DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court, U.S FILED NOV 012018 No._____ OFFICE OF THE CLERK 3n Tbe 'upreme Court of the 1intteb btatro STEPHEN YAGMAN, Petitioner, VS. MICHAEL J. COLELLO, Respondent. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI STEPHEN YAGMAN Counsel of Record 333 Washington Boulevard Venice Beach, California 90292-5152 (310) 452-3200 [email protected] JOSEPH REICHMANN YAGMAN & REICHMANN 333 Washington Boulevard Venice Beach, California 90292-5152 (310) 452-3200 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner November 2018 I QUESTION PRESENTED May a state anti-SLAPP statute be used to dismiss a claim in federal court, when its application is con- trary to the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, Fed- eral Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56, and Supreme Court precedent, established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)? 11 PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner (plaintiff and appellant below) Stephen Yagman represented by Stephen Yagman (counsel of record) 333 Washington Boulevard Venice Beach, CA 90292-5152 (310) 452-3200 Joseph Reichmann Yagman & Reichmann 333 Washington Boulevard Venice Beach, CA 90292-5152 (310) 452-3200 Respondent (defendant and appellee below) Michael J. Colello represented by Joseph C. Edmondson 3699 NE John Olsen Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124-5815 (310) 482-7418 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED.....................................i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING........................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................v OPINIONS BELOW...............................................1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .............2 INTRODUCTION...................................................6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................9 ARGUMENT...........................................................9 CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN FED- ERAL COURT .............................................9 CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE IN- TERFERES WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.............................13 THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RESOLVE A CIRCUIT SPLIT ..............26 CONCLUSION.....................................................35 APPENDIX Court of Appeals Memorandum filed May 18, 2018 ................................................................App. la District Court Memorandum filed December 17, 2015 ................................................................App. 4a iv TABLE OF CONTENTS -Continued Page Court of Appeals Order Denying Rehearing filed October 4, 2018.............................................App. ha 28 U.S.C.A. § 2072............................................App. 12a West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. § 425.16 .......................App. 13a V TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C.Cir. 2015) .................................................passim Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............16, 25, 32 Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................13, 26, 27 Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)...............................................15, 16,24,25,32 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) ..........................12 Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc., 1:16-CV- 1720-ODE (U.S.D.C.Ga., Atlanta Div. Feb. 15, 2017) ..................................................................18,23 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)..............17 Chandok v. Kiessig, 632 F.3d 803 (2d Cir. 2011)........26 Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, 45 Ca1.4th 309, 86 Ca1.Rptr.3d 288, 196 P.3d 1094 (2008)......................................................12 Davis v. Cox, 183 Wash.2d 269,351 P.3d 862 (2015).......34 Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) .....14, 24, 34 Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) .......27 Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2010) ......................................................22,23,27,29 Hanna v. Plummer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) ..............14, 23 Henry v. Lake Charles American Press, LLC, 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2009)...............................22, 23, 27 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page In re Gawker Media, LLC, 571 B.R. 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ........................................................................13 Intercon Solutions, Inc. v. Basel Action Network, 791 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2014)............18, 21, 22, 26, 27 Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist., 39 Cal. 4th 192 (2006) ...................................11 Leiendecker v. Asian Women of United Minne- sota, 895 N.W 623, 2017 WL 2267289 (Minn. Supreme Court 2017)..............................................33 Makaeffv. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) .........................................15, 18, 20, 30, 31 Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 736 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2013)........................................19, 26, 30, 31 Metabolife International, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001)...................12, 17, 18, 28, 31 Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................... 12 Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Ca1.4th 82,124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52 P.3d 703 (2002) ...........................................13 Opinion of the Justices (SLAPP Suit Procedure), 138 N.H. 445, 641 A.2d 1012 (1994) .......................34 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress, 890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018)....................................................11, 22 Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 57 F.Supp.2d 973 (C.D.Cal. 1999)................................28 Vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page Royalty Network, Inc. v. Harris, 756 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2014)..................................................18, 27 Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., PA. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010)............14, 15, 16, 19, 21 Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1 (1941) ................14 Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hirsh, 831 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2016).....................................18, 31, 32 United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999)......passim Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, 28 Ca1.4th 811, 123 Ca1.Rptr.2d 19, 50 P.3d 733 (2002) ....24,31 Yagman v. Edmondson, 723 Fed.Appx. 463 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................1, 27 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)........................................................1 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ............................................................2 28 U.S.C. § 2072 ......................................................2, 11 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 ..............................passim Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1) .......8, 10, 16, 24, 26 Free Press Act of 2012, S.3493, 112th Cong. (2012).......................................................................10 Speak Free Act of 2015, H.R. 2304, 114th Cong. § 4202(2015) ...........................................................10 Free Press Act of 2017, H.R. 3228, 115th Cong. (2017).......................................................................10 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -Continued Page FEDERAL RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ......................................... passim Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 56 .........................................passim OTHER AUTHORITIES 19 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Ed- ward H. Cooper Federal Practice and Proce- dure § 4510 (2d ed.1996) ......................................... 14 SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out (Tem- ple Univ. Press, 1996)..........................................9, 10 1 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner, Stephen Yagman, respectfully petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. OPINIONS BELOW The memorandum disposition of the Ninth Circuit in Yagman v. Edmondson'; Colello is reported at 723 Fed.Appx. 463 (9th Cir. 2018), and reproduced in the appendix hereto ("App.") at la.2 The subject minute order of the District Court for the Central District of California is not reported and is reproduced at App. 4a. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Panel rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc was denied on October 4, 2018, App. ha, this Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), 1 Petitioner sued both defendants Edmondson and Colello, who is the only respondent, and the case against Edmondson was dismissed after it was settled. The remaining defendant is re- spondent Colello. Colello is a former legal client of petitioner, who allegedly defrauded, extorted, and converted petitioner's funds. See infra. 2 The district court dismissed, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of, another, federal claim that is not in issue on this petition. 2 and this petition timely is filed, within 90 days of issu- ance of the denial of rehearing. Jurisdiction in the court of first instance, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 28 U.S.C. § 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contra Costa Superior Court Martinez, California Department: 12 Hearing Date: 08/02/19
    CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 12 HEARING DATE: 08/02/19 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS IN DEPT. 12 NOTE PROCEDURE CAREFULLY The tentative ruling will become the Court’s ruling unless by 4:00 p.m. of the court day preceding the hearing, counsel or self-represented parties call the department rendering the decision to request argument and to specify the issues to be argued. Calling counsel or self-represented parties requesting argument must advise all other affected counsel and self-represented parties by no later than 4:00 p.m. of his or her decision to appear and of the issues to be argued. Failure to timely advise the Court and counsel or self-represented parties will preclude any party from arguing the matter. (Local Rule 3.43(2).) Note: In order to minimize the risk of miscommunication, Dept. 12 prefers and encourages fax or email notification to the department of the request to argue and specification of issues to be argued – with a STRONG PREFERENCE FOR EMAIL NOTIFICATION. Dept. 12’s Fax Number is: (925) 608-2693. Dept. 12’s email address is: [email protected]. Warning: this email address is not be used for any communication with the department except as expressly and specifically authorized by the court. Any emails received in contravention of this order will be disregarded by the court and may subject the offending party to sanctions. Submission of Orders After Hearing in Department 12 Cases The prevailing party must prepare an order after hearing in accordance with CRC 3.1312.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    Case 3:14-cv-04050-SK Document 191 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 47 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 UNITED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, LLC, 7 Case No. 14-cv-04050-MEJ Plaintiff, 8 ORDER RE: (1) MOTION TO DISMISS v. COUNTERCLAIMS; (2) MOTION TO 9 STRIKE COUNTERCLAIMS; AND (3) REAL ACTION PAINTBALL, INC., et al., MOTION TO TRANSFER BOND 10 Defendants. 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 158, 159, 162 12 AND RELATED ACTION AND CROSS 13 ACTION 14 15 INTRODUCTION 16 Real Action Paintball, Inc. and its principal, K.T. Tran (collectively ―Real Action‖)1 filed 17 18 counterclaims in this matter (First Am. Counterclaim (―FACC‖), Dkt. No. 152), which United United States District Court District United States Northern District of California District Northern 18 Tactical Systems, LLC (―UTS‖) and related Counter-Defendants (collectively with UTS, 19 ―Counter-Defendants‖)2 now seek to dismiss or strike on a multitude of different grounds. See 20 Mot. to Dismiss Brief (―MTD Br.‖), Dkt. No. 160; Mot. to Strike Brief (―MTS Br.‖), Dkt. No. 21 163.3 Real Action also filed a motion asking the Court to transfer the bond held by the Northern 22 23 1 The Court refers to both K.T. Tran and Real Action Paintball, Inc. as ―Real Action‖ as there is no 24 material difference between the company and its principal for purposes of this Order. Counter- Defendants also sometimes refer to Real Action as ―RAP4.‖ 25 2 ―Counter-Defendants‖ refers to Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC, Perfect Circle 26 Projectiles LLC, Gary Gibson, Tiberius Arms, LLC, Tactical Air Games, Inc., Tyler Tiberius, Michael Blumenthal, David Piell, United Tactical Systems, LLC, United Tactical Systems 27 Holdings, LLC (―UTSH‖), and United Tactical Systems Intermediate Holdings, LLC (―UHSIH‖).
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa Superior Court Martinez, California Department: 33 Hearing Date: 04/15/21
    CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 33 HEARING DATE: 04/15/21 ALL APPEARANCES WILL BE BY ZOOM For matters where an appearance is required, the parties should appear by Zoom unless told to appear by another method. For all other matters, if argument is requested appearances will be by Zoom. Zoom hearing information Link: https://cc-courts.zoom.us/j/94775254734?pwd=RHI5anZxU2JobmtzZ3FvVFBKb0NoZz09 If a party is unable to use Zoom they may appear by CourtCall, but will need to arrange the CourtCall appearance in advance of the hearing. 1. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC18-02078 CASE NAME: SMITH VS CABRERAS HEARING ON PETITION TO/FOR APRROVAL OF COMPROMISE CLAIM OR ACTION FILED BY SAIMUKAI HARVEY * TENTATIVE RULING: * Granted. 2. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC19-00494 CASE NAME: CHERYL COLE VS RICK HAMPTON FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE * TENTATIVE RULING: * Appear by Zoom. 3. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC19-00494 CASE NAME: CHERYL COLE VS RICK HAMPTON HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE PLTF CHERYL COLE'S SECOND AMD COMPLAINT FILED BY RICK HAMPTON * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Rick Hampton’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. - 1 - CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 33 HEARING DATE: 04/15/21 Defendant brings this motion to strike pursuant to CCP §§ 435 and 436. The Court may strike out “any irrelevant, false, and improper matter asserted in any pleading.” (CCP § 436.) “Irrelevant matter” means immaterial allegation. (CCP § 431.10(c).) The Court may also, “Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code of Civ.
    [Show full text]
  • 109-1 Rosette Motion to Strike
    Case 3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.9193 Page 1 of 33 1 MATTHEW W. CLOSE (S.B. #188570) [email protected] 2 BRITTANY ROGERS (S.B. #274432) 3 [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 4 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90071-2899 5 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 6 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 7 Attorneys for Defendants Robert Rosette, Rosette & Associates, PC, Rosette, LLP, and 8 Richard Armstrong 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP, and Case No. 17-CV-01436 GPC MDD FRANCISCO AGUILAR, MILO 14 BARLEY, GLORIA COSTA, GEORGE REDACTED 15 DECORSE, SALLY DECORSE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 16 similarly situated AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ROSETTE 17 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE 18 v. PLAINTIFFS’ SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO 19 QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT CALIFORNIA CODE OF 20 YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION, a CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION federally-recognized Indian tribe; 425.16 21 ROBERT ROSETTE; ROSETTE & ASSOCIATES, PC; ROSETTE, LLP; [Notice of Motion and Request for 22 RICHARD ARMSTRONG; KEENY Judicial Notice Filed Concurrently] ESCALANTI, SR.; MARK WILLIAM 23 WHITE II, a/k/a WILLIE WHITE; and Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 24 DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Courtroom: 2D Date: October 12, 2018 25 Defendants. Time: 1:30 p.m. 26 27 28 MEM. ISO SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.16 17-CV-01436 GPC MDD Case 3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 08/03/18 PageID.9194 Page 2 of 33 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Civil No. B229358 in the COURT of APPEAL, STATE of CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PERSON
    2nd Civil No. B229358 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR _________________ PERSONAL COURT REPORTERS, INC. Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. GARY RAND dba RAND & RAND-LEWIS, SUZANNE RAND- LEWIS dba RAND & RAND- LEWIS; and DOES 1-10, inclusive. Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HONORABLE MICHAEL HARWIN, JUDGE TRIAL COURT CASE NO. LC088468 _________________ RESPONDENT PERSONAL COURT REPORTERS, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF _________________ Robert F. Cohen (SBN 160705) Philip Landsman (SBN 159608) Law Office of Robert F. Cohen Law Offices of Philip Landsman Post Office Box 15896 22030 Ventura Blvd., Suite 206 San Francisco, CA 94115-0896 Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1647 Tel: (310) 858-9771 Tel: (818) 587-3666 Fax: (415) 593-6672 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent PERSONAL COURT Respondent PERSONAL COURT REPORTERS, INC. REPORTERS, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION. 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.. 1 A. The Trial Court’s Decisions.. 1 III. ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.. 1 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW. 2 V. STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY.. 3 VI. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 3 A. Procedural History. 3 B. Statement of Facts. 4 1. Appellants’ Special Motion to Strike Was Filed Untimely. 4 2. Background Information.. 4 3. The Allegations of Respondent’s Complaint. 5 4. Appellants’ Special Motion to Strike. 5 5. Respondent’s Opposition. 6 6. Appellants’ Reply. 6 7. The Trial Court’s Ruling on Appellants’ Special Motion to Strike. 6 VII. RESPONDENT’S RECORD. 7 VIII. ARGUMENT.. 7 i A.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Nuts and Bolts” of Anti-Slapp
    THE “NUTS AND BOLTS”OF ANTI-SLAPP What Every Lawyer Should Know About Anti-SLAPP Motions Under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 By Harry W.R. Chamberlain and Lisa M. Chait BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE What is a SLAPP Suit? “SLAPP” stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” Courts have adopted this acronym for any lawsuit filed primarily to chill the defendant’s exercise of First Amendment rights – such as free speech, petitioning a government body for redress of grievances, or pursuing legal remedies in a court of law. (See Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1109, fn.1 (Briggs).)1 SLAPP-plaintiffs are not necessarily concerned with “winning.” The primary aim of the SLAPP suit “is preventing citizens from exercising their political rights or punishing those who have done so.” (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 642 (Wollersheim) disapproved on another point in Equilon Enterprises LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68, fn.5.(Equilon); Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 783 (Dove Audio) citing Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 815-816 (Wilcox) disapproved on another point in Equilon, supra, 29 Cal. 4th at p. 68, fn.5.) SLAPP suits, thus, often masquerade “as ordinary civil claims such as defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, nuisance, interference with contract and/or economic advantage, as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.” (Wilcox, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp.816-817; E.
    [Show full text]
  • Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC V. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
    Filed 3/22/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA NEWPORT HARBOR VENTURES, ) LLC, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) ) S239777 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/3 G052660 MORRIS CERULLO WORLD ) EVANGELISM et al., ) ) Orange County Defendants and Appellants. ) Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00665314 ____________________________________) Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (§ 425.16), California’s so-called anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, is intended to resolve quickly and relatively inexpensively meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech on matters of public interest. When it applies, section 425.16 permits a defendant to file a special motion to strike a cause of action (sometimes referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion) “within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.” (§ 425.16, subd. (f).) Here, defendants filed the special motion within 60 days of the third amended complaint, but not within 60 days of any earlier complaint. The third amended complaint contains some of the same causes of action as earlier complaints. We granted review to decide whether a special motion to strike an amended complaint may seek dismissal of causes of action that had been included in the earlier complaints. 1 Because the anti-SLAPP statute is designed to resolve these lawsuits early, but not to permit the abuse that delayed motions to strike might entail, we conclude, as did the Court of Appeal, that, subject to the trial court’s discretion under section 425.16, subdivision (f), to permit late filing, a defendant must move to strike a cause of action within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that contains that cause of action.
    [Show full text]
  • First Cash Opening SLAPP Brief
    1 MARK GOLDOWITZ, # 96418 CALIFORNIA ANTI SLAPP-PROJECT 2 2903 Sacramento Street Berkeley, CA 94702 3 Phone: (510) 486-9123 x 301 Fax: (510) 486-9708 4 Special Counsel for Defendant 5 JOHN DOE A/K/A KNOWFCFS 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 FIRST CASH FINANCIAL SERVICES, ) CASE NO.: 1-03-CV002135 INC., ) 11 ) DEFENDANT JOHN DOE A/K/A Plaintiff, ) KNOWFCFS’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND 12 ) SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE, v. ) PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16; 13 ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND JOHN DOE A/K/A KNOWFCFS, ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; 14 et al., ) DECLARATION OF MARK GOLDOWITZ ) 15 Defendants. ) BY FAX ) 16 Date: October 9, 2003 Time: 9 a.m. 17 Dept.: 2 Judge: Hon. William J. Elfving 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 DEFENDANT JOHN DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE, PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16 ......................... iv 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 4 DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE .........................................1 5 INTRODUCTION....................................................................1 6 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .........................2 7 A. Factual Background. .....................................................2 8 B. Procedural History. ......................................................3 9 II. THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND THE UNDERLYING PETITION ARE COVERED BY C.C.P. § 425.16, BECAUSE THEY ARISE FROM 10 DEFENDANT’S ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT ON A PUBLIC ISSUE. .............................................4 11 A. The California Anti-SLAPP Law Was Enacted to Protect the Fundamental Constitutional 12 Rights of Petition and Speech and Is to Be Construed Broadly.
    [Show full text]
  • Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. V. State Bd. of Edn., 146 Ohio St.3D 356, 2016- Ohio-2806.]
    [Cite as Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn., 146 Ohio St.3d 356, 2016- Ohio-2806.] TOLEDO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., APPELLEES, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn., 146 Ohio St.3d 356, 2016-Ohio-2806.] Constitutional law—Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution—School funding—Retroactivity clause does not protect political subdivisions— General Assembly has constitutional authority to adjust local school funding retrospectively. (No. 2014-1769—Submitted December 2, 2015—Decided May 4, 2016.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 14AP-93, 14AP-94, and 14AP-95, 2014-Ohio-3741. _________________ KENNEDY, J. {¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, we consider whether the General Assembly has the constitutional authority to retroactively reduce the amount of state funding allocated to local school districts and to immunize appellant State Board of Education of Ohio (“the department”) against legal claims by school districts seeking reimbursement for retroactive reductions in school-foundation funding. The department advances the following proposition of law: “The General Assembly has constitutional authority to adjust local school funding retrospectively.” We agree. {¶ 2} For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Retroactivity Clause, Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution, does not protect political subdivisions like appellees Toledo City School District Board of Education, Dayton City School District Board of Education, and Cleveland Metropolitan School District Board of Education (“the boards”) that are created by the state to carry out SUPREME COURT OF OHIO the state’s governmental functions.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This
    Case 2:09-cv-00522-JAM-KJN Document 143 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRENT ALLEN WINTERS, et al., 11 Plaintiffs, No. 2:09-cv-00522 JAM KJN PS v. 12 ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 DELORES JORDAN, et al., 14 Defendants. ______________________________/ 15 16 Presently before the court is a special motion to strike plaintiffs’ Third Amended 17 Complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 filed by defendant Judy Ford 18 (“Ford”), and a related request for judicial notice. (Dkt. No. 69.) The court submitted this matter 19 without oral argument.1 (Dkt. No. 102.) The undersigned has fully considered the parties’ briefs 20 and the record in this case and, for the reasons that follow, will: (1) grant Ford’s request for 21 judicial notice, and (2) recommend that all of plaintiffs’ claims against Ford be dismissed with 22 prejudice. 23 //// 24 25 1 This action proceeds before this court pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and was reassigned by an order entered February 9, 26 2010 (Dkt. No. 105). Case 2:09-cv-00522-JAM-KJN Document 143 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 16 1 I. BACKGROUND2 2 Plaintiffs’ operative complaint, the Third Amended Complaint,3 is a wide-ranging, 3 25-page complaint that alleges, in eight-point font, 38 claims for relief against 61 defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • Dimension III: Habeas Corpus As an Instrument of Checks and Balances Eric M
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2016 Habeas Corpus in Three Dimensions: Dimension III: Habeas Corpus as an Instrument of Checks and Balances Eric M. Freedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric M. Freedman, Habeas Corpus in Three Dimensions: Dimension III: Habeas Corpus as an Instrument of Checks and Balances, 8 Ne. U. L. Rev. 251 (2016) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/1153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOL. 8 NO. 2 NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY LAWJOURNAL Habeas Corpus in Three Dimensions Dimension III: Habeas Corpus as an Instrument of Checks and Balances Eric M. Freedman Siggi B. Wilzig Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Rights, Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Hofstra University ([email protected]); B.A. 1975, Yale University; M.A. 1977, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand); J.D. 1979, Yale University. This article is copyrighted by the author, Eric M. Freedman, who retains all rights thereto. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce this work for educational use, provided that copies are distributed at or below cost and identify the author and this publication. I am solely responsible for the contents of this piece, including certain deviations from the forms prescribed by The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Out of State Subpoena New Hampshire
    Out Of State Subpoena New Hampshire Shaved Adrien still shipwreck: alive and gyratory Pepito aestivates quite diabolically but yo-ho her lemur heinously. Crassulaceous Zack never annotates so weightily or mercerizing any permeameter beauteously. Say often luff immensely when bellied Maxfield recondensed frenetically and noised her whits. Streamlined just one extra coverage beyond issuance of support in-state subpoena. Keep in either you have introduced legislation that must be borne by. Obtain after that consideration was in currency paid position the corporation before it issue stock. Compelling Evidence in Criminal Proceedings; Immunity. Know Law depending upon its structure and function. The subpoena and the materials designated for production as breathe out. If a witness is unavailable, what is the amount? In years past serving an out-of-state subpoena was mold and. Will be acted to continue to those so may for out of state new hampshire remote electronic discovery. Justices or counting ad litem will not proceed with access new hampshire state? For example, it is contemplated that the laws of two or more states may apply to the same transaction where elements of the transaction occur in different states. Clarify which may and commentary on appeal may, subpoena of the verifiable consumer and may be. Cooperate with respect, law foundation for out of state new hampshire supreme court giving to. Youcan tell you how can do not be conducted in order is subpoenaed directly from attorneys talkabout things as bobbie hantz, companies had with abovelisted requirements. Assuming the reason count stays steady or dips we'll expand out our trial personnel a pine in other counties.
    [Show full text]