Mcnamee Reply Brief

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, HOUSTON DIVISION----------------------------------------------------------------xWILLIAM ROGER CLEMENS,Plaintiff, 4:08-cv-00471Judge Keith P. Ellison-against-BRIAN McNAMEE,Defendant.----------------------------------------------------------------x

DEFENDANT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT,OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE

Richard D. EmeryDebra L. GreenbergerEmery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20

th

FloorNew York, NY 10019

Admitted pro hac vice

Earl Ward75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20

th

FloorNew York, NY

Admitted pro hac vice

David R. MillerDavid R. Miller, Attorney at Law, PLLCAttorney at Law2777 Allen Parkway, 7th FloorHouston, Texas 77019

Counsel for Defendant

-i-TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................(

iii-vi)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT..................................................1DISCUSSION................................................................2I.THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVERMcNAMEE......................................................2A.McNamee does not have minimal contacts withTexas for the assertion of specific jurisdiction.....................41.This Court lacks personal jurisdiction overMcNamee for claims arising from his allegedstatements to Senator Mitchell and SI.com..................42. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction overMcNamee for claims arising from his allegedconversations with Pettitte in 1999/2000 and2003/2004 as those are outside the statute of limitations ...........................................8a.This Court can consider the timelinessof Clemens’s claim arising from purportedcontacts with Texas in 1999/2000 and2003/2004 in a 12(b)(2) motion.....................8b.Clemens cannot seek the benefit of thediscovery rule to assert jurisdiction overdefendant for claims arising from contactswith Texas in 1999/2000 or 2003/2004...............9B.Clemens must separately demonstrate jurisdiction overthe statements to Pettitte and the statements toMitchell/SI.com and cannot use pendent personal jurisdiction to consolidate these separate claims...................15C.Asserting jurisdiction over McNamee would offendtraditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ..............17

-ii-II.IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS COURT SHOULD TRANSFERVENUE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .............19III.PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE ACLAIM.........................................................21A.Clemens does not dispute that his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim must be dismissed......................21B.The Court can consider public records in resolving a12(b)(6) motion............................................21C.Looking to the Amended Complaint and public records,the claims arising out of the statements to Pettitte areuntimely..................................................23D.McNamee’s statements published by Senator Mitchellare absolutely immune from suit ...............................23E.The allegedly defamatory statements are not plead withsufficient specificity.........................................28F.The statements to Pettitte and SI.com are not defamatory...........30G.Clemens has not pleaded defamation

per se

, nor allegedspecial damages............................................31H.The statements to Pettitte and SI.com, standing alone, donot meet the amount in controversy requirement..................34CONCLUSION..............................................................35

of 00

Leave a Comment