Defamation of Character in court filing?!

[StarForeman]

California

I am suing a man who defrauded me and is declaring bankruptcy without declaring his wife's income. I initiated a lawsuit against him (adversarial proceeding) and he has filed a motion to dismiss. The lawyer for the motion has filed a declaration to the court that
"Plaintiff is a mentally disabled and disturbed person"

Is this not libel? It is viewable on pacer to anyone who wishes to look up my name. It is a very bad thing to say about someone in my profession. This is a public court filing, where he has alleged that I am mentally disturbed.

 

[quincy]

I am suing a man who defrauded me and is declaring bankruptcy without declaring his wife's income. I initiated a lawsuit against him (adversarial proceeding) and he has filed a motion to dismiss. The lawyer for the motion has filed a declaration to the court that
"Plaintiff is a mentally disabled and disturbed person"

Is this not libel?

What is the name of your state?

What you describe is not a nice thing to say about someone but cannot support a defamation claim even if false. It is privileged.

 

[StarForeman]

California- I am confused as to how this statement in the introduction a court filing is privileged? Also stating that someone is mentally disturbed is a big big deal, in fact it is the type of thing that could get me fired from my job working with children.

 

[quincy]

California- I am confused as to how this statement in the introduction a court filing is privileged? Also stating that someone is mentally disturbed is a big big deal, in fact it is the type of thing that could get me fired from my job working with children.

A privilege that immunizes an actor from suit attaches to statements made in the course of and with reference to a judicial proceeding by any judge, juror, party, witness, or advocate.

You can refute these lies in court.

 

[cbg]

I will also point out that you cannot sue for something that hasn't happened yet. Even without the concept of privilege, you HAVEN'T lost your job.

 

[quincy]

As a note: One spouse can file for bankruptcy without including the other spouse in the filing.

 

[StarForeman]

I will also point out that you cannot sue for something that hasn't happened yet. Even without the concept of privilege, you HAVEN'T lost your job.

1. I don't want to sue, but I do want it stricken from the court records. It is highly prejudicial and a lie

2. California is a community property state, he has to list all of his spouses assets as well which he has not done.

 

[quincy]

1. I don't want to sue, but I do want it stricken from the court records. It is highly prejudicial and a lie

2. California is a community property state, he has to list all of his spouses assets as well which he has not done.

His bankruptcy will have to be handled by his bankruptcy attorney. The attorney will advise him on what he can and can't do.

It is unlikely that statements made in court filings will be stricken.

Good luck.

 

[commentator]

This person is sounding awfully much like another poster recently. Creepy! And he's working with children too!

 

[quincy]

This person is sounding awfully much like another poster recently. Creepy! And he's working with children too!

I have my concerns.

 

[Zigner]

1. I don't want to sue, but I do want it stricken from the court records. It is highly prejudicial and a lie

...and it is privileged. It won't be stricken.

2. California is a community property state, he has to list all of his spouses assets as well which he has not done.

Wrong. Separate assets don't have to be listed.

 

[quincy]

...and it is privileged. It won't be stricken.

Wrong. Separate assets don't have to be listed.

Many bankruptcy attorneys actually recommend a spouse file separately as this preserves the right of the other spouse to file his/her own bankruptcy later, should the need arise.

 

[not2cleverRed]

California

I am suing a man who defrauded me and is declaring bankruptcy without declaring his wife's income. I initiated a lawsuit against him (adversarial proceeding) and he has filed a motion to dismiss. The lawyer for the motion has filed a declaration to the court that
"Plaintiff is a mentally disabled and disturbed person"

Is this not libel? It is viewable on pacer to anyone who wishes to look up my name. It is a very bad thing to say about someone in my profession. This is a public court filing, where he has alleged that I am mentally disturbed.

Why are you worried about this?

Whether or not you are "mentally disabled and disturbed", the legal issue is whether you were defrauded and can successfully prove that in your lawsuit.

Frankly, I think the name calling makes the respondent look worse than you... unless it's a response to something even more childish that you have submitted yourself. Because even if you were mentally disabled and disturbed, that's not exactly a license to victimize you. And if you misinterpreted something as fraud when it wasn't, then just state that, don't name call.

If you have facts and proof, then stick with them. How were you defrauded? How much did you lose?

The other party and his lawyer can try name calling, but do they have anything factual on their side as to whether or not you were defrauded?

 

[quincy]

It is important to note that a bankruptcy filing will halt any pending lawsuit. There is an automatic stay.

 

[despritfreya]

I am not going to get into the meat of the issues between OP and the Debtor. I do want to point out that both parties are pro se in the AP and the total state court judgment is just over $10k. OP needs to respond to the MTD in a timely fashion.

The name calling by the Debtor (not some attny) is going to be taken with a grain of salt by the judge. Quite frankly, when dealing with pro se litigants, many judges simply roll their eyes when they read the garbage that such litigants spew.

I cannot say with certainty that OP's claims are solid enough to rise to the level of a 523(a)(2) finding. In my opinion, 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) are not viable. Please do not ask me to elaborate. I am not willing to give any insight further than this one and only post.

OP - I doubt you have a cause of action under 727. Even if you did, you would be foolish to attempt to get the entire discharge denied. I assume you understand that if a discharge is completely denied each and every creditor (not just YOU) will be free to collect. Why would you want others to be able to race to get to assets? This is one of the consequences of not having an attny - your rush to throw in everything including the proverbial kitchen sink. I do, however, understand that the amount in controversy does not justify hiring an attny.

I do wish you luck as I do think you were harmed. I am just not convinced that the events that led to the harm are "non-dischargeable". As you proceed, take the "high road". Never appear to be vindictive. Treat the Debtor with respect. Such will go a long way in keeping the judge: 1) engaged in the arguments; and 2) looking favorably at you due to your continued professionalism.

Des.