The Olympia Superior Court judge hearing the Olympia food coop anti-BDS lawsuit held a hearing to determine the penalties that the plaintiffs would pay the defendants, whose position was upheld in an ant-SLAPP ruling that dismissed the case. Lawyers for the food coop made a claim for $400,000 in fees and penalties. Of this, $160,000 constitutes the total penalties to be paid by statute by the losing plaintiffs to the sixteen coop defendants. The remainder is legal fees the defendants attorneys ran up in mounting their defense.
What was most novel, bizarre and typical all at the same time about the plaintiff’s response was to claim that they were perfectly willing to accept the $400,000 penalty as long as the coop paid it. Their reason is that they, being members of the coop, are actually representing the interests of the coop in bringing their case against the coop. So if the coop wins the case it should pay itself the penalty. Got that?
Since I won an anti-SLAPP motion in defending my own libel case brought by Rachel Neuwirth, I know that judges don’t generally award high fees to the winners. They award basic fees which have no bearing on the actual billing rates of the law firm. But it’s still a meaningful penalty and I hope it makes StandWithUs and the Akiva Tor, Israel’s NW consul, think twice before pulling such a stunt. Undoubtedly, it won’t as both seem to have deep pockets and unlimited chutzpah.
I almost feel sorry for the poor shlubs who are the plaintiffs. Unless they worked out a suitable deal beforehand with SWU and the Israeli government, they’re going to be left holding the bag on this. My guess is that some suitable right-wing pro-Israel donor will step forward and pay their debt.
It’s perfectly in character for the StandWithUs-hired attorneys to demand the coop pay itself the penalties. That is entire basis of this organization: fraud, lies and deceit.
It will be entirely within organizational character for SWU to leave the defendants holding the bag. If some right wing moneybags bails them out, it will make more news and I think that is the Achilles heel of Tor and SWU, i.e. unfavorable news. Certainly, it is not the money, but bad publicity. Given their outrageous tact of sticking it to coop defendants, maybe this is, in itself, newsworthy and a dire warning to any others who cooperate with Israeli “lawfare” in the US where you can’t always get what you want, as in the “democracy in the middle east.”
“What was most novel, bizarre and typical all at the same time about the defendant’s response was to claim that they were perfectly willing to accept the $400,000 as long as the coop paid it. ”
“I almost feel sorry for the poor shlubs who are the defendants. Unless they worked out a suitable deal beforehand with SWU and the Israeli government, they’re going to be left holding the bag on this.”
Uh. . .I think you’re confusing the defendants with the plaintiffs, which would be easy to do b/c the tables were turned.
The plaintiffs lost and they must pay the defendants — the 16 Coop board members.
I haven’t read the latest arguments yet. I recall the judge, hoping to avoid an appeal of his decision, told them to work out a settlement before he went on vacation. Apparently they didn’t.
But the WA anti-slapp suit law is clear: the 16 prevailing defendants are to be paid $10,000 PLUS their legal costs. So I see that as a $160,000. If the defendants are asking for $400,000, that leaves $240,000 for their legal costs.
Regardless of what the judge fines them, the plaintiffs will appeal. He knows that. If the judge gives the defendants less than $400,000 then they will counter-appeal the award, since they will already be in the appellate court. So the judge will likely give the defendants what they ask for, so long as it’s even moderately reasonable. IMHO
It’s a good outcome, but good outcomes sometimes go bad.
You’re right & thanks for alerting me to my error. I was referring to the plaintiffs in the case.
Yeah, it confused me too, but I attributed it to some inverted weird legal thing! I am always available to bash lawyers!
What is this about? It’s not entirely clear what this article is referencing (there are no links). Is this a case that has been addressed on here before? It’s not among the tags. Is “anti-SLAPP” a phrase that people ought to be familiar with. It doesn’t seem like this is a stand alone piece.
Stop being lazy. I don’t spoonfeed you or anyone else. Do a search in the search field in the sidebar on those terms. Seek & ye shall find.
Thanks for the message! I actually never even noticed that such a search field existed. I appreciate you pointing that out and am feeling a bit silly that I hadn’t noticed it previously.
“I almost feel sorry for the poor shlubs who are the defendants”
I thought the coop were the defendants in this case, that they’d won, and that the plaintiffs are being ordered to pay fees and penalties?
Right, my mistake–and corrected.