Jim Sterling in court.

[Elwes]

EDIT: For a moment there, I thought James had gotten a lawyer. Notation on the paperwork was (KGM), and my brain thought that KGM sounded like a law firm. However, looking back at the other notations (BAS), (REK), (ATD) and (JAMA) - I think it's just notation of the officers of the court.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10890330/Romine_v_Stanton

More summary info incoming, as the actual paperwork becomes available.
(I'm trying to post updates, without DOX'ing anyone - despite these being public documents)

UPDATE:

Most of the paperwork is just court busy work. Accepting Jim's longer than average motion to dismiss and acknowledging James Romine's request to also file longer than average paperwork.

The interesting one is #20. James Romine's response to Jim's Lawyer's motion to dismiss.

His replies seem to be:

• 
  [li]Lack of Personal Jurisdiction:[/li]
  • 
    [li]Shark Robot LLC sells "Jim Sterling" clothing.[/li]
    [li]James Stanton makes money from sale of that clothing.[/li]
    [li]James Romine has bought 5 of those shirts. Undoubtedly other people have bought them in Arizona too.[/li]
    [li]Somehow that proves that Jim sells goods in Arizona - so can be sued there.[/li]
    [li]Plus, in another case, radio/text was judged to have damaged someone in another state.[/li]
    [li]Youtube/The Jimquisition is more or less the same.[/li]
    [li]Also Youtube/The Jimquisition are somehow a semi truck used for the targeting of cars driven by his followers.[/li]
    [li](Rule 4.2 ?) says Arizona can consider the whole USA as personal jurisdiction?[/li]
    [li]Jim's Patreon says donations give access to additional services (access to comments?). So it's a subscription, not a donation.[/li]

• 
  [li]Lack of Standing:[/li]
  • 
    [li]The articles which are the basis of the libel action didn't just talk about Digital Homicide[/li]
    [li]Those documents also referred to him directly (using "Romino" and his real name)[/li]
    [li]Readers would know exactly who Romino is (Which is fairness, we would)[/li]
    [li]Writing "Digital Homicide" would be bad. Writing his name means he is personally affected and injured.[/li]
    [li]Short version: He's not suing as Digital Homicide, so lack of standing doesn't apply.[/li]

• 
  [li]Failure to State a Claim[/li]
  • 
    [li]James Romine is a IT professional who's background is one of continuous advancement[/li]
    [li]James Romine has written 3 books[/li]
    [li]James Romine has worked on multi-billion dollar projects[/li]
    [li]James Romine and business partner have sold just under 500,000 games within the last 2 years.[/li]
    [li]All of which contributed to a certain level of reputation, which in and of itself is an asset used to gain future earnings[/li]
    [li]Jim's articles damage that reputation, future ability to sell products and future earnings.[/li]
    [li]Jim's articles included false and damaging statements[/li]
    [li]False and damaging statements do not qualify as free speech under the 1st amendment[/li]
    [li]Jim's very name for his show is based on "Inquisition", which means prolonged investigation[/li]
    [li]Since Jim didn't verify any of his allegations with him, that's not investigation.[/li]
    [li]Jim reaches about the same number of people as the Boston Globe[/li]
    [li]All those people trust Jim to tell the truth and deliver facts[/li]
    [li]The article and tweets aren't opinion, they are a direct attacks on James Romine's reputation.[/li]
    [li]James Romine sounds defensive because he's under attack by Jim and Jim's fans[/li]
    [li]Steam/Valve are pretty much the only distributor for James Romine's product and Jim's article damages his ability to ever sell games through that platform.[/li]

My apologies if I have misrepresented, omitted or misunderstood any of the points I've summarised.

I think he does make a valid case about the lack of standing. Sure, he can't represent Digital Homicide Studios - but he says he isn't trying to. He's representing himself and he's allowed to do that.
EDIT: Someone on reddit pointed out that he's asking for money for lost DHS sales and future sales, so lack of standing may still be valid.

The failure to state a claim. I've no clue. To my mind, he HAS stated a claim. Even if ultimately that claim isn't upheld in court. He has to be able to present it, so it can be judged.
EDIT: The same person on reddit pointed out that the law is a two stage process. The court can make a judgement call about whether or not the claims presented stand a chance of being considered libel. Only if there is some merit can things continue.

Lack of personal jurisdiction. I still don't think so, based on my very limited understanding. A few shirts that aren't directly sold by Jim or an imagined subscription service. Nope.

 

[Fsyco]

More summary info incoming, as the actual paperwork becomes available.
(I'm trying to post updates, without DOX'ing anyone - despite these being public documents)

Don't suppose you'd be willing to share Romine's response via PM? :3 Pwetty pweez?

I think he does make a valid case about the lack of standing. Sure, he can't represent Digital Homicide Studios - but he says he isn't trying to. He's representing himself and he's allowed to do that.

The failure to state a claim. I've no clue. To my mind, he HAS stated a claim. Even if ultimately that claim isn't upheld in court. He has to be able to present it, so it can be judged.

Lack of personal jurisdiction. I still don't think so, based on my very limited understanding. A few shirts that aren't directly sold by Jim or an imagined subscription service. Nope.

I don't think he has standing, since Jim made a mixture of comments about both the Romines personally and Digital Homicide LLC. That means that Romine wouldn't be able to represent claims that were explicitly leveled at Digital Homicide, only the ones leveled at himself (and this isn't even getting into whether or not he can sue on his brother's behalf). And the allegedly libelous statements mentioned in their complaint aren't leveled specifically at The Romines, they're leveled at Digital Homicide. It's gonna be up to the judge, but I'd think they wouldn't have standing.

"Failure to state a claim" is less "You haven't accused me of anything" and more "What you've accused me of isn't legally actionable". Like, imagine if I wrote the statement "Danny Sexbang is a well-known Jewish Youtuber", and Danny sued me over that statement claiming it was libel. That's failure to state a claim, because it's a factually true statement from which no defamatory meaning may be found.

I don't think they were ever going to get personal jurisdiction, although I heard from a lawyer that by filing paperwork saying anything other than "You have no jurisdiction", you're consenting to jurisdiction. Again, gonna be up to the judge on that one.

 

[Reed Spacer]

[li]Somehow that proves that Jim sells goods in Arizona - so can be sued there.[/li]

How? They were bought online, not physically.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I expect Jim to win this case. I would be much more impressed with him as a human being if he can find a way of playing it down. A simple statement of fact before moving on, would be nice. Failing that a Jimquisition talking about the situation, without mentioning Digital Homicide more than in passing.
[/i]

Pretty sure he already said in his podcast than if/when he wins, he's do like a double length Jimquisition. Just gonna really let them have it and probably get sued again in the process.

 

[Fsyco]

[li]Somehow that proves that Jim sells goods in Arizona - so can be sued there.[/li]

How? They were bought online, not physically.

They're claiming that because you can buy them in Arizona, that counts as "doing business in Arizona". There's a pretty well-established precedence against this, though.

Pretty sure he already said in his podcast than if/when he wins, he's do like a double length Jimquisition. Just gonna really let them have it and probably get sued again in the process.

The beauty of this is, if the case is dismissed due to Lack of Standing, they'd have to hire a lawyer to sue him, and if they could get a lawyer, they wouldn't be Pro Se right now. And if it gets thrown out on lack of jurisdiction, they'll have to go to Mississippi (and hire a lawyer in Mississippi) to sue him, which would be an even bigger nightmare for them.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP.

But if the case is dismissed with prejudice, doesn't that mean DH can't bring similar or like accusations against Jim?

 

[Fsyco]

SNIP.

But if the case is dismissed with prejudice, doesn't that mean DH can't bring similar or like accusations against Jim?

If its dismissed with prejudice, they can't bring the same case against him. Don't know if that would allow them to refile as Digital Homicide, though (since technically a that's a separate plaintiff). They could certainly file a different lawsuit alleging other, different libelous things (assuming they get jurisdiction).

Would this case be dismissed with prejudice, though? It's my understanding that it would only be dismissed with prejudice under certain circumstances.

 

[Fsyco]

Just checked Pacermonitor and the latest entry is "New Case Opened". That seems...kinda ominous. Anyone know what that means? There's no associated documents with it.

 

[Elwes]

Just checked Pacermonitor and the latest entry is "New Case Opened". That seems...kinda ominous. Anyone know what that means? There's no associated documents with it.

Not yet.

I guess this is the problem of checking for new information every 12 hours or so in a system that doesn't really operate on those sort of time scales.

I did do a quick search on Pacermonitor for cases involving "Stanton" or "Romine" separately on or after 05/01/2016 and nothing relevant can be found. Going back to April 1st and then to March 1st only shows the original case. I guess it could be a data glitch or someone at court pressing the wrong button (given there's no attached... anything).

However, I think the real answer is to stop pressing on the browser and wait for the court to do it's thing. Especially seeing as how it's already taken 2 months to reach this point.

 

[Fsyco]

However, I think the real answer is to stop pressing on the browser and wait for the court to do it's thing. Especially seeing as how it's already taken 2 months to reach this point.

Don't judge me :x I have nothing better to do. And I worry for Jimjim.

 

[Elwes]

Don't judge me :x I have nothing better to do. And I worry for Jimjim.

Me too. Well, except the whole worrying about Jimjim thing. I'm not doing that.
And yeah, I've hit refresh considerably more often than any normal person would consider reasonable... just in case.

 

[Elwes]

Just checked Pacermonitor and the latest entry is "New Case Opened". That seems...kinda ominous. Anyone know what that means? There's no associated documents with it.

Katanda [https://www.reddit.com/user/Katanda] on Reddit seems to have the answer.

The case seems to have been assigned to another judge. New judge = new case number.

Before:

Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX169280.
This case has been assigned to the Honorable Judge John J. Tuchi.
All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-16-00604-PHX-JJT.
Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (BAS)
(Entered: 03/04/2016)

After:

Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX171860.
This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L Rayes.
All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: MC-16-00045-PHX-DLR.
This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
*This was docketed in this case in error
(Entered: 05/11/2016)

https://www.reddit.com/r/JimSterling/comments/4iqr1z/motion_to_dismiss_digital_homicide_lawsuit/d32ifvv

 

[Fsyco]

There's been another flurry of activity, although if I'm reading it correctly, it all boils down to "Romine is trying to have his response to Jim's MTD amended". Ever since Jim's lawyers started filing paperwork, it seems like Romine's stepped his game up, or at the very least been filing all the paperwork he's supposed to. So that's a plus?

Snip

Well that's...odd.

Wait. It says "this was docketed in error". So is there actually a new judge or was this a clerical fuck up?

 

[Elwes]

In other news.

James Romine has lodged a request to update his response to Jim's lawyers motion to dismiss. Plus another request that the updated response be allowed to be more pages than the court usually allows.

• [li]#22 - MOTION for Leave to File Amendment to #20 Response to Motion to Dimiss Plaintiff's Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM)[/li]

• [li]#23 - MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for #22 Amendment to Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM)[/li]

The court acknowledged receipt of those two requests.

• [li]#24 - LODGED Proposed Amendment to Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss re:22 MOTION for Leave to File Amendment to Response to Motion to Dimiss Plaintiff's Complaint,23 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Amendment to Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM)[/li]

 

[Fsyco]

James Romine has lodged a request to update his response to Jim's lawyers motion to dismiss. Plus another request that the updated response be allowed to be more pages than the court usually allows.

Do you think he actually answered any of the arguments against him, or just went on some more weird rambling that's in no way related with the law?

Also, earlier we were discussing whether or not Romine has standing due to the whole "James Romine the indivual vs. Digital Homicide the LCC". Something occured to me: even if Jim made claims about Romine personally, Romine is trying to claim damages based on games sold by DigiHom, and not himself. So I'd be very surprised if he gets standing in this case.

 

[Elwes]

So is there actually a new judge or was this a clerical fuck up?

No clue.

I guess we'll find out depending on who signs off on the next ruling.

Do you think he actually answered any of the arguments against him, or just went on some more weird rambling that's in no way related with the law?

My hope is he's going to do what he did with the original complaint. Tidy it up. Make it (slightly) more coherent and remove (some of) the stuff that the court doesn't care about.

At the very least, I hope he's removed the rant about how Jim's popularity is a semi truck and how all his fans are all cars, all of which are crashing into him.

Courts care about two things:

• [li]The law.[/li][li]Absolute, verifiable facts - described with brevity.[/li]

Opinion, even context does not really matter. It's so easy to get lost in "but I need to explain THIS, so you understand THAT". But only "THAT" matters to the court and "THIS" is a waste of oxygen or printer ink.

Something occured to me: even if Jim made claims about Romine personally, Romine is trying to claim damages based on games sold by DigiHom, and not himself.

Aye. He seems to be making a really bad job separating himself from his company in his own mind.

Though, it could be argued that his personal income is currently tied into the profits of his company. Jim's comments about James Romine lead to ridicule and damage to his reputation. That ridicule and damaged reputation impact sales of games. The company fails to sell games. The company therefore fails to make a profit. So James Romine (and I assume his brother) can no longer take a salary or dividend on shares based on those profits. Whether the law works that way though, I've no idea.

 

[Refaeliadria]

is this true ?

 

[Fsyco]

is this true ?

Is what true? The lawsuit itself is real.

 

[Fsyco]

"Reply to response to motion." That's a mouthful.

Jim's lawyer has filed a reply to Romine's response, so that's good. Can't imagine he'd need anything other than "Plaintiff hasn't actually refuted any of the claims in our motion." Still, I imagine it will make for an interesting read.

 

[Fsyco]

This is a bit off-topic, but I was going through Romine's response again, and it occurred to me that he claims to have written three books. I did a little digging, and look [http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=0471116335] what I [http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Wargames-Internet-Rawn-Shah/dp/0471116343/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463218052&sr=1-3] happened upon. [http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Internet-Gamer-Joe-Pantuso/dp/0471137871/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463218052&sr=1-4] These are basically just strategy guides for mid-90s online games. Also of note is that Romine isn't the only author on any of these; two of them give 'top billing', as it were, to a "Rawn Shah", and the third has four authors (including Shaw). Romine's listed last on all of them.

Anybody feel like buying a copy and seeing if he's as bad a writer as he is a game dev?