You are on page 1of 34

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:9655

(State MichaelJ. Niborsk^i Bar No. 192111) e-mail mniborski@prvorcashman.com : 2 P R Y O R A S H M A NL L P C I B0l CenturyParkEast,24thFloor -) Los Anseles. California. 9006 -2302 7 Tel: (3I0)556-9608 4 Fax:(310) 556-9670
1
5 (-) 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 14 1_5 16
1'7

TornJ. Ferber e-rnai: tferber(E,pryorcashman. I com Ross . BaeleV' M e-mai: rbas.Tev(Dnrvorcashman.com I PRYORCASHMNN IIP 7 TimesSquare New York,New York 10036-6569 T e l : ( 2 1 2 )3 2 6 - 0 1 8 8 Fax: (212) 798-6382 Attorney,r DelbndantDaylisht for Chem l' I nformation SystenslI nc. ic:a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERNDIVISON N Case o.8:l 1-CV-00485-AG (AJWx) L I S AL I B E R I , t a l . , e Plaintiffs,
VS.

l8 19 20 21 22
/J

ORLY TAITZ, et al., Defendants.

DEFENDANT DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST IT IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 19,2011 Date: December Tirne: I 0:00a.m. Judse:Hon. AndrewJ. Guilford Plac-e: Courtrooml0D

1 t -T

25 26 27 28

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:9656

I 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii .............. .................1 ..................2 ...............3 ...............5 ...............5

J I T

TNTRODUCTION A . T h eP a r t i e s B . T h eC o r n p l a i n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARGUMENT.......... SrANDARDS........ I. THE,COMPLAINT DOESNOT T S A T I S F Y H E R U L EB S T A N D A R D

5
() 7 8
L)

10 l1 t2 13 l4 15 16 17 18 l9 20 2l 22
aa

....................6

II.

THE ALLEGATIONSAGAINSTDCIS ARE A I M P L A U S I B L E N D / O RF A I L T O S T A T EA C L A I M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 TwelveClaimsUponA Single A. PlaintiffPremises Set UtterlyImplausible Of Facts

.........9

III. EVERY CLAIM AGAINST DCIS SUFFERS FROM FATAL PLEADINGDEFICIENCIES

.....I0

A. Plaintiffs'FirstClaim,Which Is Actually ThreeClaimsIn ViolationOf Rule 8, Is d t C o n c l u s o rA n d C a n n oW i t h s t a nD i s m i s s a l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . 1 y A Fail To State Claim fbr Public B. Plaintiffs No Facts Because Public of Disclosure Private D i s c l o s u rB y D C I SI s A 1 1 e g e d . . . . . . . . . . . . e C. Plaintiffs'Third ClaimFor FalseLight Does ThatDCIS Disclosed Not AllegeAny Falsehood, Anything With Actual Malice, Or That Anything D i s c l o s eW a sH i g h l yO f f e n s i v e . . . . . . . . . . d

/-)

24 25
)A

. . . . . . . . . . .I. . 1

27 28

...........-12

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:9657

D. Plaintiffs'Fifth ClaimFor Violationof the CaliforniaInformationPrivacyAct, M C a l .C i v . C o d e$ 1 7 9 8 . 5 3 , u s tB e D i s m i s s e d . . . . . . . .

........14

b

E. PlaintiffsFail To AllegeA ViolationOf The PrivacyAct, Cal. Civ. Code CaliforniaInformation There [n $ 1798.85, TheirSixthClaimBecause Anything.............15 Displayed ThatDCISPublicly Is No Allegation Per F. Plaintiffs EighthClaimFor Delamation Se, andLibel Per Se,DoesNot ldentifyAny False Slander Nor Or Staternent Any Publication, DoesIt AllegeMalice.............16 For Intentional Ninth Clairn, G. Plaintiffs M D I n f l i c t i o n f E m o t i o n a l i s t r e s s . u s tF a i 1 . . . . . . . . . O

7 8
()

l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22
L-)

............17

ClaimFor Non-Compliance H. Plaintiffs'Fourleenth Act, 15 U.S.C.$ 1681b, With the FairCreditReporting Reporting FailsTo AllegeThatDCIS ls A Consumer . . . . . . . ' . . . .1.8 . ' . R d A g e n c y h i c hD i s c l o s eA C o n s u m e r e p o r t W ClaimFor Violationof the California L Plaintifl-s' Seventeenth Privacy Act, Cal.Civ. Code$ 1798et seq. Information That Plaintiff-s ThereIs No Allegation FailsBecause ....-......19 Of Residents Customers DCIS Or Are Califbrnia
J. PlaintifTs'EighteenthClaim, For Violation of Cal

.........20 Is Code$ 17200, lnapplicable....... Business Professions and Nineteenth Claim,For Negligent K. Plaintifl-s .........2I Must Fail......... and Inflictionof Emotional MentalDistress, Claim,For ResIpsa L. PlaintiffsTwentieth Is Loquitor, Not LegallyCognizable............

24 25

....22 ...................24

26 CONCLUSTON 27 28

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:9658

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Arikat v. JP MorganChase Co., & 4 3 0F . S r - r p p . 2 d 1 3 N . D .C a 1 . 2 0 0 6.). . . 10 ( Ashcroftv. lqbal, . I 2 9 S . C t . l 9 3 t , t 7 3 L . F . d2 d 8 6 8( 2 0 0 9 ) . . . Bardinv. DairnlerChrysler Corp., ( 1 3 6C a l .A p p .4 t h 1 2 5 5 2 0 0 6 ). . . . . PAGB(s)

5 6 7 8 9 10

. 18-19

.

. . . . . . . . . . .15 , .6

...................21

Bell AtlanticCorp.v. Twombly, 5 5 0U . S .5 4 4( 2 0 0 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l1 t2
l a l-)

. . . . . . . . . . 65 , l . ,r

Inc., Management. Berryrnan Merit Property v. . 1 5 2C a l .A p p .4 t h I 5 4 4( 2 0 0 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . Branick DowneySav.andLoanAssociation, v. 3 9 C a l . 4 t h 2 3 5( 2 0 0 6 )

...................21

l4 l5 l6

.............2r

Inc.. ClinicalLaboratory. Brooksv. Physicians No. CIV. 3-99-2155 WBS DAD, 2000WL336546 18 ( E . D .C a l .M a r . 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 )
17 l9 20 21 22
a)

.........14

Insurance Co., Brownv. Allstate . t 7 F . S u p p2 d t t 3 4 ( S . D C a l .1 9 9 8 ) . . . . . . . . .

........-.....2r

Co., CellularTelephone Inc. Communications. v. Los Angeles Cel-Tech ......20 . 2 0 C a l . t h 1 6 3( 1 9 9 9 ) . . . . . .

Bank, v. 2 4 Chaconas JP MorganChase
25

7 1 3F . S u p p2 d r l 8 0 ( S . D .C a L . 2 0 1 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . .

...........18

v. Co.. 2 6 Charnbers Los Angeles
27 28

VBF (PLA), 2010U.S.Dist. LEXIS 34812 No. CV 09-3919 ..................8 ( C . D . C a lM a r .5 , 2 0 1 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . .

lll

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:9659

1 2
J

v. Cochran Cochran, 6 5 C a l .A p p .4 t h4 8 8( 1 9 9 8 ) v. Conder HorneSav.of America, ( 6 8 0F . S u p p2 d 1 1 6 8 C .D . C a l .2 0 1 0 ) . Acceptance Davisv. Regional Corp., 3 0 0 F . S u p p 2 d 3 7 7 ( E . D .Y a . 2 0 0 2 ) . Tribune. Inc., Diazv. Oakland 1 3 9C a l .A p p .3 d 1 1 8( 1 9 8 3 ) . . Durrellv. SharpHealthcare, ( 0 18 3 C a l .A p p . 4 t h 1 3 5 0 2 0 1 ) . . . . . . . . . .

17,18

4 5
() l 8 9 l0 11

....................6

.......19

..................r2

......2r

Newspapers, lnc., v. 1 2 Eisenberg Alameda A 7 4 C a l . p p .4 t h 1 3 5 9 . . . . . . . . .
l3 l4 l5 l6
1 1 l l

.....14

Erlichv. Menezes, 2 1 C a l .4 t h 5 4 3( 1 9 9 9 ) Properlies, Essv. Eskaton 97 Cal.App. 4th 120(2002) FDIC v. Hulsey, ( C 2 2 F . 3 d1 4 7 2 1 0 t h i r . 1 9 9 4 ) . . . . . . . . Inc., Fellowsv. NationalEnquirer. ( 19 8 6 ) . . . . . 42 Cal. d 234 3 Gickingv. Kimberlin, 1 7 0C a l .A p p .3 d 7 3 ( 1 9 8 s ) . . . . . Gilbertv. Sykes, 147Cal.App. 4th 13 (2007) Co., Gill v. CurtisPublishing 3 8 C a l .2 d 2 7 3( 1 9 5 2 ) . . . . .

.............22

....21

l8 l9 20

...........18

2l 22
aa L-)

..........r4

--..-...-..---...22

24 25
lo

....16

27 28

----......12

IV

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:9660

I 2
J
1

Inc., v. Gregory Alberlson's. 1 0 4C a l .A p p .4 t h 8 4 5( 2 0 0 2 ) LLC, Gu v. BMW of North America. 1 3 2C a l .A p p . 4 t h 1 9 5( 2 0 0 5 ) PoliceDepartment, Hearns SanBernardino v. s 3 0F . 3 d1 t 2 4( 9 t hC i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . . . . . . AthleticAssociation, Hill v. National Collegiate 7 C a l . 4 t h1 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . . . . . lnc., Howardv. Arnerica Online. 2 0 8F . 3 d7 4 t ( 9 t hC i r . 2 0 0 0 ) .

..................20

4 5 o 7 8
t)

............21,22

...............8

...............11

10
ll

......10

v. t 2 Jackson Carey, 3 5 3F . 3 d7 s 0( g t hC i r .2 0 0 3 ) . . . .
l a

........6

I J

l4 l5 l6

v. Jacobson Schwarzenegger, ( 3 s 7 F . S r p p .2 d 1 1 9 8 C . D .C a 1 . 2 0 0 4.). . .

.

......16

HealthCtr., M. Women's Jennif-er v. Redwood 8 8 8 C a l .A p p . 4 t h l ( 2 0 0 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1 8 KOVR-TV. Inc. v. Superior Court,

..........1s

l9 20

( 3 l C a l .A p p .4 t h 1 0 2 3 1 9 9 5 )

..................17

Corp., v. Kacludis GTE,SprintComrnunications 21 8 8 0 6F . S u p p . 6 6( N . D .C a l . 1 9 9 2 )
22

..........-.5

LLC, v. Kassa BP WestCoastProducts, /) RMW, 2008U.S.Dist.LEXIS 61668 No. C-08-02725 ( N . D .C a l .A u g . I 1 ,2 0 0 8 ) 24
25
,o

........1B

Khouryv. Maly'sof Cal..Inc., 14 Cal.App. 4th612 (1993) Martin Corp., KoreaSuppl), Co. v. Lockheed ( . 2 9 C a l . 4 t h1 1 3 4 2 0 0 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . .

....2r

27 28

..............2r

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:9661

v. Court, Kwikset Corp. Superior 1 5 1 C a l .4 t h3 1 0( 2 0 1 ). . . . . . . . . . 2
J

I

...................21

4 5
6

Magucav. AuroraLoan Services. No. SA CV 09-1086 JVS (ANx),2009U.S.Dist.LEXIS 104251 -........21 ( C . D .C a l .O c t .2 8 , 2 0 0 9 ) Masonv. Countyof Orange, ) C 2 5 1F . R . D s 6 2 ( C . D . a l .2 0 0 8 . . . . .

7 8 9 10
l l

...

............-.....7

Court, lnc. Newspapers. v. Superior McClatchy 18 9 C a l .A p p .3 d 9 6 1( 1 9 8 7 ) . . McHenr), Renne, v. 8 4 F . 3 dt t 7 2 ( 9 t hC i r . 1 9 9 6 ) . . . . . . Morenov. Sayre, A 1 6 2C a l . p p .3 d 11 6( 1 9 8 4 ) . . Corp., Mortgage Manhattan Nelsonv. Chase ( 2 8 2 F . 3 d1 0 5 7 9 t hc i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . . . . . . v. North StarInternational ArizonaCorp.Commission, 7 2 0F . 2 ds 7 8( 9 t hc i r . 1 9 8 3 ) . . . . . . . . Co. & Telegraph Telegraph v. City of Lodi, Pacif-rc 5 8 C a l .A p p .2 d 8 8 8( 1 9 4 3 ) . . . . .

..--.-.....-....-.r4

....'.......'...8

12 13 l4 l5 l6
17 l8 t9 20

...............-..22

.............19

....-.........s

-......---.-..-.-22

v. 2 1 Parks Sch.of Business Symington,
22

( s l F . 3 d1 4 8 0 9 t hC i r . 1 9 9 5 ) . . . . . . .

...............s

of Poftenv. Universit), SanFrancisco, A 6 4 C a t . p p .3 d 8 2 s( 1 9 6 4 ) . . . . . 24
2 5 Potter Firestone Tire & RubberCo., v. 6 C a l .4 t h9 6 s( 1 9 9 3 ) 26 27

.......-..-..-...r2

........-......21

Court, v. DigestAssociation Superior Reader's 28 ( 3 7 C a l . 3 d 2 4 41 9 8 4 ) . . . . .

..........13

VI

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:9662

I 2
-)
a

Inc., v. Shuhnan GroupW Products. (1998) l8Cal.4th200 Inc., Dynamics, Inc.,v. Crystal SiliconKnights. ( 9 8 3F . S u p p .1 3 0 3 N . D .C a l . 1 9 9 7 ) v. Inc., Solano Playgirl. ( 2 9 2 F. 3 d 1 0 7 8 9 t hC i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . . . . . .

.......11,12

4 5
o 7 8 ()

..t6-17

............13

LLC. v. Securities. Sollberger Wachovia AG (ANx),2010U.S.Dist. LEXIS 66233 No. SACV 09-766 . . . . ' . . . .B , I 2 7 ( C . D .C a l .J u n e 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . 3

v. Warriors, Sprewell GoldenState 1l 2 6 6F. 3 d9 7 9( 9 t hC i r .2 0 0 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t2
1 a

10

.....6,9

I J

v. Starr Baca, - - F . 3 d- - , 2 0 1I U . S .D i s t .L E X I S 1 5 2 8 3 9 t hC i r . J u l y2 5 , 2 0 1 1 ) ' . . . . . . . . 1 0 (

l4

VPC.LLC v. Power, Telesaurus 623 F.3d998 (9th Cir.20l0) cerI.denied,, l6 2 0 l l U . S . D i s t . L E X I S 6 8 8 9 ( U . S . O c 2.0 I,I ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t 3
l5

........6

Mining Councilv. Watt, Western l8 6 4 3F . 2 d6 1 8( g t hC i r . 1 9 8 1 ) . . . . . . . .
l!) 20 2l 22 23

tl

....'..........s

STATUTES C a l .C i v . C o d e\ 4 4 - 4 6 C a l .C i v .C o d e$ 1 7 9 8 . 3 ( b ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '1 6 . .....14 1 4 ,1 9 .....20 ......20 ....21

21 C a l .C i v . C o d e$ 1 7 9 8 . 5 3 25 26 27

C a lC i v .C o d e$ 1 7 9 8 . 8 0 ( " ) . . . . . . . . . . . C a l .C i v .C o d e$ l 7 9 8 . 8 l. . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 8 C a l .C i v . C o d e 1 7 9 8 . 8 2 $

vll

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:9663

I 2
-)

C a lC i v .C o d e$ 1 7 9 8 . 8 3 .
C a lC i v . C o d e . 1 7 9 8 . 8 4 ( c ) $ Cal Civ. Code. 1 7 9 8 . 8 5 C a lC i v . C o d e . 1 7 9 8 . 8 5 ( a X l ) $ C a l .E v i d .C o d e$ 6 4 6 ( b )

16, 0 2

t6
. . . . . .5 11 6 ,7 9 .,

4 5
() 7 8 9 l0 1l 12
1 a I J

.....22

l4 l5 l6
1 1 t t

l8 l9 20 2l 22 23
-)l

l 5 U . S . C .l 6 8 l o $

l8

-+

25 26 27 28

vlll

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:9664

I 2
-)

TO THE,COIJRT.ALL PARTIESAND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: or 19, PLEASETAKE NOTICEthaton December 207l, at 10:00&.ffi., as Andrew J. as soonthereafter this mattermay be heardbeforethe Honorable Ana, Santa at courl located 411WestFourthStreet, Guilfbrdof the above-entitled Information DaylightChemical Coufiroom10D,defendant Califbrnia92701, doesmovethis Courl for will andhereby Inc., Systerns, havinggoodcause, to Lisa Liberi et al., pursuant Federal filed by Plaintiffs of dismissal the Complaint 8, Rules Civil Procedure 9, and 12(bX6)on the followinggrounds: of (a) required requirements the of All causes actionfail to satisfy pleading

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lt

by Fed.R. Civ. P. B, andas setforth in Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 129S. Ct. 1937,194950, 173L. Ed. 2d 868(2009)andBell Atl. Corp.v. Twombly,550U.S.544,555 (2007\, (b) with Plaintiffs'claimsfail to state To the extentit is alleged,

t2
l a l-)

l4 t5 l6 t7 18 19 20 2l 22

fraudin violationof Fed.R. Civ. P. 9(b); constituting parlicr,rlarity circurnstances and (.) to pursuant a Failureto state claim uponwhich reliefcan be granted

F e d .R . C i v . P . 1 2 ( b X 6 ) . uponthis Noticeof Motion andMotion, This Motion is andwill be based on and the of the Melnorandum PointsandAuthorities, pleadings papers file of all herein, othermatters whichthe Courtmay takejudicial noticeanduponsuch

at materialas may be presented or beforethe hearingof this 2 3 otheror further
2 4 matter. 25
,,()

to pursuant Local of This motion is madefollowing the conference counsel 23,2011. Rule7-3 whichtook placeon September

27 28

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:9665

I 2 3 4 5 o 7 8 9 l0
ll

PRYOR CASHMAN LLP

D a t e d :O c t o b e r I , 2 0 1 |

By:

/ s / M i c h a e lJ . N i b o r s k i

MichaelJ. Niborski com mni borski@pryor cashman. 1801CenturyParkEast,24th Floor Los Angeles,CA 90067-2302 Fax:3 101556-9670 Tel: 3 10/556-9608 Tom J. Ferber an. tferber@pryorcashm com RossM. Bagley c ash rb agley @pryorc man. om PRYORCASHMAN LLP 7 TimesSquare New York,New York 10036-6569 Tel 2121326-0188Fax: 2121798-6382 Attorneysfor Defendant Daylight I ChemicalInformation Systems,nc.

12 l3 l4 15 l6

t7
l8 l9 20 21 22
aa

:-)

24 25
,o

27 28

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:9666

I 2
J

MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION
("DCI S") respectful ly Def-endant Dayli ght ChemicalInformationSystems in of of subrnits Mernorandum PointsandAuthorities support its motion, this it against in all pursuant Rules8, 9(b) and 12(bX6), dismiss claimsasserled to to ("FAC"). the FirstArnended Cornplaint Philip This actionspringsfrom an "intra-BirtherMovement"feud between J. Berg("Berg") and Orly Taitzwhich hasnothingto do with DCIS. Former as and YosefTaitz,the President CEO of DCIS, was named a defendant defbndant hirn weredismissed in in the originalcornplaint this actionandall claimsagainst pursuant a stipulation orderfiled May 28,2009(the "2009Order"). Dkt. and to

4 5 o 7 8 9 l0 ll

provided that YosefTaitzcouldbe re-joined 1 2 329-7. The 2009Orderspecifically
l3 l4

only asa dcf-endant upona findingby the Court"that Plaintiffshaveestablished him. Id. After this claim" against a to sufflcient support cognizable evidence they theyweremaking, of the notwithstanding utterimplausibility the allegations theydid not and into the case.They did so in violationof the 2009Orderbecause to required justify haulingMr. Taitz clearlycouldnot offer the Courtthe evidence that hasnothingto do with him. Also skirmish backinto a politicallymotivated of to "wide net" approach the inclusion parties in caught Plaintiffs'inexcusable who havenothingto do with this skirmishareReedElsevier,Inc., Oracle with which YosefTaitz is Inc.,andDCIS,the company Intelius, Corporation, Thus Plaintiffs,ignoringboth the letterand the spirit of the 2009Order, afl-rliated. in violatedit not only by namingYosefTaitzasa defendant the FAC, but alsoby to atternpting makean end run aroundthat orderby draggingin his company, or DCIS,withoutany plausible goodfaith basis.

filed the FAC in which, PlaintifTs to 1 5 actionwas transf-erred this Court,,
l6

in to 1 7 sought casttheir net as widely aspossible, an effort to bring YosefTaitz back
l8 l9 20 21 22 :) 24 25 ,o 27 28

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:9667

I 2
J A

him to granted recently YosefTaitz'smotionto dismiss dismiss The Cour-t violationof the 2009Order. Dkt. 358.' of from the casebecause Plaintiffs'blatant in Yosef Taitz engaged alleges that formerdefendant The FAC - which repeatedly certainacts"through" DCIS (see,e.g.,FAC at fltll 79-186)- tries to dragin DCIS the to as a def-endant a "secondbite at the apple"approach asserting nowas that submitted Plaintiffs' YosefTaitz. It is respectfully dismissed claimsagainst of to efTorts eludethe proscription the 2009Ordershouldbe rejected transparent DCIS shouldalsobe dismissed. andthatthe claimsasainst A. The Parties at PlaintiffLisa Liberi ("Liberi"),u paralegal The Law Officesof PhilipJ. plead20 claimsin all, 12 of ("Ostella") Berg("BergLaw Firm"), andLisa Ostella the in of Ostella f-rve the claims,-'and BergLaw Firm and Go ExcelGlobal("Go andBergfor threeof the claims.a Excel")join Liberi,Ostella Niguel, officesin Laguna with corporate DCIS is a privatelyheldcompany

a

5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll

Bergjoins Liberi and otherdefendants.' 1 2 which lump DCIS in with numerous
1 a l-)

l4 15

and YosefTaitz is the president formerdefendant 1 6 Califbrnia.As notedabove, uponwildly DCIS arebased 1 7 CEO of DCIS (FAC atJ[27). All claimsconcerning YosefTaitz usedDCIS technology that allegations formerdefendant 1 8 irnplausible
l9 20 21 22 /-)
a/1
L+

information. personal identifying Plaintifl-s' to acquire

25 26 27 28

' Pursuant Federal for dismissal 41(b),the involuntary Rule of Civil Procedure to on as "operates an adjudication the merits." failureto cornplywith the stipulation F e d . . C i v .P . 4 1 ( b ) . R t 9 6 C l u i l n 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , , 8 , g , 1 4 , 1 7 , 1 8 , 1a n d 2 0 . t

t C l a i - r 1 , 2 , 3 , 8a n d9 . t Cluir't-rr B and 9. 3,

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:9668

I 2 3 4 5
b

B.

The Complaint

19 20 FAC The 17}-page,423-paragraph alleges claimsagainst defendants. to irrelevant DCIS,but it is are Most of the FAC's allegations completely amonga claims, included the majorityof Plaintiffs'scattershot in nonetheless Inc., Inc.,Intelius, ReedElsevier, including groupof otherunrelated defendants, andOracleCorporation. privateidentiffinginformation (l) The FAC alleges thatPlaintiffs'accurate Orly Taitz and (2) that Orly Taitz spread was postedon the internetby defendant .) 69, 156,257,285-287 media. (FAC fllT throughvarious liesaboutPlaintiff-s Court in Supreme to her to ref-usal sponsor admission the bar of the United States as ineligibleto be President.(FAC fl 33.) Plaintiffsallegetwo theories therefbre Plaintiffs' identifyinginformation. to how Orly Taitz obtained private Liberi and Ostella's First,PlaintiffsallegeOrly Taitzobtained

7 8 9

for these actsin retaliation Plaintiff-s' allegethat Orly Taitzcommitted t 0 Plaintiffs
ll

and is to 1 2 her crusade prove that BarackObamawas not born in the United States
l3 t4 l5

Firm,Inc., the agency, Sankey througha privatedetective infbrmation 1 6 identifying and Intelius. (FAC ul] 31, 66to Firm's subscription LexisNexis 1 7 andthe Sankey
l8

Firm,Todd the 69, 135,220, 257)("[Orly] TaitzhiredNeil Sankey, Sankey

of the [nc. Investigations, to conduct illegalsearches Plaintiffs and Sankey 1 9 Sankey thatthis is how she privatedata"). Orly Taitzhasadmitted 2 0 Liberi andOstella's of Plaintiffs'privateinformation.(Seemotionto dismiss Law Officesof 2 1 obtained
22
af L)

("Orly TaitzAdmissions"). 9:6-10) Orly Taitz,Dkt. 376, atpp.7:14-18, Plaintiffsalso allegethat the informationcameto Orly Taitz throughher in Yosef Taitz,via softwareincorporated computer formerdefendant husband, that (FAC lTlT 176-183.)Plaintiffsbaldlyallege Inteliusin their businesses.

",| l L1

and are which allegedly usedby LexisNexis servers, Oracle's 2 5 manufacturer
'()

any YosefTaitzto access formerdefendant enabled 2 7 DCIS'stechnology,DayCart, in anywhere the world on an Oracleserveras a resultof an alleged 2 8 computer

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:9669

l 2
-)
a

allegethat with Oracleand ReedElsevier.(Plaintiffsalternatively "paftnership" (See and intentional.) was InteliusandReed'scooperation bothnegligent Oracle, 408).r FAC !T,tT I 81-1 82, 356-363, 179, YosefTaitz,"through"DCIS,then Plaintiffsallegethat formerdefendant 181, it with Orly Taitz,who published widely.(FAC fl'lT shared this information to this that 303.) Thereis no allegation YosefTaitzdistributed information anvonebut Orlv Taitz. or that the informationwas false. Id. Thereis no to as fbr explanation how DCIS the company, opposed Yosef Taitz the individual

/1

5 o 7 8 9

Yosef Taitz's wife Orly this informationwith formerdefendant shared defendant, fbr l 0 Taitz. Thereis no explanation why DCIS - a companythat fbr the last25 advanced, innovativesoftwareto handlechemical 1 l yearshasdeveloped
t2
I r I J

usingOracle database everycomputer infbrmation would seekto access products why one would developa "backdoor"in DayCartwhen,by Plaintiffs' or else Firm (or anyone to wasavailable the Sankey the own allegations, infbrmation

lrl

andIntelius to througha meresubscription the LexisNexis 1 5 fbr thatmatter)
l6

(FAC l]lJ66-70,156.) Finally,andcriticallyfor rnanyof Plaintiflb' services.

lies linking DCIS to the alleged whatsoever claims, thereis no allegation 1 7 jurnbled andradioand elsewhere. spread the internet on 1 8 Orly Taitz purportedly
l9 20 2l 22
a-)

24 25 26 27 28

' In theirmotionto dismiss, Inc., Risk Solutions Inc.,LexisNexis Reed Elsevier also Defendants") note the'oReed Inc. (collectively Risk Assets andLexisNexis and of the outlandishness Plaintiffs' theory:"Plaintiffsalso makethe convoluted a Yosef Taitz caused software contention that defendant utterlyimplausible 'back door' into everyOracle with which he is involvedto build a secret company from in database the world,andthat YosefTaitzusedthis'back door'to gather Moreover, dataaboutplaintiffs." (Dkt. 381 P. 10:23-26.) someReedDefendant DocketNo. 380-1,"On April 12,2009, motionto dismiss, in as stated Intelius's 'background on check' search the name a [Orly] Tattzpurchased public records 'Lisa Liberi' throughIntelius." (Dkt. 380-I NelsonDecl., 5 andEx. 1 in , fl supporl Inteliusmotion.) of

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 16 of 34 Page ID #:9670

I 2
-) 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2
l a l-)

ARGUMENT
STANDARDS set thata complaint forth a 8(aX2)requires Federal Rule of Civil Procedure of sufficientto notify defendant the factsallegedagainst shortand plain statement factualallegations is to it and showthat the pleader entitled relief. While detailed the-defendantRule 8 "demands morethan an unadorned, arenot required, Ashcroftv. Iqbal 129S. Ct. 1937,1940, accusation." unlawfully-harmed-me , 550 1949,113L. Ed.2d 868,883(U.S.2009)(citingBell Atl. Corp.v. Twombly, mustbe to U.S.544,555 (2007)).Pursuant Rule8(dXl), "[e]achallegation to is the and simple, concise, direct." [f the claimis fraudbased, pleading subject pursuant Rule 9(b). to of a higherstandard particularity whenits shouldbe dismissed to Pursuant Rule l2(bX6),a complaint 720 are allegations legallyinsufficient.North StarInt'l v. ArizonaCorp.Qamrn-n, of as may be dismissed a matter law F.2d578,5BI (gth Cir. 1983)."A complaint Corp.,806 F. theory." Kacludisv. GTE SprintCommunications a cognizable omitted).While the courlmustview all Supp.866,870 (N.D. Cal. 1992)(citation party, to fact in the light mostf-avorable the non-moving of allegations material a 51 Parks Sch.of Bus.v. Slzmington, F.3d 1480,1484(9th Cir. 1995), courtneed they arecastin the form merelybecause the not "assume truth of legalconclusions Mining Councilv. Watt,643 F.2d 618,624 (9th Western of fbctualallegations." C i r .1 9 8 1 ) .

l4

factsunder (l) legaltheoryor (2) insufficient 1 5 for two reasons: lack of a cognizable
l6 tl l8 l9 )n 2l 22 /-)

that articulated "a complaint the Courthasrecently Moreover, Supreme 'statea claim to relief as accepted true,to 2 4 mustcontainsufficientfactualmatter,
25 26 27 28

L.Ed.2d at 884 on thatis plausible its face"' Iqbal,129S. Ct. at 1949,173 whenthe (quoting Twombly,550 u.S. at 570). "A claimhasfacialplausibility plaintiff pleadsfactualcontentthat allowsthe courtto draw the reasonable Id. misconduct." at 1949,173 is inference the defendant liablefor the alleged that

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 17 of 34 Page ID #:9671

1 2 3 4

"ft]hreadbare recitalsof the elements L. Ed. 2d at 884. A court shouldnot accept id., statements," or supported mereconclusory by of a cause action'selements, of or of "allegations deductions fact,, unwarranted that are merelyconclusory, F.3d979,988 v. Warriors,266 inferences." unreasonable Sprewell GoldenState possibility (9th Cir. 2001 The l2(bX6) standard "morethana sheer thusrequires ).

o 7

has thata defendant actedunlawfully" Iqbal, 129S. Ct. at 1949,173L. Ed.2d at where be should dismissed BB4, citingTwombly,550 U.S.at 557,anda complaint level." do the factualallegations not raisethe "right to reliefabovethe speculative B e l lA t l a n t i c1 2 7S . C t .a t 1 9 6 5 . , Finally,"[a] districtcourtmay denya plaintiff leaveto amendif it pleading with the challenged of that deterrnines allegation otherfactsconsistent

u
9 l0 l1

... curethe deficiency or if the plaintiff had several t 2 couldnot possibly
t a I J

failedto curedeficiencies." and to opportunities amendits complaint repeatedly F.3d998, 1003(gth Cir.2010)cert.denied, Telesar-rrus LLC v. Power,623 VPC. & citation quotations 3, 20l l U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6889(U.S.Oct. 2011)(internal v. Conder v. ornitted); alsoJackson Carey see ,353 F.3d750,758 (9thCir. 2003); J.). (C. 2d Horne Sav.of Am., 680 F. Supp. 1168 D. Cal.2010)(Guilfbrd, POINT I THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT SATISFY THE RULE 8 STANDARD with its it The FAC is not short;to the contrary, is a prolix in the extreme a DCIS, includes randomcollection against the includingin particular allegations

l4 l5 l6
1 a

t /

l8 l9 20

indeedmuchof it, It with 423 paragraphs. is not a plain statement; 2 1 172 pages
22

It to which Plaintiffs not evenattempt elucidate. is do 2 3 of technicaljargon
"ln /-+

"Defendants" for to repetitive and attempts lay blameupona group of unrelated

to drafted notify DCIS of the 2 5 singleacts. And, mostcritically,it is not sufficiently Rules,or to comportwith the notice 2 6 factsallegedagainstit, to satisfythe Federal of 2 7 requirement due process.
28

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 18 of 34 Page ID #:9672

I

in As pointedout by the ReedDefendants their motion to dismissthe FAC,

as are 2 defendants generallylumpedtogether a group in Plaintiffs' allegations. at of 3 (Dkt. 381, Memorandum PointsandAuthorities p. 5:8-2I.) DCIS is not even
4

it. third,fifth or sixth claimsagainst This lack of in identified Plaintiffs'second, with the fact that cerlainclaimsarealleged to specificreference DCIS, together to makeit impossible determine "eachand everydefendant separately,," ... against DCIS. (FAC n1|240, against to intended be alleged which claimswereactually Rule 8's jumbleof allegations thusdoesnot satisfy 249.) The FAC's convoluted

o 7 8 9

LLC, No. SACV 09-766 Secs. v. pleading standard.SeeSollberger Wachovia 3 . , * 1 1 ( C . D . C a lJ u n e 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) 1 0 A G ( A N x \ , 2 0 1 0U . S .D i s t .L E X I S 6 6 2 3 3a t
l1

through together weregrouped claimswheredefendants (Guilfbrd,J.) (dismissing 'Defendants"'and wasproductof a "shotgun complaint t 2 useof the "omnibusterm
l a

I J

massof allegations with an unclear defendants pleading" stylewhich "overwhelm to responses to for andmakeit difficult or impossible defendants makeinfbrmed 251 citingMasonv. Countyof Orange, F.R.D.562, allegations") theplaintiff's are cases pledclearly that,unless teaches (C.D.Cal.2008)("experience 563-64 in confidence suffer,and societyloses the unmanageable, litigants docketbecomes are the of In furtherderogation Rule 8(dXl )'s language, FAC's allegations and and and but anything "simple,concise, direct." They areconvoluted rambling Plaintiffs For "plain statements." example, resembling to utterlyf-ail useanything that: allegations makethe opaque o DCIS makes "applications" which include"toolkits"which are"built applicational of into the design Oracle"andallow "for remote and injectionattacks" crosssite scripting,remoteinterface execution, ( F A Cl l 1 7 8 . )

l4 l5 l6

the is issues notjoined,discovery not controlled, trial court's are t 1 andprecisely,
l8

justice."). abilityto administer 1 9 thecourt's
20 2l 22

24 25 _o 27 28

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 19 of 34 Page ID #:9673

1 2
J

o "As a resultof the design OracleandDaylightCIS' toolkit based of Yosef Taitz throughDaylight CIS hastop applications, architecture in server;and/ordatabase which Oracle to useraccess any computer, products located."(FAC 'll 180.) are DaylightCIS o o'Defendant Yosef Taitzthroughhis Corporation, Daylight Toolkits for dual purposeintent. The Daylight created through design.Oracleis scripted, are applications partof Oracle's all to the useof DaylightApplications interface information, on stored Oracleservers, includingbut not limitedto all information backto Defendant log-in detailsand otherprivate data, all customer (FAC fl 304.) Taitz'sand DaylightCIS's remoteservers." opaque are allegations vague, these because The FAC shouldbe dismissed if that and confused redundant its true substance, any,is well and"so verbose, PoliceDep't,530F.3d I 124,1131 v. Hearns SanBernardino See disguised." e.g., 84 SeeMcHenryv. Renne, F.3d omitted); (9th Cir. 2008)(citations quotations & but a labeled complaint writtenmore ("fs]omething (9th Cir. 1996) 1172, l17B-79

T

/

5 6 7 8 I l0 ll 12
l a

I J

l4 l5 l6

and conciseness clarityas detail,yet withoutsimplicity, 1 7 as ... prolix in evidentiary
1 8 to whornplaintiffs are suingfor what wrongs,fails to performthe essential l9 20 2l

and on unfairburdens litigants judges."). and"impose[s] of functions a complaint" DCIS. Id. at of basisfor dismissal the claimsagainst Rule B is an independent

U v c v l l 7 9 ; c h a m b e r s . L o sA n g e l e s o . , N o . c v 0 9 - 3 9 1 9 B F ( P L A ) , 2 0 1 0 . S . U. S t 2 2 D i s t .L E X I S3 4 8 1 2 , a * 9 ( C . D .C a l .M a r .5 , 2 0 1 0 ) ; o l l b e r g e r , 2 0 1 0 S .D i s t . , /-) L E X I S6 6 2 3 3 a t * 1 3 .
.\/
ia

25
'()

27 28

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 20 of 34 Page ID #:9674

I 2
J

POINT II THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DCIS ARE IMPLAUSIBLE AND/OR FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM A. Plaintiffs PremiseTwelve Claims Upon A SingleUtterlv ImplausibleSet Of Facts

a

n

6 7 8 9

theory- that former far-f-etched as The Court neednot accept true PlaintifTs' all Yosef Taitz was able,throughDCIS, to access the informationon defbndant entirelyuponconclusory This theoryis based usingOracleservers. any computer of deductions fact" to and allegations, seeks havethis Courl make"unwarranted Sprewell allegations. gibberish baldconclusory or technical ,266 F.3dat 988. is their claimthat DCIS software Plaintiffsallegeno factssupporting Inc.,defendants products, thatthe Reedand Intelius, or in incorporated Oracle's describing Thereis no allegation (FAC lTfl 171,176-179.) products. usethose to begins explainhow or why DCIS - an which evenrernotely allegation a information would develop with chemical that deals company established why Orly Taitz would not simplyobtainthis explaining Thereis no allegation scheme andpatentlyimplausible over-blown this absurd would needto conduct information.'Thet" is no allegation merelyto obtainPlaintiffs'identifying to gaveinformation Orly Yosef Taitz supposedly how formerdefendant regarding "through DaylightCIS," and not simply in his role as her husband. Taitz,his wif-e,

and from the FAC's mix of confusing highly inferences" 1 0 and"draw unreasonable
ll 12 l3 l4

usesit. Thereis no doesor why Oracleallegedly 1 5 what DCIS technology
l6

the across world. computers access that r 8 tecl-rnology would allow it to secretly
l9

Yosef Taitz why formerdefendant Firm or, therefore, 2 0 infbnnationfiorn the Sankey
2l 22

aA -+

director, by no 2 5 (FAC fl 303.) Plaintiffsallege conduct any DCIS employee, Yosef Tailz, who is handcuffed otherthan formerdefendant or 2 6 engineer manager
27 28

'

SeeOrlv Taitz Admissions.

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 21 of 34 Page ID #:9675

1 2 3 4

simplydo not lay out a plausible The FAC's allegations to everyDCIS allegation. of entitlingthemto the presumption truth. SeeStarrv. Baca,_ factualpredicate ("[f]irst,to at*37 (9thCir. Iuly 25,2011) Dist.LEXIS 15283, F.3d_, 2011lJ.S. in of be entitledto the presumption truth, allegations a complaintor counterclaim of of may not simply recitethe elements a cause action,but must containsufficien party the of allegations underlyingfactsto give fair noticeand to enable opposing that aretakenastrue the to defenditself effbctively. Second, factualallegations to an mustplausiblysuggest entitlement relief, suchthat it is not unfairto require of to the opposingpartyto be subjected the expense discoveryand continued all allegations, of the 12 of Independent Plaintiffs'wildly implausible essential supporling averments DCIS alsofail to allegef-actual claimsagainst elements. POINT III EVERY CLAIM AGAINST DCIS SUFFERSFROM FATAL PLEADING DEFICIENCIES A. Plaintiffs' First Claim, Which Is Actually Three Claimsln ViolationOf Rule 8, ls And CannotWithstandDismissal Conclusorv that allege In the first claim fbr relief,plaintiffsBerg,Liberi and Ostella conduct but waspublished, allegeno specific information theirprivateidentifying of set by DCIS in the paragraphs out for their claim for invasion privacy(seeFAC

o 7 8 9

1 0 litigation."). ll

t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22

within the 2 3 llfl I 87-204). The first legaltheoryfor invasionof privacy subsumed
24 first claim allesesthat therewas a violationof the First andFourteenth

that DCIS is a thereis no allegation This theorymust fail because 2 5 Amendrnenfs.
)A

actorcan violatetheseconstitutional government actor,and only a government

Decisionatp.4 citing Howardv. AmericaOnline 2 7 rightsof privacy. SeeOracle ( 2 8 l n c . ,2 0 8F . 3 d1 4 1 , 7 5 4 9 t hC i r .2 0 0 0 ) .

l0

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 22 of 34 Page ID #:9676

I 2
-)

The secondlegaltheoryPlaintiffspurportto includewithin their first claim right to privacy. For this Constitution's for relief is a violationof the California Plaintiffsmustshow(l) a legallyp a clairnto withstand motionto dismiss, (2) of expectation privacyunderthe circumstances; privacyinterest; a reasonable of invasion privacy. Hill v. a constituting serious by and(3) conduct defendant AthleticAssn. 7 Cal.4thI ,39-40 (1994). National Collegiate , set fail PlaintifTs to adequately forth specificfactsto supporttheir claim that allegation invasion their privacy. The conclusory of a DCIS comrnitted serious Intelius,[nc., Yosef Taitz,DaylightCI and that "The ReedDefendants Defendant

4 5
6 7 8 ()

of actsin violatingeveryaspect the willful andmalicious 1 0 andOraclefconducted] right to be left aloneand the Defendants Plaintiffs' right to privacy,Plaintiff-s' of privacy,"FAC 'tT 198,which is merelya roterecitation of 1 2 invasion Plaintiff-s'
ll

a is to 1 3 this tort's elements' insufficient state claim (Twombl)"550 U'S' at 556 n'3)' the of breach the socialnormsunderlying "an egregious 1 4 anddoesnot allege
t5 l6

privacy right." Hill, 7 Cal.4th at37. to allegations includea potential these Finally,to the extentthe Courtreads

in as uponseclusion stated the 1 7 clairnunderthe commonlaw theoryof intrusion as reasons Plaintiffs'claim underthe this claim fails for the same Decision, 1 8 Oracle Plaintiffshavefailedto allegethatDCIS's and Constitution because 1 9 Califbrnia
20 21 22 /)
''\ /1 :+

YosefTaitzto harvest enabling formerdefendant purporledly conduct, to their injuryor would be highly offensive a reasonable caused infbnnation, ( n p e r s o n S e eS h u h n a v . G r o u pW P r o d s .I.n c . ,1 8C a l .4 t h 2 0 0 , 2 3 2 1 9 9 8 ) . into a privatespace, of (intrusion allegations (l) intrusion claim requires person). to (2) highly offensive a reasonable or conversation matter, in a manner
B. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim for Public Disclosure of Private

25 26 27

pleadingstyle,Liberi, Ostellaand Berg In keepingwith Plaintiffs' shotgun

but makeno 2 8 allegethat their privateidentifyinginformationwas published,

ll

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 23 of 34 Page ID #:9677

I 2
J A T

set to reference DCIS in the paragraphs out for this claim. (FAC fln206-214.)See at Sollberger2011U.S.Dist. LEXIS 66233, * 12,* 13 (notingthat onetypeof , allegations of a pleading "wherethe plaintiffrecites collection general is shotgun every towardthe beginningof the Complaintand then eachcount incorporates pleadingstyle and allegation reference" finding that "[t]his shotgun by antecedent of of Defendants knowing exactlywhat they are accused doing wrong . . . deprives omitted) (internalcitationand quotation andthis defbctalonewarants dismissal") of To pleada claim for publicdisclosure privatefacts,Plaintiffsmustallege

5 6 7 8

() ( I publicdisclosur (2) of a privatefact (3) which would be offensive and e, )

public person and(4) which is not of legitimate to 1 0 objectionable a reasonable "in a 1 1 l concern.Shulman, 8 Cal. 4that 232. This claim requires publicdisclosure of or to of 1 2 the sense communication the public in general to a largenumber
l3 l4 l5 l6

of fiom one individualor a fbw." Porlenv. Universit), persons, distinguished as Cal. SanFrancisco,64 App. 3d 825,828(1964). any that DCIS disclosed no This clairnfails because thereis no allegation Inc. Tribune. , 139Cal.App. 3d I 18, 131 Diazv. Oakland private f-acts anyone, to

t 7 ( 1983),and there is no allegationthat the information was highly offensiveor has

Gill v. CurtisPubl'gCo.,38 Cal.2d273, the limitsof decency" t 8 gone"beyond
l9 20 21 22 23

280( tes2),
C. Plaintiffs' Third Claim For FalseLight DoesNot Allege Anything With Actual That DCIS Disclosed Any Falsehood, Was Highlv Offensive Malice. Or That Anvthing Disclosed join in this claim,whichpurports be against defendants, all to All Plaintiffs

underthe to reference DCIS in the allegations 24 but onceagainthereis no specific all of 2 5 "Third Cause Action." (FAC fltl2l6-225.) Instead, Plaintiffsstickto the theoryon this claim that their privateinformationcameto Orly 2 6 rrore plausible Firm. (FAC tT'\T216,220.) 2 7 Taitzthroughthe Sankey
28

t2

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 24 of 34 Page ID #:9678

I I i

I
1 2 3
+
t

I information] disclosed mustallegethat (1) defendant clairnfor falselight, Plaintiffs (2) a aboutthemthat was actuallyfalseor created falseimpression; one or more highly offensivethat persons found the informationto stateor imply something (3) with to would havea tendency injurePlaintiffs'reputation; DCIS acted were and evidence; (3) Plaintiffs maliceby clearandconvincing constitutional v. at Decision p. 6 citing Solano Playgirl. SeeOracle by damaged the disclosure. F.3d 1078,1082(9th Cir.2002). Lnc.,292 that Plaintiffsmerelyallege of First,thereis no allegation falsehood. "Defbndants Yosef Taitz and Dalight CIS providedall of Plaintiffs' private and other financialdata,family data,birth data, identifyinginformation, personal thattheywere (FAC 1177 Elsewhere the FAC, Plaintiffsallege in .) the Plaintifl-s." of dates numbers, of halned by the dissemination their accurate"social Security courtcaseinformation, data,sealed financial information, driver'slicense reports, names, husband's financial data, information, primary identification photographs, and and identities, names of and numbers dates birth,children's SocialSecurity all Moreover, claimsof . otherprivatedataoutlinedherein.." (FAC 11251.)

The Courl has statedin the OracleDecisionthat in orderto makeout a

5
o

7 8 9 l0
ll

against who usedthe informationto carry out her threats to 1 2 information his wif-e,
l a

I J

l4

credit Plaintiff.smaidennames, names, maiden 1 5 birth,placeof birth,mother's
l6
't '7

Itt l9

are 2 0 f-alsehood confinedto Orly Taitz andthe SankeyFirm. (FAC. 11216-220.) of dissemination accurate this claimon the alleged 2 1 SincePlaintiffsbase
22
aa L)

the inforrnation, sinequa non of a falselight claim is absent. informationfor evenif Reedand Inteliuskept incorrectpersonal Second,

frivoloustheory)was somehow to 2.4 Plaintifl,which (according Plaintiffs'singular, thereis no claim Yosef Taitz usingDCIS software, by 2 5 accessed former defendant for disregard the truth of the information 2 6 that DCIS knew or had a reckless Court,37 DigestAss'n v. Superior provided Orly Taitz. SeeReader's to 2 7 allegedly
2 8 C a l .3 d 2 4 4 .2 5 3 .2 6 5( 1 9 8 4 ) .

1 a I J

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 25 of 34 Page ID #:9679

1 2
-) 4
a

false of that Third,thereis no allegation disclosure this allegedly requisite person,another inforrnation would be highly offensiveto a reasonable Inc. of element a falselight claim. Fellowsv. NationalEnquirer. , 42 Cal.3d234, the 238(1986)("[i]n orderto be actionable, falselight in which the plaintiffis person."). to placed mustbe highly offensive a reasonable

o 7 8 9

claim of Foufth,this falselight claim is duplicative Plaintiffs'defamation reason.McClatchyNewspapers. for andshouldbe dismissed that independent (duplicative falselight Court,I 89 Cal.App. 3d 961,965( 1987) Inc.v. Superior Inc.,74Cal. App Newspapers. v. Eisenberg Alameda be claimshould dismissed); WBS ClinicalLab..Inc.,No. CIV. 3-99-2155 Brooksv. Physicians superfluous);

claimis with defamation (falselight claim coupled 1 0 4th 1359, 1385fn.13( 1999)
ll

46 1 2 DAD, 2000 WL 3365 4 (8.D. Cal.Mar. 20,2000).Finally,Go Excelandthe it this claim because may only be broughtby a 1 3 Berg Law Firm may not state person. l'+ natural
l5 l6 17 18 l9 20 21

D.

Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim, For Violation of the California Information Privacy Act, Must Be Dismissed Cal. Civ. CodeQ 1798.53.

anyone Civil Codeallowsa claimagainst of 1798.53 the California Section public,whichtheyknow not information, otherwise discloses "who intentionally by maintained information from personal know wasobtained or shouldrcasonably

by ... of a'system records' maintained a or agency fiorn'records'within a state as "Agency"is defined ..." Cal.Civ. Code$ 1798.53. agency government 2 2 federal board division,bureau, off-tce, officerdepartment, state "every[Califbrnia] L-)
a i :,+

Cal.Civ. Code$ 1798.3(b). agency..." or cornmission, otherstate it although is anything.Indeed, that Thereis no allegation DCIS disclosed

25

in DCIS is not referenced the 2 6 onceagainlumpedin with "all Defendants," Accordingly,thereis no set 2 7 paragraphs out for this claim. (FAC 11243.) that DCIS knew or shouldhaveknown that any informationallegedly 2 8 allegation

l4

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 26 of 34 Page ID #:9680

I
I

agency, nor disclosed anyoneoriginated by within a stateor federalgovernment doesthe FAC includean allegation that DCIS obtainedany "records"from within a "systemof records"maintained a government agency. SeeJenniferM. v. by the Redwood Women's HealthCtr.,88Cal.App.4th 81,89 (2001)("[o]n its face, of Practices is aimedat barringor limiting the dissemination Information Act personal the information andpreventing misuseof suchinformation confidential - by government that informationwas agencies").The FAC merelyalleges which are from Liberi's creditreports, by obtained and disclosed otherdefendants at not maintained a government by agency.Thereis no allegation all about 242.) identifyinginformation.(FAC 11 Ostella's E. PlaintiffsFail To AllegeA Violation Of The California Information PrivacyAct, Cal. Civ. Code There In S 1798.85, Their Sixth Claim Because Is No AlleeationThat DCIS Publicly DisplayedAnvthine maynot 1), Pursuant California to Civil Code$ I 798.85(aX a person communicate to number.'Publiclypost' or 'publiclydisplay'means intentionally set in Here,again,DCIS is not referenced the paragraphs fbrth for this claim

3 4 5
6

7 8 9 l0
ll

t2 l3
14 l5

social security an postor publiclydisplay anymanner individual's in t 6 "[p]ublicly
l7

public." rnakeavailable the general to I u or otherwise
19

to any that DCIS disseminated information thereis no allegation 2 0 andtherefbre
2l 22

that it was the Sankey Moreover,the FAC alleges anyone.(FAC flfl1248-264.) that to Finn, not DCIS,thatprovidedinformation Orly Taitz andpublished

(SeeFAC 11257) ("[a]ll the privateand primaryidentification 2 3 inforrnation. was outlinedhereinabove of 24 information PlaintiffsLiberi andOstella, published by and promoted Orly Taitz, The Law Officesof Orly 2 5 intentionally Firm throughTodd Sankey the 2 6 Taitz,Orly Tatiz, Inc., DOFF, Neil Sankey, Sankey grossnegligence with reckless and Inc. Investigations, with malice, 2 7 and Sankey PlaintiffsLiberli and Ostella...").The it as 2 8 disregard to the damages would cause

15

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 27 of 34 Page ID #:9681

I 2
J

of in directlyparticipated the illegal access Defendants that "[a]11 bareallegations privateconfidential Liberi andOstella's of anddistribution Plaintiffs this assert (FAC fl 255),andthat"Plaintiffs'Liberi and Ostella inforrnation," do namedherein"(FAC 11249), not satis eachand everyDefendant claim against Ashcroft 129S. Ct. at 1949,173L. Ed. 2d plausibility standard. Rule 12(b)(6)'s ,

4

6 7 8 9

at883-84. Finally,while Plaintiffs' failureto satisfyRule 8 makesit difficult to for to liabilitypursuant $ 1798.84(c) to that it discern, appears theyattempt assert fine However, 1798.8a(c)'s of violation Cal Civ. Code$ 1798.85. an alleged $ Plaintiffs Eighth Claim, For DefamationPer Se, Slanderand Libel Per Se,DoesNot Identify Any False Nor DoesIt AllegeMalice Or Statement Anv Publication. and libel, a plaintiffmust includingslander a To state claim fbr defamation, (3) ( of establishI ) a falsestatement fact;(2) thatis published; of or concerning and injuryto plaintiff s reputation; (5) maliceor fault. Cal. plaintiff (4) causing ; to Yosef Taitz was alleged have First,the infbrmationthat formerdefendant id., was statement disseminated, and surelydo not identifyany that a f-alse allege this clairn. See to required state with the particularity statement suchf-alse 2d F. Supp. ll9B, 1216(C.D.Cal.2004) v. Jacobson Schwarzenegger,35T
("[u]nder California law, althougha plaintiff need not plead the allegedly

here. havenot alleged whichPlaintiffs of only to violations $ 1798.83, 1 0 applies
ll

F.

t2
t a I J

l4 l5 l6

Cal. Gilbertv. S)'kes,147 App. 4th 13,27(2007)' 1 7 Civ. Code$ 44-46;
l8

do to is via 1 9 obtained DCIS technology not alleged be false. Plaintiffs not even
20 2l 22
a1 L)

mustbe statement verbatim,the allegedlydefamatory statement 24 defarnatory of identifiedand the plaintiff mustpleadthe substance the statement. 2 5 specifically 'general of allegations the standards, pleading Evenunderliberalfederal of which do not identifythe substance what was saidare statements' 2 7 defamatory (internal SiliconKnights.Inc..v. Crystal omitted); citations 2 8 insufficient")
,o

t6

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 28 of 34 Page ID #:9682

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I

( F l D y n a m i c s n c . , 9 8 3 . S u p p . 3 0 3 , 3 l 4 ( N . D . C a l .1 9 9 7 ) " T h ew o r d s I. 1 if identified, not plead mustbe specifically constituting libel or slander a (citation& quotations verbatirn.") omitted). by of This claim alsofails because thereis no allegation publication DCIS was that suchdisclosure madewith fault or malice. Indeed, andno allegation DCIS appears againto havebeenimproperlylumpedinto this claim,which is by dissemination falseinformation Orly Taitzandthe of based uponthe alleged weremadeby Neil 286)("The ffalse]postsand statements Firrn. (FAC'1T Sankey and Sankey and throughSankeyInvestigations the SankeyFirm ownedby by of the Law Offlcesof Orly TaitzandasPresident Orly Taitz,Inc.andDOFF,with

1 0 Todd Sankey, Orly Taitz as an Attorneyand Officer of the Court by andthrough ll

thereinand contained of 1 2 knowledge the falseand libelousnatureof the statements in for and disregard the truth."). DCIS engaged no negligence reckless 1 3 with gross
l4 t5 l6

to to actsrelating this claim,and is not alleged havedoneso. G. PlaintiffsNinth Claim.For Intentional Must Fail Infliction Of EmotionalDistress. Plaintiffs distress, inflictionof emotional a To state claim fbr intentional

with the intention by conduct the defendant andoutrageous 1 8 mustshow( l) extrerne distress; emotional of for disregard the probability causing, or 1 9 of causing, reckless
20 21 22
!)

and distress; (3) the emotional (2) the plaintiffsuff-ered severe extreme or caused the def-endant's by andproximately plaintilf s injurieswereactually 65 v. conduct.Cochran Cochran, Cal.App. 4th 488, 494(1998). outrageous in tolerated a of all only if it "exceedfs] bounds that usually is Conduct outrageous outrageous omitted).It can be considered and quotations 1028( 1995)(citations

Court,3l Cal. App. 4th 1023, 24 civilizedcommunity."KOVR-TV. Inc. v. Superior
25

or a abuses relation positionwhich giveshim powerto 2 6 only if ( 1) the defendant knows that the plaintiff is (2) the 2.7 damage plaintiff s interest; the defendant acts or to 2 8 susceptible injuriesthroughmentaldistress; (3) the defendant

l7

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 29 of 34 Page ID #:9683

I 2
J
I

that the actsare likely to result with the recognition or intentionally unreasonably Bank,713F . v. Chaconas JP MorganChase throughmentaldistress. in illness . 8 , S u p p2 d 1 1 8 0 1 1 8 7 - 8( S . D . C a l2 0 1 0 ) . . as be by conduct DCIS which couldpossibly construed Thereis no alleged wit Nor is thereany claim that DCIS had any relationship or extreme outrageous. or to any of the Plaintiffs,knew they were susceptible mentaldistress, that knew was likely privateinformation Plaintiffs'identifying communicating thatallegedly to resultin illness. thereis claim wereplausible, that this outlandish arguendo Even assuming and extreme by of no allegation conduct DCIS which couldbe considered sometechnology that DCIS has inserted allegation and outrageous, the far-fetched 65 injuries.Cochran, Cal.App. 4that of cause Plaintiffs'atleged the proxirnate 494. be Finally,this clairncannot broughtby Go Excelor the Berg Law Firm 22 person.SeealsoFDIC v. Hulsey, it because canonly be broughtby a natural

+

5 o 7 8
O

l0
ll

as is othercomputers not pleaded it which enabled to access 12 into Oracleservers
l3 l4 l5 l6 t7

LLC, No. C-08 v. Kassa BP WestCoastProds.. ( F.3d1472, 1489 lOthCir. 1994); * R 1 8 0 2 7 2 5 M W , 2 0 0 8U . S .D i s t .L E X I S6 1 6 6 8 2 3 ( N . D .C a l .A u g . I l , 2 0 0 8 ) .
l9 20 2l 22
L-)

H.

Plaintiffs' FourteenthClaim, For Non-Compliance With the Fair Credit ReportingAct, 15 U.S.C.S 168lb' FailsTo AllegeThat DCIS Is A ConsumerReporting A AgencvWhich Disclosed ConsumerReport

"consumer Act, I 5 U.S.C.$ 1681 regulates ,r The Fair CreditReporling reports."Arikat v. JP MorganChase who furnish"consumer agencies" reporting

-+

1 l

25 26

' Althoughthis claim is confusingly does in pleaded violationof Rule 8, 1681o 27 not actuallystatean independent claim and merelyprovidesa remedyfor s 2 8 v i o l a t i o no f 1 5 U . S . C . 1 6 8 1 b . $
18

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 30 of 34 Page ID #:9684

I 2
J A T

(N.D. CaL.2006); v. Nelson Chase & Co.,430 F. Srpp.2d 1013,1023-25 Manhattan Mortgage Corp. , ,282 F.3d 1057 1060(gth Cir.2002). that DCIS was a "consumer thereis no allegation This claim fails because report." Davis v. Regional any "consumer reporlingagency"or obtained 2d377,385(E.D.Ya.2002)(claimdismissed Acceptance Corp.,300 F. Supp. reportingagency).Curiously, that plaintiff was a consumer whereno allegation YosefTaitz, that in Plaintiffs allegenegligence this claim,asserling "Defendants the in DaylightCIS and Oraclewerenegligent illegallyscripting DaylightToolkit and on the Applications interface informationmaintained the databases to

5
()

7 8 9

Yosef Taitz and wererunningto Defendants in 1 0 computers which Oracleservers
ll

negligent YosefTaitzand DaylightCIS wereextremely DaylightCIS. Defendants to carryout his As supplied). the against Plaintiffs."(FAC fl358)(emphasis the wifb's threats YosefTaitz,who this is reallya claim against clear, to ref-erence "his wif-e"makes of thereis no explanation how DCIS could In is no longera def-endant. any event, or or unintentionally, how DCIS intentionally unintentionally technology develop to anything Orly Taitz. comrnunicated I. Claim, For Violation of the Plaintiffs' Seventeenth California Information Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code There Is No AllegationThat $ 1798et seq.,Fails Because Or PlaintiffsAre California Residents CustomersOf DCIS violationof Rule 8, this claim doesnot identify egregious In a particularly PrivacyAct any specificlegaltheory,but merelycitesto the wholeInformation

the privatedatathey illegally obtainedwith !!sw!!, 1 2 in sharing
1 a

l4 l5 l6
1 a

t l

l8 t9 20 21 22
L-)

Civil Code. As an initial matterand as notedin the of 2 4 section the California beenindividually havealready and because 1798.53 $ 1798.85 Decision, 2 5 Oracle $ its in 2 6 alleged the FAC in Plaintiffs'Fifth and Sixthclaim,DCIS doesnot repeat here. claimsunderthosesections to 2 7 arsuments disrniss
28

t9

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 31 of 34 Page ID #:9685

I 2 3
A T

that which states "[a] Plaintiffsmay meanto pleada claimunder$ 1798.81, within its records to shalltakeall reasonable steps destroy... customer's business personal andpermitsa California information...," or custody controlcontaining of to resident who is a customer a business suefor disclosure personal of Cal. Civ. Code transaction. gathered connection with a commercial in infbrmation

5

(-) $ 1 7 9 8 . 8 1 . 7 8 9 l0 ll

of Liberi is a resident New Mexico First,as notedin the OracleDecision, may bring andthusneither not of andOstellais a resident New Jersey, California, may not Plaintiffs (FAC 'lTfl 8.) Second, 4, or a claimunder$ 1798.81 $ 1798.82. and only to customers apples that because section pleada claim under$ 1798.83 See wereDCIS customers. Cal Civ. that Liberi or Ostella thereis no allegation a or of "personal for to infbnnation a business the purpose purchasing leasing that Nor is therean allegation from a business."). a productor obtaining service to may be attempting pleada claimunder Finally,to the extentPlaintiffs any to businesses disclose California requiring Civil Code$ 1798.82 Califbrnia to personal information any containing system of breach a computer security

provided who previously (defining"Customer" someone as 1 2 Code$ 1798.80(c)
l3 t4

to any information anythird party. 1 5 DCIS disclosed
t6
1 1 t t

l8

that DCIS thereis no allegation this resident, claimmustfail because 1 9 Califbrnia Plaintiffs' data computerized containing or 2 0 everowned,licensed maintained
2l 22
a L-)

system. of or inforrnation thattherewasevera breach DCIS's security personal J. Plaintiffs' EighteenthClaim, For Violation of Is code Q 17200, Inapplicable and Professions cal. Business Codeprohibits and Business Professions of Section17200 the California practiceallegedto havebeencommittedby DCIS. See unfair or fraudulent

21

act business or practice." Here,therewas no 2 5 "any unlawful,unfair or fraudulent
/o

Inc. v. 2 7 Gregory Albertson's. , 104Cal.App. 4th 845,854(2002)citing Cel-Tech Cellulelfql-Qo.,20 Cal.4th 163(1999); Inc. v. Los Angeles 2 8 Cornmc'ns.

20

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 32 of 34 Page ID #:9686

I 2
-) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l

(2007); Msmt.. Inc.,152Cal. App. 4th 1544,1555 v. Berryrnan Merit Property no 183 Durrellv. SharpHealthcare, Cal.App. 4th 1350,1366(2010). Because and practice beenalleged, claim hasno predicate this has unfairor fraudulent JVS No. Maguca AuroraLoanServs., SA CV 09-1086 v. be should dismissed. *10 (dismissing (ANx), 2009U.S.Dist.LEXIS 104251 (C.D.Cal.Oct.28,2009) claimalsofails on clairnpredicated otherclaims).This vaguefraud-based $ 17200 Khour)'v.Maly's of Cal..Inc.,14Cal.App. standard. Rule9(b)'sparticularity Corp. 136Cal. App. 4th 1255, 4th 612,619( 1993);Bardinv. DaimlerChrysler , | 127 (2006\. as only for restitution relief,KoreaSupplyCo. v. Finally,S17200provides individuals andprivate Marlin Corp. Lockheed ,29 Cal.4thI 134,| 151(2003), thereis no | 2d Ins.Co., 17F. Supp. 1134, 140(S.D.Cal. l99B). Here, Allstate by competition DCIS. injury as a resultof fiaud or unf-air o1'economic allegation Branickv. DowneySav.and LoanAss'n,39 Cal. 4th 235,240(2006);seealso (201I ). Court,5l Cal. 4th 310,323-26 KwiksetCorp.v. Superior K. Claim, For Negligent Ptaintiff s Nineteenth Must Fail Inflictionof Emotionaland Mental Distress. an of Outside the contextof a plaintiffwho witnessed injuryto a close see farnilyrnembcr, Gu v. BMW of NorthAm.. LLC,132 Cal.App. 4th 195',204 distress. inflictionof emotional tort (2005), thereis no independent of negligent Co. Tire & Rubber , 6 Cal. 4th 965,984 (1993). Thus,to make v. Potter Firestone Plaintiffsmustpleadthe distress, inflictionof emotional out a clairnof negligent

practices under$ 17200.Brown v. for seekdamages unfairbusiness t 2 cannot
l a l-)

l4 l5 l6 tl l8 l9 20 21 22
!-)

and causation damages. includingduty,breach, of elements negligence, 24 traditional Props. Cal.App. 4th 120,126(2002). 2 5 Seee.g.,Essv. Eskaton ,97
26

Plaintiffshavefailed to allegethat DCIS owesthem any duty. Indeed,

to causingemotionaldistress another." 2 7 "[t]here is no duty to avoid negligently a hasassumed duty to 2 8 Potter,6 Cal. 4that 984. Thus,"unlessthe defendant

2l

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 33 of 34 Page ID #:9687

I 2 3 4 5 o 7 8 9 t0 ll 12
1 a I-)

plaintiff in which the emotionalconditionof the plaintiff is an object,recoveryis breachof arises of the defendant's out only if the emotionaldistress available by is distress proximatelycaused that someotherlegalduty and the emotional by by breach duty." Id. at 985. A legalduty may be imposed law, be assumed of which is clearlyrelatedto relationship or the defendant, exist by virtue of a special well-being,Gu, 132 Cal.App. 4that207, or the plaintiff s mentalor emotional (1999).No such Erlichv. Menezes,2lCal.4th543,559 personal relationships. thereis no duty is (or couldbe) alleged.In addition, relationship independent or by breach DCIS. of allegations unintentional coherent L. Plaintiffs TwentiethClaim, For ResIpsa Zaazilor. ls Not Legallv Cognizable res because ipsaloquitoris not a legally This claim fails Rule 12(b)(6) which allowsthe ipsaloquitoris a rule of evidence claim. Res cognizable was of sucha or plaintiff, in the absence directproof,to arguethat an accident naturethat the injury was moreprobablythannot the resultof the defendant's ; re v 0 G n e g l i g e n c e . i c k i n g . K i m b e r l i n , 1 7 C a l .A p p .3 d 7 3 , 7 5 ( 1 9 8 5 )P a c i f - Tc l .& i ( T e l .C o .v . C i t y o f L o d i , 5 8C a l .A p p . 2 d8 8 8 , 8 9 5 1 9 4 3 ) ( " r e sp s al o q u i t u r r u l e but of liability in the absence negligence law is not a rule of substantive imposing in of giving riseto an inference negligence ceftaincases"); is a rule of evidence Plaintiffs of Cal. Evid.Code$ 646(b). To takeadvantage this rule of evidence, wasof a kind which ordinarilydoesnot occurin that ( 1) the accident mustallege or by was caused an agency ce, negligen (2) the accident of the absence someone's and controlof the defendant, (3) the accident within the exclusive instrurnentality mustnot havebeendue to any voluntaryactionor contributionon the part of the incorrectlypleadedin violationof Rule 8 Takenas a claim for negligence,

l4 l5 l6
1'7

l8 l9 20 21 22 :-)
_+
a l

( v C M 2 5 p l a i n t i f f - . o r e n o . S a y r e , I 6 2 a l .A p p .3 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 3 1 9 8 4 ) .
26

this distress, inflictionof emotional of 2 7 andduplicative their claim for negligent claim. In addition,thereis no 2 8 claim must fail alone with Plaintiffs' nineteenth

22

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 34 of 34 Page ID #:9688

I

allegation that any privateinformationwas within DCIS's exclusivecontrol;to th

2 contrary,Plaintiffsspecifically allegethat it was within Reedand lntelius's 3 exclusive control.
4 5 o 7 8 9 l0 l1

CONCLUSION the to known only to Plaintiffs,they haveattempted expand For reasons politically-based and battles between themselves Orly Taitzto a numberof As in includingDCIS,which haveno role or interest their differences. entities, FAC Plaintiffs'prolix, scattershot the Courtnotedin the OracleDecision, attemptto do indirectly "threatens spiralout of control." Plaintiffs' transparent to DCIS as attacks against baseless that which they cannotdo directly- i.e.,to assert YosefTaitz- shouldbe rejected.All of fbr a substitute fbrmerdefendant

of DCIS fail to meetthe standards Rules8 and l2(bX6). 1 2 Plaintiffs'claimsagainst
l3 t4 15 l6 t7 18 19 20
11

the requests that the Court dismiss DCIS therefore respectfully Def-endant andwith prejudice. withoutleaveto amend Cornplaint PRYOR CASHMAN LLP

/s/ Michael J. Ittiborski

MichaelJ. Niborski I801 CenturyParkEast,24thFloor Los Angeles,CA 90067-2302 m com mni borsk i @pryor cash an. Tom J. Ferber 7 TimesSquare New York, New York 10036-6569 com tferber @pryorcashman. Attorneys Defendants for Inc. Davlisht Chemical Information S stems,

22

24 2.5 26 27 28