful interjection
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: into the forum state's affairs. Two the burden on the
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: defendant of defending in the forum. Three the extent of
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant state for the
• 42:49
  Speaker 1: forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, and five the
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy. Number six the
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: importance of the forum to the plaintiffs in trists inconvenient
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: and effective relief. And seven the existence of an alternative
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: forum Freestream Aircraft Bermuda Limited versus Arrow Law Group nine
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: oh five F Dot three d five ninety seven, six
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: oh seven, Ninth Circuit twenty eighteen. A court must balance
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: all seven factors, as no single factor is dispositive. Rio
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: Props Incorporated. Versus Rio International Interlink two eighty four F
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: Dot three D ten zero seven ten twenty one, Ninth Circuit,
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. Defendant has not seriously attempted to meet
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: this high burden, other than to mention in passing that
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: she is from Texas and published her TikTok videos from Texas.
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: But that is not good enough to render jurisdiction in
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: Idaho ipso facto unreasonable. To the contrary, it is reasonable
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: for this court to exercise jurisdiction over defendant in this instance.
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: As shown above, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendant purposely injected
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: herself in the Idaho specific matters through repeated TikTok videos.
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: And while Defendant no doubt will be burdened to some
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: extent with having to defend herself in Idaho, she has
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: done so to this point without any obvious hassle or impediment.
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: Ceeg Sinatra versus National Inquirer Incorporated. Eight fifty four f
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: dot two d eleven ninety one, eleven ninety nine, Ninth Circuit,
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty eight. Modern advances in communication and transportation have
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: significantly reduced the burden of litigating in another forum. There
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: is also no reason to believe that Texas has a
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: particular interest in this case. In comparison, given Idaho's laws
• 44:47
  Speaker 1: application two, Plaintiff's defamation claims, Idaho has a strong interest
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: in adjudicating the party's dispute. Next, there are likely just
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: as many witnesses, if not more, in Idaho as or
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: are in Texas, making Idaho the most efficient and convenient
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: forum for plaintiff. Finally, the existence of an alternative forum
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: in Texas is not enough to counter the accumulated weight
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: of the remaining factors. Weighing all seven factors together, it
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: is reasonable for this court to exercise specific jurisdiction over defendant.
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: In some plaintiff has made prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts,
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: and all three requirements for specific jurisdiction have been satisfied. Thus,
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant comports with
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: federal constitutional principles of due process, and the Court has
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: personal jurisdiction in this matter. Defendant's motion is denied in
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: this respect see venue is proper in this district. Generally,
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: venue is proper, and an action may be brought in
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: one the district in which any defendant resides, to a
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: district in which a substantial part of the events or
• 46:02
  Speaker 1: emissions given rise to the claim occurred, or three, if
• 46:06
  Speaker 1: neither is available, then any district in which a defendant
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: is a subject to personal jurisdiction. US Code thirteen ninety
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: one B one through three. Plaintiff alleges that venue is
• 46:18
  Speaker 1: proper in this district under section one thirty nine one
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: B in two because the substantial part of the events
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: giving rise to the claims occurred in Idaho. The defendant disagrees.
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: Defendant argues that since plaintiff claims to not have killed
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: the students, the only event that gave rise to the
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: civil action is the alleged defamation that occurred on social media,
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: published mostly in Texas and access in several states. She
• 46:47
  Speaker 1: instead submits that proper venue, assuming subject matter jurisdiction, is
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Texas,
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: and that under US Code twenty eight, section fourteen oh
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: six A, the action should either be dismissed outright or
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: transferred there. Defendant's argument fails. The Ninth Circuit Court is
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: ruled that when determining where a substantial part of the
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: events or emissions giving rise to the claim occurred in
• 47:14
  Speaker 1: a toward action, the locus of the injury is a
• 47:17
  Speaker 1: relevant factor. Rogers versus color Street, LLC. Twenty twenty three
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: W L four six two seven nine zero nine, at five,
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: d Idaho, twenty twenty three, quoting Myers versus Bennett ll
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: Offices two thirty eight F Dot three D ten sixty
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: eight ten seventy six Ninth Circuit two thousand and one. Here,
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: owing to Defendant's alleged defamatory statements, plaintiff claims to have
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: suffered damage to a reputation, career, and mental health, all
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: occurring in Idaho. Because there is no basis to conclude
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: that the alleged defamation was felt anywhere other than Idaho,
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: venue is likewise proper in Idaho and in this district Rogers,
• 48:03
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, WL four sixty two seventy nine oh nine,
• 48:07
  Speaker 1: at five. Thus, the Court assumes Rogers felt the harm
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: of the allegedly defamatory statements in Idaho, where she was
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: residing when the statements were made in twenty twenty two.
• 48:19
  Speaker 1: This would mean that a substantial part of the acts, events,
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: or emissions that gave rise to the defamation claim occurred
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: in Idaho, and venue in Idaho is appropriate with respect
• 48:30
  Speaker 1: to these claims. Pursue it to US Code twenty eight
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: thirteen ninety one b in two that venue may also
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: exist elsewhere does not undo this reality. Defendant's motion is denied.
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: In this respect. The Court did not improperly judge Defendant's
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: religious beliefs. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's defamation claims by going
• 48:52
  Speaker 1: on the offensive, alleging that those claims, as well as
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: statements made by plaintiff's council to the media about the claims,
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: were themselves defamatory and purposefully brought by plaintiff and her
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: council to systematically deprived defendant of her constitutional rights to
• 49:08
  Speaker 1: free speech and due process. Certain of Defendant's counterclaims reflected
• 49:14
  Speaker 1: these beliefs first, second, third, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth counterclaims,
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: alongside related counterclaims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: emotional distress six, seventh, tenth, and eleventh counterclaims at thirty eight,
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: forty four, fifty two, and fifty nine one sixty two
• 49:34
  Speaker 1: through two oh one two forty four, two seventy nine. Together,
• 49:38
  Speaker 1: these counterclaims presumed and depended upon an alternate version of
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: events surrounding the murder of four University of Idaho's students, namely,
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: that plaintiff orchestrated the murders and then colluded with her
• 49:52
  Speaker 1: counsel to bring this action against defendant to silence her
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: clairvoyant insight into the true extent of plaintiffs and v.
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: The Court's August eighth, twenty twenty three memorandum decision and
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: order dismissed Defendant's counterclaims because there was no objective basis
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: to believe that plaintiff did the things that Defendant publicly
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: and repeatedly claims she did eight eight twenty three mdo
• 50:18
  Speaker 1: at seven, dock at forty nine. Defendant's intuitive abilities, spiritual acuity,
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: and investigative skills were not enough to allow the court
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: to infer the existence of a plausible claim against plaintiff
• 50:31
  Speaker 1: id at eight and ten. Because the predicate components of
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: Defendant's counterclaims against plaintiff lack any basis. In fact, those
• 50:39
  Speaker 1: counterclaims should not proceed at bottom. The court struggles to
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: accept Defendant's allegations as creating factually plausible counterclaims against plaintiff.
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: Defendant takes issue with the Court's analysis. She argues that,
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: the plausibility of spiritual practices, its August eighth memorandum is void.
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: The Court intentionally erred in denouncing tarret readings and defendant
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: spiritual connection as a spiritual practice for the purpose of
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: overstepping the separation of the church and state, as required
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: by federal laws and the First Amendment of the United
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: States Constitution. Defendant's argument cannot succeed. To survive, a motion
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: to dismiss a complaint must contain sufficient facts accept it
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: as true the state of claim to relief that is
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: plausible on its face Bell Atlantic Corporation Versus Twombly five
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: point fifty US five forty four, five seventy, two thousand
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: and seven. A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: pleads sufficient facts to allow the court to reasonably infer
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Though
• 51:52
  Speaker 1: courts generally construe pro sey party filings, liberally, a court
• 51:56
  Speaker 1: may dismiss a frivolous claim that are clearly baseless, a
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: category encompassing allegations fanciful, fantastic, and delusional Denton versus Hernandez,
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: five oh four US twenty five thirty three, nineteen ninety two.
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: the irrational or the wholly incredible ce Nitski versus Williams
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: four ninety US three nineteen three twenty five, nineteen eighty nine.
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: The term frivolous, when applied to a complaint, embraces not
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: In this context, claims that are clearly baseless are not
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: facially plausible. Here, defendant's counter claims were supported only by
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: her spiritual intuition. But intuition, even if summoned by one's spirituality,
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: does not make a legal claim plausible. Otherwise there would
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: be no standard against will which such claims can be
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: tested under Rule twelve B six, and asserted First Amendment
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: protections would automatically insulate affirmative claims from dismissal, while conversely
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: protecting actionable conduct as well. This is not the standard,
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: nor can it be ceg. Countermen Versus Colorado six hundred
• 53:21
  Speaker 1: US sixty six, seventy three seventy six, twenty twenty three.
• 53:27
  Speaker 1: First Amendment permits restrictions on false statements of fact harming
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: another's reputation. False and defamatory statements of fact, we have
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: held have no constitutional value. Internal quotation marks and citation
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: omitted at bottom. Claims must be based in fact, not
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: conclusory and unverifiable beliefs. With this standard in mind, the
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: Court simply held that absence objectively verifiable factual allegations, defendant's
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: counterclaims were implausible, nothing more, nothing less. But the Court
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: did not stop there. It went on to explain how
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: each of the defendant's counterclaims against plaintiff is also legally deficient.
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: In other words, defendants counterclaims were not dismissed only because
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: they were deemed and plausible. Each counterclaim distinctly failed as
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: a matter of law. These merits based shortcomings separately undercut
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: Defendant's argument that the Court's August eighth, twenty twenty three
• 54:23
  Speaker 1: memorandum decision and order is void for impermissively commenting on
• 54:29
  Speaker 1: the plausibility of defendant spiritual practices. Defendant's motion is denied
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: in this respect. F plaintiff is stated a claim for defamation.
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: Defendant lastly argues that plaintiff defamation claims against her should
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: be dismissed because Idaho's judicial privilege covers the statements made
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: in her TikTok videos, and two plaintiff has not adequately
• 54:54
  Speaker 1: stated a claim for relief. Defendant's argument is meritless. First,
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: idahost jujudicial privilege immunizes a party from civil liability for
• 55:03
  Speaker 1: statements made in the course of judicial proceedings. See Burian
• 55:08
  Speaker 1: versus Barbarian, four eighty three p. Dot three d. Nine
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: thirty seven, nine forty six, Idaho, twenty twenty. Idaho has
• 55:16
  Speaker 1: long recognized that defamatory statements made in the course of
• 55:20
  Speaker 1: a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, even if made with malice, intent,
• 55:26
  Speaker 1: or knowledge of their falsity. The purpose of the judicial
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: privilege is to keep the pass leading to the ascertainment
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: of truth as free and unobstructed as possible. This privilege
• 55:38
  Speaker 1: sets a low bar, requiring only that a defamatory statement
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: one be made in the course of a preceding and
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: two have a reasonable relation the cause of action of
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: that proceeding. Dickinson Frozen Foods Company versus Jr. Simplet Company,
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: four thirty four, p. Dot three D twelve seventy five,
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: twelve eighty four, Idaho, twenty nineteen. Defendants TikTok videos do
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: not satisfy this standard. To be clear, a judicial preceding
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: in this context is not limited to trials, but includes
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: every preceding of a judicial nature before a court or
• 56:14
  Speaker 1: official clothed with judicial or quasi judicial powers. Malmann versus Angler,
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: eight sixty four, p. Dot two D one seventy nine,
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: one eighty two, Idaho Court of Appeals, nineteen ninety three,
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: Quoting Richeson versus Kessler two fifty five, p. Dot two
• 56:30
  Speaker 1: D seven oh seven, seven oh nine, Idaho, nineteen fifty three.
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: Defendants TikTok videos were never made in any preceding that
• 56:38
  Speaker 1: can be understood as judicial in nature, and while statements
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: made to law enforcement may be subject to qualified privilege.
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: Bury in forty eighty three, p. Dot three d. At
• 56:49
  Speaker 1: nine forty six and forty eight, Defendants TikTok videos existed
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: independent of any criminal investigation into the murder of the
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: four University of Idaho's students, that is, the alleged defamatory
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: statements embedded within defendants TikTok videos were not relayed just
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: to law enforcement as part of a discreet criminal investigation
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: into the murders. Instead, they were effectively disseminated worldwide. That
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: statement may have also been communicated to law enforcement does
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: not then immunize them, particularly when no charges have ever
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: been brought against the plaintiff. Second defendant's insistence that plaintiff
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: has not proven her defamation claim misunderstands plaintiff's burden at
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: this phase of the proceedings. At the motion to dismiss stage,
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff need not prove anything. She needs only to allege
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: facts that, if true, plausibly support a claim supra Citing
• 57:49
  Speaker 1: Twombly five point fifty US at five seventy ick Ball
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: five fifty six US at six seventy eight. Plaintiff has
• 57:56
  Speaker 1: done this. She has alleged that defendant made fall and
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: defamatory statements implicating plaintiff in a relationship with a student
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: and the murder of four students, that defendant knew her
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: statements were false, and that plaintiff was damaged as a result.
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: These allegations support a defamation claim under Idaho law Clark
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: versus The Spokesman Review one sixty three p. Dot three
• 58:21
  Speaker 1: d two sixteen two nineteen, Idaho, two thousand and seven.
• 58:25
  Speaker 1: A motion to dismiss is not the proper legal mechanism
• 58:29
  Speaker 1: for substantively challenging those allegations. That is the function of
• 58:34
  Speaker 1: either a motion of summary judgment or eventually trial. Until then,
• 58:38
  Speaker 1: Defendant's motion is denied in this respect four the order
• 58:44
  Speaker 1: based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Defendant
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: Ashley Gillard's motion to set aside and motion to dismiss
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: dock at fifty is denied. This was dated November thirteenth
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: and it was signed by Judge Raymond put Tricio. All Right, folks,
• 59:02
  Speaker 1: that's going to wrap up our look at the lawsuit
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: between Ashley Gallard, the tarot card reader, and the University
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: of Idaho professor who was wrongfully accused, Rebecca Schofield. All
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 59:17
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.