Everett v. Kostecki
3:24-cv-02226
N.D. Tex.May 16, 2025Background
- Scott Everett, founder and sole owner of S2C Partners LLC ("S2 Capital"), alleges that Jakub Kostecki conducted an online campaign of defamation and extortion against him and his company in 2024.
- Kostecki, using the "LPWhisperer" persona on social media platform X, publicly accused Everett of investor fraud, theft, and misuse of business funds for lavish personal expenses.
- Everett sent a cease-and-desist letter, but Kostecki persisted and suggested Everett could "make an offer" to buy the social media account to control damaging content.
- Two particular posts made on X in August 2024, specifically accusing Everett of scamming investors and funding a luxury lifestyle with their money, formed the basis for Everett’s defamation claims.
- Kostecki was properly served, failed to respond or appear in court, and the clerk entered default against him; Everett then moved for default judgment.
- After a hearing and supplemental briefing, the court found Everett failed to sufficiently prove compensatory damages but was entitled to nominal damages for defamation per se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Kostecki properly served? | Service effected at residence, proper person | No response | Service sufficient under Rule 4(e) |
| Is default judgment procedurally warranted? | Kostecki failed to appear, meet all criteria | No response | Default judgment appropriate |
| Did Kostecki's online posts constitute defamation? | Statements were false, malicious, harmed reputation; defamation per se | No response | Posts defamed Everett per se |
| Are compensatory damages warranted? | Claimed $82,500 spent on crisis PR firm | No response | Insufficient evidence; only nominal damages awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (sets standard for default judgment—only well-pleaded facts deemed admitted)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (defines defamation per se and damages standards)
- Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) (explains types of damages in defamation per se cases)
- Wingate v. Hajdik, 795 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. 1990) (owners/shareholders cannot recover harms to entity personally)
- Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1989) (defamation is judged as perceived by a person of ordinary intelligence)