Anton Ewing and Freedom Forever are in a deadly fight – but that’s not true – TCPAWorld

Some people handle TCPA proceedings professionally and calmly.

And then there is Anton Ewing.

He's a tough guy to litigate against – and that's the whole point, as he would probably tell you. He doesn't want to be called and he wants people to pay if they call him. I suspect that's what he would say.

The courts’ recent statements are somewhat less flattering:

REPEATED CLAIM: Court suggests Anton Ewing is guilty of ‘rude slander’ and suspends evidence in his TCPA case

Regardless, he has found another party that also seems intent on fighting with unnecessary aggression – and the court is not at all impressed.

In Ewing v. Freedom Forever, 2024 WL 3894044 (SD Cal August 21, 2024) The court considered several motions, including a motion to dismiss a counterclaim for breach of a settlement agreement, a motion to strike, and a motion for sanctions.

At issue was the validity of a counterclaim against Ewing for breach of a settlement agreement from a prior lawsuit. The defendant claimed that Ewing had breached the non-disparagement clause of the agreement, but the court ultimately dismissed the counterclaim because it failed to prove that the defendant had himself complied with the agreement.

But Ewing filed a declaration of some sort (the ruling was vague) that resulted in a motion by the defendant to dismiss the case. In addition, Ewing filed an additional motion for sanctions related to the alleged frivolity of the case, which resulted in a very carefully worded, surely teeth-grinding admonition to both parties:

The parties may be testing the court's patience, but their respective actions have not risen to such a level as to warrant sanctions. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions fails because it essentially re-litigates a debate on the merits of defendant's counterclaims that plaintiff has already partially lost. Although plaintiff may have obtained dismissal of two of defendant's counterclaims, the court concluded that those counterclaims could be salvaged by amendment. And a claim that “has a plausible basis, [even] a weak one” is sufficient to avoid Rule 11 sanctions. United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1117 (9th Cir. 2001).

In the meantime, the Court will deny defendant's motion for attorneys' fees because sanctions are appropriate only in “rare and exceptional cases” and an incentive here would only serve to encourage similar motions in the future. Operating Eng'rs Pension Tr., 859 F.2d at 1344. Rather than rewarding the conduct of either side, the Court once again and in the strongest terms urges the parties not to take legal action for conduct that does not meet the high standard that justifies sanctions. See ECF No. 24 at 10 (denying defendant's earlier motion to vacate sanctions and reminding the parties to “impose sanctions sparingly and not to obtain tactical advantage or for any other improper purpose” under Civil Local Rule 2.1).

Ewing also asked the court to refer the defendant's attorney to the State Bar for any reason, to which the court responded:

It goes without saying that the allegation of ethical misconduct by the defense counsel without any justification is a serious allegation. The court cautions the plaintiff to be careful in these troubled waters.

It goes without saying. But the court had to say it.

Readers of this blog know that the Czar always advocates for civil and professional litigation tactics. There should be no lawyers, only soft lawyers—we are in the business of truth, after all, and truth requires no antics—and non-lawyer litigators in federal court (especially those who appear in court frequently) should be held to the same standards.

Let's stay classy and fight cleanly against TCPAWorld.

While I have you here, we just added ANOTHER conference to our agenda. We will be speaking at the amazing Solar Lead Gen Summit in Anaheim on September 11, 2024.

If you would like an invitation to the big event, let me know!!

Chat soon.