User:Louis/sandbox dfli publish test: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 '''Deceptive trade practices (count two).''' Outside the statute, which reaches deceptive practices by a seller in the course of business, not a reviewer's commentary, and barred by the rule against relabeling a libel claim, and reachable by the anti-SLAPP motion regardless.<ref name="nrs598" /><ref name="tobinick" /><ref name="blatty" /><ref name="panik" />
+'''Intentional interference (count three).''' Defeated at the "absence of privilege" element, because protected speech cannot be the wrongful means, and duplicative of the libel claim, with which it stands or falls.<ref name="claiborne" /><ref name="amerco" /><ref name="unelko" />
+'''Injunctive relief (count four).''' An unconstitutional prior restraint under ''Weller'', both as to the forward ban and as to the demand to remove already-published videos.<ref name="weller" /><ref name="keefe" />
+== The adverse cases, and how each is answered ==
+A complete picture has to confront the authorities Dragonfly will use. None changes the bottom line.
+'''Mixed opinion implying undisclosed facts.''' ''Nevada Independent Broadcasting Corp. v. Allen'' holds that an opinion implying undisclosed defamatory facts can be actionable.<ref name="nibc">''Nevada Independent Broadcasting Corp. v. Allen'', 99 Nev. 404, 410, 664 P.2d 337 (1983). [https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1983/14041-1.html Opinion via Justia].</ref> It is the wrong category here, because Prowse disclosed the teardown, the test rig, and the data on camera, so his conclusion is an evaluation of disclosed facts, governed by ''Berosini'' and ''Partington''.
+'''Older Nevada injunction authority.''' ''Guion v. Terra Marketing'' affirmed an injunction against false anti-business signage in 1974.<ref name="guion">''Guion v. Terra Marketing of Nev., Inc.'', 90 Nev. 237, 523 P.2d 847 (1974). [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1163806/guion-v-terra-marketing-of-nevada-inc/ Opinion via CourtListener].</ref> It is superseded on the constitutional point by ''Weller'' (2020), the controlling and far more recent decision applying prior-restraint scrutiny to vacate exactly this kind of pre-merits order.<ref name="weller" />
+'''A disparagement claim that survived dismissal.''' In ''Nakamura v. Sunday Group'' a Nevada federal court let a business-disparagement claim proceed.<ref name="nakamura">''Nakamura v. Sunday Group Inc.'', No. 2:23-cv-01292 (D. Nev. 2024). [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67738050/nakamura-v-sunday-group-incorporated/ Docket via CourtListener].</ref> The distinction is the pleading: that plaintiff pleaded concrete, itemized monetary outlays, while Dragonfly pleads only general reputational and financial harm, which still fails under ''Isuzu''.
+== What Will should do now ==
+# '''Retain Nevada anti-SLAPP counsel immediately.''' This is a Nevada state-court matter that needs a lawyer licensed in Nevada who has filed special motions to dismiss under NRS 41.660. The 60-day clock starts at service and it is short, and the fee-shifting provision is the argument for counsel who will take it on favorable terms.
+# '''Calendar the service date the moment it happens.''' Nothing matters more than knowing the exact day Prowse is served, because the special-motion deadline runs from it.
+# '''Issue a litigation hold today.''' Preserve everything related to the videos, the testing, and the affiliate relationship, including the physical battery packs, the raw footage, and the cycle-testing data, and stop any routine deletion.
+# '''Do not delete or re-edit the existing videos.''' Taking them down now looks like consciousness of guilt and destroys the best evidence of what was actually disclosed to viewers. They are the record.
+# '''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 ==