LOLSuit VIII was summarily dismissed and another year of failure for Schmalfeldt was complete.
In May of 2017, Bill Schmalfeldt tried his hand in a South Carolina Federal District court to once again sue people because he was still losing at life. On December 5th, he reached the pinnacle of PLM when the magistrate recommended that Schmalfeldt’s case be dismissed.
As part of her recommendation, Magistrate Kaymani West visited this site and made this analysis:
In an effort to address these considerations, Plaintiff cites to seven posts that he argues show that this court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants. ECF No. 46 at 4-6. The post relied on by Plaintiff that comes closest to a South Carolina connection is the one post allegedly by Defendant Grady wherein he claims to have “e-mailed-blasted every landlord in the entire state of South Carolina . . . and reminded them the Step 1 of any background check is run a credit report on any prospective tenant . . . .” https://sonoranconservative.com/2017/07/18/help-me-i-need-a-medic/comment-page-1. However, a close examination of that post discloses no direct reference to Plaintiff in the alleged “e-mail blast” to “every landlord,” nor does Plaintiff provide any evidence showing that any landlord even received such an e-mail or that Plaintiff was denied housing in South Carolina based on that post or on any other posts by any Defendant. As a result, this court can only speculate as to whether Defendant Grady even sent the alleged e-mail or whether any person or entity in South Carolina even read the blog posts on which Plaintiff relies.
The case was dismissed because Schmalfeldt couldn’t prove any of the defendants were subject to jurisdiction of South Carolina. He tried to make one claim that he was denied an apartment because of a comment by “Paul Krendler” in one of my posts said he emailed a bunch of landlords.
The money quote from the magistrate is in footnote 5 (always read the footnotes in court filings involving Team Kimbergarten):
It is noted that Plaintiff provides no proof other than his own self-serving statements that “Paul Krendler,” the listed name of the poster, is actually Defendant Grady or any of the other Defendants. However, no Defendant specifically denies that he or she is one of the posters. If any Defendant is not one of the posters, this court would not be permitted to even consider the posts in its personal jurisdiction analysis. As the United States Supreme Court has held, “unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction.” Helicopteros Nacionales De Colom., 466 U.S. at 417.
In short, he failed again, keeping his record as a plaintiff with 0 wins.
Of course, he fired off a shot saying that just because he was not able to proceed due to lack of jurisdiction, that doesn’t mean the defendants were not guilty. This kind of logic works only if you’re an idiot. In Bill’s case, it’s a perfect match.