Anonymous
11/6/2025, 3:52:05 PM
No.942186347
oh baby oh baby
If the case proceeds to summary judgment or trial (unlikely but possible by mid-2026, assuming standard discovery timelines), the plaintiffs (Matthew Rinaudo/Mizkif and Mizkif Enterprises) have a stronger position on the merits, particularly for declaratory relief and breach of contract. The complaint alleges no actual breaches occurred and that the defendants acted without investigation, relying solely on unverified accusations—facts that, if supported by evidence, could invalidate the terminations and share repurchases under the owners' agreements. Texas law (governing via choice-of-law implications) emphasizes good faith in shareholder agreements, and courts often side with minority owners in "oppression" scenarios where ousters lack cause.
On defamation, success hinges on proving falsity and "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard), a high bar for public figures like Rinaudo. However, the complaint's specifics—e.g., Schunk's livestream description contradicting her assault claim—mirror cases where plaintiffs have prevailed by highlighting inconsistencies. Emotional distress and lost earnings claims could yield compensatory damages in the $1M–$5M range if proven, plus attorneys' fees under Texas statutes.Defendants' counterarguments (e.g., qualified privilege for internal business decisions or truth as a defense) could lead to partial dismissals, but the lack of pre-termination inquiry weakens their stance.
Overall, a plaintiff-favorable verdict or settlement restoring Rinaudo's shares (valued potentially in the millions based on OTK's profile) and awarding $500K–$2M in damages seems plausible.
If the case proceeds to summary judgment or trial (unlikely but possible by mid-2026, assuming standard discovery timelines), the plaintiffs (Matthew Rinaudo/Mizkif and Mizkif Enterprises) have a stronger position on the merits, particularly for declaratory relief and breach of contract. The complaint alleges no actual breaches occurred and that the defendants acted without investigation, relying solely on unverified accusations—facts that, if supported by evidence, could invalidate the terminations and share repurchases under the owners' agreements. Texas law (governing via choice-of-law implications) emphasizes good faith in shareholder agreements, and courts often side with minority owners in "oppression" scenarios where ousters lack cause.
On defamation, success hinges on proving falsity and "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard), a high bar for public figures like Rinaudo. However, the complaint's specifics—e.g., Schunk's livestream description contradicting her assault claim—mirror cases where plaintiffs have prevailed by highlighting inconsistencies. Emotional distress and lost earnings claims could yield compensatory damages in the $1M–$5M range if proven, plus attorneys' fees under Texas statutes.Defendants' counterarguments (e.g., qualified privilege for internal business decisions or truth as a defense) could lead to partial dismissals, but the lack of pre-termination inquiry weakens their stance.
Overall, a plaintiff-favorable verdict or settlement restoring Rinaudo's shares (valued potentially in the millions based on OTK's profile) and awarding $500K–$2M in damages seems plausible.