Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718
Results 341 to 357 of 357

Thread: I'm being sued by Mike Postle, as are ESPN, Doug Polk, Joey Ingram, Bart Hanson, Phil Galfond, Matt Berkey, Daniel Negreanu, Jonathan Little, Veronica Brill, Haralabob, and Pokernews

  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by TheXFactor View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if the judge dismisses all the civil cases and says that everyone should be liable for their own attorneys fees.
    That's because you believe lots of silly and/or insane things.

     
    Comments
      
      Matt The Rat: correct

  2. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I now have a judgment of $26,982 against Mike Postle, which is $26,547 of attorney's fees, and $435 of court costs.

    This was not a fun experience for me, and I'm glad it's over. However, I'm glad I had an excellent attorney representing me, whose recommendations were all spot on, and his work was thorough and well reasoned. I couldn't be happier with how Eric handled this case.
    I'm sure he will appeal and if ruled against him, he still won't pay.

    You may be able to place a lien against his home, if he owns it.

    What are the odds that Mike Postle is the greatest cash game player in history?


  3. #343
    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.



     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: LOL!

  4. #344
    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.

     
    Comments
      
      dmndkutr: Nice
    Last edited by AhoosierA; 06-16-2021 at 11:40 AM.

  5. #345
    Court is going live in roughly 5 minutes.

    Got my popcorn ready.

  6. #346
    Gold JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    859
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Brick City, USA
    Posts
    1,548
    Here is the link


  7. #347
    Gold JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    859
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Brick City, USA
    Posts
    1,548
    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?

  8. #348
    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.

  9. #349
    Gold JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    859
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Brick City, USA
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by AhoosierA View Post
    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.
    Postle actually did the right thing for once. The fees are the same as with Druff, so he couldn’t of expected to do any better. Sucks, no entertainment for us.

  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by TheXFactor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I now have a judgment of $26,982 against Mike Postle, which is $26,547 of attorney's fees, and $435 of court costs.

    This was not a fun experience for me, and I'm glad it's over. However, I'm glad I had an excellent attorney representing me, whose recommendations were all spot on, and his work was thorough and well reasoned. I couldn't be happier with how Eric handled this case.
    I'm sure he will appeal and if ruled against him, he still won't pay.

    You may be able to place a lien against his home, if he owns it.

    What are the odds that Mike Postle is the greatest cash game player in history?

    Dont think theres an appeals mechanism in this unless he thinks the fees are excessive and based on essentially arguing regarding Veronicas fees and using Todds as an example he essentially argued in court Todds fees were appropriate..

  11. #351
    Gold JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    859
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Brick City, USA
    Posts
    1,548
    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.

  12. #352
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    6711
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,192
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by AhoosierA View Post
    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.
    Where are you getting that Postle didn't ask for an oral argument?

    I heard that the judge denied listening to oral arguments today.

     
    Comments
      
      shoeshine box: Judge heard enough Gibberish,double talk in Courtroom.

  13. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffDime View Post
    Here is the link

    I skimmed through this 2 hour video and could not find the Mike part. Anyone have a timestamp?

    I did notice that Jeffery Anderson kept falling asleep.
    Last edited by Matt The Rat; 06-16-2021 at 04:56 PM.

  14. #354
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    6711
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,192
    Blog Entries
    2
    BUMP

    Paperwork filed to put Postle into involuntary bankruptcy:

    https://www.legaluspokersites.com/ne...ayments/27486/

     
    Comments
      
      Walter Sobchak: Get him
      
      MumblesBadly: Niiiiiiiiice!
      
      Pablo:

  15. #355
    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.
    Mike Postle should just sell his house not pay anyone, unless they have a lien on his house and leave town.

    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.



  16. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    BUMP

    Paperwork filed to put Postle into involuntary bankruptcy:

    https://www.legaluspokersites.com/ne...ayments/27486/

    legal nerd pro tip: if there ever comes a day when there is a Court hearing involving the presiding Bankruptcy Judge for this case (Judge Christopher Klein) and an appearance by Marc Randazza, that will definitely be
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  17. #357
    Gold JeffDime's Avatar
    Reputation
    859
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Brick City, USA
    Posts
    1,548
    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.

     
    Comments
      
      Pablo:

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Matt Glantz claims Doug Polk was in a gay bar in New Orleans
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 03-01-2020, 08:31 PM
  2. Mike Matusow goes off on Doug Polk then deletes tweet
    By Gookieheimowitz in forum Poker Community Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-21-2019, 01:34 PM
  3. Mike Matusow goes off on Doug Polk then deletes tweet
    By Gookieheimowitz in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-20-2019, 03:20 AM
  4. Replies: 65
    Last Post: 06-05-2018, 12:27 PM
  5. Doug Polk trolling Negreanu at WSOP with a t-shirt
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 11-18-2017, 09:53 PM