I think Mike Postle bought his home in Antelope, California for $159K back in 2012.
It could be worth around $475K today.
If he loses in court, Mike will have to sell his house just to pay everybodys attorneys.
Then he can work on his poker biography.
Tentative ruling:
Dept: 53 Date: 6/16
https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/Pub...chByDepartment
2020-00286265-CU-DF
Michael Postle vs. Veronica Brill
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Attorney Fees
Shepard, Alex J.
Defendant Veronica Brill’s motion for costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with
defending the SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit and filing the
anti-SLAPP motion is unopposed and is ruled on as follows.
Defendant seeks $67,677.50 in attorneys’ fees and $961.91 in costs associated with
defending the SLAPP suit filed by Plaintiff.
The Court acknowledges the "supplemental brief" filed by Plaintiff on June 9, 2021.
(ROA 64.) The filing was untimely and will not be considered by the Court on that
basis. Further, even if the Court were to consider the filing, Plaintiff failed to provide a
declaration or request for judicial notice, etc., authenticating the purported evidence attached.
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit on April 1, 2021, before the hearing on the
anti-SLAPP filed by Defendant was heard. On April 20, 2021, the Court dropped the
anti-SLAPP motion, without prejudice to Defendant filing a motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs incurred in defending this SLAPP lawsuit, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16(c).
Where the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an alleged SLAPP lawsuit while a special
motion to strike is pending, the trial court has discretion to determine whether the
defendant is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16(c). The voluntary dismissal of a complaint before the
hearing on an anti-SLAPP motion creates a presumption that the defendant is the
prevailing party on the anti-SLAPP motion. The defendant need not obtain a ruling
from the court on the motion to strike in order to prevail for purposes of attorneys’ fees.
(Coletrain v. Shewalter (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 94, 106-107.) The Court finds that
Defendant is the prevailing party in this action and is therefore entitled to attorneys’
fees and costs pursuant to section 425.16(c). Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, or
otherwise dispelled the presumption that Defendant is the prevailing party.
The anti-SLAPP statute provides: “In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing
defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s
fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c).) An awar of attorney’s fees to a
prevailing defendant is mandatory. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1121, 1131
(“[A]ny SLAPP defendant who brings a successful motion to strike is entitled to
mandatory attorney fees.”); Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th
659, 685.) Defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs she reasonably
incurred in extricating herself from this action. (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99
Cal.App.4th 443, 446 (the statute is broadly construed as to effectuate the legislative
purpose of reimbursing the prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in extricating
herself from a baseless lawsuit).)
Under California law, in determining the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be
awarded under a statutory attorney fees provision, the court begins by calculating the
“lodestar” amount. (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379,
1393; Cruz v. Ayromloo (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1270.) The “lodestar” is “the number
of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Bernardi, 167
Cal.App.4th at 1393; Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th
140,154.) To determine the reasonable hourly rate, the court looks to the “hourly rate
prevailing in the community for similar work.” (Bernardi, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1394.) The
California Supreme Court has further instructed that attorney fee awards “should be
fully compensatory.” (Id., citing Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1133.) Thus, an attorney fee
award should ordinarily include compensation for all of the hours reasonably spent,
including those relating solely to the fee. (Id. at 1394.) This lodestar fee may then be
adjusted to account for “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the
skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation
precluded other employment by the attorneys, and (4) the contingent nature of the
award.” (Id.)
Fee award amounts are matters within the trial court’s discretion: the “trial judge is the
best judge of the value of professional services rendered in h[er] court, and while h[er]
judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate
court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” (Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1132; accord PLCM
Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.) The Court will reduce the hours it
determines were excessive or not supported. (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 816 (party seeking attorney fees has the “burden of showing
that the fees incurred were ‘allowable,’ were ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of
litigation,’ and were ‘reasonable in amount’”); Christian Research Institute v. Ahor
(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326-1329.)
The billing records that support this motion are attached as Exhibit 3 to the motion, and
supported by the declaration of Marc J. Randazza, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to
the motion. The billing records reflect the following rates and amount of time
requested: $800/hour for Mr. Randazza for 32.3 hours; $450/hour for attorney Alex J.
Shepard for 80.5 hours; $200/hour for law clerk Trey Rothell for 1.1 hours; $200/hour
for law clerk Bryttni Yi for 1.2 hours; $175/hour for paralegal Cassidy Curran for 1.75
hours; $175/hour for paralegal Jasmyn Montano for 1.5 hours; and $175/hour for
paralegal Heather Ebert for 22.6 hours. In total, the motion seeks compensation for
142.9 hours of time and $67,677.50 in fees. The records submitted also reflect
$961.91 in costs.
The Court finds the costs requested to be reasonable, but finds the fees requested to
be excessive. For example, there are multiple entries totaling 33.5 hours for drafting a
memorandum regarding the initial draft of the anti-SLAPP motion. The Court awards
15 hours at $800 for Mr. Randazza; 25 hours at $450 an hour for Mr. Shepard; and 20
hours of paralegal time at the rate of $175 per hour. In total, the Court awards
$26,783.50 in attorneys’ fees and $961.91 in costs, for a total of $27,745.
Defendant is directed to submit an order for the Court's signature.
Last edited by AhoosierA; 06-16-2021 at 11:40 AM.
Court is going live in roughly 5 minutes.
Got my popcorn ready.
Here is the link
Looks like no oral argument? I guess Postle is letting the tentative judgement stand. BTW civil zoom court is boring AF. Has anyone else heard different?
It appears Postle did not ask for oral argument this time and are not going to be on the Youtube video.
It appears Mike has had enough of the judge.
Next, Mike is going to start claiming that years ago he had to turn down the judge on a date and that she is just issuing the judgments against him out of spite.
The interesting takeaway for me is at the end of the day the judge granted both Druff & Veronica equal fee reimbursement. Veronica being the central figure in the case and Druff being on the periphery, made no difference to how the Judge determined the compensation. The judge seems to be a “strict constructionist” when interpreting the law and not legislating from the bench. Scalia would be proud.
BUMP
Paperwork filed to put Postle into involuntary bankruptcy:
https://www.legaluspokersites.com/ne...ayments/27486/
Mike Postle should just sell his house not pay anyone, unless they have a lien on his house and leave town.Neither Brill nor Witteles believed they would see that money, though. Not only did Postle seem unwilling to accept the judgments, he had more debt. Wells Fargo Bank and Discover Bank both sued him for unpaid debts. The court granted Wells Fargo Bank $8,682. Discover is still going after its $5,018.81.
Then write a book about being a poker genius.
Mason Malmuth would publish it.
The odds that Druff actually gets paid is extremely low, unless he can put a lien on Mike's home before he sells it.
It really is something to behold how much Postle fucked himself here. He was always going to be shunned by the poker community for life. He got away without any criminal or civil liability, but it wasn’t good enough for him. The failure to accept that he was always going to be a leper in the gambling community and all this nonsense about a documentary just shows you his lack of self awareness & delusions are atmospheric.
His name and reputation were never going to be rehabilitated. Instead of looking for other ways to care for himself and his daughter he just dug in. You would think dodging any liability would be enough for most people. Not Postle. All unnecessary self inflicted wounds. Just making things exponentially tougher on himself.
I believe today was the deadline for Postle to file opposition. Did he file anything or do you have him by his non-sunned balls?
Why do I feel like X worships at the alter of Postle and thinks he did nothing wrong and that Postle should just give everybody the middle finger. BTW you missed the memo about the invol bankruptcy if he tried to sell the house and succeeded snd then hide the funds he would go to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy FRAUD. but thanks for playing.
There are currently 17 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 17 guests)