Milagro Gramz Loses NEW MEDIA Title: $75K Judgment Reinstated to Megan Thee Stallion

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]It's Nolan.

[00:00:02]Now, before we get started, make sure y'all hitting that like button. Make sure y'all sharing it on your respective platforms. Let somebody know what we doing today. Now, let's get into the show.

[00:00:15]Now that I got your attention, I guess I should probably mention I got a new album available now on my site. [ __ ] [ __ ] all that whining and bitching. You looking for greatness, deny the description. Drop anybody like a prison.

[00:00:25]Just so your recognition is split, [ __ ] That's what I call on the vision.

[00:00:28]I'm going to infiltrate. You cannot imitate. I'm from a pedigree. This is not triple A. Chop took a bro. You can travel like triple A. Do the impossible.

[00:00:34]D like a triple play. G energy. I am not but a [ __ ] too insane. Ch for the money but to pull up in a rings. I can give a mother what the [ __ ] about what a [ __ ] think. I'm some new [ __ ] Elevated my rubric. I'm an industry nuisance. Giving my two cents. Telling [ __ ] where the truth is. It ain't even about music.

[00:00:49]Everybody want to know the code. [ __ ] I got on reload. I was just so lou.

[00:00:57]That was on a plot like a stoplight.

[00:00:59]Every day I catch lightning in the bottle. The [ __ ] told lies by the night spice twice. Couple years I was living on fried rice like a dream when I got to eat Popeyes. Got to be your whole top.

[00:01:10]>> What's going on beautiful people? It's the kid J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N here. Welcome back to another episode of Inside the Industry, your number one source for music, entertainment commentary, and breakdowns. Hope everybody's doing well out there this evening. got a big news update for y'all concerning the Megan Nest Stallion Magro Grams legal saga.

[00:01:31]Okay, as y'all know, there was a multi-year campaign going against Megan the Stallion from Tory Lanes. The DJ That Don't Spin was in on it.

[00:01:44]Magro Grams was in on it. Aiden Ross was in on it. the DJ that don't spin and Aiden had to answer for it in form of depositions which they didn't like very much.

[00:02:00]Um, and then of course we have Magro, right? She lost her trial against Megan Estallion earlier in this year.

[00:02:12]Unfortunately, at the time, there was a bit of a discrepancy about whether or not Magro should be deemed as a media defendant. At the time, the jury said no. I mean, excuse me, they said yes.

[00:02:27]The jury said yes. Right. Um, being that she has an online show, she does videos disseminating news or current events, trending topics, etc. So, they basically put her in the same category as all of the rest of the YouTubers, uh, the rest of the online shows, journalists, etc., etc. And because they found her to be a media defendant, they basically told Megan Estallion that she should have given Magro a cease and desist letter or at least an opportunity to delete the offensive perhaps defaming posts, videos, content.

[00:03:19]deep fake fake sex tape, etc. before hitting her with a lawsuit.

[00:03:26]Right.

[00:03:28]So, initially, Magro was hit with a $75,000 fine, but because they saw her as a media defendant, they knocked it down to 59,000.

[00:03:43]In the time after that, Megan Estallion has pleaded to the courts that she is not satisfied with that. She believes that Magro was indeed not a media defendant and pushed back on that and wanted her initial judgment reinstated.

[00:04:00]As of today, the judge has done just that. Proposed, ordered, and so a judged. Maagro Grahams is no longer deemed a media defendant and shall be held liable for the 75,000 on her defamation case.

[00:04:22]I have the paperwork. Remember initially when the judgment was put in Magro said this was a win for new media.

[00:04:33]She did a interview with Arman Wiggins.

[00:04:37]Both of them said this was a win for new media.

[00:04:43]Tasha K congratulated her as a win for new media.

[00:04:51]Just a few months later, new media takes an L.

[00:04:58]Okay, let's get to it.

[00:05:03]All right, so this is the order coming from the judge.

[00:05:08]This cause came before the court on plaintiff making Pete's motion to reinstate jury verdict as to defamation claim and to amend final judgment or renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

[00:05:20]Defendant Magro Elizabeth Cooper filed a response to which plaintiff filed a reply. The court has reviewed the party's written submissions to record and applicable law for the following reasons. The motion is granted in part.

[00:05:33]Background. On October 24th, 2024, plaintiff professionally known as Megan Estallion filed suit against defendant and online personality known as Magagro Grams or Mob's World. Plaintiff alleged that defendant coordinated a social media smear campaign against her following the 2022 conviction of Canadian rapper and singer Dayar Peterson known professionally as Tory Lanes aka Mr. They're harassing me in prison and the judge said [ __ ] out of my face on charges related to a July 2020 incident where he shot plaintiff.

[00:06:08]Plaintiff asserted that defendant acted as Peterson's longtime mouthpiece using multiple social media platforms including Instagram, Tik Tokx.com, and YouTube to spread vicious and hateful rumors to her more than a 100,000 followers in retaliation for plaintiff's testimony at Peterson's trial.

[00:06:29]On December 10th, plaintiff filed her amended complaint asserting four claims for relief. Defamation per se, count one, promotion of an altered sexual depiction in violation of section 83613 Florida statute. Count two, intentional infliction of emotional distress, count three, and cyber stalking in violation of section 7840485, Florida statute, count four.

[00:06:54]In a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, defendant argued plaintiff's defamation per se claim should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to comply with a Florida pre-suit notice requirement.

[00:07:04]Under Florida Statute 7701, at least five days before a plaintiff sues a news media defendant for publication, or broadcast in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium of a liel or slander, she must give written notice to the author specifying the article or broadcast in the statements therein, which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory.

[00:07:27]plaintiff insisted the statute did not apply because nothing in the amended complaint was sufficient to support a finding on a motion to dismiss that defendant was a media defendant entitled to such motion excuse me such notice accepting the amended complaints allegations the court found defendant was not a media defendant that was the judge's original judgment plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint to which defendant responded reasserting the defense of lack of statutory presuit notice. No summary judgement motions were filed during a ruling on the affirmative defense. As trial approached, the parties came before the court for a series of pre-trial conferences. At a November 10th, 2025 pre-trial conference, the parties and the court discussed whether the jury should decide the matter of defendants's media defendant status.

[00:08:22]Defendants council argued in this case whether defendant is a media defendant should be a question for the jury. The court then suggested the parties preface the relevant jury instructions with the phrase as two media defendants prompting the following discussion defendants council.

[00:08:39]I don't have an issue with that plaintiff's council. So yes they would have to find the factual predicate that she's and then we have to give them some guidance. I would say the motion to dismiss the court. What is a media defendant? What does that mean? Right?

[00:08:54]Plaintiff's counsel, right? Plaintiff is of course Megan Estallion and her counsel. And I think if you look at it, it has some standards, but I don't know if that is a jury issue. But yes, you could set it up that way. And I guess we would be okay with that. The court I think plaintiff it's fair.

[00:09:13]Following the discussion, the parties agreed to work together to draft a jury instruction based on the court's suggestion, but the issue remained unsettled as the case advanced to trial.

[00:09:23]On November 12th, 2025, plaintiff filed a memorandum reasserting that defendant was not a media defendant.

[00:09:30]On the first day of trial, the court stated it agreed with plaintiff, but noted, "If the defense wants to present something to the contrary to persuade me otherwise, certainly may do so.

[00:09:42]On the fifth day of trial, the parties agreed that jury instructions would reflect the court's ruling unless defendants's briefing persuaded the court otherwise. The next day, defendant submitted a respon, excuse me, a response memorandum and plaintiff filed a reply. Defendant then asked the court to defer ruling on defendants media defendant status until after the close of the evidence. Later defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law under federal rule of civil procedure 5A which the court denied.

[00:10:15]Evidence concerning defendants's media status at trial. Defendant presented evidence regarding her business operations, trademarks, and media activities starting in 2017.

[00:10:25]As defendant testifies, she formed her limited liability company on May 23rd, 2020 and discussed her trademark moniker, Magrogram Grams, under which she provides entertainment in the nature of live performances distributed via various platforms across multiple forms of transmission media by an entertainer in the nature of ongoing live radio personality performances. Entertainment in the nature of visual and audio performances by an entertainer namely live visual and audio performances by a radio personality host.

[00:10:58]Entertainment namely live commentary in the nature of providing information, news and commentary in the field of entertainment. Entertainment namely personal appearances by an entertainer in the nature of a radio personality host. entertainment services, namely providing a website featuring entertainment news and entertainment commentary information.

[00:11:19]Lagrograms trademark.

[00:11:22]On May 22nd, 2020, defendant filed a certificate of formation for mod radio LLC under which much of the same.

[00:11:34]Defendant testified that since 2017 she has used social media and other online platforms such as Station Head, YouTube, Twitch, Kick, Instagram, and Twitter to report news, hold interviews, and blog.

[00:11:44]Defendant was featured by Station Head on October 8th, 2019 and approached by The Shade Room on December 11th, 2019 about joining its podcast network on Spotify.

[00:11:57]She has collaborated with groups like the Shade Roman on-site and contracted with station head after completing a one-year trial period. Defendant testified that she obtained these opportunities either before or independently from her relationships with Dayar Peterson and his father, Sunst Star Peterson.

[00:12:15]She described a broadcasting schedule spanning several hours a day covering topics from politics and world news to entertainment. and she testified that she reported on events including Peterson's trial as a member of the media playing ex exhibit J336 a July 30th 2024 episode of defendant show to discuss seven topics spanning over 1 hour and 36 minutes before plaintiff's name was mentioned three claimed defamatory statements plaintiff accused defendant of acting as dayar Peterson's longtime mouthpiece when uttering three defamatory statements one defendant statement that plaintiff was a noncredible witness. Two, defendant's statement that she could go down the list of all the different [ __ ] that was not true and three defendants question was Megan the Stallion caught trying to deceive the courts again.

[00:13:06]The jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was liable to plaintiff for defamation per se based on those three statements.

[00:13:17]The following summarizes the trial evidence concerning the three defamatory statements and defendants communications with Dayar Peterson and his father, Sunstar Peterson. On July 12th, 2020, the Los Angeles Police Department stopped Dayar Peterson's vehicle after receiving reports of shots being fired, arresting him on charges of carrying a concealed weapon. Three days later, plaintiff announced on social media that the injuries she suffered the night of Dayar Peterson's arrest were gunshot wounds. And on August 20th, 2020, plaintiff publicly identified Dayar as the shooter.

[00:13:51]On September 17th, 2020, Dayar Peterson sent defendant an Instagram direct message requesting her phone number.

[00:13:58]Defendant responded by providing her number and stating, "I don't know how you're doing. You're live tonight, but if you gave me that or any exclusive, it changed my life."

[00:14:11]Around September 24th, 2020, Sunstar Peterson sent defendant an Instagram message stating, "Hello, Mila. This is Tori's dad.

[00:14:21]Been listening to Mob Radio. I would like to talk to you off the record just days later." Defendant interviewed Sunstar Peterson around September 28th, 2020.

[00:14:37]Defendant's relationship with the Petersons continued after the interview.

[00:14:40]Sunstar Peterson and defendant often communicated by phone and text.

[00:14:45]Text messages between defendant and Sunstar Peterson between September 25th, 2020 through December 23rd, 2024.

[00:14:55]SunStar made five payments totaling $2,500 to defend it between October 2020 and April 21st, 2021.

[00:15:05]$500 on October 28th, 1,000 on F, excuse me, February 23rd, 2021, 300 on February 27th, 2021, 200 on March 7th, 2021, 500 on April 21st, 2021. Further, defendant openly discussed her close relationship with the Peterson family. For example, in a June 18th, 2021 text message, Emil or Al Holland Briggs stated, "Who else can say they have this kind of relationship with Sunstar and Dayar?"

[00:15:42]Great question.

[00:15:44]Defendant testified that as a thank you for being unbiased, Dayar Peterson's team provided information to her before sending it to TMZ.

[00:15:55]sent her the information before TMZ. You say defendant also supplied Sunstar Peterson with information.

[00:16:06]For example, on November 24th, 2022, Sunstar texted defendant, "Ma, can you please send me those materials ASAP?

[00:16:14]This is go time now, and the attorneys need them as quickly as we can get them." The next day, defendant emailed things that may be of value, including screenshots of social media posts by plaintiff's former friend's mother and sister criticizing plaintiff, information from a conversation with plaintiff's former friend, screenshots of a post from plaintiff's ex-boyfriend implying plaintiff physically assaulted him, and a video showing defendant discussing those posts.

[00:16:44]And on December 2nd, 2022, defendant sent Sunstar at his request a video of plaintiff in a pool with a gun.

[00:16:55]So, as you can see, Tori's dad hit up Magro, said, "Please send these materials over ASAP." And all of the materials were negative things about Megan in particular.

[00:17:12]It's go time, he said. Dayar Peterson's criminal trial began on December 12th, 2022. The next day, Day Star sent defendant an Instagram direct message asking, "What's your number? Got to ask you something." And defendant provided her number.

[00:17:28]On December 21st, 2022, Dayar texted defendant, "Is Tori? Hit me." That same day, defendant uttered the first defamatory statement, a post on X from her Malagro Grahams account, calling plaintiff a noncredible witness.

[00:17:45]On December 23rd, 2022, the jury entered a guilty verdict against Dayar Peterson. Sunstar and defendant remained in contact following the verdict.

[00:17:58]text from December 27th to 28th asking defendant to call him. On January 5th, 2023, Sunstar texted defendant, "Hi, Mila. Call me ASAP."

[00:18:08]That day, defendant appeared on DJ that don't spins podcast to discuss the Day Star Peterson trial and made the second defamatory statement. I could go down the list of all the different [ __ ] that was not true that I've been saying.

[00:18:22]That's not true. That's not true.

[00:18:26]On January 12th, 2023, Sunstar asked defendant to call him because Instagram had wiped his page and instructed her to please let the people know. Let the people know what?

[00:18:41]That your page got deleted. What the [ __ ] did you do?

[00:18:45]Months later, on June 10th, 2023, SunStar invited defendant to a Zoom meeting entitled Friends of Sunstar and Dayar. During the meeting, a user identified as Tory Lane's source stated, "It was important to emphasize that Tori has never made it his mission to weaponize his fans against plaintiff despite what the DA claimed."

[00:19:08]The user further stated with this news, it's better to have other people saying that instead of Tori and emphasized, "It has to be a third party, not from him.

[00:19:21]things he say can be held against him putting this out. I don't remember seeing this information.

[00:19:29]Not the Zoom meeting where you got Tory Lane's source, whoever the [ __ ] that is, saying, "Hey, the things that Tori wants out there, it has to come from someone else, not him."

[00:19:41]Things that he says could be held against him. We got to do it. I didn't know about this piece.

[00:19:50]Defendant then shared a transcript highlighting a sentence implying plaintiff stepped on the glass the night of the shooting and asked, "Are things like this along the lines of what you're looking for?"

[00:20:06]Boom.

[00:20:07]Head shot.

[00:20:11]Defendant being Magro Grahams. by the way people.

[00:20:16]So homeboy says, "Hey, we need other people putting this information out there. It can't come from Tori. He can't say [ __ ] It got to come from outside parties."

[00:20:28]Magro jumps in with the step- on glass thing. Is this what you're looking for?

[00:20:36]A day later, Sunstar and defendant exchanged messages regarding a failed Zale payment and agreed to switch to Cash App.

[00:20:48]A day later, defendants post about plaintiff continue. This is coming. This is all from the judge, by the way. An outline of events.

[00:21:01]Defendants post about plaintiff continue. Ooh, I can't stand her [ __ ] ass. Just shut the [ __ ] up. That is a quote. On February 28, 2024, Sunstar asked defendant whether she would be willing to speak with a producer involved in another high-profile lawsuit because he can't speak at this time to anything that links Day Star's case. Defendant agreed to speak with the producer.

[00:21:30]In the ensuing months, defendants's post about plaintiff intensified on June 8th, 2024. Defendant posted on X go to my likes. This is the deep fake. Directing users to a deep fake pornographic video of plaintiff. During a July 30th, 2024 live stream, defendant asked if plaintiff had ever been deemed like legally.

[00:21:51]Y'all know stated, "You better get that [ __ ] away from me before I run that hoe over with this [ __ ] cop.

[00:22:03]and reiterated her belief that the damn girl stepped on glass or a ricochet [ __ ] came and [ __ ] up.

[00:22:14]Now help me understand this people.

[00:22:18]This woman literally acknowledged the possibility of a ricochet. What ricocheted?

[00:22:24]Was it rubber?

[00:22:29]Was it a Wendy's cup?

[00:22:36]Was it a pair of jacks? Dice?

[00:22:43]No.

[00:22:45]In order for there to be a [ __ ] ricochet, it would had to have been a shot fired.

[00:22:53]I'll digress and continue.

[00:22:57]On August 1st, 2024, defendant again discussed plaintiff during another live stream, stating, "What does losing somebody have to do with lying on some damn body? So, if you lost somebody, it's okay to lie on people and get them sent to prison and make money out for the propaganda in the bullshit." Less than a week later, defendant issued the third defamatory statement on X from her Mobs World account accompanied by screenshots of legal documents from another case asking, "Was Megan Estallion caught trying to deceive the courts again?"

[00:23:34]The jury's dumbass finds defendant was entitled to pre-suit notice. As the end of trial approached, the court gave the parties the option to wait until the evidence is closed for a ruling on defendants's media defendant status or to address the issue. Then plaintiff's council asked that the court view defendants media status as a question of law to which the court noted that while media status is typically resolved at the inception of the case here the issue was resolved at the motion to dismiss on the record that the defendant presented and based on the pleading alone but the record is materially different from that which the court was presented at the inception of the case.

[00:24:15]The court had directed the parties to confer on how to proceed, including whether to submit the question of defendants's media status to the jury through a special interrogatory.

[00:24:24]Following conferral, plaintiff's council requested the issue be submitted to the jury while defendant insisted on the court announcing a ruling as matter of law.

[00:24:33]I'll hear from the parties. Plaintiff's council. Yes, your honor. So, we have conferred and thought about this. Our side is okay with the issue as we talked at the first pre-trial conference going to the jury. If we can get reliable criterion for which they would decide it, which should be the same criterion you used at the beginning of the case and you would have used on summary judgement and we raised that with the other side, but they are not okay with that. They want you to rule yourself on the record.

[00:25:01]After the court gave assurances that post verdict briefing on the issue would remain available, defendant withdrew her request and both parties agreed to proceed with a special agreed upon interrogatory. plaintiff's council further explained he was just concerned about the record not being complete but now that we have merged these things I think is fine the next day at the lunch break plaintiff sought to make an oral motion that defendant had failed to establish she was a media defendant as the court advised plaintiff could reserve on the motion at the close of the evidence defendant moved for a directed verdict on plaintiff's IED claim which the court denied Defendants motion for directed verdict.

[00:25:43]The verdict form contains six questions related to defendants news media status.

[00:25:47]Question three. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by a prepoundonderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper provided disinterested and neutral commentary rather than advocacy for a particular client or personal interest? Question four. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper regularly disseminated news or information to the public rather than an isolated or one-time publication?

[00:26:15]Question five. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper impartially disseminated information rather than acting primarily to promote her own business, products, or services?

[00:26:29]Question six. During the time period when the statements were made, do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper operated for the purpose of informing the public about matters of public concern through news reporting, analysis, or commentary during the time period when the statements were made? Do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper functioned in a similar manner to traditional news media such as newspaper, magazines, television, radio, or their online equivalents? Question eight. Considering your answers to question three through seven together, do you find by preponderance of the evidence that Miss Cooper should be treated as a media defendant with regard to the statements made in this case?

[00:27:09]During deliberations, the jury submitted a question regarding the media defendant issue asking if we believe half is is that considered a yes?

[00:27:21]The parties agreed that the court should respond. There is no set number.

[00:27:28]Plaintiff's council proposed the following answer. So our proposal, if you were inclined to say something, is to say that though there is no set number of factors that conclusively determine the outcome of the question on media defendant, the courts in this circuit have indicated that the answer to question three, whether the defendant is disinterested and neutral are the most important in the analysis and that a defendant should not be treated as immediate defendant if the answer to question three is no. That's our proposal. I mean we have something that we attempted to be more practical and the proposal there although your answers to question three through seven should guide your answer to question eight. The media defendant question the considerations referenced in questions 3 through 7 are not exhaustive not dispositive and not necessarily entitled to equal weight in answering question eight. You are free to give those considerations whatever weight you think each deserves in determining the answer to question eight. Thus, answering yes to a majority of questions 3 through 7 does not mean that you must answer yes to question 8. Likewise, answering no to a majority of questions 3 through 7 does not mean that you must answer no to question eight. Ultimately, you should decide, excuse me, you should consider all the factors together to determine if the defendant should be considered immediate defendant.

[00:28:46]The jury found for plaintiff on counts, one, defamation. two, promotion of altered sexual depiction and and three IED of the second amended complaint.

[00:28:57]Although its answers to the news media interrogatories were mixed, the jury concluded considering the effect of the answers that defendant qualified as a media defendant. After the jury was dismissed, the court discussed preparation of the final judgment.

[00:29:11]So they did find her liable for defamation, promotion of altered sexual depiction, and three emot uh intentional infliction of of emotional distress. But then they said she's a media defendant, which contradicted the defamation to begin with, which then goes into the media defendant requirements. Right?

[00:29:33]Plaintiff's council expressed, "The weight of the evidence is that defendant is not a media defendant, but understood that's the way the jury filled out the verdict form, noting his objection.

[00:29:42]Given the jury's findings and plaintiff's failure to give presuit notice, the court entered final judgment on counts two and three in plaintiff's favor, but not as to count one."

[00:29:52]The present motion plaintiff now asked the court under federal rules of civil procedure 50B 59E and 60B to disregard or strike the media defendant interrogatory answers as immaterial and enter judgment in plaintiff's favor on count one. As the court agrees that relief is warranted under rule 60b, it does not reach plaintiffs rule 50B and 59E arguments.

[00:30:18]Okay, so this is the partial uh agreement two legal standard federal rule of civil procedure 60B permits a party to seek relief from a final judgment under a limited set of circumstances. The rule permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for certain reasons, including one, mistake, inadvertent, surprise, or excusable neglect, or any other reason that justifies relief.

[00:30:52]where it is the court's misunderstanding or mislication of the law that is asserted in a rule 60B1 motion. The movement must demonstrate that the court's mistake involved a plain misconstruction of the law and the erroneous application of that law to the facts.

[00:31:09]In contrast, rule 60B6 is available only when rule 60B1 through B5 are inapplicable and extraordinary circumstances to justify reopening.

[00:31:22]discussion relying on rule 60B1.

[00:31:24]Plaintiff contends the final judgment rests on a manifest legal error because it one reconsidered the same legal question decided in the February 7, 2025 order on defendants motion to dismiss the amended complaint and two permitted the jury to resolve legal classifications and standards reserved to the court. She also argues that the circumstances are extraordinary enough to warrant relief under rule 60B6.

[00:31:48]The court addresses the arguments in turn for the reasons below. plaintiff's contentions of manifest legal error are unpersuasive. Even still, extraordinary circumstance warrant relief under rule 60B6 because the court assured the parties the media defendant issue would remain subject to postverdict review and the trial record establishes defendant was not entitled to pre-suit notice. So, the judge ain't going to take full accountability for everything that Megan says, but is willing to make a concession on this one piece.

[00:32:30]Rule B, uh, excuse me, rule 60B1, plaintiff does not show manifest legal error. Law of the case doctrine.

[00:32:36]According to plaintiff, the law of the case doctrine barred the court from revisiting its February 7, 2025 determination regarding defendants's news media status. Plaintiff's reliance on the doctrine is misplaced.

[00:32:50]The law of the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case. The doctrine applies only where there has been a final judgment.

[00:33:03]Yet, a court's previous rulings may be reconsidered as long as the case remains within the jurisdiction of the district court. The law of the case doctrine does not apply to February 7th, 2025 order.

[00:33:19]The court's resolution of the lack of presuit notice defense on a motion to dismiss was not a controlling legal ruling precluding later reconsideration particularly given defendant preserve the issue in an affirmative defense to the second amended complaint media defendant special interrogatories. Next plaintiff contends that the court's media defendant special interrogatories were improper. According to defendant, the med excuse me, the jury was authorized to decide her news media status and plaintiff is barred by the invited error doctrine from complaining.

[00:33:50]Plaintiff asserts that the media status under Florida statute section 7701 generally presents a threshold question for the court. She is correct that issues concerning public figures and whether a defendant qualifies as a media or non-media defendant are commonly resolved as matters of law outside the jury's presence.

[00:34:11]Indeed, Florida's pre-suit notice statute was intended to give puditive defendants the opportunity to retract allegedly false and/or defamatory statements and potentially to avoid litigation altogether. At trial, the undersign likewise recognize the preliminary nature of those determinations.

[00:34:29]The question is typically resolved at the inception of the case because if a party fails to give presuit notice, the claim goes away with leave to amend later or leave to file a new action later. Here the issue was resolved at the motion to dismiss on record that the defendant presented and based on the pleading alone. Now we are at the conclusion of the evidence or near the conclusion of the evidence. The record is materially different from that which I was presented at the inception of the case.

[00:34:56]And yet the Florida standard jury instructions contemplate circumstances where status issues may be submitted to the jury.

[00:35:08]The record here supported submission of questions regarding defendants's news media status to the jury. Assuming the court ered by submitting the issue to the jury, plaintiff invited the error. A party that invites an error cannot complain when his invitation is accepted because unfortunately Megan's legal team did allow that the questions be submitted to the jury.

[00:35:34]This is why so many of us were complaining about the job that Megan's legal team did in court. Plaintiff not only requested that defendants news media status be submitted to the jury, but also participated in drafting and approving the relevant questions and jury instructions. This is a textbook case of invited error. By proposing the exact language that the district court adopted, the party invited any purported error.

[00:36:01]So basically uh it was on Megan to basically tell her legal team to stand on business. The judge had already at the motion to dismiss stage found that Magro was not a media defendant. It was written in bold print.

[00:36:19]But then it was reintroduced to the jury because of course Magro initially thought that that should have been judged in court. Then when they got to court, Magro's legal team said, "We want the judge to say it." And somehow Megan's legal team said, "No, uh, we're okay with sending it to the judge based on the restructuring of the question.

[00:36:52]Plaintiff first agreed to the use of media defendant special interrogatories on November 10th, 2025. At a pre-trial conference, defendants council proposed treating defendants news media status as a factual issue for the jury and the court suggested structuring the instructions as to media defendants.

[00:37:06]Rather than object to the procedure, plaintiff responded that the jury would need guidance on the applicable standards and acknowledged the issue could be okay to submit to the jury and that the proposal was fair. That's not Megan's words, but those are the words from her attorneys.

[00:37:24]Following that discussion, the parties agreed to work together to draft a jury instruction implementing the court suggestions. On November 17, 2025 before opening statements, the court addressed plaintiff's memorandum, reasserting defendant was not immediate defendant.

[00:37:39]Although the court confirmed tenative agreement with plaintiff's position, the court also explained defendant would have the opportunity to present evidence and attempt to persuade the court otherwise. And when the court revisited the issue on November 21st, the parties agreed the jury instructions would remain subject to further revision depending on the evidentiary record developed at trial.

[00:38:03]Plaintiff therefore proceeded through trial aware of the issue remained open and could ultimately be submitted to the jury. On November 24th, 2025, when defendant had nearly completed her case and chief, the court again addressed the matter of me defendant's media defendant status. Plaintiff undeterred by defendant's response in support of defendants's news media status and the evidence defendant presented in her case and chief maintained that the analysis of the issue factually is the same as what it was at the motion to dismiss.

[00:38:31]The court disagreed explaining that at the conclusion of the evidence the record is quite different. The court once again proposed submitting the issue to the jury through special interrogatories. Even then plaintiff did not object to the jury deciding the issue. Instead, her council sought clarification regarding what evidence prompted the court's reassessment and discussed revising the instructions language. The court then directed the parties to confer regarding how to proceed.

[00:39:00]Following that conferral, it was plaintiff not defendant who advocated for sending the issue to the jury.

[00:39:05]Plaintiff told the court the issue could go to the jury so long as the jury received appropriate criteria to guide its determination. This is where her legal team [ __ ] up.

[00:39:15]After the court clarified that postverdict briefing would remain available, defendant withdrew her request and both parties agreed to proceed with the interrogatories.

[00:39:23]Plaintiff's council then confirmed he was satisfied proceeding in that manner because as he put it now that we have merged these things I think is fine.

[00:39:34]Plaintiff's council also participated in finalizing the jury instructions and raised only a limited objection regarding language describing the effect of the media defendant finding.

[00:39:46]Plaintiff raised no further objections and the party submitted the final instructions without identifying additional concerns. Plaintiff also took an active role in addressing a jury question regarding how to properly evaluate the media defendant factors.

[00:39:59]Her council participated in drafting, revising, and approving the jury instructions and special interrogatories without making the objectives plaintiff now asserts in the motion. On this record, plaintiff invited any alleged error and thus may not challenge the interrogatories under rule 60B1.

[00:40:20]The litigant invited error when he not only Okay, that's not pertaining to her.

[00:40:24]and some plaintiff falls short of showing a manifest legal error warranting relief under rule 60B1.

[00:40:30]Rule 60B6 plaintiff shows extraordinary circumstances. Moving on, the court considers whether plaintiff has established extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. Rule 60B6's catchall provision and authorizes the court to exercise its sound discretion when the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief.

[00:40:51]The rule does not reward a party that seeks to avoid the consequences of its own free, calculated, and deliberate choices.

[00:40:59]The 11th Circuit has recognized that rule 60B is an appropriate escape valve when council has acted diligently and in reliance upon statements of the trial court. The court agrees extraordinary circumstances justify rule 60B6 relief.

[00:41:15]Throughout the trial, the court stated postverdict briefing on the media defendant issue would remain available and the parties agreed to submit the issue to the court in reasonable relant to the jury, excuse me, in reasonable reliance in part on those assurances.

[00:41:28]This is an issue depending on how it's answered by the jury that will be a subject of postverdict briefing.

[00:41:35]Thus, the court's repeated statements regarding postverdict briefing and plaintiff's diligence in filing her motion present an extraordinary circumstance rendering rule 60B6 relief appropriate.

[00:41:48]Therefore, defendant was not entitled to presuit notice. On the merits, plaintiff asserts that courts routinely decide whether a defendant enjoys media status and is entitled to pursuit notice as a matter of law at the motion to dismiss and summary judges statement judgment state stages of a case. Plaintiff acknowledges that the court could arguably sub submit narrow factual questions about predicate facts to the jury, but insists the ultimate legal determination whether defendant is immediate defendant for Florida statute 7701 purposes remains for the court to decide as a matter of law.

[00:42:25]The court first decided on the question based on the amended complaints allegations. The court now decides it based on the trial record. Again, under Florida law, a plaintiff must provide written pre-suit notice before bringing any civil action for defamation based on a publication or broadcast by a media defendant in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium. Florida Statute 7701.

[00:42:49]A publication qualifies as an other medium if it is operated to further the free dissemination of information or disinterested and neutral commentary or editorializing as to matters of public interest. Blogs may fall within the statute when they serve as an alternate medium of news and public comment.

[00:43:12]Defendants broadcast qualify as an other medium because her shows are operated to provide live commentary in the nature of providing information, news, and commentary in the field of entertainment.

[00:43:23]As defendant testifies, she selects topics by analyzing social media algorithms, reviewing viewer submitted content, and consulting reports, articles, and court documents to determine matters of interest to her audience. Because her broadcasts are live, defendant also reviews and responds to comments from viewers in real time to give commentary and to incorporate the viewers comments into the show.

[00:43:46]To be sure, although defendant is a broadcaster, not every statement she makes falls within the purview of section 7701.

[00:43:57]Plaintiff identified three defamatory statements. One, defendant statement that plaintiff was a non-credible witness. Two, defendant's statement that she could go down the list of all the different [ __ ] that was not true and three defendants question was Megan the Stallion caught trying to deceive the courts again.

[00:44:16]The first was a December 21st, 2022 post on X.

[00:44:21]The second occurred during January 5th, 2023 podcast episode where defendant was being interviewed about the Peterson trial. The third was August 7th, 2024 from defendant's account accompanied by screenshots of legal documents from another case. Plaintiff argues that defendant was not entitled to pursuit notice because she engaged in financially motivated advocacy and disseminated information at the Peterson's discretion. Plaintiff relies on the jury's findings. That defendant did not provide disinterested and neutral commentary or impartially disseminate information and acted extremely and outrageously by coordinating with Dayar Peterson and others.

[00:45:03]That defendant did not provide disinterested and neutral commentary or impartially disseminate information.

[00:45:08]Does not automatically destroy her media status. The existence of a particular agenda does not rob the speaker of the protections afforded by the presuit notice statute.

[00:45:22]And media defendants are not limited to those who impartially disseminate information or issue unsolicited disinterested and neutral commentary as to matters of the public interest. The term also applies to those who editorialize as to matters of public interest without being commissioned to do so by their clients. So you can be biased, you can be partial, but you can't do it at the discretion of your clients. paying you to do so.

[00:45:53]DJ that don't spin. Your time is coming, homie.

[00:45:59]The key question, therefore, is whether defendant was commissioned by the Petersons to publish or broadcast those three defamatory statements.

[00:46:10]In this regard, plaintiff citation to Ortega Truhillo is constructive.

[00:46:17]In Ortega Truillo, a publica, excuse me, a public relations firm disseminated a defamatory press release on behalf of his client and sought the protection of section 7701.

[00:46:30]The court disagreed, explaining that as a registered agent for its client, the firm was in the business of public relations and lobbying and did not issue unsolicited, disinterested, and neutral commentary as to matters of public interest or editorialized as to matters of public interest without being commissioned to do so by his clients.

[00:46:50]The evidence shows defendant was commissioned by the Peterson family to make the three defamatory statements.

[00:46:57]This is the judge's order stating it.

[00:47:01]When first approached by Dayar Peterson on September 17th, 2020, defendants stated, "If you gave me any exclusive, it would change my life and afterward maintained a close relationship with the Petersons."

[00:47:21]The first defamatory statement defendants December 21st 2022 post calling plaintiff a noncredible witness was made the same day star texted defendant it's t hit me by that date defendant had received payments from his daddy obtained information from the Peterson team before other media outlets and sent materials to assist day stars criminal defense What media outlet, you know, do that?

[00:47:56]The second defamatory statement, defendants January 5th, 2023 appearance on the DJ the Don't Spins podcast was also made the same day his daddy texted defendant, "Hi, Mila. Call me ASAP."

[00:48:16]The third defamatory statement, defendants August 7th, 2024 post asking whether plaintiff was caught trying to deceive the courts again followed the June 10th, 2023 Zoom meeting where participants, including defendant, discussed using a third-party strategy because statements damaging to plaintiff needed to come from someone other than Tori, whose own statements could be held against him.

[00:48:45]Defendant confirmed her understanding of that role, inquiring about the content the Petersons were looking for.

[00:48:53]And as late as February 2024, Sunstar continued to direct defendant to speak on matters he could not address himself.

[00:49:02]The third statement was consistent with that ongoing arrangement in some because the trial record shows that defendant was commissioned by the Petersons to publish or broadcast the three defamatory statements. Excuse me.

[00:49:19]The court finds as a matter of law that defendant was not entitled to presuit notice.

[00:49:27]Conclusion. Accordingly, it is a ordered and adjudged that plaintiff Megan Pete's motion to re reinstate jury verdict as to defamation claim and to amend final judgment or renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted in part. The jury's verdict as to count one on plaintiff's second amended complaint is reinstated.

[00:49:50]An amended final judgment will issue by separate order. I have that as well.

[00:49:56]Amended final judgment pursuant to the court's May 29th, 2026 ECF granting in part plaintiff Megan Pete motion to reinstate jury verdict as to defamation claim and to amend final judgment or renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. It is ordered and adjudged as follows.

[00:50:16]Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Megan Pete on counts one, two, and three of her second amended complaint and against defendant Magro Elizabeth Cooper. Plaintiff shall recover from defendant a total of $75,000 in damages, which was the lowest possible total that the jury agreed to.

[00:50:40]requests for costs and fees shall not be submitted until after any post-trial motions are decided or an appeal is concluded whichever occurs later. So understand the 75,000 is just for defamation damages. Defamation and the three counts, right?

[00:51:00]However, Megan Estallion can still request for costs, legal fees, etc., etc., but not until any post-trial motions are decided.

[00:51:13]I believe Magro did file an appeal.

[00:51:18]So after all of that is concluded, they'll decide what she owes in costs, legal fees, etc. So that's not off the table, but it will come at a later time.

[00:51:31]Okay.

[00:51:33]So although Megan Estallion was ultimately shafted by her legal team for a certain level of incompetence out there in Florida, she was also shafted by the jury because they sought to give her the lowest possible amount because based on the filing, it had to be in excess of $75,000. They gave her exactly $75,000 to the cent dollars and cents.

[00:52:02]That's the highest that it could possibly go based on the jury. But the judge did agree that Magro is not a media defendant. So that new media title is now not seen in court for her. She bragged about it. She cheered about it.

[00:52:20]She chanted about it.

[00:52:24]Nope.

[00:52:26]They've added that original $75,000 judgment. that they had changed it to 59. It's back to 75. And again, once all of this is concluded, Megan can then pursue legal fees and other costs at a later time. All right, let me know what y'all think about all this down below in the comments. Be sure to like and share this video. If this is your first time seeing me on YouTube, go ahead and subscribe to the channel.

[00:52:52]Become an insider. I'll catch y'all on the next one. Y'all be good out there, man. Peace.

[00:53:02]Yeah. Family over fame in this [ __ ] Yeah. The glory of living righteous is sitting in my street knowledge and education's a perfect blend. Young mogul independent. I've been setting trends.

[00:53:13]The first one from my family to be faithfully wed. [ __ ] [ __ ] and the horses that they riding on. I see this [ __ ] from all angles like a polygon. I'm never politic. The drama be piling on.

[00:53:24]Father and great unagnowledged like I'm Bobby Bonds. Conversation with my lady about the paper round five sick bank accounts every day I make it count they down talking my commentary for hating now well I can take it cuz I'm bodying your favorite now please I could do this [ __ ] in my sleep I've been writing for these [ __ ] y'all read it and we I've been fighting these [ __ ] if you speak on the street your birthday party in the New Year's Eve don't let me take it there we ain't playing fair this the ATL Southside [ __ ] moving furniture like wayfair life on hold no insurance for your health care lifeline gone. So you want to be a millionaire? Well, let me tell you about this world I built. The women I dodged, the [ __ ] that I read for filth, the sympathy calls for the stakes I built. I had to evolve and grow.