Read It Here

Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:62

1 Arnold P. Peter (SBN: 120091) [email protected] 2 MARCUS J. LEE (SBN: 281886) [email protected] 3 PETER LAW GROUP 9100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 880W 4 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 277-0010 5 Facsimile: (310) 432-0599

6 Attorneys for Defendant ELLEN PEARSON-KARDASHIAN 7 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 WESTERN DIVISION 13 14 KOURTNEY KARDASHIAN, an ) Case No. CV13-02406-GHK (JCx) 15 ) individual; KIMBERLY KARDASHIAN, ) 16 an individual; KHLOE KARDASHIAN ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND ODOM, an individual; ROBERT ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 17 ) COUNTERCLAIM; KARDASHIAN, JR. an individual, and ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 18 ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT KRIS JENNER, , ) THEREOF 19 Plaintiffs, ) ) 20 vs. ) Date: August 12, 2013 ) Time: 9:30 a.m. 21 ) Courtroom: 650 ELLEN PEARSON,DEADLINE.com an individual, a/k/a ) 22 ) This motion is made following ELLEN KARDASHIAN and a/k/a ) attempts to hold the conference of 23 ELLEN PIERSON; and DOES 1 through ) counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 on July 1, 10, inclusive, ) July 3 and July 5 and July 10, 2013 24 ) ) ) 25 Defendant. ) 26

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:63

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant ELLEN PEARSON- 3 KARDASHIAN shall and hereby moves for leave to file a counterclaim in this 4 matter. The motion will be heard on August 12, 2013 in Courtroom 650, located at 5 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. The motion will be based on this 6 Notice of Motion and Motion, oral argument if permitted by the court, the 7 pleadings in this action, and all other matters as may be properly considered by the 8 court. 9 10 11 DATED: July 11, 2013 PETER LAW GROUP 12 13 By: __/s/ Marcus J. Lee_____ 14 MARCUS J. LEE Attorneys for Defendant 15 ELLEN PEARSON-KARDASHIAN 16

21 DEADLINE.com

22 23 24 25 26 27

2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:64

1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

4 I. Introduction and Summary ...... 1 5 II. Statement of Facts ...... 1 6 7 III. Standard On Motion For Leave to File Counterclaim ...... 4 8 A. This Court Should Grant The Motion Because There Is No Undue Delay, Bad Faith, Undue Prejudice Or Futility ...... 5 9 1. There Is No Undue Delay In The Filing Of 10 The Motion For Leave To File A Counterclaim...... 5 11 12 2. There is No Bad Faith In The Filing Of The Instant Motion ...... 5 13

14 3. Plaintiff Will Not Suffer Any Undue Prejudice 15 As A Result Of The Court Granting The Motion ...... 6 16 4. The Proposed Counterclaim Is Not Futile ...... 6 17

18 B. The Movant Has Either Discharged Or Should Be Excused 19 From Strict Compliance With Local Rule 7.3 ...... 6 20

21 DEADLINE.com

22 23

i NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:65

1 CASES 2

3 Thomas v. Baca 4 231 F.R.D. 397, 404 (C.D.Cal.2005) ...... 10 5 Hip Hop Beverage Corp. et. al. v. RIC et. al. 6 220 F.R.D. 614, 620 (C.D. CAL 2003) ...... 4, 5, 6 7 Hurn v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing 8 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981) ...... 5 9 Yue v. Storage Tech. Corp. 10 C07-05850 JW, 2008 WL 4185835 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...... 11, 12 11

12 13 RULES 14 15 Central District Of Californis Local Rule 7.3 ...... 6, 11 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 ...... 11 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13(a) ...... 4 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13(e) ...... 4

19 20 21 DEADLINE.com 22 23 24 25 26 27

ii NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:66

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. Introduction and Summary 3 Defendant Ellen Pearson-Kardashian seeks leave of the court to file a 4 counterclaim alleging Defamation, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Intentional 5 Infliction of Emotional Distress, Civil Harassment and Civil Conspiracy to 6 Defame. The counterclaims arose after the answer was filed. Defendant’s answer 7 was filed on May 14, 2013. On or about June 8, 2013, Episode 2 of “Keeping up 8 with the Kardashians” entitled “Enough is Enough” (the “Episode”) aired on the E! 9 Network. The Counterclaims are brought as a result of statements made in 10 connection with and during the Episode. Thus, Ellen brings this motion for leave to 11 amend the answer on file herein to add counterclaims which arose after the answer 12 was filed, a draft of the proposed First Amended Answer and Counterclaims is 13 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 14 II. Statement of Facts 15 The original complaint was filed by the children and the former spouse of 16 the famed late attorney Robert Kardashian (“Robert”). The Plaintiffs are referred 17 to as either the “Kardashians” when referring to all of the Plaintiffs and as the 18 “Kardashian Siblings” when referring to Robert Kardashian’s children. Robert 19 Kardashian’s former spouse is referred to as “Kris Jenner.” Ellen seeks leave to 20 file a counterclaim against the Kardashians. 21 The KardashiansDEADLINE.com participate in a “reality” television series titled “Keeping 22 Up with the Kardashians” (often referred to simply as “The Kardashians”). The 23 series premiered on October 14, 2007, on the E! (Entertainment) Network. The 24 series follows the often sordid, decadent and scandalous lives of the Kardashians. 25 The series' phenomenal success is based on a basic premise embraced by the 26 Kardashians in general and Kris Jenner in particular -- to expose their outlandish 27 and controversial activities to world-wide television viewers for commercial profit.

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:67

1 The success of the series is predicated entirely on the revelation of private

2 information of the most salacious variety, the degree and nature of which must 3 escalate in order to maintain public interest. The television series has engendered 4 international notoriety and generated millions of dollars in revenue for the 5 Kardashians. This series has also led to the spin-off series “Kourtney and Kim 6 Take New York,” “Khloé & Lamar,” and “Kourtney and Khloé Take Miami,” 7 (retitled “Kourtney and Kim Take Miami”). The series expose a variety of 8 activities which most individuals would consider deeply personal and embarrassing 9 including unorthodox sexual acts, extramarital affairs, sex tapes and out of 10 wedlock child birth. 11 Episode 2 from Season 8 of “Keeping up with the Kardashian,” entitled 12 “Enough is Enough” (“Episode”) first aired on or about June 8, 2013. As 13 described below, the filing of this entire lawsuit by the Kardashians was nothing 14 more than part of a carefully orchestrated aspect of the Episode. The entire saga 15 culminating in the filing of the complaint in this action was orchestrated off screen 16 by the Kardashians and then scripted for the Episode. 17 The story began with a mysterious series of text messages sent to Defendant 18 Ellen Pearson-Kardashian (“Ellen” or “Defendant”) from a shadowy “private 19 investigator” starting on March 4, 2013. Ellen is the surviving widow of Robert 20 Kardashian who he married after divorcing Kris Jenner. In his texts, “Jake the 21 Private Investigator,”DEADLINE.com who is later featured in the Episode, offered damaging 22 information regarding Kris Jenner to Ellen. He also attempted to entice Ellen by 23 stating that he has damaging information about her obtained through investigations 24 which were purportedly ordered by Robert Kardashian prior to his death. The texts 25 are purposefully ambiguous but certainly imply that information injurious to her 26 and to Kris Jenner is available for sale to Ellen. When Ellen refused to engage in 27 such a discussion or transaction, Jake abruptly and menacingly terminated the

28 dialogue by threatening to turn the information that he had over to the Kardashians.

2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:68

1 After the failed attempt to entrap Ellen into the drama of their scripted

2 “reality” television production, the Kardashians were left to air what little 3 information they have. The relevant scenes in the Episode are filmed and edited 4 in such a way to appear as if it is the first time that Kimberly and Khloe are 5 meeting with Jake to discuss Ellen. In the carefully scripted Episode, Jake 6 ultimately “reveals” to the Kardashians negative information about Ellen but 7 noticeably absent in the Episode is the adverse information that Jake claimed to 8 possess about Kris Jenner. The information revealed about Ellen happened to be 9 of the same nature that Jake attempted to entrap Ellen with prior to the filming of 10 the Episode. In the Episode, the Kardashians repeatedly attribute highly incendiary 11 and provocative statements about Kris Jenner’s fitness as a mother to Ellen when 12 they were in fact made by Robert Kardashian about his ex-wife and the mother of 13 his children. 14 The Episode was crafted as a form of “damage control” when vivid details 15 were released to the public which ran contrary to the image Kris Jenner has 16 attempted to portray on “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.” The revelations 17 from her former husband Robert Kardashian are inconsistent with Kris’s portrayal 18 as a loving and caring mother who puts her children first. Robert’s diaries and 19 notes exposed Kris as a manipulative and devious mother and ex-wife who simply 20 used and exploited her children and family. 21 The KardashiansDEADLINE.com carefully developed the Episode as a “spin” to neutralize 22 the exceptionally negative opinion that Robert had of Kris. The Kardashians’ 23 strategy was to neutralize the unrefuted details in Robert’s diaries and notes by 24 suggesting that they were in fact both Robert’s words—but were fabricated by 25 Ellen. The Kardashians’ strategy was to create a fake scenario where “Robert’s 26 story and words” became the narrative of his surviving widow which the 27 Kardashians could then claim were not credible because they were motivated by

28 greed. This shameful rewriting of Robert’s history by the Kardashian Siblings, at

3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:69

1 the direction and behest of Kris Jenner, was motivated by television ratings and

2 commercial profit and is an insult to the legacy of their own father and former 3 husband. 4 While Ellen is a private person with a career in the real estate industry, the 5 Kardashians do not have any meaningful careers or professions. Instead, they 6 subsist on exposing their perverse private affairs to the world. While the 7 disclosure of the facts in the original complaint and the Episode only served to 8 increase the Kardashians’ notoriety, the false attribution to Ellen of what Robert 9 had stated and the other defamatory statements made by the Kardashians have 10 caused actual and calculable damage to Ellen. 11 III. Standard On Motion For Leave To File Counterclaim 12 Pursuant to Rule 13(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1, "[a] claim 13 which either matured or was acquired by the pleader after serving a pleading may, 14 with permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim by supplemental 15 pleading.” In this case, all counterclaims arose after the filing of the answer. 16 Rule 13(e) also governs the standard on a motion for leave to file a 17 counterclaim and provides that a court may grant leave when the moving party 18 "fails to set up a counterclaim through (1) oversight, (2) inadvertence, or (3) 19 excusable neglect, or (4) when justice requires." Therefore, when considering 20 whether to allow "an omitted counterclaim generally [courts] 'adhere to the liberal 21 amendment policy ofDEADLINE.com Rule 15' in deciding whether to grant the requested leave." 22 Hip Hop Beverage Corp. et. al. v. RIC et. al., 220 F.R.D. 614, 620 (C.D. CAL 23 2003) (“Hip-Hop Beverage”). Rule 13(a) also directs that "leave [to amend] shall 24 be freely given when justice so requires.” Id. 25 26 27

28 1 References to a “Rule” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:70

1 A. This Court Should Grant The Motion Because There Is No Undue

2 Delay, Bad Faith, Undue Prejudice Or Futility 3 4 1. There Is No Undue Delay In The Filing Of The Motion For Leave To 5 File A Counterclaim 6 Courts in this District recognize that where a party opposes a motion for 7 leave to file a counterclaim based on undue delay, the opposing party must, at a 8 minimum, show delay “past the point of initiation of discovery ... " Hip Hop 9 Beverage Corp. at 620. In a truncated meet and confer process, Plaintiffs have 10 asserted that Ellen unduly delayed in bringing this action but it is clear that 11 discovery has not commenced in this action. Further, under the applicable 12 standard, delay alone is not a proper basis for opposing the motion.2 This motion 13 was brought slightly a month after the Episode aired and no proceedings of any 14 significance have occurred in this case. This motion was filed as diligently as 15 possible after an adequate investigation into the facts could have been conducted. 16 2. There Is No Bad Faith In The Filing Of The Instant Motion 17 Here, Plaintiff cannot assert that the pending Motion is brought in bad faith. 18 Courts consider bad faith to include "such tactics as, for example, seeking to add a 19 defendant merely to destroy diversity jurisdiction." Hip Hop Beverage Corp. at 20 621. The only reason the counterclaims were not filed with the answer is because 21 the Episode giving DEADLINE.comrise to Ellen’s claims had not yet aired when she filed her 22 answer. 23

24 2 Moreover, even if discovery had begun, ''courts will permit amendment provided 25 the moving party has a reasonable explanation for the delay” Id. Here, the delay in 26 not initially asserting the counterclaims earlier is excusable because the circumstances and new facts, in light of which the Counterclaim is being filed, had 27 not yet taken place. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has found that "delay alone is not 28 sufficient to justify the denial of a motion requesting leave to amend." Hurn v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981).

5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:71

1 3. Plaintiff Will Not Suffer Any Undue Prejudice As A Result Of The

2 Court Granting The Motion 3 In Hip Hop Beverage Corp., the court held that a counterclaim filed two (2) 4 months in advance of the discovery cut-off date did not constitute undue prejudice. 5 Hip Hop Beverage Corp., at 622. Moreover, the court noted that the parties, if 6 necessary, could extend discovery. Id. That is not necessary in this case. This 7 case was commenced less than four months ago, there has been no discovery and 8 the court has not yet held the case management conference. There is no prejudice 9 in allowing the counterclaims to proceed. 10 4. The Proposed Counterclaim Is Not Futile 11 As explained below, Plaintiffs have only asserted that Ellen’s counterclaims 12 are frivolous because of a failure of proof. That is not the appropriate standard on 13 a motion for leave to allow the filing of a counterclaim. “An amendment is 'futile' 14 only if it would clearly be subject to dismissal.'' Hip Hop Beverage Corp. at 622. 15 While Plaintiffs may believe that the claims are lacking in merit or proof, 16 there can be no question that the allegations set forth in the counterclaim, if 17 accepted as true, would allow Ellen to prevail on her claims. Therefore, the 18 counterclaims would certainly survive a Rule 12 motion and the proposed 19 counterclaims are not, therefore, futile. 20 B. The Movant Has Either Discharged Or Should Be Excused From Strict 21 Compliance DEADLINE.comWith Local Rule 7.3 22 Local Rule 7.3 provides that “counsel contemplating the filing of any 23 motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in 24 person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution." 25 As explained below, Ellen's attorneys have either discharged their obligations 26 under Local Rule 7.3 or should be excused from strict compliance. 27 On July 1, 2013, Ellen's counsel advised counsel for the Plaintiffs as to 28 Ellen's intention to file a counterclaim and provided an early draft version of the

6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:72

1 proposed cross-complaint. Exhibit A to Declaration of Marcus J. Lee In Support

2 of Motion For Leave (“Lee Declaration”). There was no response from Plaintiffs' 3 counsel when on July 3, 2013, Counsel for Ellen again contacted counsel for 4 Plaintiffs and once more advised counsel that Ellen intended seek leave to file a 5 counterclaim against Plaintiffs, and also a third-party complaint against the 6 production company that developed and owned “Keeping Up With The 7 Kardashian.” Plaintiffs’ counsel was again provided an updated draft version of 8 the proposed counterclaim and third-party complaint. Exhibit B to Lee 9 Declaration. Counsel for Ellen indicated that she intended to file the counterclaim 10 and third-party complaint on July 5, 20013. 3 Id. 11 Counsel for the Plaintiffs responded on July 3, 2013 with a three page letter 12 where, among other items, he accused counsel for Ellen of “outrageous, 13 unprofessional and unethical conduct and gamesmanship.” Exhibit C to Lee 14 Declaration (emphasis in original). Furthermore, counsel for Plaintiffs objected to 15 the fact that Ellen’s counsel had yet to return a redline of the draft Rule 26 Report. 16 Exhibit C to Lee Declaration, footnote 1. 17 Counsel for the Plaintiffs then went on to fully and in detail articulate the 18 position of the Plaintiffs as to the proposed counterclaims as follows: 19 The proposed Counterclaims are frivolous, clearly presented for an improper 20 purpose, the claims are not warranted by existing law, the purported factual 21 contentions lackDEADLINE.com evidentiary support, and most of the alleged factual 22 allegations contained in the Counterclaims are comprised of irrelevant, false 23 or improper matters inserted therein. The proposed first and second 24 counterclaims lack any factual or legal basis, and fail as a matter of law. The 25 proposed third counterclaim is based upon and wholly subsumed within the 26 first and second counterclaims, and therefore does not constitute a valid 27 independent claim. And, with respect to your proposed fourth and fifth

28 3 Defendant has elected not to file a third-party complaint at time.

7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:73

1 counterclaims, the causes of action themselves do not constitute cognizable

2 legal claims, are not warranted by existing law, and are without any factual 3 basis. In fact, the fifth counterclaims [sic.] appears to be premised on a legal 4 claim of your own concoction and invention. In addition, there appears to be 5 no cognizable legal claims alleged against the proposed new third party 6 defendants, nor any factual basis to add them as a parties [sic.] in this action. 7 It is clear that the Counterclaims, and addition of the new defendants, are 8 being advanced for the improper purposes of harassment and to increase the 9 costs of litigation, and in an effort to obtain media attention. 10 Id. at p. 2. 11 While the above comments certainly constitute an accurate recitation of the 12 Plaintiffs’ position, none of the responses constitute a valid objection to the instant 13 motion. Boilerplate conclusions including contentions that “the claims are not 14 warranted by existing law,” contain “irrelevant, false or improper matters,” are 15 lacking “any factual or legal basis,” or “do not constitute cognizable legal claims” 16 without further specification does not support a legitimate opposition to the instant 17 motion nor do they promote the meet and confer dialogue in any way. 18 Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiffs can actually prove that the claims “are being 19 advanced for the improper purposes of harassment and to increase the costs of 20 litigation, and in an effort to obtain media attention,” their remedy is wholly 21 independent of the pendingDEADLINE.com motion.4 22 Based on the foregoing response and as explained in detail below, any 23 further meet and confer discussions would be futile. Yet, counsel for Ellen 24 nonetheless confirmed his willingness to “gladly engage in a live or in person 25 conversation with you about the proposed pleading if you have substantive 26 27 4 Plaintiffs’ assertion that this motion and the counterclaims are asserted solely for 28 media attention is breathtaking in its hypocrisy when it is clear that this entire lawsuit was filed as an element of Plaintiffs’ television program.

8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:74

1 comments that would help narrow the issues, obviate the filing of an opposition or

2 a subsequent motion to dismiss or convince us to not file the claims.” Exhibit D to 3 Lee Declaration. In response to this invitation, Plaintiffs’ counsel responded with 4 a five page letter and raised various objections to the redline of the Rule 26 Report 5 provided to him by Ellen’s counsel. Exhibit E to Lee Declaration. 6 In response to these objections, on the morning of July 9, counsel for Ellen 7 advised Plaintiffs’ attorney that Ellen would accept all the proposed edits and 8 objections to the Rule 26 Report. Exhibit F to Lee Declaration. Furthermore, 9 counsel for Ellen inquired into Plaintiffs’ counsel’s availability for a meet and 10 confer any time on Tuesday, July 9, or any time on Wednesday, July 10. Id. 11 Counsel for Ellen stated, “We will make ourselves available to you in any time 12 frame.” Id. 13 At 8:16 p.m. on July 9, Plaintiff’s attorney sent two communications with 14 attachments, indicating that they would only agree to telephonic meet and confer 15 conversation and then only in limited one and two hour windows on Friday, July 16 12 in limited windows between the 11 a.m. to noon and 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Exhibit G 17 and H to Lee Declaration. 18 On the morning of July 10, Counsel for Ellen indicated that waiting until 19 Friday, July 12 would make it a full two weeks after Plaintiffs’ were notified of the 20 intention to file a motion for leave to file the counterclaims. Exhibit I to Lee 21 Declaration. CounselDEADLINE.com for Ellen advised Plaintiffs’ attorney that Ellen would accept 22 all the proposed edits and objections to the Rule 26 Report with the exception of 23 one: the ability to conduct discovery on revenues and profits generated by 24 plaintiffs. Id. Furthermore, counsel for Ellen indicated that he would make 25 himself available for a telephonic meet and confer session anytime on Wednesday, 26 July 10 including the late evening hours which was the time frame counsel for 27 Plaintiffs’ would send his lengthy letters on the subject of the proposed pleadings. 28 Id.

9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:75

1 Based on the foregoing, Ellen contends that her attorneys have substantially

2 fulfilled their obligations under Local Rule 7.3 by providing two different versions 3 of the proposed pleadings which set forth the various claims asserted by Ellen and 4 the facts upon which the claims are based, along with several opportunities to 5 engage in a telephonic or live conversation. A decision from the Northern District 6 cogently explains the rationale behind the meet and confer obligations and how 7 this requirement is manipulated by litigants who are interested in delay, not 8 resolution: 9 Where parties have failed to comply with a requirement to meet and confer 10 pursuant to other local rules, courts have held that this failure should not 11 serve as a basis to deny a motion and have considered whether resolution is 12 possible in determining whether to order the parties to meet and confer. See, 13 e.g., Thomas v. Baca, 231 F.R.D. 397, 404 (C.D.Cal.2005) (where defense 14 counsel argued that plaintiffs' counsel failed to meet and confer prior to the 15 filing of motion for class certification as required by local rule, the court 16 noted that it “is not persuaded that this fact, if true, should serve as a basis to 17 deny the motion,” noting that it did not appear “that any informal 18 resolution of this motion is possible”). Here, ordering the parties to meet 19 and confer would similarly be futile. After Defendants filed their motion 20 for fees, during a call with Defense counsel, Plaintiff stated that he would 21 have disputedDEADLINE.com the fees from the outset (Wakefield Decl. at 2 ¶ 3) and 22 protested that he was not given the chance to dispute them within the 23 statutory time limit. Defendants also note that Plaintiff generally refused to 24 discuss what issues might be resolved at a meet and confer. See 25 Walefield Decl. at 1-2 (Wakefield to Yue: “I asked whether there were any 26 particular items about which you believed a meet and confer to resolve 27 disputed issues would be appropriate. You refused to discuss the subject”).

10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:76

1 In addition, Yue discussed fees with defense counsel in an April 24, 2008

2 phone call, albeit one that took place after the motion for fees was filed. 3 Yue v. Storage Tech. Corp., C07-05850 JW, 2008 WL 4185835 (N.D. Cal. 2008) 4 (emphasis added). 5 From the beginning, the moving party provided all of the information it 6 possibly could regarding the counterclaims that it asserted and the facts upon 7 which those claims were based. And, from the start, counsel for Plaintiffs took the 8 position that the claims were frivolous without ever identifying the precise reasons 9 for his assertion. The Plaintiffs’ unwavering position that the claims were not only 10 meritless but subject to Rule 11 sanctions, coupled with the refusal to confer 11 except within an extremely narrow time frame is the best evidence of the fact that 12 Plaintiffs have no valid objection to the motion. If counsel for Plaintiffs could find 13 time to write detailed letters (totaling 10 single spaced pages, annotated with 14 footnotes), he certainly could have outlined any legitimate objections to the 15 motions or used that time to discharge his meet and confer obligations in a 16 telephone call or meeting. 17 Consistent with the decision in Yue v. Storage Tech. Corp., C07-05850 JW, 18 2008 WL 4185835 (N.D. Cal. 2008), any further dialogue between counsel would 19 have been a complete waste of time and only engendered further delay. Based on 20 the strident position of the Plaintiffs which they have repeatedly articulated (that 21 the proposed claimsDEADLINE.com were beyond meritless and subject to sanctions), an informal 22 resolution envisioned by Local Rule 7.3 was simply not possible. Furthermore, it 23 is beyond any doubt that another week or two delay would then be used by the 24 Plaintiffs as a basis for opposing this motion. 25

26 27

11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:77

1 D ATED: July 11, 2013 PETER LAW GROUP 2

3 By: ___/s/ Marcus J. Lee___ 4 MARCUS J. LEE 5 Attorneys for Defendant ELLEN PEARSON-KARDASHIAN 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DEADLINE.com 22 23 24 25 26 27

12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM Case 2:13-cv-02406-GHK-JC Document 10 Filed 07/11/13 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:78

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 Kardashian, et al v Ellen Pearson aka Ellen Kardashian 3 USDC Case No. CV-13-02406-GHK(JCx) 4 5 I hereby certify that on July 11, 2013, I electronically transmitted the below 6 documents to the Clerk’s Office of the United States District Court using the 7 CM/ECF System for filing, and that the CM/ECF System will send a copy via 8 electronic notice to all registered ECF participants. 9 10 1. Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim; 11 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof; and 12 2. Declaration of Marcus J. Lee In support of Motion for Leave to 13 File Counterclaim. 14 15 16 17 /s/ Andrea Ramirez 18 19 20 21 DEADLINE.com 22 23 24 25 26 27

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE