Vernon Unsworth V. Elon Musk
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PlainSite® Legal Document California Central District Court Case No. 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC Vernon Unsworth v. Elon Musk Document 30 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think Computer Corporation and Think Computer Foundation. Cover art © 2015 Think Computer Corporation. All rights reserved. Learn more at http://www.plainsite.org. Case 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC Document 30 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:148 1 HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP John C. Hueston, State Bar No. 164921 2 [email protected] Moez M. Kaba, State Bar No. 257456 3 [email protected] Sourabh Mishra, State Bar No. 305185 4 [email protected] Michael H. Todisco, State Bar No. 315814 5 [email protected] 523 West 6th Street, Suite 400 6 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 788-4340 7 Facsimile: (888) 775-0898 8 Attorneys for Defendant Elon Musk 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 VERNON UNSWORTH, Case No. 2:18-cv-08048 13 Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Stephen V. Wilson 14 vs. DEFENDANT ELON MUSK’S 15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF 16 ELON MUSK, VERNON UNSWORTH’S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF 17 Defendant. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 18 Date: April 1, 2019 Time: 1:30 p.m. 19 Place: Courtroom 10A 20 Complaint Filed: Sept. 17, 2018 Trial Date: None set 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT ELON MUSK’S MOTION TO DISMISS 5450851 Case 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC Document 30 Filed 12/26/18 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:149 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 1, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon 3 thereafter as may be heard, in Courtroom 10A (10th Floor) of the above-entitled 4 Court, located in the First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, 5 California 90012, Defendant Elon Musk will and hereby does move the Court for an 6 Order dismissing Plaintiff Vernon Unsworth’s Complaint. This Motion is based on 7 this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Point and Authorities filed herewith, the 8 pleadings and papers filed in this action, and such other matters as may be presented 9 to the Court at the time of the hearing. 10 Elon Musk makes this Motion on the grounds that the statements identified in 11 Vernon Unsworth’s complaint are not actionable. 12 This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3, 13 which took place on December 18, 2018. 14 15 Dated: December 26, 2018 HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP 16 17 By: /s/ Moez M. Kaba 18 Moez M. Kaba Attorneys for Defendant Elon Musk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1 - DEFENDANT ELON MUSK’S MOTION TO DISMISS 5450851 Case 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC Document 30 Filed 12/26/18 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:150 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ............................................ 1 4 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND .......................................................... 1 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................... 5 6 III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 5 7 A. Unsworth must prove that the reasonable reader would believe Musk possessed private facts implicating Unsworth 8 as a pedophile ......................................................................................... 6 9 B. In context, Musk’s statements cannot reasonably be read as asserting underlying knowledge that Unsworth was a 10 pedophile ................................................................................................ 8 11 1. Statements on unmoderated Internet forums are presumptively opinion ................................................................. 8 12 2. Musk’s statements were made in the midst of a back- 13 and-forth argument and in direct response to personal and legal attacks .......................................................... 10 14 3. Musk disclosed the basis for his personal opinion: 15 Thailand’s documented problems with sex tourism .................. 13 16 4. Musk’s over-the-top insults are not statements of fact .............. 15 17 5. Musk’s colloquial statements are not reasonably interpreted as statements of facts ............................................... 17 18 6. Musk’s expressions of uncertainty show that his 19 statements did not have a concrete factual foundation and were therefore opinion ........................................................ 18 20 7. Readers did not interpret Musk’s statements as 21 factual assertions ........................................................................ 20 22 C. Musk’s Statements are Not Sufficiently Factual to be Susceptible of Being Proved True or False .......................................... 22 23 IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 25 24 25 26 27 28 - i - DEFENDANT ELON MUSK’S MOTION TO DISMISS 5450851 Case 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC Document 30 Filed 12/26/18 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:151 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Adelson v. Harris, 973 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d, 876 F.3d 413 (2d 5 Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................................ 15 6 Art of Living Found. v. Does, 2011 WL 2441898 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2011) ............................................... 23 7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 8 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................................... 5 9 Brahms v. Carver, 33 F. Supp. 3d 192 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ................................................................ 8 10 Brian v. Richardson, 11 87 N.Y.2d 46 (1995) ....................................................................................... 20 12 Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 5 13 Buckley v. Littell, 14 539 F.2d 882 (2d Cir. 1976) ........................................................................... 23 15 Carr v. Warden, 159 Cal. App. 3d 1166 (1984) .................................................................. 13, 14 16 Chaker v. Mateo, 17 209 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2012) ............................................................. 9, 10, 16 18 Clifford v. Trump, 2018 WL 4997419 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018) ......................................... passim 19 ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 20 93 Cal. App. 4th 993 (2001) ........................................................................... 17 21 Considering Homeschooling v. Morningstar Educ. Network, 2008 WL 11413459 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2008) ................................................. 4 22 Doe v. Cahill, 23 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) ..................................................................... 9, 21, 22 24 Dreamstone Ent. v. Maysalward Inc., 2014 WL 4181026 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014) ......................................... 23, 24 25 Dworkin v. Hustler Mag. Inc., 26 867 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................ 15 27 Feld v. Conway, 16 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D. Mass. 2014) ................................................................... 20 28 - ii - DEFENDANT ELON MUSK’S MOTION TO DISMISS 5450851 Case 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC Document 30 Filed 12/26/18 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:152 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.) 2 Page(s) 3 Finkel v. Dauber, 906 N.Y.S.2d 697 (Sup. Ct. 2010) ................................................................. 17 4 Gardner v. Martino, 5 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 3, 5, 6, 25 6 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) ......................................................................................... 6 7 Global Telemedia Int’l, Inc. v. Doe 1, 8 132 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ................................................... passim 9 Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 552 P.2d 425 (Cal. 1976) .................................................................................. 8 10 Harrell v. George, 11 2012 WL 3647941 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2012) ............................................... 15 12 Higher Balance, LLC v. Quantum Future Group, 2008 WL 5281487 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2008) .................................................... 23 13 Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 14 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ..................................................................................... 7, 25 15 Info. Control Corp. v. Genesis One Computer Corp., 611 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1980) .......................................................... 4, 11, 12, 13 16 Jacobus v. Trump, 17 51 N.Y.S.3d 330 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), aff’d, 64 N.Y.S.3d 889 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) ............................................................................ 10, 11, 12, 16 18 Knievel v. ESPN, 19 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................. passim 20 Koch v. Goldway, 817 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................... 8, 22 21 Krinsky v. Doe 6, 22 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (2008) ................................................................ passim 23 Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 7 24 Lieberman v. Fieger, 25 338 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 24 26 Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................