Nick Reiner wants his Trust to hire Alan Jackson. Can that happen? | The Emily Show

[00:00:00]Hey Lonard, welcome back to the Emily Show. We have a lot of updates this week on all of the dockets and we've kind of got a new docket today because we have a probate docket that's connected to a criminal case which we've done in the Corey Richens case. But today that focus is going to be turned on California because Nick Reiner is trying to get access to his trust so he can rehire attorney Alan Jackson. And we are going to talk about the documents filed in probate court. Why that's filed there, what they're asking for, why this circumstance is different than all the probate we've talked about in the Corey Richens case. And aside of Emily regrets not always paying the most attention in Wills and Trust in Law School because wow, have we talked about it a lot lately. But don't worry, I've got the documents, so I've got you covered. I also have an update from our coverage of the Reckless Ben Lego bricks and mini figs of it all because we did a super stream. There was so much information, but there is one part that you guys had asked me about and it was at the very end of the document. We didn't have a chance to talk about it, but I wanted to highlight it here and then give a hearing update cuz the court changed the hearing after our last live stream and I have thoughts about it. I think it's probably a good thing, but I have thoughts about it. And then at the end of the week, there were two things that happened in the law that we are going to talk about. One, the court in New York finally ruled on something that we've been waiting to hear about. We're going to circle back on that in the lively wayfairer. Is it over yet? Almost, but not quite. And Tyra Banks is suing Netflix. We're not doing a deep dive on that today, but a quick overview because we've covered a lot of the Netflix lawsuits and they are never easy for the parties and Tyra Banks is making some allegations that just are going to be difficult to sustain down the road. So, we might need to do a deep dive on that if you're interested. But for now, we're going to do a quick overview cuz that dropped this weekend. So, as we get into the week of June 15th, we've got a lot to talk about. Let's get into it. I'm legal analyst Emily D. Baker. Yes, also a lawyer. And this is the Emily Show. I break down the pop culture, entertainment, and high-profile cases that we're all talking about. I know you want the facts, so let's get into it.

[00:02:19]First up on the docket, Reckless Ben versus Bricks and Minigs and all of the Lego related litigation. I covered this in a extended live stream because I said we're just gonna kind of overview what these charges are. And then there was so much in that civil Rico charge that I was like, "What do you mean?" And then I spent about, you know, 3 hours just being Jennifer Lawrence on the Hot Ones going, "What do you mean? Wait, what do you mean? What do you mean?" But in that civil RICO case, the court had set an initial hearing on the temporary restraining order. Remember, temporary restraining orders, temporary protective orders are granted exart on the allegations of one party only and then the other party has the chance to respond and have a hearing. The court has set that hearing now for June 30th.

[00:03:11]That hearing had been bumped back a little bit after some service issues. We talked about that on stream and here on the case briefs, but the court had set that hearing for 3 pm. And my first response to that was that's not nearly going to be enough time to evaluate this extensive and I think overreaching temporary restraining order that has ordered things like take down all the YouTube videos about this had tried to restrain people directly and indirectly related to YouTuber Reckless Ben. I don't even know how you determine who that encompasses and had seemingly very broadly tried to create a constructive trust to freeze funds in GoFundMes on YouTube, etc. So, that hearing has now been bumped forward to 100 p.m. So, they're going to give it more time, but that is going to be an incredibly important hearing to either get rid of this temporary restraining order to extend it to both sides cuz right now that temporary restraining order only applies to the defendants in the case.

[00:04:17]And remember, the defendants in this case are Reckless Ben, Benjamin Schneider, his company, Brian Mancel, and Victor Nuin, one of his, I think, cameramen or, you know, not really co-hosts, but was in his videos, etc. But the temporary restraining order only goes one way. Reckless Ben and any of the other defendants have not filed a restraining order against either Bricks and Minifigs franchising, BAM franchising, the owners, Aean and Matthew McNeff, Josh Johnson, Brendan Best, or any of those companies. It's only been filed from the plaintiffs versus the defendants. and the defendants will have a time to say this is over broad, this is overly restrictive, this is not needed and or ask for their own temporary restraining order restraining the other side from talking about this. Though I wonder if some of the strategy here is not to ask the other side to stop talking because the lawyers, if there are lawyers involved yet, which there may not be, but lawyers might find what the other side is saying helpful to them. So they might not want to restrain the other side from speaking. But I got a lot of questions. How can those from Bricks and Minigs and the owners continue speaking about this case when Reckless Ben cannot? And it's because this temporary restraining order only restrains the defendants in the case. But that hearing now has more time set aside for it, which I think is appropriate. But that's a really important hearing for the parties to be well prepared for with their council to go and fight how over broad this temporary restraining order is to fight against that constructive trust that's being requested and to fight back against the provision at the end that we didn't cover on stream which is why I don't always stream documents for 6 hours but it's an interesting provision. In other cases where we have covered essentially injunctions, we've talked about the fact that the party asking for the injunction needs to generally put up a bond of some kind in case they lose and in case the injunction causes economic damage to the other side. So, you kind of have to put your money where your mouth is when you're stopping people from engaging in business or other activities that can cost them money. And look at what the court said here at the end of the temporary restraining order. The court says that pursuant to Utah Code of Civil Procedure 65A subsection D, plaintiffs shall not be required to pay as security a bond at this time because no security is required for the issuance of an injunction if quote, "It appears that none of the parties will incur or suffer costs, attorneys fees, or damage as a result of any wrongful order or injunction. And because they say codefendants will suffer no legitimate harm from being restrained by the granting of the motion entry of this temporary restraining order. I couldn't disagree more strongly, but that's a argument that the attorneys here have to argue. The reason behind a bond is so that the other side has to have something at stake if they are asking for a restraining order and an injunction that can damage the other party. I would argue that even if the judge here doesn't get it, that attorneys for Reckless Ben and the other codefendants should that not being able to move forward with videos or asking videos to be taken down, cuz remember this does ask that all the videos be taken down has a financial component.

[00:07:56]And even if you're wrong and the videos are down for what, a month, there is a financially detrimental cost to that because you're asking that videos be taken down and then made public again.

[00:08:09]That absolutely can be financially damaging. So, the fact that they're like, "No bonds needed. It's not damaging." I would hope that an attorney for Reckless Ben would get into court immediately and say, "We either need to bump this hearing up sooner or put a bond in place because of the potential economic damage here because that is a very real thing and not all courts get it because what we're talking about is outside of their scope of knowledge and I think sometimes they don't see the online space as real or the economic harm in online space being real. But even within the temporary restraining order injunction, they're asking for a constructive trust to hold money that is made off of these videos. So even within it, it talks about monies being made.

[00:08:59]And in that lawsuit that had so much extra in it, we saw discussions about all of this was being done to monetize.

[00:09:11]So what is it? Is all of this being monetized or is there no economic harm?

[00:09:16]Even within the documents and arguments being made, it's contradictory. And it frustrates me to no end that the court did not either choose to push back on that a little bit or say no. If you want the extraordinary remedy of requiring videos to be taken down, then you need to put up a bond against the money that those videos can make. And the order we pulled up was the original order that had the TTRO in it that had that time set at 3 p.m. The court updated that date by filing on Friday, June 12th, bumping the time earlier in the day to 100 p.m. on June 30th. So, I'm going to be keeping an eye on that for sure because I'm very curious what's going to happen at this temporary restraining order hearing because it is an evidentiary hearing and one would expect to start seeing court filings trying to remove this temporary restraining order and how overroad it is and we have not seen that yet. But there have been no attorneys of record yet appearing for any of the defendants. So, we will see where this goes. But y'all are interested and I'm keeping an eye on it.

[00:10:25]I will keep you up to date. There are some hearings coming up in July in Reckless Ben's criminal cases. So, I'm keeping an eye on those as well. But for now, the hearings in those cases are coming up in July. Honored, a quick moment to thank today's sponsor, Honey Love. As I have matured, Honey Love still has the support that I need no matter what. And look, as we age, sometimes our bodies change, and that's a gift. But I still want to feel my best. hand. I don't need things that are digging in and uncomfortable because my tolerance for discomfort is very low.

[00:10:58]Their shapewear doesn't roll down.

[00:11:00]You're not constantly tugging at your underpinnings. And same with the bras.

[00:11:04]Plus, their sleepwear keeps you cool. It is absolutely my favorite and the only sleepwear that I wear anymore at all.

[00:11:11]And it's no surprise to me that Honey Love is so comfortable because it is a female founded company. If you haven't checked out Honey Love in a minute, their new crossover contour bra is a perfect combination of their bestselling wireless design with molded foam cups to create a smooth, natural shape. It is so comfortable to wear and looks great under dresses or t-shirts. And if you're looking for an everyday bra, the Cloud Embrace Bra is an absolute game changer because it's soft and breathable and comfortable while still being supportive so that you don't even miss an underwire bra. What I appreciate about Honey Love is that they get it. That at the end of the day, it's not about changing your body. It's about supporting your body in a way that feels good to you. Lonard, if you've been waiting to check out Honey Love, now is the time to treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20% off of Honeylove at honeylove.com/lonard.

[00:12:05]That's honeylove.com/lonard.

[00:12:07]And after you check out, if they ask how you found them, let them know it was the Emily Show. Now, let's get back to it and a bit on the pop culture/ civil docket. Tyra Banks is suing Netflix over the America's Next Top Model Netflix docue series. I have not yet watched it.

[00:12:26]You'll have to let me know if you have and what you think, but it seems that Tyra Banks did not think that this portrayed her in the best light. And that's really at the heart of this. She is suing in federal court in California for false light, defamation by implication, defamation by implication under a different section, breach of contract, and the LAN Act. Emily, what do you mean? False endorsement. The LAN Act you normally see when we're talking about trademarks, but she's suing under the LAN Act as false endorsement, which is interesting. She's arguing that the way her image was used gave the implication that she was endorsing or supporting part of what was created by Netflix in connection to this series. And that goes specifically to the soundtrack from the Netflix docu series with her image on the front of the album art. Let's take a look at a quick reporting overview of this lawsuit before we move on to some of the other things going on in the law. If we need to do a deep dive of Tyra Banks suing Netflix, let me know. I will watch the docue series and then we will do a deep dive of the entire lawsuit. It is a 65page complaint. There is much to be said, but in a briefer way, this is coming from people on June 13th, 2026.

[00:13:57]Ty Banks files lawsuit against Netflix for her portrayal in America's Next Top Model doc. Banks claims in the lawsuit that only 16 minutes of her three and a halfhour interview were used in quote reality check America's Next Top Model and that accountability was a major part of her conversation that was not featured.

[00:14:18]So apparently she's not happy with how she is portrayed. But also just from my own experiences, I have sat down for many different type of media productions and have had hours of interview changed into 3 minutes or 5 minutes. I've never seen a contract where there's a guarantee. And there are things I have been told by production that by the time it airs are completely different. And then again, there's times that I've seen my face in things that no one ever reached out and asked me about. So, you never know. But it's interesting that part of this boils down to most of my interview was left on the cutting room floor. I wonder if Netflix is just going to do a part two and just release the entirety of the interview with no editing. I think that media should start doing this more. Oh, you would like the entire interview? Here it is. Here's the whole thing. No editing. People will sit and watch a 3 and 1 half hour interview.

[00:15:16]They absolutely will. People says that Tyra Banks is firing back at Netflix following her appearance in reality check inside America's Next Top Model in a lawsuit filed on Saturday, June 13th.

[00:15:26]Banks claims that her portrayal in the docu series is defamatory and was edited to support a false narrative. That's the false light. In California, you can have portrayal of someone in a false light.

[00:15:38]We can get into that more in a deep dive, but it is the defamation by implication by false light. And then we have public figure in this. And then because it's California, we will probably see some robust anti-slap litigation. Again, the California anti-slap statute is fairly uh powerful.

[00:15:58]It is meant to get rid of lawsuits before they even go to discovery to get rid of lawsuits that seem to be aimed at silencing speech. And we have seen that used successfully in some lawsuits, not successfully in others. It carries pretty heavy provisions to pay attorney fees if you lose that anti-slap. So, we can get into all of that because I'm sure that's what will be coming next from Netflix. But People is quoting directly from the lawsuit that they have, as do we, that Tyra Banks participated in the Netflix documentary series America's Next Top Model because she believed viewers deserved a candid conversation about the show's legacy, its successes, and its shortcomings. The lawsuit says there are aspects of the show for which Miss Banks takes accountability, and she wanted ENTM viewers to hear that from her directly.

[00:16:50]It's always hard when working with a production company to know what they're going to use and not use. And I wonder what the contract here says. The lawsuit says that Miss Banks did not limit the topics the interviewer could ask and that during a three and a half hour interview, she answered questions about the show's groundbreaking history, including criticisms of decisions she would approach differently today. The lawsuit goes on to say that the series was sold to viewers as a documentary series, and Netflix called it the definitive must-watch chronicle of America's Next Top Model. They say the genre matters that viewers of a documentary do not expect manufactured drama or constructed narratives. They expect facts because they were promised a documentary. That is exactly how viewers interacted with the Netflix series. So they are taking issue that this is not factually based because it edited her interview. So when we are looking at false light defamation, defamation by implication, there's going to be a big argument over whether these are factbased takeaways, whether they are what every viewer will take away or even if they are reckless or if it's just unflattering. So, we're going to have to see how this progresses, but false light can be difficult and defamation by implication can be difficult, especially if the implications are not getting into that defamation per se, alleging that someone is committing crimes or something like that. So, I am going to keep an eye on this, but it is not an easy way to tackle starting with, well, they didn't air her entire interview because I don't think that that's the expectation when you sit down to do an interview. But is there something there where calling it a docu series holds you to a different standard than if you just called it a I don't know, expose? So, let me know if you think we need a deeper dive on Tyra Banks sues Netflix and maybe we circle back on some of the other Netflix litigation that we haven't checked in with in a minute because we have covered albeit now probably years ago the Queen's Gambit suit against Netflix.

[00:19:05]There was a Carol Baskin lawsuit against Netflix and there's been a few others including Buster Murdo suing I believe Netflix if not Hulu over series as well.

[00:19:16]So maybe we just need a whole episode of people sue the media. You let me know.

[00:19:22]But from pop culture and civil court to the criminal adjacent probate docket, I didn't think we would be getting numerous cases where we were dealing with the probate docket connected to a criminal case. And yet here we are. When news that Nick Reiner was suing or somehow trying to get access to his trust broke last week because of a filing on June 8th. I got a lot of questions about it. We had a lot to cover last week. And again, if we need to do a deeper dive of this, we will. It is a 136 page filing that will be up in the Lard Lounge. So, if you are a member in the lounge, this will be up there for you if you want to check that out. It's at lonardlounge.com. and you can join that membership side of our app. But we are going to talk about the overarching questions that I've gotten about this filing because in the Corey Richens case, we talked a lot about Utah's Slayer statute and the rights that are severed if you are the person who is responsible for killing an individual, criminally, killing an individual. That should be noted in all of the Slayer statutes. and you are set to inherit from them. This is a slightly different situation because yes, even though Nick Reiner has been charged with the murder of both of his parents, this is not the same situation because it doesn't seem that we are dealing with an inheritance. We are dealing with a trust that was set up back in 1993 which is a different circumstance than somebody who's standing to inherit like Cory Richens where we were dealing with a pourover trust where the assets of an estate that is probated after somebody dies then goes into the trust. This trust was established prior to death and the trust was funded it seems based on this filing prior to death. So the Slayer statute in California doesn't seem to apply here based on this filing because this trust was separately funded not from the estate and prior to death.

[00:21:36]So that is why the circumstance is a bit different. And then I know many of you were curious because this filing specifically says that Nick Riner wants access to his trust so that he can hire attorney Alan Jackson. And yes, it says that specifically in here. But let's look at an overview of what he's asking for. This petition is asking the court for an order compelling a mandatory distribution. The filing argues that the trust set up a non-discretionary distribution to Nick Reiner when he turned 30 and that that distribution was never made to him. He is now 32 years old. So, this is an amount from his trust fund that they say should have been distributed to him when he turned 30 and never was. Now, I'm curious to see what the response is from the trustee. There is no response yet. We only have one side of the filing.

[00:22:28]They're also asking for declaratory relief and instructions regarding the construction of the trust provisions.

[00:22:34]So, they're asking the court to make some findings. Declaratory relief is literally asking the court to like declare a thing as A, B, or C. Then, they are asking for an order compelling the discretionary distributions for his commissary account. So, put putting money on his books in custody. They are also asking for an order compelling action on discretionary distribution requests. So, how do we handle this going forward? And then they're also suing for breach of trust, arguing that the trustee should step aside and a new trustee should be appointed. And the new trustee they are asking to be appointed has connections to the Britney Spears conservatorship. So, you're going to see a name and you're if you're like, "Wait a sec, why does that name ring a bell?"

[00:23:17]It's from the Britney Spears conservatorship. That's why this also includes a supporting declaration from Alan Jackson. They say at the beginning of this petition, quote, "On December 14th, 2025, Rob Reiner and Michelle Singer Riner were found dead in their home. Their son Nick was arrested in connection with their deaths and has since been held in custody at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles, charged with their murders and facing the possibility of the death penalty or life in prison without parole. The district attorney's office has not made that decision yet and has not stated in court what penalty they're pursuing, but this hasn't even gotten to preliminary hearing yet. And in fact, this case isn't back in court on the criminal side until September 15th for preliminary hearing setting. So, we're still months away from the prelim setting. Interestingly enough, the probate action is set for its first hearing on August 17th, almost a month before that preliminary hearing setting.

[00:24:17]That does not mean preliminary hearings happening that day. That is the next date before we see it go forward again.

[00:24:23]They go on to say that the case has drawn intense public attention and speculation. They say that Nick loved his parents and is devastated by their deaths, but the facts about what did and did not happen to them are not at issue in this trust litigation. Nick's criminal defense attorneys will present those facts in a criminal case. This petition neither requires nor invites the court to weigh in on them. Like anyone accused of a crime, Nick is presumed innocent and he is entitled to mount his defense with the resources that are lawfully his own. This petition raises the narrow question of trust interpretation concerning just one of the many trusts Nick's parents created as a part of their estate plan. More than 30 years ago, when Nick was an infant, the parents established a smaller, separate trust for his individual benefit, the Nick Reiner Children's Trust, referred to in the petition as Nick's trust, or simply the trust, as they did for each of his siblings. They say a true and correct copy of the trust is attached that these smaller children's trusts were created and funded independently of the far larger family trusts that holds the assets of the Riner's estate. Those trusts and Nick's interest in them are not at issue here. And that's what's key. They are saying, and if this is true, they are correct. They are saying that the trust just for Nick Reiner is separate and funded separately from the larger estate, which means it does not trigger provisions that might separate him from benefiting from the death of his parents by inheriting under the estate. This is prefunded. So any amounts that are in this trust prior to death and if the death of the rhiners does not put any funds into the trust, then this trust doesn't really fall under the statutes that say you cannot take monies from the estate of those that you killed. And this would fall outside of that because it's funded prior to death and not from an estate after it's probated. They go on to say that the terms of Nick's trust are not complicated and they are not subject to reasonable dispute. Nick's parents left unambiguous instructions about when the funds in the trust were to be released to him. And again, if this is true and this was not subsequently modified, then it seems like a pretty clear question.

[00:26:40]However, we've only seen one side of this and trust can be modified. They say one half of the trust was required to be distributed to Nick outright when he turned 30. They go on to say that the trust further instructed that when he turned 35, he would receive the rest of the funds in his trust. They say that the distributions are mandatory and unconditional. So again, if this was never modified, then it seems like a pretty clear question. They say that the purpose of the trust was for Nick's support, maintenance, health, and education until all the funds were released on his 35th birthday. Nick turned 30 September 14th, 2023, more than 2 and 1/2 years ago, at which point his right to one half of the trust vested and became due to him as a matter of right. But he did not receive the mandatory age 30 distribution then and has not received it since. I have really big questions about why he didn't receive it then and what happened and if it was requested. I wonder if the trustee will answer that when we see their response to this filing, which is going to take a little bit. This was just filed last week. They say that the trust holds more than $1.5 million for Nick's sole benefit and every dollar of it must be released to him in 2 years when he turns 35. They say that the trustee still has not released the money he was due on his 30th birthday or even told Nick its amount. They go on to say that over months of repeated inquiries, the current trustee has offered a shifting series of excuses and justifications, none of which can be reconciled with the trust's plain terms.

[00:28:14]Most recently, unsubstantiated quote unquote concerns about Nick's so-called competence to manage a trust. They say the mandatory age 30 distribution is exactly that, mandatory.

[00:28:26]I am curious to see what's going to be argued if the trustee is already using the word competence to manage a trust because it doesn't seem to me that Nick Reiner is asking to manage the trust. He is asking for a distribution from the trust. It still has a trustee. They go on to say that the stakes for Nick could not be higher. While the trustee unjustifiably continues to withhold funds that are rightfully Nicks, Nick has been unable to obtain even the small sums he needs for basic necessities while incarcerated or to pay for criminal counsel. Nick was initially represented by Alan Jackson, one of the country's most sought-after criminal defense attorneys, who was retained by Nick's family, which is an interesting note because we had wondered how that had all gone down because it was so fast. and now we know who was retained by Nick's family the day after his arrest to defend him through trial. On January 7th, 2026, Nick learned that Jackson and his firm were forced to withdraw because the anticipated funding did not materialize.

[00:29:25]And that answers question number two.

[00:29:29]Did Alan Jackson withdraw from the case because of financial reasons? This filing says that that's the reason. They go on to say, "Since then, Nick has repeatedly asked the Jackson firm to resume its representation if funds become available. He has made clear to the trustee that he wants and needs the funds in his own trust to be released so that he can pay for his criminal defense." He goes on to say that these are not estate assets and Nick does not seek them from his parents estate. They are his own funds. They then say that Jackson has reaffirmed not only that he quote unquote stands ready, willing, and able to resume his representation, but that he is committed to representing Nick and willing to consider reasonable alternatives to the original fee arrangement. And that's part of Jackson's declaration that we're going to take a look at now. And taking a look at the declaration of Alan Jackson, it states that he is an attorney, what his firm is, that he previously served as counsel on the case, that he is making the declaration based on his personal knowledge, and that he submits the declaration for the limited purpose of addressing the circumstances under which his firm was retained, the funding asurances made in connection with that retention, the subsequent withdrawal of that anticipated funding, Reiner's expressed desire that my firm resume representation if lawful funding becomes available, and the firm's willingness to do so subject to applicable ethical and court requirements, which means that he has permission from his client to share this with this court for the purpose of helping seek access to his funds to hire his attorney. It goes on to specifically talk about attorney client privilege, saying the declaration is not intended to disclose and should not be construed as disclosing or waving any attorney client privilege communication, attorney work product, confidential defense strategy, investigative detail, or other protected information. I have limited this declaration to matters I understand to be relevant to the funding issue presently before this probate court. On or about December 15th, 2025, my law firm partner, Caleb Mason, and I were in New York on another matter. In the early morning hours, we were contacted by a representative of the Reiner family regarding the urgent need for criminal defense counsel for Mr. Reiner. The matter was presented to us as an emergency requiring immediate attention.

[00:31:42]Although we were away from California and no funds had yet been paid, I immediately began evaluating and responding to the situation. I participated in conferences with the family representative concerning the potential representation and the urgent circumstances then presented. Because of the urgency of the matter, I cut short my trip to New York, returned to California that evening, and canled a previously scheduled and contracted speaking engagement in another state. I took those actions because immediate legal intervention appeared necessary to protect Riner's interest in a rapidly developing double homicide prosecution.

[00:32:15]During my communications on or about December 15th, the parties discussed and agreed that my firm would undertake Reiner's defense subject to execution of a retainer agreement and funding of the fee. Yes, attorneys get hired and paid.

[00:32:29]I subsequently sent a copy of the retainer agreement to the family representative for their review. He goes on to say that Riner siblings participated in communications concerning the representation and agreed verbally to act as third party payors for Reiner's defense. The family representative and family members assured me that the retainer agreement would be promptly returned and the agreed upon funds would be promptly paid at all times. I understood Mr. Reiner to be the client. I did not understand his siblings or the family representative or any third party payor to be the client.

[00:33:01]That also goes to attorney client privilege, doesn't it? Jackson goes on to say in his declaration, I made clear that any such third-party payor would have no authority to direct the representation, dictate litigation strategy, control the objectives of the representation, and receive privileged or confidential information absent Reiner's informed consent. That's all in line with the rules of ethics. And that is true. If you are a parent of a individual over 18 and pay for their legal defense in a civil case or criminal matter or what have you, you don't have any right to that information unless the client agrees it be shared.

[00:33:40]It is a fundamental part of attorney client privilege that somebody may pay for someone else's legal representation, but it doesn't give them rights or access. Jackson goes on to say, "I further explained that all decisions regarding the defense belonged exclusively to Mr. Reiner as the client.

[00:33:56]The family representative and siblings indicated that they understood and accepted those limitations. Based on the representations and assurances above, I agreed to accept the engagement and honor about December 17th, 2025 met with Reiner in court and Reiner and I executed the retainer agreement. in reliance on the representations that the agreed upon fee would be funded. I directed attorneys, parillegals, and investigators, experts, and support staff from the firm to give immediate priority to the case. Beginning on or about December 15th and continuing through the Christmas and New Year's holidays, my firm devoted substantial attorney, investigator, expert, parillegal, and support staff time to the matter. And then he goes on to talk about the things that they did in to investigate and coordinate at the case.

[00:34:41]He said, 'I do not describe the substance of that work in this declaration because doing so could reveal privileged communications, attorney work, product, etc. I state only that work was substantial, urgent, and undertaken in reliance on the anticipated funding described above. He then goes on to list and redact that amount. My firm devoted more than redacted amount of money worth of attorney time and redacted amount of money and out-of-pocket costs during the initial period. I provide those approximate figures to explain the scope of work performed in reliance on the funding asurances.

[00:35:16]Had I not received asurances that the funding would be provided, I would not have diverted those firm resources to engage in the substantial work. He then goes on to say that in late December 2025, the family representative informed me that none of the anticipated third-party funding would be provided.

[00:35:32]That position was inconsistent with prior assurances that the firm had relied upon. Without an available source of funding, continued private representation by my firm was no longer feasible. My firm thereafter sought to withdraw in accordance with the applicable court procedures. Following my firm's withdrawal, the LA County Public Defenders Office was appointed.

[00:35:52]Reiner has expressed his desire that Jackson's firm resume work if funding becomes available. He then goes on to say, "I have advised Reiner's Trust Council that the firm remains committed to representing Reiner and is willing to consider reasonable alternatives to the original fee agreement, including modified fee amounts, payment timing, or other funding structures if doing so would facilitate the release of funds necessary for Reiner to retain council and mount an effective defense." He then says, "Mr. Reiner has authorized me to submit this declaration for the limited purpose described above which is the fight to access the trust funds to higher counsel of his choice. If the trust is as represented here and not subsequently modified, I don't think the court can deny the trust funding from the trust directly to council and directly to Reiner's commissary. It seems that the monies wouldn't necessarily go to Reiner into a bank account, but that the trustee would be required to release these funds. But it's not just that they are going after the funds because also in this petition, they are asking that the current trustee be released and replaced by a successor trustee, Jodie McGomery. Jodie Montgomery is the trustee who took over in the Britney Spears case after her father was removed as trustee, which was not something I was expecting when I started going through these legal documents that we would see a crossover between the Nick Reiner probate litigation and the Britney Spears conservatorship. But yet, here we are.

[00:37:31]So, what do I think will happen? I'm interested to see if there was a subsequent modification that we don't know about. I'm curious to see what the trustee has to say about why the distribution was not made when Nick Reiner turned 30. Because if the trust says at this age, no matter what's going on, there is a distribution there. Not distributing the funds is a problem. And I'm very curious to hear what the trustee has to say. But it is very likely that the court will disperse these funds and disperse them directly to attorney retainer and it looks like we may in a month or more see Alan Jackson back representing Nick Reiner in California. I will keep you posted on what happens. This goes to hearing on August 17th. No, it will not be televised, but I expect there will be additional filings before then and I'll keep you posted. Lonard, it's definitely getting hotter where I live and beautiful days mean that I want to be outside more. But when I am outdoors, I want to make sure that a my skin is still looking good and b I have sunscreen that I enjoy. And one skin has that handled. I have been loving the tinted sunscreen. It's a mineral-based sunscreen, but the tint is really natural. I'm actually wearing it on stream a lot and today on the podcast.

[00:38:52]And if a tinted sunscreen is not for you, don't worry. They have a non-tinted version. Plus, like all of the One Skin products, the sunscreens include the OS1 peptide, which really makes One Skin stand out. It's not just a skincare company. It doesn't just have sunscreen.

[00:39:09]It's actually backed by science. Because the founding team is a bunch of longevity researchers who wanted to make sure that your skin was supported as you age. Plus, you don't have to just take my word for it. One Skin's results are backed by four peer-reviewed clinical studies. Yes, I said four. And over 10,000 five-star reviews, and they've been recognized by Bloomberg as a leader in skin longevity. They are born from over a decade of longevity research. One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. Plus, for a limited time, try Onkin with 15% off using code lard at checkout at onkin.co/lonard.

[00:39:49]That's 15% off at onkin.co co with code lonard. And after you check out, if they ask how you found them, let them know it was the Emily show. And now, let's get back into it. And finally, there was a ruling on Friday in the Blake Lively versus Wayfair at all case that we had been waiting for. The last time I covered this aspect regarding attorney's fees and a newer law in California, I asked y'all, should we keep an eye on this one? Cuz I'm curious how the court navigates this. And overwhelmingly you said you are exhausted by this case but you are curious about how the court navigates this particular law. Remember when we got to the end of the active litigation in the Lively Wayfairer at all case a lot of Lively's causes of action most had been removed from the case. It was getting ready to go to trial with Lively versus Wayfairer on a narrowed subset of claims and a year prior we had seen that there was a counter suit or counter claims that had already been removed by the court. We talked a lot in that coverage about the strategy there of not reviving those counter claims and truly the wayfairer side not reviving those counter claims is part of what caused them to be dismissed down the road when we got to the motion for summary judgement. It was very sound strategy.

[00:41:20]The flip side of that is that Lively then said, "Okay, well I was sued for defamation. I now fall under this new law in California that is written almost like an anti-SLAP but specifically regarding sexual harassment and some other subject areas. And Lively was asking the court to apply that provision to allow her to seek attorneys fees, trouble damages. Remember that's the tripled damages and other punitive damages with regard to her being sued for defamation specifically. and winning on those causes of action. My questions in that coverage were how is the court going to navigate whether or not this rule in California applies to this case because a lot of why Lively's claims were thrown out is because the court found that the California law couldn't be applied in New York and that a lot of the action in this case had occurred not even in New York but in New Jersey during filming and some of the provisions sued under were protections on employees and Lively wasn't an employee. So, there was quite a lot of nuance about law and jurisdiction in the court's ruling that was such a thorough ruling. So much of a ruling. This one is shorter at 47 pages, but it is still what I've come to expect from this judge, which is a very logical and linear march through how the law applies. And that's exactly what the court did here, walking through can this section of the California code be applied in New York using the federal rules of civil procedure and what does that mean? And ultimately the court said yes, this can be applied in part and we're going to take a look at that in part. The court says Lively brings her section 47.1 motion under federal rule of civil procedure 54D.

[00:43:16]Right? We're not in California court.

[00:43:18]We're in federal court in New York. So what provision of law allows the federal court in New York to apply a California law to grant or deny the request that Lively is asking for? That vehicle is 54D. That rule the court says is entitled costs attorney's fees provides in relevant part that costs other than attorney's fees should typically be awarded to a prevailing party and that quote a claim for attorney's fees and related non-t taxable expenses must be made by motion within 14 days after the entry of judgment unless the substantive law requires that those fees be provided at trial as an element of damages. The court goes on to say that section 47.1 provides not only for attorney's fees and costs for prevailing defendants, but also for trouble and punitive damages.

[00:44:08]California's anti-SLAP statute contains no analogous damages provision. They say California law does not, however, recognize a kind of malicious prosecution or abuse of process cause of action known as a slapback claim. We haven't even touched on slapback claims.

[00:44:25]It's a whole separate thing with malicious prosecution, abuse of process, etc. But we have not we have not even begun to breach these slapback realms.

[00:44:33]So if you're like Emily, what not today, a different day. But the court says that it does not contain those slapback claims wherein a defendant who has prevailed on a anti-SLAP statute may file a separate lawsuit seeking compensation for damages beyond their attorney's fees and costs, including damages for emotional distress. where it's like if you try to anti-slap a case and lose, is there a slap act provision where you can then uno reverse? That's as as deep as we're getting into it today. The court then says that in moving for fees and damages under section 47.1 Lively contains that it is hard to imagine a more straightforward application of section 47.1 including its provision for punitive damages. The court says that the wayfairer parties disagree and raise a host of legal challenges to the application of the statute here. The court goes on to say that the court agrees that the application of section 47.1 in this case presents a number of important legal questions of first impression. Meaning this has not been litigated substantially.

[00:45:37]The court says there is scant case law addressing the applicability of the statute either at the state or federal level. But that is reason to tread cautiously, not to avoid treading at all. Indeed, this court lacks the authority to abstain from addressing issues squarely presented to it simply because those issues are difficult or novel. And then the court gets to the heart of the matter. And when I said that that I appreciate how methodically this court goes literally step by step through everything. This judge goes through every nuanced question you might want to see answered in this ruling. But the court gets to the core of the issue that Lively cannot seek treble and punitive damages under rule 54D.

[00:46:22]Remember that is the federal rule that's the vehicle to get to the attorney fees and to have this provision addressed in the first place. The court says that the wayfairer parties first take issue with any award of treble or punitive damages in this procedural posture. They argue that treble and punitive damages require a finding of actual compensatory damages and that no such damages have been found here. Remember those would be found at trial. No trial happened here. Lively responds that she has sought a schedule for the submission of damages evidence consistent with FRCP 54D2C, which provides appropriate procedure for determining disputed factual issues. But the court goes on to narrow and remind that rule 54D covers costs and attorneys fees. It does not mention, the court says, damages, compensatory, trouble, punitive, or otherwise. The court goes on to caution, saying that by seeking damages through rule 54D, Lively circumvents the web of procedures and processes designed for orderly, just, and fair determination of civil claims in federal court. In essence, she seeks to pursue a kind of malicious prosecution or abuse of process claim similar to a slapback suit to hold the Wayfairer parties liable not only for actual damages, but to triple those damages and impose additional punitive damages, all without the benefit of formal pleading, discovery, or dispositive motion practice in line with rules 12b and 56. Also lurking in the background is a potential conflict with the seventh amendment which guarantees in federal court the right to a jury trial in suits at common law. So the court has now laid out the issue that rule 54D is a vehicle to look for attorney's fees, but it doesn't go more broadly than that into damages. The court goes on through its reasoning and says that though California section 47.1 may find a vehicle under the federal rules, rule 54D following the entry of a judgment is not that vehicle, saying, quote, "With all the benefits the rule provides to a prevailing defendant and detriments to a losing plaintiff, Lively has chosen the wrong procedural vehicle." Footnote 8. It is possible that section 47.1 is most naturally enforced through a counter claim filed by the defamed defendant. In that fashion, both plaintiff and defendant would be entitled to discovery tools of the federal rules of civil procedure and a jury trial on the question of whether the defendant, if she prevails in defending against a defamation claim, is entitled to damages under rule 47.1.

[00:49:03]So, the court is now getting into if we're going to litigate that, it needs to be litigated beyond just a motion to dismiss and subsequent litigation may be necessary.

[00:49:14]Following that logic, the court says Lively's request for damages must be denied, but that Lively is entitled to attorney's fees and costs, saying that Lively's motion for attorney's fees and cost under section 47.1s stands on much firmer ground and does not suffer the same categorical mismatch with rule 54D as the request for damages because rule 54D is designed precisely to address requests for attorneys fees. And the court summarizes this towards the end of their ruling saying in the end and stepping back the policy section 47.1 achieves is far simpler than the analysis its application requires.

[00:49:53]Yeah, it's 47 pages of pretty in-depth analysis, but I think part of that's also because we are in federal court, not state court in New York, not California. So there are some mismatches there. this would have gone differently in court in California, but in so many ways that it's hard to contemplate what that would even look like at this point because again, the movie was filmed in New Jersey. But the court goes on to say that the statute ensures that if a plaintiff invokes California law to bring a defamation claim against a defendant for making statements regarding sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, and the defendant succeeds in dismissing the claim, the plaintiff must pay the defendant's legal fees and costs unless it turns out that the statements were made with malice.

[00:50:40]Lively made statements that came within the purview of section 47.1.

[00:50:44]She prevailed on her defense and on this record there is no evidence of malice.

[00:50:49]Accordingly, she is entitled to attorney's fees under section 47.1.

[00:50:54]Conclusion, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion for attorneys fees and costs is granted. The motion for trouble and punitive damages is denied. So, what does that mean now?

[00:51:04]Well, now they are going to have to litigate at some point how much the attorney's fees are because what we talked about last time we talked about this motion for attorney's fees and damages is that this is not attorney's fees for the entirety of the litigation.

[00:51:23]This is attorney's fees as it specifically goes to the defamation claims in the cross complaint brought by Wayfairer and all the Wayfairer parties.

[00:51:34]And when that was dismissed more than a year ago, it cannot accommodate or encompass any of the litigation going forward beyond that point. So the court is going to have to find a way to evaluate which portion of attorney's fees specifically go to defending against those claims in the counter complaint prior to their dismissal. So the motion work on those claims etc. So the attorney's fees themselves are also narrowed in scope as it goes to just these claims. But my question when we first covered this filing was, how would the court find that this applies or not on a counter claim? And how would the court find that this applies or not on a dismissal? And what we've seen here is the court said yes through the provisions of the federal rules that allow to seek attorneys fees. This section can apply there, but it is also then narrowed by the vehicle that is being used in the federal rules. So attorney's fees, yes on that narrow question, but damages, trouble damages, no absolutely not. even though the statute in California allows for them, the federal statute being used to apply it does not. That is a lot of legal construction to say that there is a very narrow award of attorney's fees. And while most of the litigation on this case should be at a close, we still have to see what amount of attorneys fees are going to be asked for. And if you're curious about that amount, though a lot of you in the comments are like, "Please know more about this case." I'm curious about what the requested attorney's fees will be and I will update you on those attorneys fees. But I think we are really just about at the end of the It ends with us, it ends with litigation, litigation, and the attorney's fees are going to far exceed whatever the request is when we see that requested amount.

[00:53:36]And of course, this was just filed on Friday, so those filings aren't even in yet. But that's the tale that we're looking at here. How much will those attorneys fees be? So, that was a little bit of an in-depth update on a number of cases that we have been looking at. It's always good to see you on Monday. We've got a lot to talk about on stream this week in the cases that we're covering.

[00:53:56]So, make sure you have the Lard app so you don't miss a moment. We have some cases we need to peek back in on. And of course, things in all of the Karen Reed litigations just aren't slowing down.

[00:54:08]So, we're going to be talking about that sometime this week, too. Lonard, thank you for being here. Thank you for being a Lonard. And I will see you on stream this week. Cheers. Thanks for joining me. If you enjoyed this episode and don't want to miss updates on your favorite cases, you're going to need the Lonard app at lonardapp.com. That way, you can stay in the loop on the cases that matter most to you. And you never know when you're going to catch feelings for a new case. So, make sure you get it for free on iOS and Android. Thank you for being here and thank you for being alonored.