Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mann v. National Review - Motion to Dismiss

Mann v. National Review - Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9,745 |Likes:
Published by Andrew Lawton
Motion to dismiss filed by Mark Steyn in reference to the lawsuit by Michael Mann against Steyn and National Review.
Motion to dismiss filed by Mark Steyn in reference to the lawsuit by Michael Mann against Steyn and National Review.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Andrew Lawton on Jul 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACIVIL DIVISION __________________________________________ MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D.,)Case No. 2012 CA 8263Pennsylvania State University)Department of Meteorology )Judge Natalia M. Combs GreeneUniversity Park, PA 16802,))Plaintiff,)Next Scheduled Event:v.)Status Hearing,Oct. 11,)2013, 9:30 a.m. NATIONAL REVIEW, INC.)215 Lexington Avenue) New York, NY 10016,))COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE,))-and -))RAND SIMBERG,))-and -))MARK STEYN)c/o National Review, Inc.,)215 Lexington Avenue) New York, NY 10016,))Defendants.))
DEFENDANT MARK STEYN’S AND NATIONAL REVIEW’S SPECIAL MOTION TODISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO D.C. ANTI-SLAPPACT (D.C. CODE § 16-5501
et seq.
)
AND RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Pursuant to the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010, D.C. Code § 16-5501,
et  seq.
(the “Act”), and Superior Court Rule 12(b)(6), and for the reasons already stated in supportof Defendants’ prior Motions to Dismiss, Defendants National Review, Inc. and Mark Steynhereby move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice.Because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint merely adds an additional Count VII, allegingthat Defendants’ Jerry Sandusky-related commentary was defamatory, there is no reason to
 
-2 -repeat briefingon Counts I through VI of the Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, and DefendantsMark Steyn and National Review, Inc. merely renew the arguments already stated on thoseclaims and incorporate here their prior Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Special Motion to Dismiss and Rule 12(B)(6)Motion to Dismissas support for the currentmotion.
See
Memorandum In Support of Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant toD.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(B)(6) of Defendants National Review, Inc. and Mark Steyn (filed Dec. 14, 2012)(the “Memorandum”).With respect to the new Count VII added by the Amended Complaint, Defendants havealso already addressed the claim –alleged in Plaintiff’s Original Complaint as well –that theJerry Sandusky-related “metaphor” defamed Plaintiff Michael Mann.
See
Memorandum at 27-28. Nonetheless, in light of Plaintiff’s clarification that he seeks relief for that Count, theyaddress Count VII in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.Rule 12-I(a) CertificationTheundersigned counsel certifies that he consulted with Plaintiff’s counsel on July 11,2013, and Plaintiff does not consent to the relief sought in this Motion.Request for Fees and CostsThe Act provides that “[t]he court may award a moving party who prevails, in whole or in part . . . the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.” D.C. Code § 16-5504(a). In the event theyprevail “in whole or in part,” Defendants respectfully request that theCourt permit them to submit an application for attorneys’ fees and costswith respect to the feesincurred in filing both this motion and all previous proceedings in this case.
 Id.
 
-3 -Request for HearingD.C. Code § 16-5502(d) requires an “expedited hearing” on a special motion to dismissfiled pursuant to the Act. Defendants respectfully request such a hearing.Under D.C. Code § 16-5502(c)(1), discovery on the claims stated in the AmendedComplaint “shall be stayed” until this Motion has been decided.Dated:July 24, 2013Respectfully submitted,/s/ Shannen W. CoffinShannen W. Coffin (D.C. Bar No. 449197)ChrisMoeser (
 Pro HacVice
)1330 Connecticut Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036-1795Telephone: (202)429-6255Facsimile: (202) 429-3902Email: scoffin@steptoe.com
Counsel for Defendants National Review, Inc.andMark Steyn

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->