Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Huneault moved one step closer to owing attorney’s fees to Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova on Thursday when DMA’s attorney, That Randall S. Newman, Esq., filed an objection to Huneault’s attorney, “Superstar” Steve Vondran’s attempt to withdraw a claim from a counter claim he filed last week to avoid paying mandatory attorney fees related to Newman’s pending anti-SLAPP motion.
SLAPP stands for a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation where a person or organization attempts to file a baseless lawsuit in an effort to punish critics by burdening them with costly legal defenses rather than seeking actual justice.
In this matter, Cordova is suing Huneault over the misuse of his YouTube videos under copyright law. Last week, Vondran, on behalf of Huneault, filed a response to Cordova’s amended complaint, a motion in support of his motion to dismiss the original lawsuit, and then a counter claim against Cordova.
The counter claim is essentially its own lawsuit, where charges are posed against Cordova and roles of defendant and plaintiff are switched. Huneault charged Cordova with various offenses, including count three, which claimed that Cordova maliciously harmed Huneault’s business by filing “false” copyright strikes against his channel.
Huneault contends that because of statements Cordova made on a recently discovered copy of a 2022 livestream where both men were featured, Huneault had a license to use all of Cordova’s YouTube content in perpetuity, including Cordova’s auditing related content – which was not mentioned on the livestream.
Cordova denies these claims and has made it clear that he did not license his material to Huneault through statements on the newly found copy of the livestream. He further noted that Huneault had never mentioned his belief that he had a license to use Cordova’s work until discovery of said livestream.
In count three, Huneault stated that Cordova illegally used the DMCA takedown process to hurt Cordova’s business. Huneault blamed Cordova’s actions for suspensions of his YouTube channel in 2023 after the takedown notices were issue, costing his channel roughly $9,000.00.
Cordova, through Newman, filed a motion to dismiss count three of Huneault’s counter claim on anti-SLAPP grounds. The basis for which is the fact that through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Cordova has a right to protect his copyright. The first step in the DMCA’s process to protect that copyright is filing a DMCA takedown, which is outlined in the law.
If Cordova’s motion is granted, under California law, the count would be stricken, and mandatory attorney’s fees would be granted to Cordova for the work Newman did in opposing count three. By most estimates, those fees are in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Despite being the largest of the so-called “anti-frauditor” channels on YouTube, in a recent YouTube livestream, Huneault has shown that his revenues have fallen for his main channel since his highs of 2023.
The Canadian YouTuber showed that while he used to make $9,000.00 USD a month, his revenue from his main first amendment auditing channel has fallen to an estimated $3,000.00 USD a month as his attention has focused on his other non-auditing related channels.
Huneault has been funding his legal defense through crowd sourcing and direct YouTube donations, with an estimated $27,000.00 in donations from his fans going to pay his legal fees to this date.
With the specter of mandatory legal fees hanging over their heads, attorney Vondran filed to dismiss claim three in a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and 41(c) along with an order he intended Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi to issue denying attorney’s fees to Cordova.
Vondran blamed Newman for not meeting and conferring with him before filing his response. He said that local rules of procedure required a meeting and that had such a meeting had been held and if Newman had expressed his anti-SLAPP concerns, he would have voluntarily withdrawn the claim.
In essence, he asserted that it was Newman’s fault for not telling him that the claim was subject to the Anti-SLAPP guidelines and that Newman, through Cordova, should not be awarded legal fees because of it.
On Wednesday, attorney Newman filed a objection to Vondran’s previous filing; in the objection he wrote:
“Attorney’s fees under § 425.16(c)(1) are mandatory for a prevailing defendant. Whether a party is a prevailing party under the anti-SLAPP statute is a legal determination that must be resolved through proper motion practice, not through a proposed dismissal order. Defendants’ proposed order improperly asks the Court to adjudicate a contested statutory fee issue without a noticed motion, briefing, or an evidentiary record.
A proposed order accompanying a notice of voluntary dismissal is not the proper procedural vehicle to resolve entitlement to attorney’s fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.”
He later addressed attorney Vondran’s claims that a meet and confer was required in the District of Northern California.
He wrote:
“Defendants’ characterization of the dismissal as “without prejudice” does not alter this analysis. Nor does Defendants’ contention that a meet-and-confer was required prior to filing the anti-SLAPP motion. No such requirement exists in the Northern District of California.”
Newman’s claims were later backed by YouTuber Merb34st, a practicing attorney in California, who released a video Wednesday night addressing Newman’s filing. While insulting both Vondran and Newman, Merb34st confirmed that the meet and confer is noted as may and not will in the local guidelines, and that Newman, through Cordova, would likely be awarded attorney’s fees despite the attempted withdrawal of the claim.
Huneault’s Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit GoFundMe campaign lost $3.00 USD due to CAD to USD exchange rate changes on Thursday. The crowd sourcing title went to our own On-Going Expenses campaign, which took in $300.00 for the day.
A hearing to discuss attorney Newman’s initial anti-SLAPP motion is tentatively scheduled for a hearing on February 17, 2026.
