Judge in Postle Case Rules for Witteles Attorney Fees
Evidently, a person cannot simply file a massive lawsuit against a list of people and companies and then drop it without consequence. So is the lesson learned by Michael Postle.
That is an oversimplification of the most recent court processes involving the former poker pro, of course. It is also an assumption that he learned a lesson, as he appears to still be living in a world in which he thinks consequences are only for those who admit wrongdoing.
Further, the case is not yet over, as this week’s ruling against Postle will be followed by another one next week, likely resulting in the same outcome. All of it will leave Postle with a court order to pay the legal fees – tens of thousands of dollars – for two of the people he tried to sue for defamation.
Who is Mike Postle?
For those unfamiliar with the origins of this case, we provided a refresher timeline here.
Mike Postle was once a poker pro who either cheated to win money in livestreamed poker games at Stone Gambling Hall in California or was the most intuitive and winningest player in the game’s history. The court actually did not rule on that, exactly, only that there was not enough court-recognizable proof to determine that Postle cheated. So, the poker community only has mounds of evidence upon which to rely.
Postle, who denied all wrongdoing and claimed to have been victimized by the allegations, sued everyone. He named several people who were outspoken critics of Postle and companies that he believed tarnished his name, not to mention up to one thousand people or entities to be named later, all in a lawsuit asking for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
However, he ghosted his original attorney in the case and then, unable to find another attorney to follow through, Postle dropped the entire thing.
Not That Simple
Clearly with no legal advice whatsoever, Postle seemed to believe he could just abandon the case and be done with it.
Two of the people named in Postle’s defamation lawsuit – Veronica Brill and Todd Witteles – countered the claims against them with anti-SLAPP motions. These were claims that the referenced speech in Postle’s lawsuit protected by California law. The motions claimed free speech rights but also that any references made to Postle were a matter of public interest. Further, Postle was unlikely to win the case.
When the plaintiff drops a case against someone claiming SLAPP protection, the defendant becomes the prevailing party. In effect, Brill and Witteles won their motions.
The court doesn’t necessarily allow that plaintiff to simply walk away after forcing defendants to defend themselves.
Witteles sought $43,314.50 in attorney fees pertaining to Eric Bensamochan’s representation in the case. Brill sought $961.91 in legal costs, $67,777.50 in attorney fees for representation by Marc Randazza. And an extra $10,000 for Randazza’s fees should Postle file an opposition.
Mike voluntarily dropped the case against me and many others. Now he owes me my legal fees https://t.co/FgiHko57Vp
— Veronica Brill (@Angry_Polak) April 2, 2021
May 12 Ruling Against Postle
Judge Shama Mesiwala issued her ruling on May 12 regarding Witteles’ motion for legal fees. She wrote several interesting notes in her tentative ruling:
-Postle’s claims of defamation and libel against Witteles “arose from a few phrases contained in a single post by defendant on a website…” On the basis of the First Amendment and the pubic interest in the matter, this fell “squarely within the definition of a SLAPP suit.”
-Postle dismissed his case on April 1, and the court dropped the anti-SLAPP motion on April 20 without prejudice. Since the motion was pending when Postle filed his dismissal, the defendant was automatically the prevailing party.
-Postle filed no opposition to this presumption that Witteles prevailed.
-Bensamochan’s claim of spending 43 hours on the case was “excessive and unnecessary given the nature and complexity of the allegations of the FAC and the anti-SLAPP motion itself.” Mesiwala subtracted 23.5 hours of time from the invoice. In addition, the billing of a half-hour to reserve the hearing date at $695 per hour “is clearly unreasonable.”
Mesiwala did the math and decided to award a total of $26,982, due from Postle effective immediately.
They just finished the final hearing in Postle's case against me. I now have a judgment for attorney's fees of $26,982 against him. This was not a fun experience, but my attorney Eric Bensamochan did a spectacular job, and the matter is done. @Angry_Polak's hearing is next week.
— Todd Witteles 📟 (@ToddWitteles) May 12, 2021
Postle Appears in Virtual Hearing
On May 12, Mesiwala hosted a virtual hearing in the Sacramento Superior Court’s personal YouTube meeting room with Bensamochan and Postle.
Postle’s statements to the court were…errr…interesting.
-“I apologize for not having legal counsel. There’s been a number of issues regarding that, and I didn’t understand that I could file a formal response to Mr. Bensamochan.”
-“After I dropped the case on the first, due to some doxing issues by other counsel, I ended up going out of town, so I wasn’t able to respond formally to the court in time.”
-“What I’m asking for is to maybe take a closer look at the fees due to my issues with hiring counsel. At no time did I serve Mr. Witteles. I didn’t compel him to hire an attorney.” He claims his original attorney only filed the case to stop the statute of limitations from running out. Of the defendants he sued, Postle said, “They definitely took it upon themselves to do as much as possible hurt me in this situation.”
-“The defamation campaign against me is so extensive. It’s ongoing. It’s absolutely not protected.”
-About Witteles, Postle said, “He’s presented himself as an authority in the industry. He’s even been referenced by 60 Minutes, the Washington Post, as an expert.”
-More about Witteles: “There’s been no level of care in his claims.”
-Witteles’ statements about Postle “incited this social media frenzy against me.”
-Assuming Postle referred to the people he sued here: “The fact that they have taken it upon themselves to hire an attorney when they didn’t need to… I never served anyone. They, themselves, pushed the case, where I never publicized anything, I never publicized the filing, yet they have taken it upon themselves to really push this in the public eye and gaining attention for anything related to this.”
-On still being called a cheater: “I guess I just wanted to be able to bring that to your attention and answer any questions you might have in regards to that.”
Judge Mesiwala’s facial expressions during the entire time Postle spoke were notable.
She then pointed out that Postle did file the defamation suit against people who reasonably then retained counsel, and he then dismissed the lawsuit voluntarily. She reiterated the law pertaining to this motion and hearing and asked if Postle had any legal basis for opposing the payment of the fees.
Postle responded, “No, I do not.”
Mesiwala then asked if Bensamochan had a response. He said that he appreciated the court’s willingness to address “the brightest red candy apple herrings that have been put out there.” He noted that they’re not relevant to the hearing. He also disagreed with her choice to cut the fees when deciding the award, but he admitted it was within the court’s discretion to do so.
Postle then took the opportunity to complain further. He blamed defendants’ attorneys for not giving him enough time to sufficiently respond. Apropos of nothing, he blamed the judge for a confusing ruling, whatever that might have been.
-“The financial issues that are surrounding this is a result of being a victim of an endless amount of online harassment, doxing including by opposing counsel on one side.”
-“I can’t make a living due to the death threats, threats of violence, not just against me but my daughter as well.”
Mesiwala stopped him, asked him to narrow his response to the issue at hand. Postle said he thought the amount of the ruling seemed excessive and the attorney’s fees seemed “egregious” and “overinflated.” The judge then affirmed the tentative ruling.
Since Postle had clearly done no research into anything, despite Google being a free resource, his arguments to Mesiwala were irrelevant. He rambled and did not coherently compile an argument, choosing rather to complain about being a victim.
If you missed yesterday’s court proceedings from Sacramento regarding @ToddWitteles’ anti-SLAPP attorney fees request from Mike Postle https://t.co/hoQ8h6sycn
— Kevin Mathers (@Kevmath) May 13, 2021
May 19 Ruling Pending
The next hearing will address Brill’s motion for financial compensation. It is set for May 19.
In the meantime, Brill’s attorney filed a notice of non-opposition to Brill’s motion for costs and attorneys’ fees on May 10. This seemed to be merely a formality to note that Postle had filed no motion to oppose the anti-SLAPP motion or the fee request to the court. Postle had 30 days to respond to the latter and did not do so. The crux of the notice was to ask the court to grant the fee motion without next week’s hearing.
The court has yet to rule on this. However, in absence of a written ruling, the parties will appear in a virtual hearing next on May 19.
There is no reason to believe that Mesiwala will rule any differently than in Witteles’ motion, with the exception of the amount of money requested.
Disclaimer: This author is not a lawyer and has virtually zero qualifications to analyze legal documents or arguments. Nevertheless, she persists.
