🚨 UPDATE: The Eleventh Circuit has granted IN PART Milagro Cooper’s motion to consolidate her two appeals. Her main appeal, Case No. 26 10032, and her second appeal, Case No. 26 12943, involving the denial of her Rule 60(b)(6) motion concerning the district judge’s husband’s law firm and its alleged connections to Roc Nation and Megan, are now consolidated for merits disposition purposes only. What does “for merits disposition purposes only” mean? Basically, the appeals remain separately briefed, but the Eleventh Circuit can consider and resolve them together when it reaches the merits. The first appeal is already fully briefed, so nothing further is required there right now. Milagro had also asked for permission to file a short supplemental brief in the first appeal addressing the Rule 60(b)(6) issue, but the court denied that request. Instead, briefing in the second appeal will proceed separately and in full. Her opening brief in Case No. 26 12943 is due November 3, 2026. Megan’s response would then be due within 30 days after service, and Milagro would have 21 days to reply if she chooses. So the practical takeaway is that the court is keeping the briefing tracks separate, but it has linked the two appeals for final merits disposition, meaning they may ultimately be decided together.

🚨Milagro Cooper has filed her reply brief in the Eleventh Circuit, pushing back on Megan Pete’s attempt to preserve the full $75,000 amended judgment. Milagro argues Megan’s response repeatedly turns disputed inferences into established facts, treating her relationship with Tory Lanez and his family as proof that specific statements were commissioned, treating Tory’s conviction as proof of actual malice, and treating the word “campaign” as if it automatically proves multiple tort claims. On the defamation issue, Milagro argues the district court should not have used Rule 60(b)(6) to reinstate the claim after the jury found she should be treated as a media defendant. She stresses that there was no new evidence, no change in law, and no evidence unavailable to the jury when the judge later reversed course. She also attacks Megan’s “commissioned surrogate” theory statement by statement. For Statement 1, Milagro argues a one way text from Tory saying, in substance, “It’s Tory. Hit me,” does not show any instruction, payment, or request to publish. For Statement 2, she points out that the Akademiks interview was recorded in late December 2022 and aired the morning of January 5, 2023, while Sonstar Peterson’s text came later that afternoon. Her argument is simple: an after the fact message cannot commission content that was already recorded and released. For Statement 3, the Emilio Garcia post, Milagro says Megan never closes the gap. That post concerned Garcia’s separate civil lawsuit in August 2024, while the supporter group chat Megan relies on was roughly 14 months earlier and concerned Tory’s criminal case. Milagro says there is no communication, payment, instruction, source material, or request from Tory or Sonstar tied to the Garcia post. Milagro also addresses the roughly $3,000 in transfers Megan relies on, arguing those payments ended in March 2022, months before the criminal trial and long before the 2024 Garcia post. She says there is no payment matched to any of the three verdict statements. On actual malice, Milagro argues a criminal conviction does not mean every witness statement, collateral fact, or later criticism of credibility becomes indisputably true. She says actual malice has to be proven as to each specific statement and that the record showed she based her commentary on what she believed were inconsistencies in the public record. She also directly addresses anti SLAPP. Milagro admits it was not included in the original motion to dismiss or pleaded as an affirmative defense. But she argues successor counsel later asked for a short extension to evaluate defenses including anti SLAPP, the court denied that request, then later said the issue was preserved but refused to apply it because it had never been briefed in writing. She calls that a court created procedural problem and asks that if any speech based claim is vacated or remanded, the district court be required to address Florida’s anti SLAPP statute. On the altered sexual depiction claim, Milagro concedes the statute can reach promotion, not just creation, but argues Megan still had to prove the required mental state. She points to her statements questioning whether the video was AI, saying she would not post it, warning others not to repost it, and later deleting the short lived “go to my likes” post. Finally, she attacks the IIED verdict, arguing Megan’s side cannot simply stack years of commentary, offensive language, the deepfake episode, and the alleged Peterson relationship together and call it a “campaign” in place of proving Florida’s extreme and outrageous conduct standard. Milagro is asking the Eleventh Circuit to reverse the reinstated defamation verdict, reverse the judgments under Florida Statute § 836.13 and intentional infliction of emotional distress for insufficient evidence, and require anti-SLAPP to be addressed on remand if any speech based claim is sent back to the district court. Reply Brief: drive.google.com/file/d/1HoK…