Neimann's Second Amended Complaint Filed In Federal Court

@MrBMandaree said in #9:
> Chess.com .... "multi-billion dollar behemoth" LOL
>
> So it was Niemann's specific victory over Magnus at the Sinquefield Cup was the reason Magnus' hopes of reaching 2900 were dashed. (taken from his #7 complaint)
>
> After that point, it was pointless to read any more of the "amended circle-jerking" complaints. Do people even read this garbage and self-aggrandizing drivel?
At the time that Carlsen lost otb in St. Louis that loss did in fact make reaching 2900 more difficult which likely upset Carlsen. Read on.....the factual detail as to what is alleged regarding the defendants' statements and actions is considerably more detailed than in the initial complain. But, I understand the world view of Carlsen fanboys. Facts mean very little.....

@VTWood said in #6:
> That is what Niemann alleges in his second amended complaint.

Hello VTWood!
Hans already said it in the original complaint, or am I wrong?

@MrBMandaree said in #9:
> After that point, it was pointless to read any more ...
The remainder had big words and complicated syntax anyway.

Here's my (tongue-in-cheek) question. If the case goes to a jury, and the jury finds in Niemann's favour, and they award him $75,000,000 in damages, does that mean he gets nothing, since he asked for "not less than $100,000,000"?

@XaviCrow said in #14:
> Here's my (tongue-in-cheek) question. If the case goes to a jury, and the jury finds in Niemann's favour, and they award him $75,000,000 in damages, does that mean he gets nothing, since he asked for "not less than $100,000,000"?
He would get what the jury awards him subject to the possible reduction of the award by the judge. There is also the issue of awarding punitive damages and attorney fees which I haven't looked at in a very long time in general and in relation to specific statutes underlying Niemann's causes of action.

I think it very hard to prove that actual damages would near anywhere near the 100 M$. The odd USA feature of punitive damages (to limitted degree they do exist elsewhere not one bit like USA) is obviously very random is unlikely case that Niemann was to wins this one.

The amended complaint doesn't address the issue of why a Missouri court should have jurisdiction over anyone other than Carlsen, apart from claiming that they're all in cahoots with each other and acted together during the Sinquefield Cup. If that's the best his lawyers can come up with, Chess.com, Rensch and Nakamura are going to be dismissed as defendants from the suit without any worries. If that happens, is the plaintiff liable for the legal costs of those dismissed defendants?

@Talezassian said in #17:
> The amended complaint doesn't address the issue of why a Missouri court should have jurisdiction over anyone other than Carlsen, apart from claiming that they're all in cahoots with each other and acted together during the Sinquefield Cup. If that's the best his lawyers can come up with, Chess.com, Rensch and Nakamura are going to be dismissed as defendants from the suit without any worries. If that happens, is the plaintiff liable for the legal costs of those dismissed defendants?

The issue as to why the Federal Court in Missouri and not CT or elsewhere is not a jurisdictional issue. It is a venue issue. See paragraph 28 of the Second Amended Complaint:

28. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including some of the defamatory statements
forming the basis of this Complaint, occurred in this District.

@VTWood said in #18:
> The issue as to why the Federal Court in Missouri and not CT or elsewhere is not a jurisdictional issue. It is a venue issue. See paragraph 28 of the Second Amended Complaint:
>
> 28. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
> substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including some of the defamatory statements
> forming the basis of this Complaint, occurred in this District.
Carlsen's the only one who could be said to have accused Niemann of cheating at the Sinquefield Cup - none of the other defendants have said that he did, their statements have mostly been in reference to stuff that didn't happen at the Sinquefield Cup, like Niemann's cheating on Chess.com and the unusual nature of his overall rating performance. I guess we'll see what the judges think - I don't think they're swayed by emotive arguments, though.

LMAO, Chesscom closed a pro-Niemann and anti-Magnus forum thread.