Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out 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
Eiser's Amended Response to Righthaven's Motion to Dismiss (Righthaven LLC v. Dana Eiser

Eiser's Amended Response to Righthaven's Motion to Dismiss (Righthaven LLC v. Dana Eiser

Ratings: (0)|Views: 177|Likes:
Published by rhvictims
Case No. 2:10-cv-03075-RMG-JDA
Case No. 2:10-cv-03075-RMG-JDA

More info:

Published by: rhvictims on Jul 12, 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

06/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Page 1 of 34UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINACHARLESTON DIVISIONRighthaven LLC,Plaintiff,v.Dana Eiser,Defendant.Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-3075-RMG-JDA
 
DEFENDANT’S
AMENDEDRESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFF’
SMOTION TO DISMISSCERTAIN COUNTERCLAIMSI
.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff initiated this action with its Complaint, Dkt. #1, on December 2, 2010.Defendant answered and counterclaimed pro se on January 18, 2011. Dkt. #7. Plaintiff failed tofile a reply or move to dismiss within the time limits of Rule 12(a), F
ED
.R.C
IV
.P., and went intotechnical default in mid-February
 — 
around the time Defendant retained counsel. Counsel electednot to pursue the default but instead to file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims
(“First
Amended Answ
er”)
as of right under Rule 15(a)(1), F
ED
.R.C
IV
.P. Dkt. #22.Plaintiff timely responded, filing a motion to dismiss. Dkt. #23.
1
Around this time,Plaintiff also sought to amend its Complaint to remove an improper demand for websitesurrender. Dkt. #30. Pl
aintiff’
s motion was unopposed and was granted. Dkt. #33. As a result, itwas clear Defendant would have to file a second amended answer and counterclaim, so
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was moot. Defendant therefore did not file a substantive response to
 the motion to dismiss, but noted its mootness given the procedural posture. Dkt. #28.
1
 
Plaintiff’s aggression in the motion to dismiss is almost unbelievable. For example, Plaintiff 
asks the Court to strike the answer and counterclaim entirely (and to hold Defendant in default) because the First Amended Answer was untimely filed. Dkt. #23 at 1. This claim was entirelywithout merit
 — 
the reason Defendant was able to file an amended pleading as of right was that
Plain 
ff  
was in default, a default Defendant did not pursue.
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Fled 07/11/11 Entry Number 62 Page 1 of 34
 
Page 2 of 34
Two days after the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend,
instead of filing anamended complaint as directed, Plaintiff bizarrely pressed for a ruling on its now-moot motion todismiss. Dkt. #34.
Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, despite Defendant’s
decision tonot pursue a default against Plaintiff, Plaintiff went
so far as to argue that Defendant’s
 plan tofile a new answer and counterclaim in respon
se to Plaintiff’s new complaint was “tantamount toa concession that the current Counterclaims should be dismissed.”
Id. at 2.Defendant replied that this procedure was exactly what the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure required under Rule 15(a)(3), and that if Plaintiff wanted to seek dismissal, it wouldhave to wait until Defendant had actually filed counterclaims. The Court agreed with Defendant,holding a ruling on the motion to dismiss in abeyance until an answer had been filed. Dkt. #35.Defendant filed her Second Amended Answer and
Counterclaims (“Second AmendedAnswer”) on June 23, 2011.
Dkt. #53. The Second Amended Answer is a far different and far more comprehensive document than its predecessor, such that the long-ago filed motion todismiss is partly inapplicable to it. However, Plaintiff did not file a reply or a new motion todismiss within the time limits prescribed by Rule 15(a)(3), so Defendant concludes that Plaintiff intends to rely solely on the previously-filed motion to dismiss, Dkt. #23.Accordingly, it would appear Defendant is now on the clock for a substantive response tothe previously-filed motion to dismiss, Dkt. #23. Such response is respectfully submitted for consideration by this Honorable Court:
 
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/11/11 Entry Number 62 Page 2 of 34
 
Page 3 of 34
TABLE OF CONTENTSTabl
e
of Authoriti
e
s
.......................................................................................................................3
 I
.
Introdu
c
tion
...........................................................................................................................1
II
.
Analy
s
i
s
..................................................................................................................................5
 
A.
ral Con 
id 
ra 
ion 
.................................................................................................5B.
Wha 
 — 
and i 
no 
 — 
ss 
........................................................................................8C.
ov 
d Coun 
la
:
ec 
lara 
ory Judg 
,
Barra 
ry 
,
and No Good Fai 
h B
.....................................................................................................................9D.
Abu 
f  
Pr
ce 
ss 
..........................................................................................................12i. U
LTERIOR 
P
URPOSE
.............................................................................................12ii. W
ILLFUL
A
CT IN THE
U
SE OF
P
ROCESS NOT
P
ROPER IN THE
EGULAR 
C
ONDUCT OF THE
P
ROCEEDING
............................................................................16iii. E
VIDENCE OF
IGHTHAVEN
S
A
CTIONS IN
O
THER 
C
ASES
....................................21iv. O
THER 
C
ONSIDERATIONS
.....................................................................................22E.
Un 
f  
air Trad 
Pr
ce 
................................................................................................23i. L
OSS OF
M
ONEY OR 
P
ROPERTY
............................................................................24ii. U
 NFAIR OR 
D
ECEPTIVE
M
ETHOD
,
 
A
CT
,
OR 
P
RACTICE
..........................................27iii. C
ONSTITUTIONAL
A
CTUAL
M
ALICE
.....................................................................30iv. P
UBLIC
I
 NTEREST
.................................................................................................30F.
Civil Con 
pira 
 y 
..........................................................................................................32
III
.
Con
c
lu
s
ion
...........................................................................................................................33
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/11/11 Entry Number 62 Page 3 of 34

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->