The ongoing court dispute between YouTube star Smash JT and ex-Senior Editor at Kotaku, Alyssa Mercante, has taken another twist. In response to lawyer Ron Coleman’s request to throw out Mercante’s lawsuit, her legal team from Cohen & Green submitted a counterargument.
It seems that, considering the points made, they might be reaching for any evidence they can find in an effort to prolong the legal case.
It should be noted that in this case, YouTube personality Smash JT is being represented by the Coleman Law Firm, specifically by Ron Coleman. Similarly, Alyssa Mercante’s legal representation is also provided by Mr. Coleman. Additionally, Park Place, WDW Pro, and Valliant Renegade are also clients of the Coleman Law Firm.
Jurisdiction Claims Fall Apart
A significant point made by Mercante in their response involves trying to assert authority over the case since it was brought to court in New York City.
The defense’s legal team argues: “The defendant made the statements from a place that is under the authority of this court.
On the contrary, this goes against what Coleman stated in his motion to dismiss. Earlier, Coleman contended that Smash JT’s business activities do not take place in New York because there are no allegations or potential allegations that he operates within the state. His motion referred to established law which asserts that publishing allegedly defamatory content online and making it accessible to the public does not equate to transacting business in New York, even when it’s likely that the material will be read by New York residents.
Even though there’s an issue with jurisdiction, Mercante’s legal team attempts to dodge this problem by making a misleading statement about Hypnocast, which features Smash JT, being broadcast from a place under the jurisdiction of New York. However, Smash JT has clarified that this claim is not accurate since Hypnotic, the host of Hypnocast, does not reside in New York.
This blatant misrepresentation of facts further weakens Mercante’s already precarious case.
False Claims About Private Information Disclosure
In my cinematic perspective, one point that particularly struck me in Mercante’s reply was the allegation that Smash JT disclosed my private address without consent.
The filing states: “Defendant disclosed Plaintiff’s residential address, placing her at risk.”
It’s quite striking that Mercante disclosed Smash JT’s home address in the court documents, even though she concealed her own. This action has sparked claims that she intentionally exposed his private information while safeguarding hers. Importantly, no evidence has been provided showing that Smash JT leaked Mercante’s residential address.
In my opinion, without concrete proof, it seems like she’s trying to portray herself as a victim and divert attention from her own behavior instead.
Wix Hosting Argument Misses the Mark
In an intriguing twist, Mercante’s lawyers are attempting to argue that the court has authority over the case since Smash JT’s website is hosted by Wix.com, a company that maintains an office in Manhattan.
The document indicates: “Wix.com, where the defendant’s website is hosted, has its main headquarters in New York, thereby enabling this court to handle the case.
This line of thought is significantly flawed and fails to acknowledge Coleman’s points in the motion to dismiss. As Coleman stated earlier, jurisdiction necessitates that the defendant has tangible business connections to the specific location. The suggestion that having a web-hosting service with an office in New York establishes jurisdiction could potentially create a harmful precedent, allowing any website hosted by a company with multiple offices to be sued in any location.
In essence, if this concept is implemented widely, it allows for lawsuits against entities utilizing services like Google, Amazon Web Services, or similar major hosting platforms, in the jurisdiction where their head office resides. The argument made to establish a legitimate basis for such litigation appears quite tenuous at best.
A Lawsuit in Desperation Mode
Mercante’s legal team seems to have responded with a reactive approach rather than presenting a well-constructed legal case.
It appears they’re indicating a potential change in their initial claim, as they plan to modify their lawsuit to include new actions taken after the filing.
This strategy indicates a desperate attempt to keep the Mercante lawsuit ongoing by moving attention towards fresh accusations instead of defending the original ones. Frequently modifying the complaint implies that the initial submission may not have been as robust as initially thought, and now they are frantically searching for anything—even something minor—to cling to.
The Bigger Picture
This new submission underscores the perception that the Mercante Smash JT lawsuit appears to be based on shaky foundations. Instead of providing a robust, fact-based case, her legal team seems to lean on misleading statements, questionable jurisdictional arguments, and efforts to alter the case’s focus rather than strengthen it. At the same time, Ron Coleman’s motion to dismiss continues to pose a significant hurdle, leaving Smash JT in a strategically strong position of defense.
In light of the evolving situation, it’s apparent that Mercante and her legal team find it increasingly difficult to maintain the validity of their lawsuit. With the strength of Coleman’s counterarguments and his extensive knowledge coming into play, this legal battle might not hold up for much longer.
Read More
- How to watch A Complete Unknown – is it streaming?
- USD VES PREDICTION
- LDO PREDICTION. LDO cryptocurrency
- INJ PREDICTION. INJ cryptocurrency
- USD MXN PREDICTION
- RLC PREDICTION. RLC cryptocurrency
- CAKE PREDICTION. CAKE cryptocurrency
- COW PREDICTION. COW cryptocurrency
- EUR HUF PREDICTION
- FIL PREDICTION. FIL cryptocurrency
2025-03-01 02:55