DOCSLIB.ORG

Motion to Dismiss Or, in the Alternative, for Summary Affirmance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Motion to Dismiss Or, in the Alternative, for Summary Affirmance USCA Case #11-7088 Document #1337116 Filed: 10/21/2011 Page 1 of 24 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED No. 11-7088 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit SHIRLEY SHERROD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDREW BREITBART, LARRY O’CONNOR, AND JOHN DOE, Defendants-Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE NO. 11-CV-00477-RJL, JUDGE RICHARD J. LEON PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE Thomas D. Yannucci, P.C. Michael D. Jones Thomas A. Clare, P.C. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200 Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Shirley Sherrod October 21, 2011 USCA Case #11-7088 Document #1337116 Filed: 10/21/2011 Page 2 of 24 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES Pursuant to this Court’s Circuit Rules 27(a)(4) and 28(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff- Appellee Shirley Sherrod states as follows concerning the parties to this case: (A) Parties and Amici Appellants: Defendants Andrew Breitbart and Larry O’Connor. Appellee: Plaintiff Shirley Sherrod. Intervenors: None. Amici: None. USCA Case #11-7088 Document #1337116 Filed: 10/21/2011 Page 3 of 24 Although Defendants-Appellants Andrew Breitbart and Larry O’Connor concede that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the District Court’s interlocutory order denying their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, they nonetheless contend that the collateral-order doctrine allows them to appeal anyway simply because they asserted the very same grounds for dismissal in a “special” Anti- SLAPP motion to dismiss. On this basis, Defendants informed the District Court that it had lost jurisdiction over all aspects of this case and refused to participate in ongoing discovery proceedings. Because Defendants are wrong on each of these scores, Plaintiff-Appellee Shirley Sherrod moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction so that this case—and discovery—can properly resume below. Like Rules 12(b) and 56 of the D.C. and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010 provides a mechanism for pretrial dismissal in certain cases if the law and the facts of the case otherwise provide a basis to do so. In particular, the Act states that “[a] party may file a special motion to dismiss any claim arising from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest within 45 days after service of the claim.” D.C. Code § 16-5502(a). If the moving party “makes a prima facie showing that the claim at issue arises from an act” within the statute’s scope, then discovery is stayed and the burden shifts to the opposing party to “demonstrate[] that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits.” Id. § 16-5502(b). If the opposing party does not meet this standard, the claim is 1 USCA Case #11-7088 Document #1337116 Filed: 10/21/2011 Page 4 of 24 dismissed and the court may award the moving party “the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees.” Id. § 16-5504(a). None of these “special” features provides an affirmative ground for dismissal (such as the “opinion” defense Defendants actually asserted in each of their motions as the sole basis for dismissal). None amounts to a true “right not to stand trial,” as required for immediate appeal under the collateral-order doctrine. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 351 (2006). And none justifies Defendants’ transparent effort to circumvent the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that “the ‘small class’ of collaterally appealable orders” must be kept “narrow and selective in its membership.” Id. at 350. Although Defendants would like this Court to recognize a new, categorical right to immediate appellate review that would throw open the Court’s doors each and every time the District Court below denies an Anti-SLAPP motion, there is no basis to do so—and for good reason. The final- judgment rule would not be much of a rule at all if any and every supposed “advoca[te] on issues of public interest” could immediately appeal an otherwise unappealable ground for dismissal simply because he included a carbon copy of his argument in a “special” motion to dismiss. But that is precisely what Defendants hope to do here. Alternatively, what the Act’s “special” features do provide is a settled basis for summary affirmance if this Court ultimately concludes that it has jurisdiction. 2 USCA Case #11-7088 Document #1337116 Filed: 10/21/2011 Page 5 of 24 Defendants do not dispute that the Anti-SLAPP Act was not in effect when Plaintiff filed her Complaint, and they cannot reasonably dispute that its application would have substantive consequences (by heightening Plaintiff’s threshold burden and by allowing an award of fees and costs). Nevertheless, Defendants contend that the statute applies retroactively here. Defendants are wrong on this score, too. Because the Act does not clearly state that it is retroactive, it cannot apply to Plaintiff’s pending case as a matter of longstanding D.C. law. On this threshold basis alone, the District Court’s denial of Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion was entirely proper, and this Court should summarily affirm that decision if it does not otherwise dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of Defendants’ publication of the blog post Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism–2010, in which they used deceptively edited video clips and false written statements to assert that Plaintiff racially discriminated against a white farmer in her position as a USDA official. Although the blog post purported to publish “video proof” of Plaintiff’s discrimination, the short video clips that Defendants embedded were, in truth, edited excerpts from a much longer speech by Plaintiff demonstrating exactly the opposite. Compl. ¶ 3 (Ex. 1). In 1 Although Plaintiff disputes that the Act can apply on its terms in federal court given the breadth of Rules 12 and 56, see Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 473 (1965), she assumes for purposes of this motion that it does, as Defendants assert. 3 USCA Case #11-7088 Document #1337116 Filed: 10/21/2011 Page 6 of 24 particular, the unabridged speech described how Plaintiff, while working for a non- profit group in 1986, helped a white farmer who otherwise almost certainly would have lost his farm. Id. Defendants, however, drew false support from the edited video clips to assert (among other falsehoods) that they were “video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient” given that “Mrs. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing over a billion dollars ... [s]he discriminates against people due to their race.” Id. ¶ 4. Because Defendants used the Internet to publish the edited video and false statements to a worldwide audience, news of the blog post spread quickly. Media outlets across the country immediately and repeatedly aired the misleading video clips and echoed Defendants’ defamatory claims. Within hours, Plaintiff’s supervisors at USDA demanded her resignation. Eventually, the NAACP published the full video of Plaintiff’s speech, leading to apologies from senior government officials and the news media. Defendants, however, have not apologized and instead stand by their false statements. Indeed, the blog post remains accessible on Mr. Breitbart’s website to this day. Defendants’ defamatory conduct has caused enduring damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, as well as emotional distress and financial damages from the loss of her employment at the USDA. On February 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against Defendants and the unidentified individual (sued 4 USCA Case #11-7088 Document #1337116 Filed: 10/21/2011 Page 7 of 24 as JOHN DOE) who provided the video clips to them, alleging claims for defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On March 4, 2011, Defendants removed the case to the District Court. On April 18, 2011, Defendants jointly filed two motions in response to the Complaint. First, they filed a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer. See Defs.’ Rule 12(b) Mem. (Ex. 2). As relevant here, the Rule 12(b)(6) section of the motion argued that the textual statements in the blog post were “non- actionable opinion” and thus failed to state a claim. Id. at 28-44. The motion did not, however, challenge the defamatory nature of the deceptively edited video clips themselves, which independently defamed Plaintiff, cast her in a damaging false light, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Compl. ¶¶ 45, 93(a). Second, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the Anti-SLAPP Act, even though the Act did not become effective until March 31, 2011—nearly two months after Mrs. Sherrod filed her complaint. See Defs.’ Anti-SLAPP Mem. (Ex. 3). Defendants asserted that the Act applied retroactively and that it applied in federal court under the Erie doctrine. They also asserted that Plaintiff’s claims were within the statute’s scope. But with respect to Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits, Defendants simply “incorporate[d] the relevant sections of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion herein.” Id. at 7. They did not seek dismissal on any other ground. See id. at 2. 5 USCA Case #11-7088 Document #1337116 Filed: 10/21/2011 Page 8 of 24 Plaintiff opposed both motions. As to the Anti-SLAPP motion, Plaintiff explained that the Act did not retroactively apply to her pending claims because the Act contained substantive elements but not the corresponding clear language required to overcome the presumption against retroactivity as a matter of D.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is a Community Land Trust?
    Land in Common community land trust What is a Community Land Trust? The first Community Land Trust (CLT) was born from the visionary wor! of civil rights organi(ers /hirley /herrod, Charles /herrod, Bob /wann, /later King and others. They founded 1ew Communities, 2nc. in 3eorgia in 4+5+ as a collective farm to empower 'frican 'meri an families and ena t land 6usti e in the /outh. 7rawing on the ideas of politi al e onomist 8enry 3eorge, the 0ibbut( ooperative movement, and the 2ndian 3ramdan (“land gift”) movement, the CLT structure is rooted in balanced values of collective liberation and redistribution, community ownership of land, and individual freedom and responsibility 9a mi: well-suited for %ainers see!ing social change. CLTs are built on the idea of separating the ownership of land from the ownership of buildings and other “improvements.” The land is owned by the member-run, nonprofit trust as part of a shared commons, removing it permanently from the mar!et. This land is then leased to residents via an inheritable, renewable, +9-year, “ground lease.” ,uildings on the land are owned dire tly by the residents themselves and may be sold only at values that assure fair ompensation #not high profits) for owners and long-term a-ordability for future residents. Long-term prote tion of the land for agri ulture, conservation, a-ordable housing, and other ommunity-based purposes is a hieved; while se urity, autonomy, and participation in !ey land-related de isions by land residents is also ensured. Land in Common is governed by two groups of people" those who live on or use the land #$esident %embers& and those from the wider community ('ssociate Members) who support the vision, mission, and values of the organi(ation.
    [Show full text]
  • Women in the Modern Civil Rights Movement
    Women in the Modern Civil Rights Movement Introduction Research Questions Who comes to mind when considering the Modern Civil Rights Movement (MCRM) during 1954 - 1965? Is it one of the big three personalities: Martin Luther to Consider King Jr., Malcolm X, or Rosa Parks? Or perhaps it is John Lewis, Stokely Who were some of the women Carmichael, James Baldwin, Thurgood Marshall, Ralph Abernathy, or Medgar leaders of the Modern Civil Evers. What about the names of Septima Poinsette Clark, Ella Baker, Diane Rights Movement in your local town, city or state? Nash, Daisy Bates, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ruby Bridges, or Claudette Colvin? What makes the two groups different? Why might the first group be more familiar than What were the expected gender the latter? A brief look at one of the most visible events during the MCRM, the roles in 1950s - 1960s America? March on Washington, can help shed light on this question. Did these roles vary in different racial and ethnic communities? How would these gender roles On August 28, 1963, over 250,000 men, women, and children of various classes, effect the MCRM? ethnicities, backgrounds, and religions beliefs journeyed to Washington D.C. to march for civil rights. The goals of the March included a push for a Who were the "Big Six" of the comprehensive civil rights bill, ending segregation in public schools, protecting MCRM? What were their voting rights, and protecting employment discrimination. The March produced individual views toward women one of the most iconic speeches of the MCRM, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a in the movement? Dream" speech, and helped paved the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and How were the ideas of gender the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment and Speech-Based Torts: Recalibrating the Balance
    \\jciprod01\productn\M\MIA\66-1\MIA103.txt unknown Seq: 1 14-OCT-11 14:51 NOTES The First Amendment and Speech-Based Torts: Recalibrating the Balance QUIN S. LANDON* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 157 R I. THE COMPETING GOALS OF SPEECH-BASED TORTS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ........................................................ 163 R 1. Goals of Speech-Based Torts ...................................... 163 R A. DEFAMATION ................................................. 163 R B. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ................. 163 R C. PRIVACY .................................................... 165 R 2. Goals of the First Amendment ..................................... 165 R A. MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS THEORY ............................... 166 R B. HUMAN DIGNITY AND SELF-FULFILLMENT ......................... 167 R C. SELF-GOVERNMENT ........................................... 167 R D. THE COURT’S ATTEMPT TO BALANCE ............................ 167 R II. EVOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC FIGURE/PRIVATE FIGURE DISTINCTION ............ 169 R III. RECALIBRATING THE BALANCE: THE PUBLIC FIGURE/PRIVATE FIGURE DISTINCTION SHOULD BE ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC CONCERN STANDARD .......................................................... 176 R 1. The Public Figure/Private Figure Doctrine is Both Under and Over Inclusive ........................................................ 176 R 2. Expectation of Privacy and Assumption of Risk ....................... 178 R 3. Access to the Media
    [Show full text]
  • Our Voices Strong People: the Movement Never Ended
    https://snccdigital.org/our-voices/strong-people/part-4/ SNCC Digital Gateway: Our Voices Strong People: The Movement Never Ended Clip 1 (video) Shirley Sherrod “For Me, It’s Never Ended” Shirley Sherrod: I guess for me. When I made the commitment to work back in 1965, when we discussed the Civil Rights Movement, most of the time, you’re discussing certain periods of time. For me, it’s never ended, so I usually say to young people. See, where I am, we suffer from brain drain. Young people want to get away. Everybody in Georgia. All the young people in Georgia seem to want to live up around Atlanta. Have them in Atlanta. That’s where they want to go. And I say all the time that your skills are needed in, like the area that I’m located. You have a base there. You have people who own land. It’s been in the family for years. They need to figure out how to derive some income from that land, so that they can continue to hold on to it. There are things that we did back in the sixties. Sending people to Israel to study the kibbutz and coming back and creating an organization that became the first community land trust in the country, and now there are 800 or so, so I hear, all using the model that we developed right there in Southwest Georgia. We’ve gotten our hands on a plantation. We didn’t know it was a slave plantation when the land was purchased.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BACKSTORY Historical Background for Events Featured in Arc of Justice
    THE BACKSTORY Historical Background for Events Featured in Arc of Justice Arc of Justice is a small slice of a much larger story. The period encompassed by the film stretches from 1961, the date of Charles Sherrod’s arrival in Albany, to the present day. Over half a century is traversed in only 22 minutes. Inevitably, a lot of information was abbreviated or omitted in the interest of creating a short documentary that could be used in training, organizing, and education. This “backstory” provides both historical context and additional information about places, events, and people that are part of the on-going story of New Communities. Chapter 1. Southwest Georgia—“Egypt of the Confederacy”……............................................... 2 Chapter 2. Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)……..................................... 3 Chapter 3. The Albany Movement……..................................................................................... 4 Chapter 4. All Power Comes from the Land ……...................................................................... 6 Chapter 5. The Trip to Israel…….............................................................................................. 8 Chapter 6. Organizing New Communities Inc. ……................................................................ 9 Chapter 7. The Legacy of Slater King ……...............................................................................10 Chapter 8. Buying the Land ……............................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Obama: CEO of Racist American Capitalist System
    A Spartacist Pamphlet $1.50 Black History and the Class Struggle ---- No.21 ---- From Slavery to Mass Incarceration PAGE 27 The Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement PAGE 35 Haiti: Mass Misery Under Imperialist Occupation PAGE 55 2 Table of Contents Introduction Break with the Democrats! In the first issue of Black History and order to better sell the big lie that racial For a Revolutionary Workers Party! the Class Struggle, published in 1983, we oppression is a thing of the past. Indeed, Obama Offers Facelift for wrote: "The fight for black freedom in the the "end of racism" lie and the burial of U.S. Imperialism . ............... 3 United States is inextricably linked to the struggle for racial integration are the the fight for socialist revolution against domestic side of the reactionary "end of Communist Organizing in the racist, imperialist capitalist system." communism" myth promoted by imperi­ the Jim Crow South Today it remains the purpose of this pam­ alist ideologues after the counterrevolu­ What's Not in The Great Debaters . ...... 7 phlet series to bring working people and tionary destruction of the USSR. youth to an understanding of this inextri­ Under Obama's administration the racist Oscar Grant Executed in Cold Blood, cable link, as part of winning them to a cops continue to perform their function of Black Oakland Under Siege Marxist program of struggle to bring the upholding the capitalist order against the Racist Police Terror U.S.A . ...... 15 working class to power at the head of all working class, including by intimidating the oppressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Shirley Sherrod Statement FINAL 7-25-10
    th 1012 14 Street NW Suite 1100 Board of Directors Washington, DC 20005 phone 202/628-7160, fax 202/393-1816 John Zippert, Chair* Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ www.ruralco.org Land Assistance Fund, Epes, AL Georgia Good, Vice Chair* Rural Advancement Fund Orangeburg, SC For further information, contact Lorette Picciano at 703-624-8869 or Dorathy Barker, Treasurer* 202-628-7160 or [email protected] or John Zippert at 205-652- Operation Spring Plant, Oxford, NC 9676 or 205-372-3373. Tirso Moreno, Secretary* Farmworkers Association of Florida Apopka, FL Chilo Villarreal, Assistant July 25, 2010 Treasurer* Mexico City, Mexico Mily Trevino-Sauceda, Introduction to the Compendium of Statements of Support Assistant Secretary* Organización en California de Liderés for Shirley Sherrod, our Colleague and Friend Campesinas, Inc., Pomona, CA Darnella Burkett Winston, Youth Representative* What follows is a compendium of the many statements of support Mississippi Association of Cooperatives Petal, MS issued by our diverse communities in support of our friend and Rudy Arredondo colleague, Shirley Sherrod. We are providing the full statements in the National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association, Washington, DC form in which they were issued last week, as a record of the depth and Daisy Garrett breath of support immediately generated for Ms. Sherrod, who has Rural Coalition Events Committee Chair Jackson, MS worked passionately without regard to race, ethnicity or gender on Savi Horne behalf of the producers and workers we all serve. Land Loss Prevention Project Durham, NC We recognize that since that time, apologies have been issued and Ms. Starry Krueger Rural Development Leadership Network, Sherrod offered a new job within the Department of Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • D.C. Circuit Considers Anti-SLAPP Case
    D.C. Circuit Considers Anti-SLAPP Case Digital Media and Data Privacy Law Blog on 03.21.2013 Posted in Anti-SLAPP StatutesUntil now, we have not yet waded into the legal and political morass that is Shirley Sherrod v. Andrew Breitbart and Larry O’Connor. In case you have not picked up a newspaper in the past three years, this is a complaint brought by a former official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture against Andrew Breitbart and one of his employees. The Washington Post described the case as follows: Sherrod was ousted from her job as an Agriculture Department rural-development official in 2010 after Breitbart posted an edited video of Sherrod, who is black, supposedly making racist remarks. She sued Breitbart, his employee Larry O’Connor and an unnamed defendant for defamation and emotional distress after USDA officials asked her to resign and the video ignited a racial firestorm. The video on Breitbart’s Web site turned out to be edited, and when Sherrod’s full speech to an NAACP group earlier that year came to light, it became clear that her remarks about an initial reluctance to help a white farmer decades ago were not racist but rather an attempt at telling a story of racial reconciliation. Sherrod received public apologies from the administration — including one from President Obama — and an offer to return to her job, which she declined. Sherrod brought suit in the District of Columbia. The defendants removed the case to federal court, and then filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to D.C.’s relatively new anti-SLAPP act, which had been passed just a year before and had gone into effect at the end of March 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • We Whobelieve in Freedom Cannot Rest Until It Comes
    WE WHOBELIEVE IN FREEDOM CANNOT REST UNTIL IT COMES The Continual Activism of Charles Sherrod in Southwest Georgia Floriske Maria van Gennip MA Thesis University of Leiden - Faculty of Humanities–Department of History Supervisors: Dr. E.F. van de Bilt and Prof. Dr. A. Fairclough May 23, 2018 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 4 1.1. Fighting Till This Day 4 1.2. Theoretical Framework – The Historiographical Debate 6 1.3. Theoretical Framework – The Place of Charles Sherrod and the Development of Protest in Southwest Georgia in Movement Historiography 10 1.4. Research Questions 14 1.5. Sources 15 Chapter 2 Seeking Room to Become 17 2.1. Background, Upbringing and Education 17 2.2. The Youth Leadership Meeting 21 Chapter 3 Affirming Equality and Brotherhood of All Men 24 3.1. Rock Hill 24 3.2. The Freedom Rides 25 3.3. Direct Action vs. Voting Rights 26 3.4. The Pike County Movement 28 Chapter 4 Breaking Away the Box 29 4.1. Moving into New Territory 29 4.2. The Egypt of Southwest Georgia 30 4.3. The Albany Movement 35 Chapter 5 Ezekiel’s Wheel Within a Wheel 39 5.1. From Albany into the Rural Counties 39 1 5.2. Creative Mechanisms’ 41 5.3. The New Barbarians 44 5.4. A Benign Dictator? 46 5.5. Moving On 48 5.6. Time For Re-Evaluation 51 Chapter 6 Grasshoppers Fighting the Sleeping Giant 56 6.1. The Wisdom of the Pinched Toe and The Empty Belly 56 6.2. Union Theological Seminary 58 6.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Calumnious News Reporting: Defamatory Law Is More Than Sticks and Stones for Civic-Duty Participants Victoria C
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 93 | Issue 3 Article 5 2015 Calumnious News Reporting: Defamatory Law Is More Than Sticks and Stones for Civic-Duty Participants Victoria C. Duke Indiana Tech Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Victoria C. Duke, Calumnious News Reporting: Defamatory Law Is More Than Sticks and Stones for Civic-Duty Participants, 93 Neb. L. Rev. 690 (2014) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol93/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 35748-neb_93-3 Sheet No. 76 Side B 04/02/2015 08:48:02 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NEB\93-3\NEB304.txt unknown Seq: 1 31-MAR-15 11:41 Victoria C. Duke* Calumnious News Reporting: Defamatory Law Is More Than Sticks and Stones for Civic-Duty Participants TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 691 R II. Civic-Duty Participants Caught in the Crossroads ..... 696 R III. An Overview of the Precedent That Created the Criterion of Constitutional Protection for Defamatory Speech ................................................ 704 R A. The Rubric of Categories in Which Defamed Plaintiffs Are Classified ........................... 705 R 1. Public Officials ................................ 706 R 2. Public Figures ................................. 707 R 3. Private Persons ................................ 710 R B. The Modification of the Rubric of Classifications . 713 R IV. The Appropriate Evaluation of Defamatory Redress for Civic-Duty Participants ............................... 721 R A. Civic-Duty Participants Are Limited by the Constraints of the Entity with Which They Are Involved .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Or to Transfer
    Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 27 Filed 05/19/11 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) SHIRLEY SHERROD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civ. A. No. 11-00477 (RJL) v. ) ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ANDREW BREITBART, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY SHERROD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO TRANSFER Thomas D. Yannucci, P.C. (D.C. Bar #358989) Michael D. Jones (D.C. Bar #417681) Thomas A. Clare, P.C. (D.C. Bar #461964) Beth A. Williams (D.C. Bar #502522) Peter A. Farrell (D.C. Bar #975579) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 879-5000 Fax: (202) 879-5200 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: May 19, 2011 Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 27 Filed 05/19/11 Page 2 of 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1! ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5! I.! Venue Is Proper In This Court And Transfer Is Unwarranted. ............................................5! A.! The Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), Governs Venue In This Court. ...........6! B.! Venue Would Have Been Proper Under § 1391(a). ................................................7! C.! Defendants Have Not Met Their “Heavy Burden” For Obtaining Transfer Under § 1404(a). ....................................................................................................13!
    [Show full text]
  • Origins and Evolution of the Community Land Trust in the United States
    Origins and Evolution of the Community Land Trust in the United States John Emmeus Davis 2014 Author’s note: An earlier version of this essay was written for The Community Land Trust Reader, published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2010. The current version retains the style and content of the original, while correcting a number of mistakes, updating a few developments, and giving greater recognition to several people whose contributions to the CLT’s history have only come to light in recent years. ! Graphics by Bonnie Acker ! © 2014 John Emmeus Davis ! Introduction ...............................................................4 OWNERSHIP: In Land We Trust ..............................5 THE GEORGIST CRITIQUE ......................................................................6 PLANNED COMMUNITIES ON LEASED LAND ..........................................8 ORGANIZATION: Putting the “C” in CLT ..............13 THE EDUCATION OF A CLT PIONEER ..................................................14 THE SOUTHERN CRUCIBLE ....................................................................16 A VISION OF CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE: KOINONIA FARM .................19 A GRAMDAN MOVEMENT FOR AMERICA .............................................21 NEW COMMUNITIES INC. .......................................................................23 GUIDE TO A NEW MODEL FOR LAND TENURE (1972) ..........................26 OPERATION: From Trusterty to Trusteeship ........28 A PREFERENTIAL OPTION FOR THE POOR ...........................................28
    [Show full text]