Taitz now also brings a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Claim (“Motion to Strike”). Afterreviewing 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.
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 bepaid $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.” (
. ¶ 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 hotelbills in Mission Viejo while working with Dr. Taitz.” (
. ¶ 7.)“By this time [late June 2009], Defendants Dr. Taitz
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.” (
. ¶ 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
Case 8:10-cv-01573-AG -PLA Document 44 Filed 02/14/11 Page 2 of 21 Page ID#:1169