Laura Loomer Loses Again; Appeals Court Affirms $124,000 Legal Fee Judgment In Bogus Lawsuit Over Twitter Ban
Engaging in performative litigation may be fun to do and score points with your fan base. But, sooner or later, these theatrical productions tend to generate actual costs - something that can't be offset with shares and retweets, or even votes at the polls.
Laura Loomer, an alt-right personality mostly known for ineffectively handcuffing herself to the door of Twitter headquarters and her inability to perform routine maintenance on her vehicle, loves to perform for her fan base. That she has done nothing but string together successive courtroom losses doesn't seem to have put a dent in her reputation (maybe her reputation is unassailable in the way some people are defamation-proof?) but it is going to put a dent in her bank account.
Last August, the federal court handling her libel/tortious interference against CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) not only tossed her case, but found her liable for $124,000 in legal fees. Among the several procedural and argumentative errors made by Loomer, this one hurt the most: CAIR approached with a settlement offer that Loomer rejected. Loomer claimed she not only wanted damages but injunctive release. The problem was her allegations only included past harms and never suggested she'd be facing further harm in the future in the absence of an injunction.
That left the lawsuit with nothing but a handful of weak allegations that CAIR's alleged reporting of her Twitter account caused her to lose not only her Twitter account, but the hundreds of thousands of dollars her free Twitter account was apparently worth. The lower court said the arguments were bad, the injunction arguments were foreclosed, and Loomer was the loser in this courtroom scuffle - a loss that came with a $124,000 legal fee tab in Loomer's name.
Loomer appealed. And all that this has accomplished is Loomer spending more money to be told the same thing. (h/t Volokh Conspiracy)
The Eleventh Circuit decision [PDF] affirms the lower court's fee assessment, as well as its dismissal of her case over a multitude of unforced procedural errors. This isn't the first time the court has handled this particular Loomer sueball. But hopefully, it will be the last.
This (third) appeal flows from a motion Illoominate filed in the district court in opposition to the magistrate judge's order. The district judge allowed CAIR to submit a written response to Illoominate's objections. In disposition, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's order in full, awarding CAIR recompense for fees and expenses incurred while litigating all aspects of the case from October 2, 2019 (when the offer of judgment was made) through the end of the first appeal. Illoominate now asks that we review and reconsider.
Review? Yes. Reconsider? LOL no. Loomer, with the unvaluable assistance of her legal counsel, botched nearly everything.
The prayer for relief in Illoominate's complaint seeks damages in an amount to be proved at trial" and (without elaboration) preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent defendants from continuing their unlawful conduct." Yet as the magistrate judge correctly pointed out, in the eight-and-a-half month period between the filing of the amended complaint and the district court's decision to dismiss, Illoominate never filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order" in state or federal court.
Nor could it have. Three of the four counts directed at CAIR conclude that Illoominate has been injured in an amount to be proved at trial," completely synonymous with the prayer for relief's phrasing of the damages claim. The fourth count, a restraint of trade claim, does not specify the relief sought. But the harm is phrased entirely in the past tense: Illoominate and Loomer have been injured in their business or property by reason of defendants' unlawful act." There is no ongoing harm to be enjoined. The request for injunctive relief only makes sense in the context of Count I, which is directed solely against never-served defendant Twitter.
As for the fees mandated by the court, Loomer and her representation fucked up their opposition to these as well.
Finally, Illoominate argues that the fees CAIR claims are fraudulent" and hyper-inflated." It asks that we either order the district court to dismiss CAIR's motion for fees or conduct an evidentiary hearing to investigate their claims. We decline to do so.
The fraud argument was first raised on objection to the magistrate judge's order. It went unmentioned by the district court. There, as here, Illoominate cites no record facts or relevant legal authority to support its assertions. Nor has Illoominate filed a motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). Instead, Illoominate's arguments about fraud" are just another way to press the belief that CAIR's fees are too high.
Strikes one and two. Here's strike three.
As for that unreasonable fees claim, Illoominate's counsel declined to follow local rules of the district court instructing that the recipient of a motion for costs and attorney's fees, within 14 days, shall describe with reasonable particularity each time entry or nontaxable expense to which it objects, both as to issues of entitlement and as to amount, and shall provide supporting legal authority." S.D. Fla. R. 7.3(a). Even after CAIR informed Illoominate's counsel about the rule, that counsel chose not to comply with it.
Loomer must just like losing in stereo.
Based on this analysis, we affirm the holding of the district court that Illoominate must pay the full amount of costs and fees ordered by the magistrate judge: $124,423.37.
Loomer has no doubt played to her base with these ridiculous lawsuits. Now, she's going to have to see if her fans are willing to back their allegiance with actual dollars. Otherwise, it's safe to say this isn't something Loomer and her ridiculous grift (the multi-aforementioned Illoominate Media, which seems to exist solely as a lawsuit plaintiff) can easily afford to shrug off.