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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT

LINCOLN v DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al. - [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT

Ratings: (0)|Views: 57|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN
PART MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AS
MOOT
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN
PART MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AS
MOOT

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Feb 13, 2011
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

02/14/2011

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN III,Plaintiff,v.DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL, et al.,Defendants. _________________________________ ))))))))))))))))CASE NO. SACV 10-1573 AG (PLAx)[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING INPART MOTION TO DISMISS ANDDENYING MOTION TO STRIKE ASMOOT
Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln III (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against DefendantsDaylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc. (“Defendant Daylight Chemical”), Yosef Taitz(“Defendant Yosef Taitz”), Appealing Dentistry (“Defendant Appealing Dentistry”), Orly Taitz,Inc. (“Defendant Orly Taitz, Inc.”), Law Office of Orly Taitz (“Defendant Law Office”), Dr.Orly Taitz, D.D.S., J.D. (“Defendant Orly Taitz”), and Defend Our Freedoms Foundation(“Defendant Defend Our Freedoms”). Defendants Daylight Chemical and Yosef Taitz now bring a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (“Motionto Dismiss”). All other Defendants join the Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 9, 13.) Defendant Orly
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282Taitz now also brings a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Claim (“Motion to Strike”). After reviewing all papers and arguments submitted, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in partthe Motion to Dismiss and DENIES the Motion to Strike as MOOT.
BACKGROUND
The following facts come from the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). For purposes of the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court assumes these facts to be true. Becausesome of the facts “is/are difficult to decipher,” to borrow a phrase from Plaintiff (FAC ¶ 14), theCourt will quote from the FAC.Plaintiff was “hired by Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz to work as law clerk or litigationassistant in her offices in Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, California, starting onJune 9, 2009 . . . .” (FAC ¶ 5.) “Plaintiff’s original (oral) agreement with Dr. Taitz was to be paid $10,000 to serve as her law clerk or litigation assistant in research, drafting, and support onDr. Taitz’ defense against a suit by one Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi, and Lisa Ostella filed in theEastern District of Pennsylvania.” (
 Id 
. ¶ 6.) “Unilaterally, but after Lincoln had begun to work for her, and in fact after he had already presented himself in California on June 9, 2009, Dr.Taitz took back her agreement and reduced this amount, without Plaintiff’s actual or impliedconsent or agreement, to $7,500.00, outof [sic] which Plaintiff was expected to pay his hotel bills in Mission Viejo while working with Dr. Taitz.” (
 Id 
. ¶ 7.)“By this time [late June 2009], Defendants Dr. Taitz
et al.
had enlisted Plaintiff in alltheir litigation projects, for although the monetary compensation was not initially increased, thePlaintiff’s and Defendant’s relationship had begun a surprising (but non-professionaly [sic])evolution which led to Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz’ ultimate infliction of extreme emotionaldistress on the Plaintiff.” (
 Id 
. ¶ 10.)“Even at a very modest paralegal rate such as $40/hour, the Plaintiff Charles EdwardLincoln and Defendant Dr. Orly Taitz had originally agreed reasonable legal support/litigationclerk’s fee of $10,000, although never actually paid, would already have been more than used up
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283and exhausted by the approximately 250+ hours Plaintiff spent working for Dr. Taitz and Defendour Freedoms Foundations, Inc., between June 9 and June 31, 2010 [sic].” (
 Id 
. ¶ 12.)“Lincoln continued to work closely and continuously with Dr. Taitz throughout July,2009, and on Saturday, while in Cambridge, Massachusetts, New York City, and Rancho SantaMargarita, August 1, 2009, at 7:02 P.M., Yosef (Yosi) Taitz sent, apparently from his DaylightChemical Information office, a certain e-mail which was destined to change the relationshp andsituation between Plaintiff and Defendants forever, which should be considered the first of thekey ‘predicate acts’ on which R.I.C.O. is based, in that it was intended to advance a scheme todefraud, aimed not merely at the Plaintiff but at the United States of America, for purposes or with a state of mind that is/are difficult to decipher.” (
 Id 
. ¶ 14.)Plaintiff now alleges twelve claims against various Defendants. Except wherespecifically noted, the claims appear to be against all Defendants. The claims are numbered asfollows:1) Malicious Prosecution;2) Breach of Contract for Legal Representation;3)Breach of Contract to Form Real Estate Management and RedemptionManagement Company as a Partnership, LLP or LLC;4)Breach of Contract and/or Promissory Estoppel to Provide Office Space;5) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;6) Defamation Per Se;7) Breach of Contract and Legal Malpractice in relation to 4 Via CorbinaManagement and Litigation;8)Tortious Interference with de Leon and Aldana Mortgage Redemption Contracts(against Defendant Orly Taitz only);9)Tortious Interference with Contract (against Defendants Yosef Taitz and DaylightChemical only);10)Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage (against DefendantsYosef Taitz and Daylight Chemical only);11) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;12)Breach of Employment Contract or, in the alternative, Equitable Action inQuantum Meruit;13)Federal racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a)-(d) and§ 1964(c)(“RICO”)

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)//-->