Lucas Mirtl Update, Case Dismissed!?

5/26/2025 4:07am
For anyone not wanting to read all the pages of the response to Mirtl attempting to have the lawsuit dismissed....from my quick skim, he seems to...

For anyone not wanting to read all the pages of the response to Mirtl attempting to have the lawsuit dismissed....from my quick skim, he seems to have not done any research and/or his lawyer is terrible. 

I'll wait until the actual lawyers in here give their opinion, but to me it looks like he's trying to get off on technicalities. It doesn't appear he's trying to say he didn't use the funds for what he was accused of using them for?

Tyler D wrote:
fte or somebody else will be along, but i think its pretty standard procedure to deny all the claims outright. i havent read their motion to...

fte or somebody else will be along, but i think its pretty standard procedure to deny all the claims outright. i havent read their motion to dismiss yet tho. its interesting mirtl wants WMG joined to the suit. im guessing lawrences dont because of the complications, expense, conflict of interest and/or possibility that WMG is held strictly liable for mirtl's conversion and fraud. 

 

there IS a big fat typo in the heading of mirtls 'objetion' tho. not a good look. 

and it is funny that they want it dismissed with prejudice because the LLCs are not parties, but how then could the court bar said LLCs from suing directly, if they're not one and the same to begin with. i dunno..

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read...

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read it entirely wrong though...

Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite several cases that debunk he was entitled to those funds based on account ownership. Mirtl claims that the breach of fiduciary was between Lawrences and WMG and not just him. Kind of like  if I'm responsible, they are too. Then they go on to talk about how he made 30 online transfers to himself with memos like "advancement on commissions" or "consulting fees". Lawrences claim those things would have been paid by Wasserman under the terms of their contract. Which points to him as the guilty party and not WMG.

All he's going to do is get a counter suit against him from Wasserman at the most. Dude is cooked and he knows it. That is why he's trying to take Jett down personally.

10
APLMAN99
Posts
12172
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
5/26/2025 7:16am
Tyler D wrote:
fte or somebody else will be along, but i think its pretty standard procedure to deny all the claims outright. i havent read their motion to...

fte or somebody else will be along, but i think its pretty standard procedure to deny all the claims outright. i havent read their motion to dismiss yet tho. its interesting mirtl wants WMG joined to the suit. im guessing lawrences dont because of the complications, expense, conflict of interest and/or possibility that WMG is held strictly liable for mirtl's conversion and fraud. 

 

there IS a big fat typo in the heading of mirtls 'objetion' tho. not a good look. 

and it is funny that they want it dismissed with prejudice because the LLCs are not parties, but how then could the court bar said LLCs from suing directly, if they're not one and the same to begin with. i dunno..

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read...

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read it entirely wrong though...

Tyler D wrote:
that too. i just meant generally. its SOP to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. reading the MTD, it doesn't seem that well...

that too. i just meant generally. its SOP to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. reading the MTD, it doesn't seem that well argued to me regardless. 

Based on your extensive legal training and years of filing motions, or based on legal dramas you’ve watched on television and in movies?

6
Steve Austin
Posts
155
Joined
4/21/2023
Location
Hell Yeah, CA US
5/26/2025 7:32am
From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read...

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read it entirely wrong though...

Tyler D wrote:
that too. i just meant generally. its SOP to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. reading the MTD, it doesn't seem that well...

that too. i just meant generally. its SOP to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. reading the MTD, it doesn't seem that well argued to me regardless. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Based on your extensive legal training and years of filing motions, or based on legal dramas you’ve watched on television and in movies?

I played the lead attorney in my 6th grade's mock trial at the Sacramento Superior Courthouse. PM for legal advice! 

16
GrapeApe
Posts
8737
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX US
5/26/2025 7:39am Edited Date/Time 5/26/2025 7:40am
Tyler D wrote:
fte or somebody else will be along, but i think its pretty standard procedure to deny all the claims outright. i havent read their motion to...

fte or somebody else will be along, but i think its pretty standard procedure to deny all the claims outright. i havent read their motion to dismiss yet tho. its interesting mirtl wants WMG joined to the suit. im guessing lawrences dont because of the complications, expense, conflict of interest and/or possibility that WMG is held strictly liable for mirtl's conversion and fraud. 

 

there IS a big fat typo in the heading of mirtls 'objetion' tho. not a good look. 

and it is funny that they want it dismissed with prejudice because the LLCs are not parties, but how then could the court bar said LLCs from suing directly, if they're not one and the same to begin with. i dunno..

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read...

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read it entirely wrong though...

Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite...

Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite several cases that debunk he was entitled to those funds based on account ownership. Mirtl claims that the breach of fiduciary was between Lawrences and WMG and not just him. Kind of like  if I'm responsible, they are too. Then they go on to talk about how he made 30 online transfers to himself with memos like "advancement on commissions" or "consulting fees". Lawrences claim those things would have been paid by Wasserman under the terms of their contract. Which points to him as the guilty party and not WMG.

All he's going to do is get a counter suit against him from Wasserman at the most. Dude is cooked and he knows it. That is why he's trying to take Jett down personally.

Wasserman already has a separate action against Mirtl in California. They claim he stole from them and it sounds like it goes beyond the Lawrence transactions.

5

The Shop

5/26/2025 7:43am

I played the lead attorney in my 6th grade's mock trial at the Sacramento Superior Courthouse. PM for legal advice! 

Thanks for clarifying, you didn’t sign your post as esquire so wasn’t sure..

11
Rocket88
Posts
594
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Vista, CA US
5/26/2025 8:09am

"The Tiger Blood is strong with this one. Wining!" - Charlie Sheen

4
brocster
Posts
4471
Joined
6/9/2009
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
5/26/2025 8:23am

Only people operating outside of their mental capacity collect and save blackmail videos for possible future use…

6
captmoto
Posts
5804
Joined
4/22/2009
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA US
5/26/2025 8:26am Edited Date/Time 5/26/2025 9:21am
GrapeApe wrote:

Wasserman already has a separate action against Mirtl in California. They claim he stole from them and it sounds like it goes beyond the Lawrence transactions.

Was Mirtl repping when the Lawrences when they lived in California? Maybe it's been going on for that long.

Tyler D
Posts
2037
Joined
12/5/2022
Location
La, CA US
5/26/2025 9:17am
From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read...

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read it entirely wrong though...

Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite...

Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite several cases that debunk he was entitled to those funds based on account ownership. Mirtl claims that the breach of fiduciary was between Lawrences and WMG and not just him. Kind of like  if I'm responsible, they are too. Then they go on to talk about how he made 30 online transfers to himself with memos like "advancement on commissions" or "consulting fees". Lawrences claim those things would have been paid by Wasserman under the terms of their contract. Which points to him as the guilty party and not WMG.

All he's going to do is get a counter suit against him from Wasserman at the most. Dude is cooked and he knows it. That is why he's trying to take Jett down personally.

GrapeApe wrote:

Wasserman already has a separate action against Mirtl in California. They claim he stole from them and it sounds like it goes beyond the Lawrence transactions.

Who all is in the class besides WMG? Just the Lawrences and their entities? 

1
1
GrapeApe
Posts
8737
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX US
5/26/2025 10:36am
GrapeApe wrote:

Wasserman already has a separate action against Mirtl in California. They claim he stole from them and it sounds like it goes beyond the Lawrence transactions.

captmoto wrote:

Was Mirtl repping when the Lawrences when they lived in California? Maybe it's been going on for that long.

No the California action was filed after the Florida case. Well, the first Florida case. It is a mandatory arbitration proceeding and venue is specified in Mirtl's employment contract. 

GrapeApe
Posts
8737
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX US
5/26/2025 10:41am
Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite...

Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite several cases that debunk he was entitled to those funds based on account ownership. Mirtl claims that the breach of fiduciary was between Lawrences and WMG and not just him. Kind of like  if I'm responsible, they are too. Then they go on to talk about how he made 30 online transfers to himself with memos like "advancement on commissions" or "consulting fees". Lawrences claim those things would have been paid by Wasserman under the terms of their contract. Which points to him as the guilty party and not WMG.

All he's going to do is get a counter suit against him from Wasserman at the most. Dude is cooked and he knows it. That is why he's trying to take Jett down personally.

GrapeApe wrote:

Wasserman already has a separate action against Mirtl in California. They claim he stole from them and it sounds like it goes beyond the Lawrence transactions.

Tyler D wrote:

Who all is in the class besides WMG? Just the Lawrences and their entities? 

The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

Screenshot %2864%29Screenshot %2865%29.png?VersionId=BI48QJChxkWCYXT4abdk6U1b
1
GrapeApe
Posts
8737
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX US
5/26/2025 10:44am

Note: Those are attachments to public records and I have not been paid by any party to post them. However, if any party would like to pay me to post public records please do not hesitate to reach out. 

31
5/26/2025 10:51am
GrapeApe wrote:

Wasserman already has a separate action against Mirtl in California. They claim he stole from them and it sounds like it goes beyond the Lawrence transactions.

Tyler D wrote:

Who all is in the class besides WMG? Just the Lawrences and their entities? 

GrapeApe wrote:
The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

Screenshot %2864%29Screenshot %2865%29.png?VersionId=BI48QJChxkWCYXT4abdk6U1b

isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone who keeps posting vids saying he's flat broke")

I mean, so they win and Mirtl owes them $2m - he ain't paying that and they know it. And if this is true (that he stole 7 figures!!!!) then why is it not criminal as well?

2
5
5/26/2025 10:55am
Tyler D wrote:

Who all is in the class besides WMG? Just the Lawrences and their entities? 

GrapeApe wrote:
The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

Screenshot %2864%29Screenshot %2865%29.png?VersionId=BI48QJChxkWCYXT4abdk6U1b
isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone...

isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone who keeps posting vids saying he's flat broke")

I mean, so they win and Mirtl owes them $2m - he ain't paying that and they know it. And if this is true (that he stole 7 figures!!!!) then why is it not criminal as well?

It's generally very hard to build an embezzlement case, though not impossible. It's much "easier" to go the civil route unless it was straight theft. 
It looks like the funds were all entrusted to Mirtl, so theft wouldn't apply.
I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be criminal, that's just probably why it's staying civil for now. 

1
5/26/2025 11:01am
GrapeApe wrote:
The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

Screenshot %2864%29Screenshot %2865%29.png?VersionId=BI48QJChxkWCYXT4abdk6U1b
isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone...

isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone who keeps posting vids saying he's flat broke")

I mean, so they win and Mirtl owes them $2m - he ain't paying that and they know it. And if this is true (that he stole 7 figures!!!!) then why is it not criminal as well?

It's generally very hard to build an embezzlement case, though not impossible. It's much "easier" to go the civil route unless it was straight theft. It looks...

It's generally very hard to build an embezzlement case, though not impossible. It's much "easier" to go the civil route unless it was straight theft. 
It looks like the funds were all entrusted to Mirtl, so theft wouldn't apply.
I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be criminal, that's just probably why it's staying civil for now. 

I understand I don't know enough on how it works to know if this is correct or not (so I'll just assume it is). HOWEVER, it seems like it normally goes the opposite. Remember OJ was tried, found not guilty, then the family went after him civilly and won a mess of money (but OJ had it). Just seems like suing your broke ass white trash neighbor for $2m. If you win, you think you'll ever see it?

1
4
5/26/2025 11:10am
isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone...

isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone who keeps posting vids saying he's flat broke")

I mean, so they win and Mirtl owes them $2m - he ain't paying that and they know it. And if this is true (that he stole 7 figures!!!!) then why is it not criminal as well?

It's generally very hard to build an embezzlement case, though not impossible. It's much "easier" to go the civil route unless it was straight theft. It looks...

It's generally very hard to build an embezzlement case, though not impossible. It's much "easier" to go the civil route unless it was straight theft. 
It looks like the funds were all entrusted to Mirtl, so theft wouldn't apply.
I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be criminal, that's just probably why it's staying civil for now. 

I understand I don't know enough on how it works to know if this is correct or not (so I'll just assume it is). HOWEVER, it...

I understand I don't know enough on how it works to know if this is correct or not (so I'll just assume it is). HOWEVER, it seems like it normally goes the opposite. Remember OJ was tried, found not guilty, then the family went after him civilly and won a mess of money (but OJ had it). Just seems like suing your broke ass white trash neighbor for $2m. If you win, you think you'll ever see it?

You're not wrong. Usually they will go criminal first and then if that fails (and also when it doesn't) they will go the civil route. 

In this case, I doubt it will ever be tried criminally. Which is why they just went civil from the start. When there is a longstanding relationship like the Lawrences had with Mirtl, especially when he was trusted with funds for a substantial amount of time, it would incredibly difficult to prove embezzlement. 

GrapeApe
Posts
8737
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX US
5/26/2025 12:32pm Edited Date/Time 5/26/2025 12:37pm
Tyler D wrote:

Who all is in the class besides WMG? Just the Lawrences and their entities? 

GrapeApe wrote:
The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

The arbitration in California is just Wasserman v. Mirtl. 

Screenshot %2864%29Screenshot %2865%29.png?VersionId=BI48QJChxkWCYXT4abdk6U1b
isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone...

isn't this kinda like blood from a turnip? (sorry if that's a vague saying - just means "How are you going to get money from someone who keeps posting vids saying he's flat broke")

I mean, so they win and Mirtl owes them $2m - he ain't paying that and they know it. And if this is true (that he stole 7 figures!!!!) then why is it not criminal as well?

It could reflect poorly on Wasserman if one of their agents steals from a client and they don't do anything about it. Wasserman can afford to sue and litigate on principle.

As for collection of any potential judgement, Texas is a debtor haven.  If someone is comfortable living with a judgement on their credit report and constantly moving money from bank to bank and giving asset depositions, collection is difficult.

MPJC
Posts
2019
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
5/26/2025 12:32pm
Tyler D wrote:
fte or somebody else will be along, but i think its pretty standard procedure to deny all the claims outright. i havent read their motion to...

fte or somebody else will be along, but i think its pretty standard procedure to deny all the claims outright. i havent read their motion to dismiss yet tho. its interesting mirtl wants WMG joined to the suit. im guessing lawrences dont because of the complications, expense, conflict of interest and/or possibility that WMG is held strictly liable for mirtl's conversion and fraud. 

 

there IS a big fat typo in the heading of mirtls 'objetion' tho. not a good look. 

and it is funny that they want it dismissed with prejudice because the LLCs are not parties, but how then could the court bar said LLCs from suing directly, if they're not one and the same to begin with. i dunno..

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read...

From what I read he didn't deny the claims, it looks like he's trying to deny their right to claim what they did. Maybe I read it entirely wrong though...

Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite...

Mirtl's motion to dismiss because the accounts were in his name is the tiny leg he has to stand on but in their response they cite several cases that debunk he was entitled to those funds based on account ownership. Mirtl claims that the breach of fiduciary was between Lawrences and WMG and not just him. Kind of like  if I'm responsible, they are too. Then they go on to talk about how he made 30 online transfers to himself with memos like "advancement on commissions" or "consulting fees". Lawrences claim those things would have been paid by Wasserman under the terms of their contract. Which points to him as the guilty party and not WMG.

All he's going to do is get a counter suit against him from Wasserman at the most. Dude is cooked and he knows it. That is why he's trying to take Jett down personally.

Not a lawyer but based on what I do have a background and experience with (in accounting we regularly deal with trust arrangements) - and just commenting on this post, not having read the filing- legal ownership does not always mean you are entitled to do what you wish. I strongly suspect that if Mirtl had his name on accounts that were for the Lawrence’s benefit, the Lawrence’s were the beneficial owners and would have had a trust agreement of some form in place stating that. It can’t be that simple though - presumably Mirtl has lawyers who know this and have advised him accordingly. 

1
FreshTopEnd
Posts
12989
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA US
5/26/2025 5:35pm

Foreplay

5
5/27/2025 4:21am

Shimoda and Mirtl have parted ways. He explains his reasons why at around 2:45:30 on the latest Pulp show.

9
5/27/2025 6:38am

Shimoda and Mirtl have parted ways. He explains his reasons why at around 2:45:30 on the latest Pulp show.

just listened. I'm summarizing, but he basically says when news first broke, he wanted to be loyal to Lucas until more facts came out. Then he said he just "couldn't take it anymore" and fired him. Reading between the lines, I hear him sorta saying "The risk isn't worth the reward with Mirtl..." but that's just my take.

5
2
Mikeh0870
Posts
123
Joined
2/24/2022
Location
AU
7/29/2025 6:09pm

So now it seems as though even Mirtls Lawyer has had enough and have dropped him.... Wonder how Cooksey is going to spin this one and blame it on Hunter or Dazzy or MX Sports lol

image 1902.png?VersionId=XfhpqOpPFI kwDQS5yc
20
NicNak
Posts
997
Joined
2/18/2019
Location
Palm Desert, CA US
7/29/2025 6:54pm
Mikeh0870 wrote:
So now it seems as though even Mirtls Lawyer has had enough and have dropped him.... Wonder how Cooksey is going to spin this one and...

So now it seems as though even Mirtls Lawyer has had enough and have dropped him.... Wonder how Cooksey is going to spin this one and blame it on Hunter or Dazzy or MX Sports lol

image 1902.png?VersionId=XfhpqOpPFI kwDQS5yc

When your lawyer drops you that’s usually a good sign I’d say. 😂😂😂

14
7/29/2025 6:58pm
Mikeh0870 wrote:
So now it seems as though even Mirtls Lawyer has had enough and have dropped him.... Wonder how Cooksey is going to spin this one and...

So now it seems as though even Mirtls Lawyer has had enough and have dropped him.... Wonder how Cooksey is going to spin this one and blame it on Hunter or Dazzy or MX Sports lol

image 1902.png?VersionId=XfhpqOpPFI kwDQS5yc

my only surprise here is that they lasted as long as they did, 

7
Mikeh0870
Posts
123
Joined
2/24/2022
Location
AU
7/29/2025 7:05pm
Mikeh0870 wrote:
So now it seems as though even Mirtls Lawyer has had enough and have dropped him.... Wonder how Cooksey is going to spin this one and...

So now it seems as though even Mirtls Lawyer has had enough and have dropped him.... Wonder how Cooksey is going to spin this one and blame it on Hunter or Dazzy or MX Sports lol

image 1902.png?VersionId=XfhpqOpPFI kwDQS5yc
scott_nz wrote:

my only surprise here is that they lasted as long as they did, 

True... maybe we'll get the long awaited episode 2 now lol

5
FreshTopEnd
Posts
12989
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA US
7/29/2025 7:14pm

Litigation is expensive.  Really expensive.

4
7/29/2025 7:20pm Edited Date/Time 7/29/2025 7:22pm

I wonder if it had anything to do with him refusing to provide all the correspondence between him and damn near everyone in the industry.  I thought it was interesting they wanted the texts/emails between Mirtl and Kier Sexton. Nearly everyone in the industry has been drug into this shit show. His career is over when it’s all said and done.

6
1
rym
Posts
457
Joined
8/23/2023
Location
Milan, MI IT
7/29/2025 11:19pm

I'm surprised the Coenens have not distanced themselves from him. 

5
Motofinne
Posts
11366
Joined
1/4/2014
Location
FI
7/30/2025 12:07am
rym wrote:

I'm surprised the Coenens have not distanced themselves from him. 

You know what, i'm not. If anyone sticks with Mirtl it was always gonna be them, they seem a bit strange to me.

1
2
7/30/2025 1:21am

I’m still waiting for episode 2 of his meltdown video!

5

Post a reply to: Lucas Mirtl Update, Case Dismissed!?

The Latest