In the continuing battle between a local blogger and her wealthy landlord, in comes this R&R from Magistrate Judge Torres recommending the blogger and her counsel receive over $150k in fees and costs for defending against an "objectively unreasonable" lawsuit filed for an "improper purpose":
During the more than two years that this litigation consumed, Plaintiff should have at all times known his claim would eventually fail when the truth of his motivations was eventually known. After Plaintiff’s lengthy attempts to improperly quiet Defendant through this lawsuit, evident in his vigorous litigation of an improper claim, this Court concludes that the objectively unreasonable factor strongly weighs in favor of Defendant.I'm not a lawyer (actually I am) but this doesn't sound all too good.
. . . .
Here, it is crystal clear that Plaintiff’s motivations pursuing this lawsuit were improper. Instead of using the law for its intended purposes of fostering ideas and expression, Plaintiff obtained the photograph’s copyright solely for the purpose of suppressing Defendant’s free speech. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiff argues that protecting his rights under the Copyright Act was his sole motivation for filing this suit. [D.E. 187 at 13]. That assertion is rather dubious. Plaintiff has characterized this action as “just one battle” in a “malicious war.” [D.E. 187 at 1]. While Plaintiff might view it necessary to remove his unflattering picture to “stop this atrocity” [D.E. 148 at 23], he may not resort to abusive methods to do so.
Query -- who thinks filing an over-the-top indignant, aggressive objection will convince Judge King to completely rule the other way?