User:Louis/sandbox dfli publish test: Difference between revisions
test chunked Tag: Reverted |
test chunked Tag: Reverted |
||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
# '''Do not respond substantively without counsel.''' Anything Prowse says publicly about the suit can be quoted back; the published data already speaks for itself. | # '''Do not respond substantively without counsel.''' Anything Prowse says publicly about the suit can be quoted back; the published data already speaks for itself. | ||
== Bottom line == | == Bottom line ==This is a four-count suit by a public company against an individual reviewer over speech about product safety, seeking both to gag him and to erase his videos. Nevada law is unusually well-suited to answering it. The fast move is a special motion to dismiss under NRS 41.660 inside the 60-day window, which reaches all four counts under ''Panik'', stays discovery, and shifts the burden to Dragonfly to prove, with real evidence, that Prowse's statements were false and that he made them knowing they were false. The falsity element runs into a record that is substantially true and partly conceded by the complaint itself; the deceptive-practices and interference counts are the libel claim relabeled and fall with it; the special-damages pleading is the ''Isuzu'' kind; and the injunction-and-takedown request is a prior restraint under ''Weller''. | ||
== References == | |||
<references /> | |||