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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 316 - REPLY In Support of MOTION to Stay Case pending case 278[RECAP] filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ - 316.0

LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 316 - REPLY In Support of MOTION to Stay Case pending case 278[RECAP] filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ - 316.0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 61 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
07/25/2011 316 REPLY In Support of MOTION to Stay Case pending case 278[RECAP] filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ. (Cook, Peter) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
07/25/2011 316 REPLY In Support of MOTION to Stay Case pending case 278[RECAP] filed by Defendant ORLY TAITZ. (Cook, Peter) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Jul 26, 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

07/27/2011

pdf

text

original

 
   S
   C   H   U   M   A   N   N
 ,   R
   A   L   L   O
   &   R
   O   S   E   N   B   E   R   G
 ,   L   L   P
   A
   T   T   O   R   N   E   Y   S   A   T
   L
   A   W
   3   1   0   0   B   R   I   S   T   O   L   S   T   R   E   E   T ,   S   U   I   T   E   4   0   0   C   O   S   T   A   M   E   S   A ,   C   A   L   I   F   O   R   N   I   A   9   2   6   2   6  -   7   3   3   3   T   E   L   E   P   H   O   N   E   (   7   1   4   )   8   5   0  -   0   2   1   0
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
-1-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
Kim Schumann, Esq., State Bar #170942Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esq., State Bar #151067Peter Cook, Esq., State Bar #232742
SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP
3100 Bristol Street, Suite 400Costa Mesa, CA 92626Telephone (714) 850-0210Facsimile (714) 850-0551Attorneys for Defendant, ORLY TAITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA LIBERI,
et al.
Plaintiffs,vs.ORLY TAITZ,
et al.
Defendants._________________________________)))))))))))))))))))Case No. 8:11-CV-00485-AG (AJW)Hon. Andrew GuilfordCourtroom 10D
REPLY BRIEF BY DEFENDANT,ORLY TAITZ, IN SUPPORT OFMOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGSPENDING APPEAL
Date:August 8, 2011Time:10:00 a.m.Place:Courtroom 10DDate Action Filed:May 4, 2009Discovery Cut-Off:March 5, 2012Final Pre-Trial Conf.:May 21, 2012Trial Date:June 5, 2012
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND/OR THEIR ATTORNEYS OFRECORD:
COMES NOW, Defendant, ORLY TAITZ (“Taitz”), and hereby submits herReply Brief in support of her Motion to Stay Proceedings pending her appeal fromdenial of her anti-SLAPP Motion, and which responds to the Opposition to saidMotion of Plaintiffs, PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ., LISA OSTELLA (“Ostella”), LISALIBERI (“Liberi”), GO EXCEL GLOBAL and LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J.BERG (collectively “Plaintiffs”).
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 316 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 11 Page ID#:7553
 
   S
   C   H   U   M   A   N   N
 ,   R
   A   L   L   O
   &   R
   O   S   E   N   B   E   R   G
 ,   L   L   P
   A
   T   T   O   R   N   E   Y   S   A   T
   L
   A   W
   3   1   0   0   B   R   I   S   T   O   L   S   T   R   E   E   T ,   S   U   I   T   E   4   0   0   C   O   S   T   A   M   E   S   A ,   C   A   L   I   F   O   R   N   I   A   9   2   6   2   6  -   7   3   3   3   T   E   L   E   P   H   O   N   E   (   7   1   4   )   8   5   0  -   0   2   1   0
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
-2-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
Please note that Defendant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS,INC. (“DOFF”), has also appealed from denial of the anti-SLAPP Motion and has joined with Taitz in seeking a stay pending resolution of such appeals. For purposesof this Reply, Taitz and DOFF will be referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendant ORLY TAITZ’s Motion to Stay the Case Pending Appeal of theDefendant’s Motion to Strike pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 425.16 (“anti-SLAPP”motion) should be granted based on the arguments in the moving papers,particularly that the Ninth Circuit appellate court now has jurisdiction over thematter, and further because Taitz, and all other defendants in this matter, would begreatly prejudiced in being required to litigate this matter – potentially all of theway to trial – even though the Ninth Circuit may change the landscape of this casein a material way.Plaintiffs’ opposition sidesteps the case law that supports the stay pendingappeal, and instead argues that the appeal is a frivolous sham, and further argues ontechnical issues that are not prejudicial or relevant to the substance of this motion.Plaintiffs opposition also falsely asserts that Taitz has conceded to numerousallegations, but this is patently untrue. Further, these continued assertions byPlaintiffs are improper at this stage of pleading, and in the context of this Motion toStay, so they should not be considered by this Court.Because the stay is proper and necessary under case law, for the sake of  judicial economy, and for the benefit of all parties in preventing unnecessarylitigation, this Motion to Stay the Case Pending Appeal should be granted in itsentitrety. ///  ///  /// 
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 316 Filed 07/25/11 Page 2 of 11 Page ID#:7554
 
   S
   C   H   U   M   A   N   N
 ,   R
   A   L   L   O
   &   R
   O   S   E   N   B   E   R   G
 ,   L   L   P
   A
   T   T   O   R   N   E   Y   S   A   T
   L
   A   W
   3   1   0   0   B   R   I   S   T   O   L   S   T   R   E   E   T ,   S   U   I   T   E   4   0   0   C   O   S   T   A   M   E   S   A ,   C   A   L   I   F   O   R   N   I   A   9   2   6   2   6  -   7   3   3   3   T   E   L   E   P   H   O   N   E   (   7   1   4   )   8   5   0  -   0   2   1   0
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
-3-
DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
A.PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO ADDRESS CONTROLLING CASE LAWMANDATING STAY OF THIS MATTER PENDING APPEALFROM THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPPMOTION
As noted in Taitz’s moving papers, appeal from denial of an anti-SLAPPMotion to strike provides grounds for a stay of the case. Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d1018, 1025-1026 (9th Cir. 2003). As previously noted:This divestiture of district court jurisdiction does not reston a statute ... Rather, it is a judgemade doctrine designedto avoid the confusion and waste of time that might flowfrom putting the same issues before two courts at the sametime. It should not be employed to defeat its purposes norto induce needless paper shuffling.
See also
, Kern Oil & Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 840 F.2d 730, 734(9th Cir. 1988).Plaintiffs in their Opposition do not deny (and thus admit) that the pendingappeal divests this Court of jurisdiction, and that lack of a stay would likely resultin confusion of the issues and proceedings, and waste of the resources of the Courtand the parties.As further held in Batzel,a decision by this court reversing the district court's denialof the motion would not remedy the fact that the defendanthad been compelled to defend against a meritless claimbrought to chill rights of free expression. Thus, adefendant's rights under the anti-SLAPP statute are in thenature of immunity: They protect the defendant from theburdens of trial, not merely from ultimate judgments of liability. Batzel,
supra
, 333 F.3d at 1026.This compelling rationale for a stay pending appeal applies directly herein.At its core, this lawsuit involves Defendants’ Constitutionally-protected exercise of free speech rights which Plaintiffs are unlawfully attempting to quell by the ruse of alleging that they have violated their privacy rights. As occurred in Batzel andrelated cases, Plaintiffs are clearly attempting to chill Defendants’ exercise of their /// 
 
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 316 Filed 07/25/11 Page 3 of 11 Page ID#:7555

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)//-->