SOSSI-RRUNRRUN CASE RESET: NEW DATE IS MAY 4

(Ed.'s Note: Our crack legal team was informed late Monday that a motions hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday will be reset before visiting judge Manuel Bañales from Corpus Christi. We have been informed it will be reset for May 4.)

By Juan Montoya
This Tuesday, round one of City of Brownsville attorney Mark Sossi's $10 million defamation lawsuit against this writer and this blog was to be heard at 9 a.m. before 138th District Court Judge Arturo Nelson Cisneros.
Instead, both parties have been informed that visiting judge Manuel Bañales who will preside over the hearing where both sides will  introduce motions  has reset the hearing for May 4.
Sossi sued after a post was published in this blog that said, in part "For the better part of two weeks, the city has been embroiled in a burgeoning scandal involving (Sossi)... and his inappropriate relationship with a female city worker, her unsuccessful suicide attempt, and an investigation into a potential sexual assault when she was helpless under the influence."
Following the publishing of the post, Sossi sued this writer and unknown sources for $10 million in damages plus attorneys fees.
In his lawsuit, Sossi alleges he was defamed and demands that the blog reveal its sources and asks for all documents, reports, computer logs, etc...related to the post.
In turn, El Rrun-Rrun's legal representatives issued subpoenas to the Brownsville Police and Fire Departments to produce for inspection and copying...all of the following documents or tangible things in your possession custody or control which pertain to 21 Poinsettia Place for the months of January 2016 and February 2016...by March 23, 2016."
Sossi and the City of Brownsville, through Asst. city attorney Allison Bastian, moved to quash two other subpoenas – one a sexual harassment complaint by the woman, a former city employee, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and another for taped subsequent interviews with the woman and Brownsville Police Dept. detectives – which focused specifically on his role in the incidents saying that they were part of an ongoing investigation.

El Rrun-Rrun's attorneys will file a motion asking the court to order their release.
Further, El Rrrun-Rrun's legal representatives – Brownsville's Louis Sorola and Corpus Christ's William Tinning – filed an Anti-SLAPP motion – charging that Sossi had filed the lawsuit in an effort to muzzle El Rrun-Rrun's legitimate exercise of its First Amendment rights and said they will produce evidence at the hearing before Nelson that will prove the post's assertions are true.
SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. A malicious or frivolous lawsuit that chills speech is the SLAPP; the statute employed against it is the anti-SLAPP statute, and the motion under the statute is an anti-SLAPP motion.
On April 6, they filed a motion to dismiss the  cause of action and gave notice to the city that they would seek $5 million in damages for malicious prosecution and violation of civil rights.
"Every statement posted...is true. To prevail, defendant (Montoya) must establish:
1. The institution or continuation of civil proceedings against him
2. That such proceedings were brought at the insistence of Mark Sossi and ratified by the city commission
3. Malice in the commencement of the proceedings
4. Lack of probable cause for the proceedings given that the facts in the original post are true
5. Termination of the proceedings in defendants favor
6. Special damages ($5 million).
"Mr. Sossi was at the home of Amanda McDonald after hours, at a time when there was no reason to conduct city business although he used his position as city attorney to sanitize the reports. After emergency medical personnel arrived, Sossi directed the report writers to leave his name off any reports."
The defendant's list of witnesses total 30, including all the city commissioners, McDonald, EMS personnel, BPD officers, and others. Bastian is among those on the witness list.
Under an anti-SLAPP motion, the court can order all discovery to stop and order a limited discovery to establish the truth of the allegations.
But there is more:
The statue allows a judge to dismiss frivolous lawsuits filed against one who speaks out about a “matter of public concern” within the first 60 days. “Matter of public concern” is defined expansively in the statute.
The Anti-SLAPP motion is supported by affidavits explaining to the court that the lawsuit is based on, relates to, or is in response to one’s exercise of his right to free speech, right to petition or right of association.
The burden of proof is initially on the party who files the Anti-SLAPP motion to establish (by a preponderance of the evidence) that the lawsuit was filed in response to the exercise of his First Amendment rights. Then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish (by clear and specific evidence) a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim.
The statute creates a stay of discovery in a lawsuit while an Anti-SLAPP motion is pending and/or appealed. The court has discretion to order discovery pertaining to the motion if it feels it is necessary.
Sorola is well-known in local legal circles and defeated Sossi when that attorney represented city commissioners who felt they were entitled to receive health care and other benefits despite the prohibition against them in the city charter.
Tinning is a nationally-recognized personal injury attorney who has at least seven multi-million verdicts under his belt.