This document is the Brown Defendants' reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss portions of Howard Stern's amended complaint. It argues that the motion to dismiss is not precluded by the court's prior ruling allowing the amended complaint. It also argues that California procedural law, including its probate code and publicity rights statute, does not apply in this South Carolina district court case. Finally, it asserts that the publicity rights statute is not applicable to the Brown Defendants' alleged actions of providing materials to another law firm.
Sample trial brief for California civil caseLegalDocsPro
This sample trial brief for a California civil case is used by a party in a California litigation case. The sample can be modified and used in most California litigation cases, it also includes a memorandum of points and authorities with citiations to case law and statutory authority and a proof of service by mail. This is a preview of the sample sold by LegalDocsPro.
Sample opposition to motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6)LegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was used in an adversary proceeding but can be modified and used in any civil litigation in a Bankruptcy or District Court in ANY state within te jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a preview of the sample document sold on scribd.com by LegalDocsPro. The sample is 10 pages long and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and a proof of service by mail.
Sample verified complaint for financial elder abuse in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample verified complaint for financial elder abuse in California contains a cause of action for financial elder abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 as well as causes of action for fraud, quiet title, cancellation of written instrument and constructive trust. The sample complaint on which this preview is based requests attorney's fees and costs as well as punitive and exemplary damages under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, is 13 pages and includes brief instructions and a sample verification.The author is a freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample motion to correct clerical error in California judgmentLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to correct a clerical error in a California judgment by amending the judgment is filed pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). The motion requests that the judgment be amended nunc pro tunc on the grounds that their clerical error has caused the judgment that was actually entered to not accurately reflect the outcome indicated when the judgment was originally declared. The sample on which this preview is based is 14 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority; sample declaration, proposed order and proof of service by mail.
Sample motion to dismiss adversary complaint under rule12(b)(6)LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to dismiss an adversary complaint for fraud is made under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the complaint does not state a claim for relief, in the alternative the motion also requests a more definite statement. The sample contains a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro.
Sample trial brief for California civil caseLegalDocsPro
This sample trial brief for a California civil case is used by a party in a California litigation case. The sample can be modified and used in most California litigation cases, it also includes a memorandum of points and authorities with citiations to case law and statutory authority and a proof of service by mail. This is a preview of the sample sold by LegalDocsPro.
Sample opposition to motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6)LegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was used in an adversary proceeding but can be modified and used in any civil litigation in a Bankruptcy or District Court in ANY state within te jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a preview of the sample document sold on scribd.com by LegalDocsPro. The sample is 10 pages long and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and a proof of service by mail.
Sample verified complaint for financial elder abuse in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample verified complaint for financial elder abuse in California contains a cause of action for financial elder abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 as well as causes of action for fraud, quiet title, cancellation of written instrument and constructive trust. The sample complaint on which this preview is based requests attorney's fees and costs as well as punitive and exemplary damages under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, is 13 pages and includes brief instructions and a sample verification.The author is a freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample motion to correct clerical error in California judgmentLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to correct a clerical error in a California judgment by amending the judgment is filed pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). The motion requests that the judgment be amended nunc pro tunc on the grounds that their clerical error has caused the judgment that was actually entered to not accurately reflect the outcome indicated when the judgment was originally declared. The sample on which this preview is based is 14 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority; sample declaration, proposed order and proof of service by mail.
Sample motion to dismiss adversary complaint under rule12(b)(6)LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to dismiss an adversary complaint for fraud is made under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the complaint does not state a claim for relief, in the alternative the motion also requests a more definite statement. The sample contains a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro.
Sample California complaint to vacate judgmentLegalDocsPro
This sample California complaint to set aside and vacate a judgment is a collateral attack on a judgment also known as an independent action in equity to vacate a judgment. The sample on which this preview is based is 7 pages and contains brief instructions and two causes of action (1) to set aside and vacate the judgment on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective and invalid service of process, and (2) to set aside and vacate the judgment on the grounds that it was procured through extrinsic fraud or mistake.
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for consolidation of multiple cases in California is filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) to request consolidation of two or more cases. The motion is used by a party who is requesting that a Court consolidate two or more cases on the grounds that consolidation of the cases is warranted in that all of the cases arise out of the same set of operative facts and contain common issues and further that consolidation of all of the cases will avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures in all of the actions; avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications and avoid many of the same witnesses testifying on common issues in all actions as well as promote judicial economy and convenience. The sample on which this preview is based can be easily modified for use in cases where complete consolidation is requested or where consolidation is requested only for purposes of trial and is 19 pages including brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration, proof of service by mail and proposed order. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 250 sample legal documents for sale.
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...LegalDocsPro
This sample meet and confer declaration for a motion for judgment on the pleadings in California is filed pursuant to the new meet and confer requirement found in Code of Civil Procedure section 439(a). This declaration can be used to demonstrate compliance with the new meet and confer requirement before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings in California that just became effective on January 1, 2018. The sample is 5 pages and includes brief instructions, sample wording and a proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample motion for OSC for contempt for violations of the Bankruptcy Discharge...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for OSC for contempt for violations of the Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction is filed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's contempt authority under § 105(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The motion is designed to be filed by a Debtor against a Creditor that has willfully violated the Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction such as filing a State Court lawsuit after receiving notice that the Debtor has been granted a discharge. The motion requests that the Creditor be held in contempt and requests actual damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. The sample motion on which this preview is based is 30 pages and includes a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to Case law from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the United States Bankruptcy Code , sample declarations for the Debtor and the Attorney for the Debtor, sample Request for Judicial Notice and sample Proposed Order Re: Contempt The sample motion is in Microsoft Word format and can be easily modified for most situations. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample motion to withdraw or amend admissions in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to withdraw or amend admissions in California is filed pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 on the grounds that the moving party's responses to the requests for admission are inaccurate due to mistake, inadvertance, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits. The sample on which this preview is based is 11 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, a sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is made on the same grounds as a motion to dismiss but may be filed even after an answer to a complaint has been filed. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro on scribd.com
Sample California motion to strike complaintLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to strike portions of a complaint for California was created by a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has used this sample for many years.
Sample motion for leave to amend answer in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for leave to amend an Answer in California is filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a) and 576 on the grounds that allowing an amended Answer to be filed would further the interests of justice. The sample on which this preview is based is 12 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail.
Verified Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Charge of Driving While License SuspendedJosh Stewart
If given a traffic citation for driving while license suspended, you can be charged with a misdemeanor in Florida. This Motion to Vacate the Charge resulted in the citation and case being dismissed.
Sample California complaint to vacate judgmentLegalDocsPro
This sample California complaint to set aside and vacate a judgment is a collateral attack on a judgment also known as an independent action in equity to vacate a judgment. The sample on which this preview is based is 7 pages and contains brief instructions and two causes of action (1) to set aside and vacate the judgment on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction due to defective and invalid service of process, and (2) to set aside and vacate the judgment on the grounds that it was procured through extrinsic fraud or mistake.
Sample motion for consolidation of cases in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for consolidation of multiple cases in California is filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) to request consolidation of two or more cases. The motion is used by a party who is requesting that a Court consolidate two or more cases on the grounds that consolidation of the cases is warranted in that all of the cases arise out of the same set of operative facts and contain common issues and further that consolidation of all of the cases will avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures in all of the actions; avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications and avoid many of the same witnesses testifying on common issues in all actions as well as promote judicial economy and convenience. The sample on which this preview is based can be easily modified for use in cases where complete consolidation is requested or where consolidation is requested only for purposes of trial and is 19 pages including brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration, proof of service by mail and proposed order. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 250 sample legal documents for sale.
Sample meet and confer declaration for motion for judgment on the pleadings i...LegalDocsPro
This sample meet and confer declaration for a motion for judgment on the pleadings in California is filed pursuant to the new meet and confer requirement found in Code of Civil Procedure section 439(a). This declaration can be used to demonstrate compliance with the new meet and confer requirement before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings in California that just became effective on January 1, 2018. The sample is 5 pages and includes brief instructions, sample wording and a proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample motion for OSC for contempt for violations of the Bankruptcy Discharge...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for OSC for contempt for violations of the Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction is filed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's contempt authority under § 105(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The motion is designed to be filed by a Debtor against a Creditor that has willfully violated the Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction such as filing a State Court lawsuit after receiving notice that the Debtor has been granted a discharge. The motion requests that the Creditor be held in contempt and requests actual damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. The sample motion on which this preview is based is 30 pages and includes a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to Case law from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the United States Bankruptcy Code , sample declarations for the Debtor and the Attorney for the Debtor, sample Request for Judicial Notice and sample Proposed Order Re: Contempt The sample motion is in Microsoft Word format and can be easily modified for most situations. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample motion to withdraw or amend admissions in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to withdraw or amend admissions in California is filed pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 on the grounds that the moving party's responses to the requests for admission are inaccurate due to mistake, inadvertance, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits. The sample on which this preview is based is 11 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, a sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is made on the same grounds as a motion to dismiss but may be filed even after an answer to a complaint has been filed. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro on scribd.com
Sample California motion to strike complaintLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to strike portions of a complaint for California was created by a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has used this sample for many years.
Sample motion for leave to amend answer in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for leave to amend an Answer in California is filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a) and 576 on the grounds that allowing an amended Answer to be filed would further the interests of justice. The sample on which this preview is based is 12 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail.
Verified Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Charge of Driving While License SuspendedJosh Stewart
If given a traffic citation for driving while license suspended, you can be charged with a misdemeanor in Florida. This Motion to Vacate the Charge resulted in the citation and case being dismissed.
Opposition To Motion To Dismiss S Gerard Ange V Templer FGérard Angé
THE END GAME...
WHEN CORPORATIONS AND CEO'S CAN PAY TO SUBVERT THE FABRIC OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT PROTECT ALL CITIZENS. THEN... WE ALL LOSE.
THESE ARE THE OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS & COURT DOCUMENTS:
After SIX YEARS and $100,000.00 in legal fees... OUR CASE DAMAGES WERE THROWN OUT BY A "SURPRISE SUBSTITUTED JUDGE" & ON A TRUMPED UP PHONY MISSING "Assignment of Claims" DOCUMENTS THAT WERE NEVER MISSING AT ALL.
READ THE SHOCKING OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS AND THEN DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRIAL WAS DENIED BY A SUBSTITUTED JUDGE.
http://www.win-tv.net/GAP_WINTV_Site/GAP_WIN-Tv_Website_Theft.html
Opposition to motion to dismiss under rule 4(m)LegalDocsPro
Opposing a motion to dismiss for a failure to timely serve a defendant under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the topic of this blog post. The author mainly works on cases from California, however the issues discussed herein are applicable to any civil case in a United States District Court that is within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Motion To Dismiss Raanan Katz Copyright Lawsuitrkcenters
Miami Heat minority owner Raanan Katz does not appreciate the photo of himself circulating on the internet, so he is suing Google and a Miami blogger for refusing to take it down.
And Raanan Katz, RK Centers Owner, apparently has enough money to sue anybody else who posts the photo.
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This document has been prepared in support of DEPRIVATION OF JURY TRIAL(S) - i.e. as “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” – as set forth in the United States of America’s DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Furthermore, provides a copy of a Court Order FALSELY accusing Newsome of RACIAL and ANTI-SEMITIC SLURS for addressing for what are KNOWN to be Terrorist Acts, War Crimes, Apartheid Practices/Crimes Against Humanity, and other Criminal Acts launched against her by the United States of America’s NAZI’S and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists!
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Are those WHO played ROLES in the FOUNDING of Israel as the Nazis and/or WHITE Jewish/Zionists/Supremacists Law Firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz: https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-founder-of-state-of-israel
The DENIAL of JURY TRIAL is also a defense that may be used in seeking INTERNATIONAL Judicial Review, INVESTIGATIONS and PROSECUTIONS, etc. – i.e. in taking matter(s) before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals!
San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan loses a federal lawsuit seeking a restraining order on the San Diego Sheriff's Department. As the court record demonstrates the basis for the motion was improper and the law did not support it.
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...Law Web
Judgment of US District court on motion for a Negative Inference Based upon Plaintiff’s Alleged Deletion of Emails - See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/judgment-of-us-district-court-on-motion.html?#sthash.T5WQGg2Q.dpuf
Defense Response to Government Motion to Reconsider 2 October 2014 - al Iraqi...Thomas (Tom) Jasper
This Motion is timely filed pursuant to Rule for Military Commission (R.M.C.) 905(b) and Military Commissions Trial Judiciary Rule of Court (R. C.) 3.7.
The defense requests the Military Judge deny the Government's motion to reconsider, or in the alternative, deny the requested relief as unnecessary.
1. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
HOWARD K. STERN, as Executor of the ) C.A. No. 4:08-CV-2753-JMC-TER
Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a/k/a Vickie )
Lynn Smith, a/k/a Vickie Lynn Hogan, a/k/a )
Anna Nicole Smith, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) BROWN DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
STANCIL SHELLEY, a/k/a Ford Shelley, ) MOTION TO DISMISS
G. BEN THOMPSON, GAITHER )
THOMPSON, II, MELANIE THOMPSON, )
GINA THOMPSON SHELLEY, SUSAN )
M. BROWN, and THE LAW OFFICES OF )
SUSAN M. BROWN, P.C., )
)
Defendants. )
)
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendants Susan M. Brown and The Law
Office of Susan M. Brown (“Brown Defendants”) to partially dismiss Plaintiff Howard K. Stern’s
Amended Complaint. This Reply Memorandum is offered in response to Plaintiff’s Memorandum
in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions.
Plaintiff has once again shown his true colors in responding to a perfectly reasonable and
measured motion to dismiss by asking for sanctions against yet another attorney that dares to
question any act Plaintiff has taken. Plaintiff accuses the Brown Defendants and their counsel of
acting in a frivolous manner. Such accusations would be surprising if not for the legal contortions
Plaintiff has already incorporated into the lawsuit, such as:
1) suing Defendants for cooperating with The O’Quinn Law Firm, which was engaged
in suits against Plaintiff Howard Stern personally, as opposed to the Estate, the party Plaintiff Stern
is supposed to be representing in this matter, Amended Complaint, Paragraphs 97-100;
2. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 2 of 9
2) suing Defendants for cooperating with California authorities now prosecuting
Plaintiff Howard K. Stern for conspiring to unlawfully provide excessive drugs to Deceased
Plaintiff Anna Nicole Smith, Amended Complaint, Paragraphs 141-48;
3) suing the Brown Defendants for commercially misappropriating Decedent Anna
Nicole Smith’s publicity rights by 1) mailing hard drives to The O’Quinn Law Firm but only after
entering a Confidentiality Agreement that they will not be used, Amended Complaint, Paragraph
119, and 2) failing to produce hard drives to the Plaintiff in alleged violation of a prior discovery
order, Amended Complaint, Paragraphs 168-89;
4) suing the Brown Defendants under California Civil Code § 3344.1 even though it is
explicitly limited to actions that took place in California;
5) trying to import California’s Probate Code into a civil matter pending in the South
Carolina U.S. District Court; and
6) seeking in this suit the same damages for the same conduct that is already the subject
of a currently pending motion for sanctions, i.e. seeking two bites of the apple.
The Brown Defendants would urge the Court to address the substance of the motion and not
the frivolous attacks that are becoming Plaintiff’s bread and butter in this case and the numerous
other civil and criminal cases in which Plaintiff is embroiled.
I. THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE COURT’S PRIOR
RULING ON THE MOTION TO AMEND.
Plaintiff first argues that the Brown Defendants cannot raise any issues previously raised in
their opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff’s argument ignores the fact
that the Court’s Order Granting the Motion to Amend did not rely on a motion to dismiss standard
and left open the door for a subsequent motion to dismiss.
In its Order, the Court cited and quoted Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies, AG, 304
2
3. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 3 of 9
F.Supp.2d 812, 819 (E.D.Va. 2004):
Courts generally favor the “resolution of cases on their merits.” Davis v. Piper
Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir.1980). Thus, the substantive merits of
a proposed claim are typically best left for later resolution, e.g., under motions
to dismiss or for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or Fed.R.Civ.P.
56, respectively, or for resolution at trial. Id.
(emphasis added). See also Cherochak v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 586 F.Supp.2d 522, 526
(D.S.C. 2008) (same); Massie v. Board of Trustees, Haywood Community College, 357 F.Supp.2d
878884 (W.D.N.C. 2005) (same). Thus, this Court, like many before it, has recognized that a
motion to amend can be granted, and the Court can then entertain a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff has not cited any case finding that the granting of a motion to amend somehow
precludes a motion to dismiss. Given the paucity of support, Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant’s
motion to dismiss is somehow precluded and sanctionable is all bluster and no substance.
Moreover, the Court made clear that its ruling allowing the Amended Complaint was based
on the lenient standard cited in Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 510-11 (4th Cir.
1986), which states that an “amendment must be clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face” for a
denial of a motion to amend. Order Granting Motion to Amend, Pages 5, 6, 7. Put in the simplest
terms possible, this is not the same standard adopted by the Supreme Court for motions to dismiss.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (To avoid dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6), a complaint must include “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”).
Finally, the Court in the Order Granting the Motion to Amend frankly acknowledged that
the California statutory claims, which are the subject of the motion to dismiss, were not “thoroughly
addressed” and were already pending in the original Complaint. Order Granting Motion to Amend,
Pages 6, 7. Even Plaintiff had to acknowledge that the Order Granting Motion to Amend did not
3
4. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 4 of 9
address all of the Brown Defendants’ arguments. Plaintiff’s Brief, Pages 7-8. Again, this language
would strongly indicate that the Court is not averse to considering whether Plaintiff can rely on
California procedural law in a South Carolina District Court via a motion to dismiss. Instead of
devising new motions for sanctions, Plaintiff’s time would be better spent actually reading the
orders issued by the Court.
II. PLAINTIFF CONTINUES TO CONFUSE SUBSTANTIVE LAW WITH
PROCEDURAL LAW AND THE DIFFERENT CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES
THAT APPLY TO SUBSTANTIVE VS. PROCEDURAL LAW.
Plaintiff’s memorandum also fails to acknowledge and address a very simple concept in
conflicts of law. Under South Carolina choice of law principles, much like any other jurisdiction,
the substantive law is determined by the law of the state in which the injury occurred (lex loci
delicti) and procedural matters are determined by the law of the forum (lex fori). Thornton v.
Cessna Aircraft Co., 886 F.2d 85, 87 (4th Cir. 1989). The motion to dismiss does not attempt to
address the issue of what substantive law applies to this case, as it is clear that some discovery
will be required to determine the lex loci delicti. 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s repeated arguments
concerning the appropriate substantive law, see Plaintiff’s Memorandum, Pages 4-5, are neither
relevant nor a part of this motion.
Instead, the Brown Defendants’ motion to dismiss is focused on the fact that Plaintiff is
relying on out-of-state procedural law, something that is clearly not allowed under any choice
of law rules. Thus, the only issue is whether California Civil Code § 3344.1 and California
Probate Code § 850 are procedural in nature and whether the Code’s provisions limiting the
reach of § 3344.1 will be ignored or followed.
Plaintiff devotes one sentence in one footnote to the issue of whether § 3344.1 and
1
The Brown Defendants are not conceding, as suggested in Plaintiff’s footnote 3, that California substantive law is
applicable to this case. Plaintiff’s suggestion that a party could implicitly concede something in a motion to dismiss
is both absurd and frivolous.
4
5. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 5 of 9
California Probate Code § 850 are procedural or not:
“Moreover, because both California Civil Code § 3344.1 and California Probate
Code § 850 provide rights to certain damages, South Carolina courts consider that
aspect of the statutes to be substantive law rather than procedural law. Lister v.
NationsBank of Delaware, N.A., 494 S.E.2d 449, 460 (S.C. Ct.App. 1997).” 2
Plaintiff’s Brief, Page 5 n. 3.
Plaintiff makes no attempt to explain this cryptic statement. The citation certainly sheds
no light on the statement. Although Lister does include a discussion on choice of law, the only
reference made to the dichotomy between substantive law and procedural rules fully supports the
Brown Defendants’ argument: the law of the place of injury governs with respect to the “right of
action,” and the law of the forum governs matters pertaining to remedy and procedure. Id. at
454-55.
Again, even the most cursory reading of the California statutes and the cases interpreting
them shows that the statutes are procedural or remedial laws, not substantive laws. Not to state the
obvious, but California Probate Code § 850, et seq. is part of California’s Probate Code. It simply
sets up a procedure for making a specific performance type claim in the California Probate Court.
In re Bailey's Estate, 42 Cal.App.2d 509, 109 P.2d 356, 357 (1941) (“The proceeding therein
provided for is similar to and, in practical effect, is an action for specific performance.”). Plaintiff
has not cited any instance where one state’s trial court has relied on procedural rules from another
state’s probate code to fashion a cause of action because no such cases exist. Probate codes by their
nature are for the probate of estates in that state, not to create causes of action in a different state.
Similarly, California Civil Code § 3344.1 is plainly a damage statute that is part of the
“Relief” provisions of California’s Civil Code that are remedial in nature. California Civil Code §
3274. It does nothing but provide a remedy for a misappropriation of the right of publicity.
2
The page in Lister cited by Plaintiff is dedicated to punitive damages and has no apparent applicability to choice of
law.
5
6. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 6 of 9
Of the dozens of cases citing California Civil Code § 3344.1, Plaintiff located precisely one
case outside of California, Hofheinz v. AMC Productions, Inc., 2003 WL 25293919 (E.D.N.Y.
2003), and that case was dismissed on other grounds without the District Court ever addressing
whether it was appropriate to rely on a California procedural statute in a case pending in the New
York District Court.3
Finally, if there is any doubt as to the applicability of California Civil Code § 3344.1 to a
South Carolina action, it is utterly extinguished by its own provision limiting it to acts that occurred
in California:
(n) This section shall apply to the adjudication of liability and the
imposition of any damages or other remedies in cases in which the liability,
damages, and other remedies arise from acts occurring directly in this state.
California Civil Code § 3344.1(n). Despite repeated opportunities, Plaintiff has not even
attempted to address this provision. All of Plaintiff’s allegations that give rise to the claims
against Brown took place in South Carolina and Georgia. None took place in California. Thus,
by the very terms of § 3344.1, it is not applicable to the Brown Defendants’ conduct.
III. ACTIONS FOR MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLICITY RIGHTS ONLY APPLIES
TO THE USE OF DECEDENT’S IMAGE FOR ITS INTRINSIC ECONOMIC
VALUE.
Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action under California Civil Code § 3344.1, even if it could
be brought in South Carolina, is not applicable to any actions allegedly undertaken by the Brown
Defendants because she was not attempting to exploit Smith’s likeness for her own benefit. The
California statute bars the use of “a deceased personality's . . . likeness . . . for purposes of . . .
soliciting purchases of . . . services . . .” California Civil Code § 3344.1(a)(1). As stated by the
3
The other cases cited in Plaintiff’s footnote 2 address the application of substantive law, not procedural law. Since
the California statute is procedural in nature, those cases provide no guidance. Further, Shaw Family Archives Ltd.
V. CMG Worldwide, Inc., 2008 WL 4127830 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), referenced Indiana law because the case was
originally filed in Indiana and subsequently transferred to New York. See Shaw Family Archives, Ltd. v. CMG
Worldwide, Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
6
7. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 7 of 9
California Supreme Court:
[T]he right of publicity is essentially an economic right. What the right of
publicity holder possesses is not a right of censorship, but a right to prevent others
from misappropriating the economic value generated by the celebrity's fame
through the merchandising of the ‘name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness'
of the celebrity.
Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal.4th 881, 69 P.3d 473, 478, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 634, 640 (2003).
Plaintiff alleges that the Brown Defendants sent videotapes to The O’Quinn Law Firm to
convince that firm to represent Co-Defendant Ford Shelley. Amended Complaint, Paragraph
121. Plaintiff complains that The O’Quinn Law Firm was in “adversarial” lawsuits against
Plaintiff Howard Stern without explaining how such suits concern Ms. Smith’s Estate, the real
party in interest in this matter. Amended Complaint, Paragraphs 97-100.
Such actions simply do not equate to using Smith’s likeness to solicit persons to purchase
Brown’s services, which is what the statute bars. The statute has no applicability to Brown
privately providing the subject materials to other law firms with the stated intent of keeping
those materials private. Nothing the in Amended Complaint alleges that Brown used Smith’s
likeness to solicit purchases of Brown’s services. Therefore, all claims for misappropriation of
publicity rights against the Brown Defendants should be dismissed.
IV. PLAINTIFF CANNOT BASE HIS CLAIMS ON ACTIONS THE BROWN
DEFENDANTS TOOK ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION OF DISCOVERY
ORDERS.
Finally, the Brown Defendants ask for dismissal of any claims based on actions Brown
took during discovery on collateral estoppel grounds and on the grounds that alleged Rule 11
violations are more appropriately dealt with under Rule 11 rather than civil complaints. Plaintiff
does not dispute the fact that he cannot prosecute both a Rule 11 violation and a civil complaint
based on the very same alleged discovery violations. Rather, Plaintiff simply attempts to
7
8. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 8 of 9
downplay the portions of the Amended Complaint based on the Brown Defendants’ production
in discovery of the subject videotapes, pictures, and other material. This does not change the fact
that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is based, in part, on the same allegations as Plaintiff’s
Motion for Sanctions.
With regards to the Brown Defendants, the Amended Complaint focuses on two acts: 1)
providing hard drives to The O’Quinn Law Firm, and 2) allegedly failing to turn over all
materials as previously ordered by the Georgia District Court. The Brown Defendants are
simply pointing out that this civil complaint should solely address the issues regarding The
O’Quinn Law Firm, not the issues related to discovery that are the subject of a separate motion.
Finally, Plaintiff has simply ignored the Brown Defendants’ last argument that a lawsuit
is not an appropriate vehicle to seek sanctions for the alleged violation of a Court order.
Sanctions for violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include
“nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or . . . an order directing payment
to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting
from the violation.” Rule 11(c)(4), FRCP. Nothing in the Rules of Procedure or federal law
creates a cause of action for the alleged violation of a Court order.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Susan M. Brown and The Offices of Susan M. Brown, PC, would
hereby request that the Court dismiss the Second and Third Causes of Action against these
Defendants in that said actions are based on inapplicable California procedural law. Plaintiff also
asks that the Third Cause of Action be dismissed because California Civil Code § 3344.1 does not
apply to acts outside of California and because Plaintiff has not alleged that the Brown Defendants
misappropriated Smith’s image for commercial purposes.
8
9. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 08/30/10 Entry Number 144 Page 9 of 9
In addition, the Brown Defendants would ask that the Court dismiss all claims by Plaintiff
based the allegation that these Defendants violated any discovery orders issued by this Court or
other Courts.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
/S/ JOSEPH C. WILSON, IV
Carl E. Pierce, II (Fed. ID#3062)
Joseph C. Wilson, IV (Fed. ID#5886)
Pierce, Herns, Sloan, & McLeod, LLC
P.O. Box 22437
Charleston, SC 29413
(843) 722-7733
(843) 722-7732
joewilson@phsm.net
ATTORNEYS FOR SUSAN M. BROWN
AND THE LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN M.
BROWN, PC
August 30, 2010
Charleston, South Carolina
9