AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLL...
2
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GINGRASLAWOFFICE,P...
3
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GINGRASLAWOFFICE,P...
4
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GINGRASLAWOFFICE,P...
5
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GINGRASLAWOFFICE,P...
Exhibit A
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 6 of 16
First Amended Complaint - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Daniel F. Blackert,...
First Amended Complaint - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the contents of cer...
First Amended Complaint - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unidentified vendor...
Exhibit B
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 10 of 16
Amended Complaint - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Daniel F. Blackert, (SBN ...
Amended Complaint - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ill. 2...
Exhibit C
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 13 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV10-1360-SVW-PJWx Date Septe...
Exhibit D
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 15 of 16
Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW -PJW Document 186 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 1 Page ID
#:5106
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 F...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

David Gingras Aff. iso msj

122

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
122
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "David Gingras Aff. iso msj"

  1. 1. AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,AZ85048 David S. Gingras, #021097 Gingras Law Office, PLLC 3941 E. Chandler Blvd., #106-243 Phoenix, AZ 85048 Tel.: (480) 668-3623 Fax: (480) 248-3196 David@GingrasLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Xcentric Ventures, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Lisa Jean Borodkin, et al., Defendants. Raymond Mobrez, Counterclaimant, v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, and Edward Magedson, Counterdefendants. Case No.: 11-CV-1426-GMS AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF/ COUNTERDEFENDANT XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC’S REPLY RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: COUNTERCLAIM I, David S. Gingras declare as follows: 1. My name is David Gingras. I am a United States citizen, a resident of the State of Arizona, am over the age of 18 years, and if called to testify in court or other proceeding I could and would give the following testimony which is based upon my own personal knowledge unless otherwise stated. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 16
  2. 2. 2 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,AZ85048 2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Arizona and California, I am an active member in good standing with the State Bars of Arizona and California and I am admitted to practice and in good standing with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and the United States District Court for the Northern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California. 3. I represented Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in the lawsuit filed against them in California entitled Asia Economic Institute, LLC, et al. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-1360 (the “California Litigation”). 4. I am aware that in this matter, Mr. Mobrez claims that his “wiretapping” cause of action based on an alleged violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 632 was raised in the prior California Litigation and that such claim was never resolved by the district court. Both of these assertions are incorrect. 5. The original Complaint filed by Mr. Mobrez in the California Litigation on January 27, 2010 is attached to Xcentric’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. #55) in this matter as Exhibit A. This pleading did not raise any cause of action under Cal. Pen. Code § 632. The failure to include such a claim is understandable because at that time, Mr. Mobrez was not aware that his calls to Xcentric were recorded. Mr. Mobrez was not informed that his phone calls to Xcentric were recorded until I took his deposition on May 7, 2010 and revealed that fact to him by playing the recordings of each call. 6. After I deposed Mr. Mobrez on May 7, 2010, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Xcentric as to the claim of RICO/extortion in a ruling dated July 19, 2010. In that same ruling, the district court also dismissed Mr. Mobrez’s RICO/wire fraud claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) based on a finding that the claim was not pleaded with particularity. In the same ruling, the court granted Mr. Mobrez leave to amend his RICO/wire fraud claim within 10 days. 7. On July 27, 2010, Mr. Mobrez filed an 84-page First Amended Complaint in the California case. As reflected by the caption of the pleading, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, the FAC did not contain a cause of action for wiretapping. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 2 of 16
  3. 3. 3 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,AZ85048 However, in paragraph 14 of the FAC, also included in Exhibit A, Mr. Mobrez made the following reference to Xcentric’s practice of recording phone calls: 14. The Ripoff Report enterprise until approximately May or June 2010 had a regular business practice of secretly recording or causing to be recorded all telephone conversations to its business telephone number, in association with an unidentified vendor, without disclosure to or consent of all parties to the telephone conversations, in violation of, inter alia, the wiretapping laws of the State of California. The Ripoff Report has used or attempted to use the contents of such secret recordings as a surprise litigation tactic in actions in, inter alia, California and Arizona. Defendants used instrumentalities of interstate commerce, specifically wire, to record such telephone calls. 8. Other than this single reference, the First Amended Complaint in the California action did not specifically refer to California Penal Code § 632, nor did it request damages relating to the recorded phone calls from Mr. Mobrez to Mr. Magedson. 9. On August 6, 2010, Xcentric filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint based on Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6). In addition, Xcentric served Ms. Borodkin and Mr. Blackert with a proposed Motion for Rule 11 sanctions relating to certain allegations in the FAC and Xcentric also moved to strike certain allegations in the FAC. 10. In response, on August 17, 2010, Mr. Mobrez filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and a proposed 72-page Second Amended Complaint. As reflected in the caption of the proposed SAC, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, the Second Amended Complaint did not contain a cause of action for wiretapping. However, the proposed SAC did contain the exact same factual allegations as paragraph 14 of the FAC as quoted above relating to Xcentric’s practice of recording phone calls. 11. On September 20, 2010, a hearing was held in the California Litigation to discuss numerous pending motions including Xcentric’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Mr. Mobrez’s Motion for Leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. As reflected in the court’s minute order from this hearing, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, the district judge ordered that Mr. Mobrez’s Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 3 of 16
  4. 4. 4 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,AZ85048 “first amended complaint is the operative document”, and the court further ordered Xcentric to file a Motion for Summary Judgment within seven days. 12. As ordered, on September 27, 2010, Xcentric filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking the disposition of each and every claim set forth in the First Amended Complaint. Xcentric’s motion was granted in its entirety on May 4, 2011. See Asia Economic Institute, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2011 WL 2469822 (C.D.Cal. 2011). 13. Following the summary judgment ruling, on June 15, 2011, the California district court entered final judgment in favor of Xcentric “as to all claims and relief requested by Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are ordered to take nothing thereby.” A copy of the district court’s final judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED ON: November 7, 2012. /S/David S. Gingras David S. Gingras Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 4 of 16
  5. 5. 5 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,AZ85048 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 7, 2012 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following: John S. Craiger, Esq. David E. Funkhouser III, Esq. Quarles & Brady LLP One Renaissance Square Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391 Attorneys for Defendant Lisa J. Borodkin Raymond Mobrez Iliana Llaneras PO BOX 3663 Santa Monica, CA 90408 Defendants Pro Se And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to: HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW United States District Court Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 622 401 West Washington Street, SPC 80 Phoenix, AZ 85003-215 /s/David S. Gingras Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 5 of 16
  6. 6. Exhibit A Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 6 of 16
  7. 7. First Amended Complaint - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Daniel F. Blackert, (SBN 255021) blackertesq@yahoo.com Lisa J. Borodkin, (SBN 196412) lisa_borodkin@post.harvard.edu ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone (310) 806-3000 Facsimile (310) 826-4448 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, LLC, Raymond Mobrez, and Iliana Llaneras UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, a California LLC; RAYMOND MOBREZ an individual; and ILIANA LLANERAS, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona LLC, doing business as BADBUSINESS BUREAU, RIPOFF REPORT, and RIPOFFREPORT.COM, BAD BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, organized and existing under the laws of St. Kitts and Nevis, West Indies; EDWARD MAGEDSON an individual, also known as EDWARD MAGIDSON also known as the “Editor,” and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) Case No.: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) -- CIVIL RICO (2) VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) -- RICO CONSPIRACY (3) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES -- CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq. (4) DEFAMATION (5) DEFAMATION PER SE (6) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS (7) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS (8) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS (9) DECEIT (10) FRAUD (11) INJUNCTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Document 96 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 84 Page ID #:2322Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 7 of 16
  8. 8. First Amended Complaint - 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the contents of certain reports; writing and publishing findings; collaborating with the subjects of paid testimonials and endorsements in writing original content about them and publishing it through the ROR Website; communicating with individual subjects of reports by electronic mail, particularly to urge them to file rebuttals or comments to existing Reports; supervising or acting in association with a currently unknown individual identified only by the electronic mail address “Karen@ripoffreport.com” at certain times relevant herein, whose duties included responding to complaints that rebuttals were not posting or were being posted to the wrong reports; engaging, supervising and collaborating with counsel to draft significant and influential portions of the ROR Website and otherwise. Magedson uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce to conduct these activities, specifically wire. 13. Xcentric and its associates in the Ripoff Report enterprise use extremely aggressive litigation strategies to, inter alia, protect and perpetuate its business model, and silence and retaliate against their critics, including by affirmatively initiating an Arizona state court action against Washington State- based attorney and search engine optimization consultant and blogger Sarah L. Bird, Xcentric Ventures LLC v. Bird, (D. Ariz. 09-cv-1033) which action was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (10-1546); initiating an Arizona state court defamation action against Phoenix New Times reporter Sarah Fenske, her husband, a source for an article, the source’s spouse and the publishers, Xcentric v. Village Voice Media, CV2008-2416 (Arizona Sup. Ct. for Maricopa County); and is currently opposing an appeal to the Seventh Circuit (10-1167) in Blockowicz v. Williams, 675 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (09-cv-3955) regarding its purported right to defy compliance with a permanent injunction ordering it to remove defamatory content. 14. The Ripoff Report enterprise until approximately May or June 2010 had a regular business practice of secretly recording or causing to be recorded all telephone conversations to its business telephone number, in association with an Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Document 96 Filed 07/27/10 Page 6 of 84 Page ID #:2327Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 8 of 16
  9. 9. First Amended Complaint - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unidentified vendor, without disclosure to or consent of all parties to the telephone conversations, in violation of, inter alia, the wiretapping laws of the State of California. The Ripoff Report has used or attempted to use the contents of such secret recordings as a surprise litigation tactic in actions in, inter alia, California and Arizona. Defendants used instrumentalities of interstate commerce, specifically wire, to record such telephone calls. 15. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 100 are unknown to Plaintiffs at the present time, who therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names, and will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendants assigned as a DOE is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and thereby proximately caused injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to add as defendants in this action those individuals and entities who have assisted Defendants in perpetrating the acts and omissions complained of herein, including additional individuals and entities complicit in managing and operating the affairs of the Ripoff Report enterprise. III. SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGATIONS 16. The Ripoff Report enterprise takes advantage of the average person’s lack of sophistication in technology, reliance on Internet search engines, and general lack of time. It misrepresents its true nature to the public and places its victims in desperate positions through elaborate technological and legal traps and artifices. It then intimidates and defrauds its victims into believing that the only practical way of saving their good names is to defend them on its home turf, the ROR Website, where it makes the rules, it decides who gets heard, and most of all, Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Document 96 Filed 07/27/10 Page 7 of 84 Page ID #:2328Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 9 of 16
  10. 10. Exhibit B Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 10 of 16
  11. 11. Amended Complaint - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Daniel F. Blackert, (SBN 255021) blackertesq@yahoo.com Lisa J. Borodkin, (SBN 196412) lisa_borodkin@post.harvard.edu ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone (310) 806-3000 Facsimile (310) 826-4448 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, LLC, Raymond Mobrez, and Iliana Llaneras UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, a California LLC; RAYMOND MOBREZ an individual; and ILIANA LLANERAS, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona LLC, doing business as BADBUSINESS BUREAU, RIPOFF REPORT, and RIPOFFREPORT.COM, BAD BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, organized and existing under the laws of St. Kitts and Nevis, West Indies; EDWARD MAGEDSON an individual, also known as EDWARD MAGIDSON also known as the “Editor,” and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) Case No.: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES -- CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq. (2) DEFAMATION (3) DEFAMATION PER SE (4) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS (5) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS (6) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS (7) DECEIT (8) FRAUD (9) INJUNCTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW -PJW Document 122 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 72 Page ID #:3561 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 11 of 16
  12. 12. Amended Complaint - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (09-cv-3955) regarding its purported right to defy compliance with a permanent injunction ordering it to remove defamatory content. 9. The Ripoff Report enterprise until approximately May or June 2010 had a regular business practice of secretly recording or causing to be recorded all telephone conversations to its business telephone number, in association with an unidentified vendor, without disclosure to or consent of all parties to the telephone conversations, in violation of, inter alia, the wiretapping laws of the State of California. The Ripoff Report has used or attempted to use the contents of such secret recordings as a surprise litigation tactic in actions in, inter alia, California and Arizona. Defendants used instrumentalities of interstate commerce, specifically wire, to record such telephone calls. 10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 100 are unknown to Plaintiffs at the present time, which therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names, and will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendants assigned as a DOE is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and thereby proximately caused injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to add as defendants in this action those individuals and entities who have assisted Defendants in perpetrating the acts and omissions complained of herein, including additional individuals and entities complicit in managing and operating the affairs of the Ripoff Report enterprise. III. SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGATIONS 11. The Ripoff Report enterprise takes advantage of the average person’s lack of sophistication in technology, reliance on Internet search engines, and general lack of time. It misrepresents its true nature to the public and places its Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW -PJW Document 122 Filed 08/17/10 Page 7 of 72 Page ID #:3567 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 12 of 16
  13. 13. Exhibit C Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 13 of 16
  14. 14. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV10-1360-SVW-PJWx Date September 20, 2010 Title Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al : 20 Initials of Preparer PMC CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1 Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz Deborah Gackle Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Lisa Boradkin David S. Gingras Maria C. Speth Proceedings: 1. MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANTS [110] (fld 08/06/10) 2. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFFS [115] (fld 8/16/10) 3. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFFS [116] (fld 8/16/10) 4. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE ORDER #94 FILED BY PLAINTIFFS [118) (fld 8/16/10) 5. MOTION TO STRIKE MATERIAL FROM DOCUMENTS 118 AND 121 AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [124] Hearing held. The motion reconsideration [118] is denied. Order to issue. The RICO claims are stricken. The first amended complaint is the operative document. The Court sets the following schedule: Filing of Motion for Summary Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 27, 2010 Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 4, 2010 Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 12, 2010 Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW -PJW Document 144 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:4196 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 14 of 16
  15. 15. Exhibit D Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 15 of 16
  16. 16. Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW -PJW Document 186 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:5106 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 16 of 16

×