Case Numbers: 11-56079 and 11-56164

(Consolidated February 3, 2012)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
________________________________
LISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs/Appellees
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, DEFEND OUR
FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., et al,
Defendants/Appellants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:


On Appeal from the United States District Court,
Central District of California, Southern Division
Case No. 8:11-cv-00485
Honorable Andrew Guilford
APPELLEES REPLY TO APPELLANT ORLY TAITZ’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES MOTION TO STRIKE, FOR SANCTIONS,
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA Bar No. 09867)
Law Offices of Philip J. Berg
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Ph: (610) 825-3134
Attorney for Appellees Lisa Liberi, Lisa
Ostella, Go Excel Global, Philip J. Berg,
Esquire and the Law Offices of Philip J.
Berg
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 1 of 16
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….......i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…..………………………………………………...ii-v
I. INSTEAD of ADDRESSING the ISSUES in
APPELLEES MOTION, TAITZ USES THEIR
OPPOSITION to FURTHER LITIGATE THEIR
ISSUES on APPEAL…………………………….......................................1-3
II. APPELLATE COURTS ONLY CONSIDER the
RECORD BEFORE the DISTRICT COURT on
APPEAL…………………………………………………………………..3-6
III. THE COURT ORDERED a CONSOLIDATED
REPLY BRIEF, if a REPLY was FILED…………………………………6-8
IV. SANCTIONS AGAINST JEFFREY CUNNINGHAM,
ESQUIRE and his CLIENT, ORLY TAITZ, ESQUIRE
are WARRANTED………………………………………………………8-10
V. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………............10
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 2 of 16
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. United States,
B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept.,
276 F.3d 1091, 1107-08 (9
th
Cir. 2002)…………………………………………….9
Carrigan v. Cal. State Legislature,
263 F.2d 560, 564 (9th Cir. 1959)………………………………………………….8
Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist.,
Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003)…………………………………………...3
Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1990)……………………...3
Estate of Blas, 792 F.2d 858, 860 (9th Cir. 1986)……………………………….....9
Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010)……………………………3
Greensprings Baptist Christian Fellowship Trust v. Cilley,
629 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2010)……………………………………………………….1
In re BioLase Tech. Sec. Litig.,
No. 04-947 DOC (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2003)………………………………………..6
th
Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 887 (9
th
Cir. 2002)………………...5
376 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2004)……………………………………………………....10
237 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001)……………………………………………….6
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-50 (1991)……………………………....9
Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2001)……………………………...9
In re Lehtinen, 564 F.3d 1052, 1061 n.4 (9 Cir. 2009)…………………………...9
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 3 of 16
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
Cases Page(s)
Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. Of America,
842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9
th
Cir.1988)……………………………………………...4, 6
Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts,
370 F.3d 837, 843 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)………………………………………….......3
MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle,
457 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2006)……………………………………………….5
New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow,
869 F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir. 1989)……………………………………………….9
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9
th
Cir. 2009)…………………………..5
Panawiew Door v. Window Co. v. Reynolds Metal Co.,
255 F.2d 920, 922 (9
th
Cir. 1958)…………………………………………………..4
Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc.,
140 F.3d. 1313, 1321 (9th Cir. 1998)………………………………………………6
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.34d 1045, 1052 (9
th
Cir. 1999)……………………………..5
United States v. $22,474.00 in U.S. Currency,
246 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9
th
Cir. 2001)………………………………………………..4
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9
th
Cir. 1990)…………………………..5
United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 614 n.2 (9
th
Cir. 2003)…………………..3
Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Comms. Co.,
377 F.3d 1081 (9
th
Cir. 2004)………………………………………………………1
Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003)………………………..2, 3
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 4 of 16
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
Cases Page(s)
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
317 F.3d 1097 (9
th
Cir. 2003)……………………………………………………….1
Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn, Inc., (1979) 443 U.S. 157,
Yagman v. Republic Ins. Co.
987 F.2d 622, 626, fn 3 (9
th
Cir. 1993)……………………………………………..5
Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English,
42 F.3d 1217, 1221, n. 3 (9
th
Cir. 1994)……………………………………………4
FEDERAL STATUTES
Page(s)
28 U.S.C. §1927……………………………………………………………...........9
FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Page(s)
Rule 10(e)…………………………………………………………………………..5
Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(ii)……………………………………………………………...7, 8
167, 99 S.Ct. 2701, 2707, 61 L.Ed.2d 450………………………………………….2
Rule 10(a)…………………………………………………………………………..6
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 5 of 16
v
NINTH CIRCUIT LOCAL RULES
Page(s)
Rule 30-2…………………………………………………………………………...8
Rule 30-1…………………………………………………………………………...8
Rule 30-1.8(a)……………………………………………………………………....3
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 6 of 16
1
APPELLEES REPLY to APPELLANT ORLY TAITZ’S OPPOSITION to
APPELLEES MOTION to STRIKE
Appellees Lisa Liberi [“Liberi”], Lisa Ostella [“Ostella”], Go Excel Global,
Philip J. Berg, Esquire [“Berg”], and the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg,
[“Appellees”] file the within Reply to Appellant Orly Taitz’s [“Taitz”] Opposition
to Appellees Motion to Strike, for Sanctions, Attorney Fees and Costs.
I. INSTEAD of ADDRESSING the ISSUES in APPELLEES
MOTION, TAITZ USES THEIR OPPOSITION to FURTHER
LITIGATE THEIR ISSUES on APPEAL:
Appellees in their Motion moved to Strike new arguments and Taitz’s
Supplemental Excerpt of Record in which Taitz failed to raise before the District
Court or in her Appellant’s Opening Brief.
Instead of addressing the new arguments, Taitz further argues the District
Court’s Denial of her Anti-SLAPP Motion and the Anti-SLAPP statute. Taitz also
raises arguments about Appellees Answering Brief and the cases Verizon
Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Comms. Co., 377 F.3d 1081 (9
th
Cir. 2004), Vess v. Ciba-
Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9
th
Cir. 2003), and Greensprings Baptist
Christian Fellowship Trust v. Cilley, 629 F.3d 1064 (9
th
Cir. 2010) as the basis for
Appellees Motion to Strike
1
. This is not what Appellees asked this Court to Strike,
nor is it a sufficient basis to allow arguments and “supposed” evidence that was

1
Taitz claims these three [3] cases cannot be introduced because Appellees did not present
them to the District Court. Appellees cited to these three [3]cases pertaining to the appealability
of the Anti-SLAPP Order, which is not a final Order, when Leave to Amend is Granted.
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 7 of 16
2
not presented to the District Court regarding Taitz’s Anti-SLAPP Motion or in
Taitz’s Opening Brief.
Taitz claims because Appellees Attorney made statements to the Judge in
Pennsylvania about his belief regarding Orly Taitz that Liberi and Ostella are
“Birthers”. Ostella was Assistant Webmaster for Taitz for a short period of time;
and Liberi interned as Mr. Berg’s Paralegal. A statement made by one individual,
who represents Ostella and Liberi does not make Ostella and Liberi “Birthers”.
None of the Appellees (Plaintiffs) belonged or agreed with Taitz’s political
dissident movement. None of the Appellees support overthrowing our government
or participated in any of the activisms Taitz has headed up to harm anyone.
The fact that Ostella and Liberi were working for Attorneys does not make
Ostella and Liberi “Birthers” or make them involved in any type of “Political
Movement”. Ostella and Liberi are not public individuals and they are not
“Birthers”. Statements by Appellees Ostella and Liberi’s counsel does not
transform Ostella and Liberi into ‘public figures’; any type of political movement;
or into “Birthers”. Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn, Inc., (1979) 443 U.S. 157,
167, 99 S.Ct. 2701, 2707, 61 L.Ed.2d 450.
The statements, quotes and requests by Taitz outlined in Appellees Motion
were not presented to the District Court, nor were they presented in Taitz’s
Opening Brief, and therefore, they must be Stricken. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 8 of 16
3
F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). Issues raised for the first time in an Appellant’s
Reply Brief are considered waived, the Court routinely refuses to consider them.
See, e.g., Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 843 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004);
United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 614 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003); Cedano-Viera v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003): Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d
1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814,
818 (9th Cir.1990).
The reason for this is fairness. When an issue is raised for the first time in a
Reply Brief, it means that the Appellees have not had an opportunity to respond to
that issue. See Lentini, 370 F.3d at 843 n.6.
For these reasons, the statements/issues/arguments appearing on pages 10-12
of Appellants Reply; Appellants new requested relief on page 25, ¶VI, 2
nd
paragraph; and Appellants SER must be Stricken.
II. APPELLATE COURTS ONLY CONSIDER the RECORD
BEFORE the DISTRICT COURT on APPEAL:
Taitz spends a lot of time attempting to convince this Court that their new
arguments and Supplemental Excerpt of Record of an August 7, 2009 Transcript in
another Court in Pennsylvania is proper in responding to Appellees Answering
Brief. [Taitz Opp. ¶¶I-II, pp. 1-5] Taitz further contends and stretches Circuit Rule
30-1.8(a) to include the August 7, 2009 Transcript which was not part of the
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 9 of 16
4
District Court’s Record regarding Taitz’s Anti-SLAPP Motion, nor was it raised in
their Appellant’s Opening Brief. [Taitz’s Opp. p. 3]
The Appellate Record cannot include factual allegations or “supposed”
evidence unsupported by the District Court Record. Yniguez v. Arizonans for
Official English, 42 F.3d 1217, 1221, n. 3 (9
th
Cir. 1994). The creation of the
record on appeal occurs solely in the District Court. Appellate Courts consider
only the “record before the trial judge when his decision was made” (emphasis in
original) Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. Of America, 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9
th
Cir.1988).
Neither the Appellant nor the Appellee can add to or enlarge the record on
Appeal to include material that was not before the District Court. Morrison v. Hall,
261 F.3d 896, 900, fn.4 (9th Cir. 2001). Appellate Courts may consider only those
matters that were before the District Court when the decision, being appealed, was
entered. United States v. $22,474.00 in U.S. Currency, 246 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9
th
Cir. 2001).
The rule prohibiting enlargement of the record is strictly construed. The
Ninth Circuit will strike extraneous matters from the record on its own motion,
even if the parties have stipulated to their inclusion in the Record on Appeal.
Panawiew Door v. Window Co. v. Reynolds Metal Co., 255 F.2d 920, 922 (9
th
Cir.
1958). The only exceptions to this rule is when a mistake in the reporter’s
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 10 of 16
5
transcript has occurred (FRAP 10(e); 28 USC Sections 1734, 1735). Yagman v.
Republic Ins. Co., 987 F.2d 622, 626, fn 3 (9
th
Cir. 1993), none of which apply
herein.
An Appeal is a proceeding in which a higher Court reviews the actions taken
by a Trial Court, or in this case, the District Court. Appeals are generally limited
to a review of the record from the lower Court. Parties cannot introduce new
evidence and are limited to what was said and introduced at the original
proceeding. Issues, defenses and arguments not raised at the District Court cannot
be raised in the Appeal. This Court reviews the lower Court's application of the
law to the facts as presented. Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 887 (9
th
Cir. 2002) (We generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on
Appeal); MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir.
2006) (We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.);
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.34d 1045, 1052 (9
th
Cir. 1999) (We do not consider
contentions, facts or arguments raised for the first time on appeal); Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9
th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (We do not consider
arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal.); United States v.
Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9
th
Cir. 1990) (We decline to consider evidence or
arguments presented for the first time on appeal.).
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 11 of 16
6
Taitz filed her Supplemental Excerpt of Record with the August 7, 2009
Transcript with her Reply Brief in attempts to support her new arguments
regarding statements made by Mr. Berg appearing in Taitz’s Reply Brief, DN 40-1,
Case No. 11-56079, at ¶IV-A on pages 10-12; ¶VI, page 25, second paragraph; and
Appellants Supplemental Excerpt of Record, DN 40-2 in Case 11-56079. Taitz
“waived” her new statements/arguments and “waived” her ability to bring forth the
August 7, 2009 Transcript filed in their Supplemental Excerpt of Record filed with
her Reply Brief because Taitz did not present them to the District Court regarding
her Anti-SLAPP Motion or in her Appellant’s Opening Brief and therefore they
must be Stricken. See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d. 1313, 1321 (9th
Cir. 1998) and Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1030
(9th Cir. 2001). See also In re BioLase Tech. Sec. Litig., No. 04-947 DOC (C.D.
Cal. Jan. 27, 2003) n1; Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); and Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am.,
842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, this Court should Strike the arguments and evidence outlined
hereinabove, “that [were] not presented to the district court”. Kirschner, supra,
842 F.2d at 1078.
III. THE COURT ORDERED a CONSOLIDATED REPLY BRIEF,
if a REPLY was FILED:
Taitz claims that the Court told her counsel that Appellant Defend our
Freedoms Foundations, Inc. and her could file separate briefs and at no time were
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 12 of 16
7
they ordered to file a Consolidated Brief. Attached to Taitz’s Response in
Opposition as Exhibit “E” was this Court’s Order. [Taitz Opp. pp. 12-13].
Commissioner Peter L. Shaw stated in his Order of February 3, 2012 on
page one that the Court sua sponte consolidates Appeals No.’s 11-56079 and 11-
56164. Commissioner Shaw stated on page 2 “The amended briefing schedule is
as follows: the consolidated answering brief is due March 7, 2012; the
consolidated optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the
consolidated answering brief.” [emphasis added]
A consolidated Reply Brief means one brief, not two. The definition of
consolidated is “1. The act or process the state of being united; 2. Civil Procedure,
the Court unification of two or more actions involving the same parties and issues
into a single action…” See Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition, May 2006, at p.
136. See also Dictionary.com - consolidated “brought together as a single
whole…to bring together (separate parts) into a single or unified whole; unite;
combine: They consolidated their three companies.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consolidated?s=t.
Jeffrey Cunningham, Esquire and his client, Appellant Orly Taitz are both
seasoned attorney’s, and should know the meaning of a Court Order. A Reply
Brief is allowed 7,000 words or fifteen [15] pages, Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(ii).
In this case, DOFF and Taitz together filed 14,000 words and in excess of sixty-
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 13 of 16
8
four [64] pages as their “Consolidated” Reply Brief, in violation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(ii).
IV. SANCTIONS AGAINST JEFFREY CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE
and his CLIENT, ORLY TAITZ, ESQUIRE are WARRANTED:
Taitz claims that Appellees failed to cite what they did that warrants
sanctions. This simply is not the case.
Appellees fully cited to the facts that Taitz and her attorney, Jeffrey
Cunningham, Esquire included new arguments and documents in a Supplemental
Excerpt of Record that were not presented to the District Court in regards to
Taitz’s Anti-SLAPP Motion, nor were they included in Taitz’s Appellant’s
Opening Brief. Appellees also asked for Sanctions and Attorney Fees for Taitz
and her Attorney, Jeffrey Cunningham, Esquire’s, failure to abide by the Court’s
February 3, 2012 Order. All of the foregoing which is vexatious, attempting to
prejudice this Court against Appellees, and has unreasonably increased the cost of
litigation by their inclusion of “unnecessary and inadmissible” materials.
Sanctions are proper when a party fails to “Comply with Circuit Rule 30-1,
by including irrelevant materials in the Excerpts of Records or Exhibits filed
with a Brief” [emphasis added]. See this Court’s Circuit Rule 30-2
2
. The Ninth
Circuit Local Rule 30-2 allows for Sanctions, Costs and Attorney Fees against an

2
The Ninth Circuit Court has the inherent power to strike irrelevant material. Circuit Rule 30-1;
See also cf. Carrigan v. Cal. State Legislature, 263 F.2d 560, 564 (9th Cir. 1959) (discussing an
appellate court’s inherent power to strike briefs and pleadings “as either scandalous, impertinent,
scurrilous, and/or without relevancy”)
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 14 of 16
9
Attorney who “vexatiously and unreasonably increases the cost of litigation by
inclusion of unnecessary material in the excerpts of record,” as Orly Taitz, Esquire
and Jeffrey Cunningham, Esquire, Attorney for Orly Taitz have done to the
Appellees herein.
28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows this Circuit to Sanction an Attorney “who so
multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously” for those
excess costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred as a result of
attorney’s conduct. Recklessness suffices under § 1927, but the Court must find
there was bad faith. B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept., 276 F.3d 1091, 1107-08 (9
th
Cir.
2002). There is no question that Orly Taitz, Esquire and Jeffrey Cunningham,
Esquire, who are both seasoned Attorney’s licensed to practice law in the State of
California, actions of including new arguments and attempting to include a
transcript of an August 7, 2009 Court hearing that was never provided to the
District Court or in Taitz’s Opening Brief, all of which was in bad faith and it is
supported by their filing on April 19, 2012, which is “clear and convincing
evidence.” In re Lehtinen, 564 F.3d 1052, 1061 n.4 (9
th
Cir. 2009); New Alaska
Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir. 1989); Estate of Blas, 792
F.2d 858, 860 (9th Cir. 1986); B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1107-
08 (9th Cir. 2002); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2001);
Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32 (1991).
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 15 of 16
10
Jeffrey Cunningham, Esquire, counsel for Orly Taitz, Esquire violated the
Court’s February 3, 2012 Consolidation Order, by assisting Orly Taitz in filing a
secondary Reply Brief on behalf of DOFF, which alone warrants Sanctions and an
award of Attorney Fees and Costs to Appellees, Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v.
United States, 376 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Sanctions are appropriate when a
party purposely violates a Court Order) Id. at 966.
V. CONCLUSIONS:
For the reasons outlined herein, Appellants Orly Taitz and Defend our
Freedoms Foundations, Inc.’s Reply Brief, DN 40-1, Case No. 11-56079, at ¶IV-A
on pages 10-12; ¶VI, page 25, second paragraph; and Appellants Supplemental
Excerpt of Record, DN 40-2 in Case 11-56079, must be Stricken; Jeffrey
Cunningham, Esquire and his client, Orly Taitz, must be Sanctioned; and
Appellees awarded Attorney Fees and Costs.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: May 4, 2012 /s/ Philip J. Berg
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in pro se and for Appellees,
Lisa Liberi, Lisa Ostella, Go Excel
Global and the Law Offices of Philip
J. Berg
Case: 11-56164 05/04/2012 ID: 8165251 DktEntry: 46-1 Page: 16 of 16
Ý¿­» Ò«³¾»®­æ ïïóëêðéç ¿²¼ ïïóëêïêì
øݱ²­±´·¼¿¬»¼ Ú»¾®«¿®§ íô îðïî÷
ËÒ×ÌÛÜ ÍÌßÌÛÍ ÝÑËÎÌ ÑÚ ßÐÐÛßÔÍ
ÚÑÎ ÌØÛ Ò×ÒÌØ Ý×ÎÝË×Ì
¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸
LISA LIBERI, et al,
PlaintiIIs/Appellees
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, DEFEND OUR
FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC., et al,
DeIendants/Appellants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

On Appeal Irom the United States District Court,
Central District oI CaliIornia, Southern Division
Case No. 8:11-cv-00485
Honorable Andrew GuilIord
ßÐÐÛÔÔÛÛÍ ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ÑÚ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛ
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA Bar No. 09867)
Law OIIices oI Philip J. Berg
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
LaIayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Ph: (610) 825-3134
߬¬±®²»§ º±® ß°°»´´»»­ Ô·­¿ Ô·¾»®·ô Ô·­¿
Ñ­¬»´´¿ô Ù± Û¨½»´ Ù´±¾¿´ô и·´·° Öò Þ»®¹ô
Û­¯«·®» ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ô¿© Ѻº·½»­ ±º и·´·° Öò
Þ»®¹
Ý¿­»æ ïïóëêïêì ðëñðìñîðïî ×Üæ èïêëîëï ܵ¬Û²¬®§æ ìêóî п¹»æ ï ±º í
ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌÛ ÑÚ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛ
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certiIy that a true and correct copy oI
PlaintiIIs/Appellees Reply to Appellant Orly TaitzŽs Response in Opposition to
Appellees Motion to Strike, Ior Sanctions, Attorney Fees and Costs was served this
4
th
day oI May 2012 electronically through the ECF Filing system, upon the
Iollowing:
Kim Schumann, Esquire
JeIIrey Cunningham, Esquire
ÍÝØËÓßÒÒô ÎßÔÔÑ ú ÎÑÍÛÒÞÛÎÙô ÔÔÐ
3100 S. Bristol Street, Suite 400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Email: kschumann¸srrlawIirm.comand jcunningham¸srrlawIirm.com
߬¬±®²»§ º±® Ü»º»²¼¿²¬ñß°°»´´¿²¬ Ñ®´§ Ì¿·¬¦
Orly Taitz, Esquire
29839 Santa Margarita, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Email: orly.taitz¸gmail.com and dr¸taitz¸yahoo.com
߬¬±®²»§ º±® Ü»º»²¼¿²¬ñß°°»´´¿²¬ Ü»º»²¼ ±«® Ú®»»¼±³­ Ú±«²¼¿¬·±²­ô ײ½ò
James F. McCabe, Esquire
MORRISON / FORESTER
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Email: jmccabe¸moIo.com
߬¬±®²»§ º±® Ü»º»²¼¿²¬­ λ»¼ Û´­»ª·»®ô ײ½òô Ô»¨·­Ò»¨·­ ¹®±«°ô Ô»¨·­Ò»¨·­ô ײ½òô
Ô»¨·­Ò»¨·­ η­µ ¿²¼ ײº±®³¿¬·±² ß²¿´§¬·½­ Ù®±«°ô ײ½òô Ô»¨·­Ò»¨·­ Í»·­·²¬ô ײ½ò
¼ñ¾ñ¿ ß½½«®·²¬ô ¿²¼ Ô»¨·­Ò»¨·­ ݸ±·½»°±·²¬ô ײ½ò ō̸» λ»¼ Ü»º»²¼¿²¬­ŒÃ
Ý¿­»æ ïïóëêïêì ðëñðìñîðïî ×Üæ èïêëîëï ܵ¬Û²¬®§æ ìêóî п¹»æ î ±º í
Marc Steven Colen, Esquire
ÔßÉ ÑÚÚ×ÝÛÍ ÑÚ ÓßÎÝ ÍÌÛÊÛÒ ÝÑÔÛÒ
5737 Kanan Road, Suite 347
Agoura hills, CA 91301
Email: mcolen¸colenlaw.com, lcolen¸colenlaw.com
߬¬±®²»§ º±® Ò»·´ Í¿²µ»§ô ̱¼¼ Í¿²µ»§ô Í¿²µ»§ ײª»­¬·¹¿¬·±²­ô ײ½ò ¿²¼
̸» Í¿²µ»§ º·®³ô ײ½ò ō̸» Í¿²µ»§ Ü»º»²¼¿²¬­ŒÃ
/s/ Philip J. Berg
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Ý¿­»æ ïïóëêïêì ðëñðìñîðïî ×Üæ èïêëîëï ܵ¬Û²¬®§æ ìêóî п¹»æ í ±º í

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful