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
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LIBERI v TAITZ - 117 -MEMORANDUM. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO - paed-15307748997.117.0

LIBERI v TAITZ - 117 -MEMORANDUM. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO - paed-15307748997.117.0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 123|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
06/04/2010 117[RECAP] MEMORANDUM. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/3/0. ) 6/4/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
06/04/2010 117[RECAP] MEMORANDUM. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/3/0. ) 6/4/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/04/2010)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Jun 06, 2010
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

09/26/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Some of these parties have a long and complicated
1
litigation history. See e.g., Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234 (3dCir. 2009); Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga.2009) (imposing $20,000 sanction on counsel Orly Taitz for use ofthe legal process for an improper purpose), aff'd Rhodes v.MacDonald, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5340 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2010).This litigation appears to be part of this overall dispute amongIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIALISA LIBERI, et al., :CIVIL ACTION:NO. 09-1898Plaintiffs,::v.::ORLY TAITZ, et al.,::Defendants.:M E M O R A N D U MEDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. June 3, 2010
I.BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs Lisa Liberi (“Liberi”),Philip J. Berg, Esq. (“Berg”), the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg,Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E (“Adams”), Lisa Ostella (“Ostella”),and Go Excel Global (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated thisdefamation, libel and slander action against Defendants OrlyTaitz (“Taitz”), Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. (“DOFF”),Neil Sankey, The Sankey Firm and Sankey Investigations, Inc.(collectively, "Sankey"), Edgar Hale, Caren Hale, Plains Radio,KPRN AM 1610, Bar H. Farms, Plains Radio Network (collectively,“the Hales”), and Linda Sue Belcher (collectively,“Defendants”).
1
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 117 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 9
 
the parties.On June 26, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion
2
to dismiss Defendants Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing. Seedoc. no. 76.-2-Plaintiffs allege that, though at one time the partiesworked together on a movement to prove that President BarackObama is not a natural-born citizen, Defendants allegedlypublished personal and defamatory information in a “quest todestroy” Plaintiffs.Jurisdiction for this action is predicated upondiversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The citizenship ofall parties is as follows. For Plaintiffs: Berg and Liberi arePennsylvania citizens, Adams is an Oklahoma citizen, and Ostellaand Go Global are citizens of New Jersey. For Defendants: Taitz,DOFF, and Sankey are citizens of California, Sundquist and RockSalt Publishing are citizens of New Jersey, and Belcher and theHales are citizens of Texas.
2
Here, Sankey, Hale, and Belcher have moved to dismissthe case or, in the alternative, requested a transfer of venue,pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to the Western District ofTexas. Defendant Taitz moved to dismiss based on lack ofdiversity jurisdiction, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and theinsufficiency of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed responsesthereto, opposing each of Defendants’ motions to dismiss. ThisCourt denied all motions to dismiss without prejudice and
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 117 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 9
 
On August 10, 2009, Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s
3
denial of their motion for an injunction or restraining order tothe Third Circuit. On December 9, 2009, this case was placed insuspense pending determination of the appeal. See doc. no. 83.On May 26, 2010, the Third Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ motion towithdraw their appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). SeeLiberi v. Taitz, No. 09-3403, dated 5/26/10.Throughout the period of time Plaintiffs’ appeal waspending before the Third Circuit, the parties filed numerousmotions, seeking leave to file further pleadings. However, sincethe case was in suspense and inactive, Plaintiffs’ many requestsfor leave to file are denied as moot.-3-subsequently, in order to focus the issues, issued a rule to showcause as to why the action should not be severed and the claimstransferred to the home jurisdiction of each Defendant. Theparties have submitted multiple responses and replies thereto.Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), it is proper for adistrict court to issue an Order to Show Cause as to why anaction should not be transferred. See, e.g., Minkoff v. ChubbCorp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29137 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2009). Here,the Court directed Plaintiffs to show cause as to why theircomplaint should not be dismissed on any one of the followingthree grounds. First, why this case should not be dismissed forlack of personal jurisdiction. Second, why this case should notbe severed into three (3) or fewer cases against the followinggroups or Defendants: (i) the Hales; (ii) Belcher; (iii) Taitz,DOFF, and Sankey. Third, why this case should not be transferredto an appropriate district in either Texas or California,pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
3
Case 2:09-cv-01898-ER Document 117 Filed 06/04/10 Page 3 of 9

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
padraigjk liked this
evreport liked this
putncall732779 liked this
5EQV232 liked this
goldrich liked this
evreport liked this

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)//-->